User talk:MarkSweep/archive7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is about other articles because I have been singled out. Is this a race issue?


Why have other such uncited pages not been deleted? Is this a racial issue? I don't understand. My paper should NOT be singled out.

Sir, you deleted my animal blindness page. May I ask why? Other articles on this site ALSO go uncited without being deleted, why was mine unfairly deleted?



From User talk:Jimbo Wales
I wonder if you might consider...

I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political/religious/etc. userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.

Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.

I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WikiEN-l
[...]

The current situation with these things being in the main Template namespace, and promoted as if healthy and normal in the Wikipedia namespace, is that they are damaging to our culture. They are attracting the wrong sort of people, and giving newcomers the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.

That's why they need to go. Not to censor people's self-expression, but to make it clear that as a whole the community considers these things to be divisive and inappropriate. Jimmy Wales (jwales at wikia.com) Mon Feb 20 19:34:13 UTC 2006

From Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs
[...]

'It should be noted that use of such userboxes is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace soon. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time.Jimmy Wales Mon Feb 20 18:01 UTC

Architectural Photography[edit]

Please look at Alexander Rodchenko. Boothman 17:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:PistolPower[edit]

I don't know User:PistolPower, and I'm not sure I want to. Thanks for hiding the salacious left message on my talk. AnAn 02:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of PistolPower, I've been considering putting him on AN/I. Good idea or bad, do you think, Mark? He certainly has been exhibiting some...er, flamboyant behavior. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the cleanup on my page as well :) Wyss 02:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

I recognize that when you close TFD debates in which the template was speedy deleted, you tend to use the text "The result of the debate was moot. The template was speedy deleted." This tends to lead to some confusion and anger from the participants in the debate, who, not checking the delete log, assume that you deleted the template. Might I suggest stating instead "[...] The template was speedy deleted by User"? That would go a long way toward alleviating this confusion. --Teh Puppet 10:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Anonymous Senior Admin. That's of course an excellent suggestion. I'll definitely do that in the future. For now, I thought about amending the closing messages of the relevant TfD sections, but on the other hand I know I'll be accused of rewriting history. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: CSD T1[edit]

As you may know, there is a ongoing debate on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion on exactly how to define what "offensive", "inflammatory", or "personal attack" is. Some have expressed concern that it is "too vague". Therefore, I currently have a rule of thumb that if I have even a bit of doubt, I will leave it alone and have another admin look at it. But since no other admin dealt with Template:User Fascist for several hours, while most of the other things on CAT:CSD were routinely removed, I did what my instincts told me (which I admit has been heavily influenced by the result of Kelly Martin's RFC). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. On the other hand, the situation is slightly different now, we have new policies, and in the specific cases you reverted the calls for speedy deletions actually came from other users who I hope have come to realize the divisive nature of some of the political userboxes. I don't think we should let ourselves be bullied around by a vocal minority, but of course it's your choice if you don't want to be the target of their cute little wrath. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ausflag growing up[edit]

Hi I notice you have put Image:Ausflag growing up.jpg up at IFD. A less administrative method of dealing with it would be to either tag it {{or-fu}} or {{redundant image}} and it would be speedied. --Martyman-(talk) 22:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's not identical in the "all pixels the same" sense. Some pixels are noticeably different, due to compression artifacts in the JPEG version. If that doesn't matter (I personally don't think it does), by all means speedy it. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC and TfD[edit]

I'm sorry to see all these accusations against you getting out of control. You have my full support.--Alhutch 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's just an attempt at intimidation by the usual suspects. I keep telling myself that it's not about me personally, but rather a symptom of their frustration about being unable to push their ideas through by astroturfing, vote stacking, passive-aggressive threats, and disruption. I just wish they'd at least get their basic facts straight. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are two users who are being utter jerks on my talk page over this template issue (User:Lawyer2b and User:PistolPower) , and so I feel some of your pain. (I think these two should be banned, but that's another issue). These userboxes are encouraging the very worst behaviour among wikipedians, and so the elimination of these inappropriate userboxes is a good thing. Let me know what I can do to help. linas 15:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User confusion[edit]

I received an email from User:Boxes with the following text:

  • Can you please tell Mark Sweep that You and I are not the same person.

I can confirm that this is correct and that this is a different individual (whom I had not heard of until now). Feel free to have someone run a CheckUser if you'd like to verify this. The only names I have used for editing are User:Crotalus horridus and User:Userboxes (the latter of which was fully disclosed on the user page). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post this on WP:AN#User:Userboxes please? Thanks, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have done so. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already checked for the AC case - User:Userboxes and User:Boxes are completely different. (Boxes is a role account as well - did its operator list themselves publicly as yet?) - David Gerard 00:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And, no, not yet, as far as I know. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked nicely on User talk:Boxes - David Gerard 00:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

Thanks for your support. No one wrote to defend the recently added text that I objected to. I have edited accordingly. We'll soon see how others react. - Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UserBox editing[edit]

Discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexmorgan (talk • contribs)

Speedying Template:Offensive[edit]

I wasn't around for the discussion of the previous Template of this name, but the discussion in the delete log seems to indicate it was intended for an entirely different purpose (ie. to "protect minors"). Mine is based on a message used by the Special Broadcasting Service and ABC TV here in Australia (where, for example, Aboriginal people are frequently disturbed by images of people who are no longer living), and is intended to represent cultural sensitivity, NPOV etc. etc. On that basis, I'm re-creating the template. Please discuss before speedy-deleting it again. — JEREMY 02:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Template talk:Offensive. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pearson's Chi squared[edit]

Hi Marksweep. Thanks for your comments. I didn't know about Pearson's chi-squared test.

Best wishes, Robinh 10:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Setting the record straight[edit]

userbox nonsense[edit]

I very nearly added this text to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MarkSweep:

If Sct72, Arbiteroftruth, Lawyer2b, and other editors would devote as much effort to editing encyclopedia articles as they do to defending a bunch of silly userboxes, Wikipedia would be a better place.

But I decided it would be uncivil and inflammatory, and anyway it wouldn't change anyone's mind. But I offer it here, by way of support, and hope you can keep your chin up. Steve Summit (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Far from being uncivil, I take that as a compliment and I happen to agree with your statement. But the reciprocal is also true. Obviously userboxes mean a lot to some people and if MarkSweep, TonySidaway, et. al. would stop baiting us (by picking on userboxes that are only displayed on someone's userpage anyway) Wikipedia would be a better place. Lawyer2b 13:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karmafist Manifesto[edit]

Dear Mark, it was my idea to place the message in the welcome message. Karmafist didn't at all force me to do it. Also, I tried to make the message as unintimidating as possible; I'm not rushing up to people and staring them down, but rather proposing something that might be of interest. Like I stated, I didn't barge in and shout "Vote for Karmafist,". Hence why it states please consider, not do. --MasTer of Puppets Peek! 16:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Welcome Message[edit]

I've never been able to make a user space template, would the page you suggested be put in as {{user:karmafist/petition}}? If so, that'd be infinately preferable: my goal is to reform Wikipedia, not piss people off.

However, with the petition, my main goal is how many sign rather than who signs. However, if there was another way I could get a large number of people to sign, that'd also be great. Right now the welcomes are at around a 3% rate, which was around average for non-face to face persuasion canvassing during my four months working for America Coming Together back in '04.

I'm not going to change my welcomes back for now, instead copy and pasting the old one from a word file I have, just as a show of good faith to you(avoiding a pointless edit war), if all else fails, I'll do that along with AWB to avoid edit wars while still sending out welcomes. Karmafist 22:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, userspace templates work exactly as you thought! But copy and paste works too, of course. More later, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For vandal who deleted Template:No_Marxism[edit]

This template was deleted and should not be recreated -- is it that you are the one who makes laws here? Is it really enough of your personal political and/or 'anti-userbox' convictions?

I tell you what -- I'll do all I can to have you received the salary you deserve. Constanz - Talk 10:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you where was the proper discussion (and consensus for)? I.e Anti-fascism template was discussed.
BTW, neither template:anti-fascism nor template:anti-imperialist (and anti-gun control or whatever) are neither divisive nor inflammatory, eh? Constanz - Talk 10:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From that point of view, Marxism (and all its Communist-Socialist heirs) should be discarded, for those ideologies are certainly 'divisive' (you haven't heard of 'class war', have you?). Am I mistaken?

(I wonder why are you so busy with anti-marxism, so that you've virtually forgotten other negation ideologies...)

Your change to Template:Ln[edit]

I don't argue whit your change, but the "log" entry you added might not work of entries including whitespace, I have added bug 5012 for a solution. →AzaToth 14:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving the Template:User No Marxism dispute[edit]

1. I have come aqcuainted with opinions by wikiauthorities and have retained my position. Although I'm aware that the chances that my proposal would be accepted are next to zero I am ready to take further steps. Before that, though, in order to prove that I've taken steps to settle the issue before turning to arbitration, I offer you the possibility to prove the unbiasedness and neutrality of your position.

I would emphasise that I as a firm believer in liberal democratic principles, am for userboxes showing opposing political views. I am absolutely for communist, Marxist, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-religion etc userboxes provided that userboxes representing views opposed to the previous ones are permitted. I shall never propose any of these for deletion myself.

You stated as if you had taken such extraordinary out of procedure step with the purpose of removing 'divisiveness' and 'inflammatoryiness' -- then please confirm your position: please take similar decisive measures against other templates/userboxes you regard as of the similar nature. There are lots of them to be found. Hopefully I'll become confirmed of our common conception of indivisiveness. Constanz - Talk 19:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Do you accept mediation on this issue? Let's turn to a mediator if you agree. Constanz - Talk 19:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made up my mind yet as to whether mediation will be appropriate in this particular case. To me, this seems to be mostly based on a policy dispute. I'm not opposed to mediation in principle, but you should check with a potential mediator first whether they think that mediation is appropriate here at all. I don't think I've taken any "out of procedure" steps. Per WP:CSD polemical templates can be deleted. In fact, if you find other polemical templates, you're more than welcome to tag them for speedy deletion yourself. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greasysteve13 01:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[edit]

Okay. But nobody complained about:

This user does not support Stephen Harper.
Excellent suggestion. I took care of it. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vice Presidents who have shot people|Johnson, Richard Mentor[edit]

Good catch. Richard Mentor Johnson is on my watchlist. Your edit summary made me curious, so I looked. Silly, childish, and non-encyclopedic, but funny : ) He could also be Dicks that shot people. Are you removing a group of them or did you just find this one? Good job, either way. FloNight talk 02:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to systematically remove all of them. Also from Category:People shot by standing Vice Presidents, which is even less useful. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wished you hadn't removed the category so quickly. There's a lot of folks who want to cross-reference Cheney & Burr, and the category was the compromise about a half-dozen of us reached. I'm afraid that without this category, those who want the cross reference are simply going to add the reference back into the Burr and Hamilton-Burr articles proper (as they have been doing over and over again these past few days. Can you humor them for awhile and store the category? (or weigh in and explain why the articles about this historic figures shouldn't be defaced with unrelated modern references. God knows we've tried... Rklawton 02:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't put the category back in, because IMO it doesn't belong there. I'll keep an eye on the articles, though. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find it odd that you would unilaterally overrule the compromise effort made by a half-dozen other people without any discussion. On the other hand, I agree with your assessment. Rklawton04:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've stumbled upon one of my pet peeves. We need to keep the product in mind. I personally wouldn't argue for something to be put back into an article unless I really thought it should be there. Let me look at the talk pages and see what's been going on. Is this spread across multiple pages, or is there a summary on one particular page? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rklawtonand MarkSweep, I left comment on Burr article. Let's work together to keep the material out of the article and the categories gone. Rklawton, you agree that the categories are not needed, right? If so, WP:AGF per the deletion. I don't think MarkSweep intended to mess-up your compromise. He was trying to get rid of the crazy Cheney stuff just like you. FloNight talk 05:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And you're right, my original point was to get rid of the category, but now that I've had a chance to look at the history of the Burr article, I understand what's been going on there. The reference to recent events is far-fetched: I don't see how one can seriously compare a duel to a hunting accident. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop emptying the category. It's on CfD. Either it will be gone in a few days or there will be a substantial body of opinion that likes it. (For my part, I think it's one of the better ways to find Harry Whittington, which is a good thing.) Septentrionalis 04:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions are "INFLAMMATORY"[edit]

Your repeated deletion of the userbox I created, Template:User_CDP-USA, even after it has been modified and found acceptable by two Admins (one who was critical of the original), is itself an "INFLAMMATORY" offense. The userbox is no different than any of a hundred other political userboxes that are currently understood to be acceptable. All it says is "I support [insert political party]." If it's good for one, it's good for all. Lay off.
 IS Guðsþegn – UTCE – 18:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox debates[edit]

You really should relax a bit. I'm not your enemy. Hell, no one active in these discussions is, but I'm not even disagreeing with you on most of these. It was (and is) my contention that the Dubya-box discussions should be preserved somewhere (besides the wiki log). You might disagree with that point, but I would hope you don't think it's some crazy idea, let alone vandalism. But whatever. I'm active on that page not because I feel passionate about the issue one way or the other, but because it bothers me that the page frequently devolves to hostility and name-calling. So please don't put thinly veiled threats on my user page if you disagree with my edits. In the end, we're all on the same side here. Regards, JDoorjam Talk 18:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for including an archive on the page. After our spitball fight was over, I examined the Dubya-box discussions more closely, and saw they hadn't been added on to in at least a day—an eternity in userbox debate time—so I agree that it was time to take them off the page. To make one more request (which I'm pretty sure you'll agree with), can you put the "Archive purposes only" tags on it, to make sure people don't get, I don't know, lost, and start the debate up again in the graveyard? I'd do it but I don't know the template. Regards, JDoorjam Talk 19:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestion. Done. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV blanking[edit]

You can't blank in progress DRV discussions even if you disagree with them. You don't WP:OWN drv. This is almost vandalism, please stop.--God of War 19:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you blank the discussions on GWB templates? --Fang Aili 19:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are now in violation of WP:3RR for blanking the global notices section 4 times. Please restore this section and cease any such behavior in the future.--God of War 19:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is now on the talk page, where it belongs. The Global notices section is for notices, not for discussion. Don't push this any further. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that another threat? What gives you the right to silence the opinions of others?--God of War 20:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment at Jimbo's talk page, I think the issue here is that you unilaterally decided that discussion was over and that the Bush userboxes would not be recreated. Threatening people who questioned your actions violates WP:CIVIL. You have not threatened me, but I consider such threats (i.e. "This is your only warning.") to be a threat to myself. I asked a question on the DRV page, and you could have answered it right there or left a message on my talk page. Instead, you engaged in a revert war and threatened people. Also, attacking God of War serves no purpose. --Fang Aili 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Far from unilateral, this decision is supported by several administrators. It's the continued filibustering that is disruptive. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV[edit]

Please stop disrupting DRV. I've closed and archived a debate and there is no need to resurrect a debate that has already gone on for too long. This is your only warning. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your unilateral decision as to when debate has "gone on for too long". What is this my "only warning" toward? Ryanjunk 19:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kruskal tree theorem?[edit]

Redirecting K's Tree Theorem to K's algorithm seems a mistake. His tree theorem states that embedding between finite trees is a well-quasi-ordering, which has no connection with spanning trees and finding the smallest one. We should have a stub article on the tree theorem. I am currently working on a wqo article and would like to link to a K tree theorem article, even in stub form. PhS 20:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember what happened: There already was a redirect from Kruskal's_Tree_Theorem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Kruskal's algorithm. For some reason the page on Kruskal's tree theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) turned out to attract loads of vandalism. There never was any proper content there. At some point I made it into a redirect along the same lines as Kruskal's Tree Theorem. Please go right ahead and change Kruskal's tree theorem (which is the MOS compliant title) into a proper stub. I'll then adjust the redirect from Kruskal's Tree Theorem. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD[edit]

Let me direct: the number of userbox nominations that come to TfD is becoming needlessly large, and many of them have your name on them. Feb 10 is a good example: the outcomes are obvious before the nomination even begins; they will either be no consensus or speedy (occasionally a redirect), but rarely a useful outcome from the debate itself. I'm no longer taking the time to close the debates or remove tags. There's no point. Just the other day, I took a pretty hard line on a user who nominated 15 (yes, fifteen) in one massive spate, but had not realised that you had nominated 10 (ten) on the 10th. I think a different solution needs to be found, and TfD needs to be left to get on with what it does. Which is not to carp about things that carping about will achieve little to nothing. -Splashtalk 00:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I more or less agree. The only recent problem is that people keep removing CSD notices, which means we either have to take it to TfD or be bold. I think the worst is behind us now. I doubt that the 11th and onwards will be as cluttered. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Libertarian US[edit]

Could you explain your deletion of Template:User Libertarian US at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Template:User Libertarian US. Thanks. Superm401 - Talk 07:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. This has been discussed to death. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning[edit]

Don't "warn" me about anything again: I can make any suggestions to other users that I like. --Mal 10:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't warn me either MarkSweep. A couple days ago when you got upset with my anti-bush userbox I assumed misguided good faith in you, but right now I am having trouble. This reeks of authoritarianism of the worst kind. Then when I try to point this out with my no wiki-police state userbox you delete it in minutes. I'm sorry, but this has got to stop. You and the other deletion-happy admins need to cool down and listen to what the community is saying. The Ungovernable Force 11:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale?[edit]

What is your rationale for deleting American English templates and leaving British English templates behind?--Adam (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per my talk page, you misunderstood. You never gave me your rationale of deleting American English templates. I am not on a userbox deletion crusade- apparently you are.--Adam (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Templates[edit]

I tried to open a diologue with you, but i guess your not having it. I guess accoutability is not a big consideration on wiki? nor is consensus for that matter... Your a wonderful person. good day to you sir.Mike McGregor (Can) 13:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it up with me, take it up with me along with all the other admins who supported their deletion. The Bush templates are gone. You're still in denial, and the best thing for you to do would be to go directly to acceptance. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, in that case please tell me who the other admins are so i can, or at least tell me where i can see the discussions between these admins regardingthis userbox and the toehr bush userboxes. Good day sir...Mike McGregor (Can) 08:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
since you seem to have no intrest in opening a diologue and more intrest in deleting my attempts to work this out without you and deleting material off my userpage, DRV, etc, I'm going to ask you to stop wikistalking me. this is your only warning. Mike McGregor (Can) 02:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts[edit]

  • 09:34, February 18, 2006 MarkSweep deleted "Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts" (enough)

Would you please explain this deletion, and the policy you followed? Thanks! Ian13/talk 16:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As this whole affair is winding down, there really is no longer any need for it. All it does is encourage vote stacking and retaliation. The project is better off without it. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know how baseless that is? Give me a break. --CFIF 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
School watch is still around although it has been userified. If you want it deleted you can go through the normal channels.Geni 04:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You don't appear to have informed anyone before deleting it. School watch suggests such pages are acceptable. You are of course free to dissagree with this however I would advise against anoying the inclusionists by deleting Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch. It could get nasty.Geni 06:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

optional questions on RFA[edit]

Are getting better. I like your questions.

Could we maybe make an admin exam out of those? :-)

Kim Bruning 17:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, they're based on real incidents that happened in the last couple of months. I've read some very illuminating answers already. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could have them at different difficulty levels too. Like adding Outside context problems <snicker> <recovers> <innocent look>. Actually I'm almost tempted to come back out of retirement, just to get some of your cool questions. I must admit I've read through RFA and tried to answer all of them myself. :-) Would you consider asking me some on my talk page, or are they reserved for RFA? In any case it might be nice to have a page somewhere with "Old Mark Sweep questions" and answers for people to test themselves on before going to RFA.  :-) Kim Bruning 15:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User freedom[edit]

Can you please explain policies upon which you have speedied {{User freedom}}? Expressing opinions on one's own page is certainly not disrupting anything, so WP:POINT doesn't qualify. And WP:DICK doesn't seem like a policy at all. Thank you. Misza13 (Talk) 17:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply provocative and increasingly inaccurate. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Simply", you say? For me it is not that simple. I don't see what provocative about it. It only states an opinion and the only thing that it (and other similar UBXes) so far seems to provoke is it's unjustified deletion by authoritarian admins. The phrase "increasingly inaccurate" I can't understand - can you be more elaborate. BTW: By comparing your above comment with the original deletion summary one can notice that you aren't really sure about reasonability of the deletion. I'd like then to ask you to undelete it and, if you wish so, start a proper discussion on WP:TfD. Speeding templates (or any content at all!) without firm (and I mean rock-solid) reasons is just abusing the admin powers - not to mention that user pages with redlinks simply look ugly. Misza13 (Talk) 19:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop speedily deleting things that "simply' appear divisive to you? I'm tempted to simplyspeedily delete your page because it appears divisive to me... :p SLOW DOWN, you're pissing a LOT of people off with your vandalism. Mostlyharmless 19:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your deletions are baseless. I don't see how userboxes harm you, It's not like we are plastering them all around articles. --CFIF 19:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed that {{polemical userboxes}} notice you all deletionist admins are starting to put on your pages. While it is not a userbox I urge you to realize that it is an exact opposite of {{User freedom}} (cleverly masked by citing Jimbo-the-wise-and-always-right) and thus by displaying it you also assume position in the userbox-POV-war and deepen the "division". Misza13 (Talk) 21:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single thing wrong with what you just pointed out and thank you for doing so. SAVE THE USERBOXES. --CFIF 21:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need to go through this again? Sct72 00:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? The result was keep but The Sweeper here speedied it. Not that he would ever do that or anything. --CFIF 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Userboxes = divisive; speedy deleting userboxes without discussion = helpful? Mark, you're a lot of fun. I wish I had a delete button so I could troll people like this. -- Grace Note.

Template:User AmE-0[edit]

This box isnt meant any kind of attack, its just about consistency. Surely either American English should have a set of userboxes (-0 to -5, Native and can) or it shouldnt. I would be perfectly happy with either outcome - notice that the text which I used was simply copied from the en template, none of the old talk about the reasons for American English which I did think were somewhat out of order. In terms of the recreation having looked back I agree that that was a mistake on my part, but the political and geographical bias exhibited in the current cleanup of userboxes got the better of me. Sorry. Ian3055 20:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Eraser Barnstar
I award this barnstar to you for your deletion of material that people don't want you to delete. →AzaToth 20:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hamilton[edit]

You removed the category "People shot by standing Vice Presidents" with the justification that it was silly. Please feel free to share your views on the CFD discussion but please do not remove that category unilaterally while the discussion is still ongoing. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MarkSweep would never do something like deleting something before consensus was reached.....Oh wait. --CFIF 01:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


TfD nomination of Template:Polemical userboxes[edit]

Template:Polemical userboxes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:polemical userboxes. Thank you. --CFIF 04:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Old Chap[edit]

Good Sir,

I have been perusing the site this very evening, and I believe that I detect you may suffer from an acute inferiority complex. Now, I may be quite mistaken, but it seems as though you have taken the responsibility of editing and administration to the point where most of us regular chaps would fear to tread! Have you had the opportunity lately to go out on the town, maybe take a few days off, you know loosen up a bit? Well old boy, I certainly am no expert in these matters, but I have learned in my 67 years as a student of life, that there is more to life than lording over the thoughts and opinions of your fellow beings. Yes indeed, instead of constantly agonizing over words on a virtual page in a virtual world, maybe all of us should take the time to explore the real world and get to know real people face to face, before we all become obsessed with trivial matters that are here today, and wither like the parched grass tomorrow. Nothing personal good man, just a small reflection from an old college prof with a new lease on life.

Sincerely, ShakeAPudn (Wonderful stuff that Shake-A-Pudding, did you ever try it?)

Award[edit]

The Editor's Barnstar
For your calm in the face of adversity and unswavering commitment to the ideals of this encyclopedia, I hereby award you this Editor's Barnstar. Physchim62 (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that :-).--Alhutch 09:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, please don't let the trolls get to you. Although I have never participated in this discussion. A couple of my favorite editors have been pushed of wikipedia, because of the userbox guys a few bad apple's divisiveness (and then being ganged up on whenever they make regular edits). This is infinitely worst for the encyclopedia IMHO. Thanks for being a sane voice for the rest of us. --Darkfred Talk to me 13:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User freedom[edit]

It was YOU who deleted it without prior discussion, in result vandalising dozens of user pages. I feel it's my duty as an administrator to revert harmful changes to Wikipedia in any namespace. How about you do something to improve Wikipedia rather than deleting useful content?  Grue  10:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "have the decency to undo your revert"? I have enough decency to respect the work of other contributors and not delete it unilaterally. I also have enough decency to respect the notion of consensus and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. I think it's ironic that you suggest me to discuss my action with other administrators, while you consistently ignore the will of Wikipedian community yourself.  Grue  11:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent disBush deletion[edit]

I was surprised and shocked when you speedily deleted template:User disBush, even though there was no censensus reached in the TFD (which defaults to a keep), and a majority of the voters voted for keep. While I believe that such userboxes should not be on Wikipedia and would have voted for a delete had I known about the poll while it was in session, the fact that you acted against consensus based on a controversial interpretation of CSD makes me worried that you are abusing your admin powers. Recall that the opinion of an administrator is technically not supposed to carry more weight than the opinions of other users. I urge you to undo the speedy deletion and reopen the TFD so that we may reach a consensus as to what to do. Where (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of {{User userbox insurgent}} and {{User userbox revolution}}[edit]

I see you have removed the above templates, giving the summaries (enough) and (will not be televised) respectively. Could you please state criteria upon which you delete content in the summaries instead of making ironic/insulting comments? And also please make sure the CSD do apply. Thank you. Misza13 (Talk) 18:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, and not taking a position on the userbox question... Saying "{{User userbox revolution}} (will not be televised)" is an act of rare humor. Kudos. Ssbohio 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template deletion[edit]

Why was {{Un}} deleted? Infinity0 talk 18:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


{{User}} gives "Name (talk - contribs)", {{Un}} only gave "Name". Infinity0 talk 18:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thanks. Infinity0 talk 18:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't warn me[edit]

You're crazy. Stop deleting templates. This is YOUR only warning. --Revolución hablar ver 18:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Userboxes[edit]

Why did you place an announcement on the deletion review page saying that the Bush userboxes would remain deleted? I know that you feel that the use of userboxes is akin to turning Wiki into myspace, and that they are "provocative", but a clear, universal policy regarding userboxes has not yet been formulated, and as of yet, there is no offical rule stating that the use of POV userboxes is against Wikipedia rules. Don't you think it is innapropriate for you to delete userboxes simply on the basis of your opinion regarding the userbox issue rather than on the basis of established policy? Please write me back about this. Asarelah

Courtesy call! :) Request for unprotection for the userbox. Comment if you can. I won't do anything with it until you do. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More userbox martyrdom complex at view at The_Ungovernable_Force's user page. --Calton | Talk 20:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken as to my intent when I put that picture of Che crossed out with the comment "This is What Happens to Traitors" on my userpage. First off, it was put there originally by a new user User: Anarchyandy who as far as I know has made no other contributions to date (in other words, it was vandalism of my userpage). If I am correct, you are implying that I was trying to make myself out to be a martyr. The truth is that I was showing a friend who was with me at the time how to revert pages, and so I decided to "vandalize" my userpage and show him how to revert it. Although I am strongly opposed to the deletion of these userboxes, I do not hope to be a martyr for this cause. The Ungovernable Force 05:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional additional questions from MarkSweep[edit]

I answered your questions @ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade 2. Cheers, Sam Spade 23:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning[edit]

Hi, Mark. I've noticed that you've posted comments on various users' talk pages (including talk pages of other admins.) ending in "This is your only warning." This does not seem to be an appropriate way for an admin. to discuss topics with people. You may wish to reconsider your approach. --Nelson Ricardo 01:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:CFIF[edit]

Hi, I agree that this user was indeed trying to make a point with this. My only concern is that the block of 48 hours is excessive for a first time with no warning. I'm not going to change the block because the only thing worse than some of the boxes is a wheel war. I'd just like to ask that you consider a shorter block. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me and talking this over. The user in question made a number of other edits that were clearly designed to provoke and fan the flames. I'm glad you agree that the user was being disruptive. As a general guideline, I try to base block durations less on how often someone was warned or whether it was their first offense, and more on what amount and kind of disruption can be prevented by the block. I'll consider unblocking him, in fact, I probably will unblock, but not today. Cheers! --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted to the mailing list about this.Geni 03:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great, more fragmentation. Just check the recent contributions of CFIF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It's the attempts to provoke, irritate and the retaliatory nomination of Template:Polemical userboxes that were over the line. Saying to me "Your deletions are baseless"[1] and then nominating a template for deletion which I happen to have on my talk page is a classic case of WP:POINT. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No because you have to consider the posibility that he really wanted it deleted. I could certianly make a case for it's deletion under T1. It is clearly inflamitory and appears to be in the template namespace. Not that I would do this because I tend to feel we have enough chaos going on but I could certianly make a case for it's deletion.Geni 03:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See his response at User talk:CFIF. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a deliberate provocation. Why would he place the TfD notification on my talk page instead of the talk page of the template's creator? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You claim your actions were justified because you were provoked? Admins should be better than that.Geni 21:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, my actions were justified because CFIF was acting in violation of WP:POINT. Do I need to spell it out again? CFIF tells someone (who happens to be me, but that's ultimately irrelevant) that he doesn't like their deletions, then nominates a template that they display prominently on their talk page for deletion, leaves a deletion notification, but doesn't even think of notifying the template's creator. That's a violation of WP:POINT and also WP:TROLL#Misuse of process. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The tempalte cleary violates T1 yet you display it on your talk page dispte useing T1 repeatedly. Nothing you list is a blockable offence since the user did not rise to the level of dissrupting wikipedia.Geni 22:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and it's becoming increasingly clear that this is not about the block of CFIF at all. You're trying to beat this into a frothy mix of your varied opinions on CSD T1, the blocking policy, my talk page contents, WP:POINT, etc. This discussion has outlived its usefulness, as CFIF has long been unblocked and is currently editing away happily without disrupting Wikipedia. Good day to you, Sir. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your actions cannot be questioned because they are in the past? That is an interesting chain of logic. I have not mentioned my opinions on blocking policy. I have just described it. I haven't even mentioned my opinion on T1 (although I assume that you aready know what it is). Know can you within policy justify your block of CFIF?Geni 23:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained it. Twice. And I said: "Good day!" --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. The blocking policy says:

Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption may include changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, and excessive personal attacks. Users will normally be warned before they are blocked.

User:CFIF did not change other users' signed comments, nor make deliberately misleading edits, nor do anything I would call harassment and he did not make excessive personal attacks. "Give me a break" is certainly not an excessive personal attack by any measure. You gave him no warning. Furthermore the blocking policy states that "[b]locks normally last 24 hours unless specified otherwise below" and you blocked CFIF for 48 hours. Even more clearly the policy says: "Disruption — For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last 24 hours. For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for increasing lengths of time." You have offered no justification for why a longer time was necessary here. Your documentation of the block in the block log consists of one word: "trolling". You did not attempt to establish a more general consensus for the block at WP:AN/I nor, as far as I can see, anywhere else.

In general it is unwise to block people with whom one is in personal conflict. If a block is clearly justified a notice on WP:AN/I can bring in an impartial admin who can perform the block.

Perhaps I have missed something and you had a valid reason for blocking a long-standing contributor with whom you were in personal conflict for 48 hours without warning. Otherwise I ask you to lift the block as soon as possible. Haukur 22:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFIF deliberately interfered with the ordinary functions of WP:TFD just for sheer provocation. But I meant to unblock him anyway (per the discussion above and his second comment on his talk page), which I've done now. Thanks for the reminder. Cheers, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Haukur 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Userboxes[edit]

Mark, I want to discuss the issue of Bush userboxes with you and resolve it. I think your actions regarding the matter were inappropriate and I also think it is disrespectful of you to ignore my concerns. If you don't reply to me with a day or two, I'm afraid I will be compelled to take the matter to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Please write me back. Asarelah 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, my problem is not the fact that you deleted the userboxes, but the fact that you did so out of process. Surely not even the admins who supported the deletion would want you to violate rules by ignoring process. You also protected the template from deletion review and I do not understand why you did so and I would like an explaination as to why. Furthermore, while I understand the fact that Wikipedia is not a personal webpage or soapbox; there is as of yet, no definitive policy on whether or not the use of userboxes is tantamount to making it so. Please write me back promptly regarding these issues. Asarelah 05:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, I had a lot of work to do. Allow me to offer my counterpoints to your arguments:
Userboxes are a strawman, what's really at issue here is the factionalism, divisivness, rallying around polarizing issues, and other bad influences of real-life political culture promoted not just by userboxes but also by user categories.
From the heated debates I have read regarding the userbox issue, it is clear to me that the out-of-process deletion of the "polemical" userboxes has had a far more factionalizing and divisive effect on Wikipedia than even the most inflammatory userbox could ever have hoped to achieve.
However, just because a userbox policy may or may not be in the making doesn't mean that we suspend existing policies or throw out common sense along with them.
I do not propose that existing policies be suspended. However, your bizarre interpretation of them has created tremendous anger and tension within the Wikipedia community. How is it "common sense" to enrage hundreds of users with actions that they percieve as arbitrary and unfair, and then attempt to squelch discussion of the issue by protecting the template from deletion review?
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You may have an opinion on Mr. Bush, but if someone creates a template to spread that opinion, they're broadcasting, they're up on the soapbox.Wikipedia is not a blog. Messages such as "I like/dislike George W. Bush" are not directed at Wikipedia but directed at the outside world.
Of course Wikipedia is not a soapbox. But NPOV only extends to articles, not userspace. This is existing policy. Furthermore, I find the comparison of a tiny box stating "I dislike George W. Bush" to a political blog (which are constantly updated and are quite long) to be absurd.
Given the political realities and the real-life political culture, it's not surprising that bumper stickers about him will sound rude and polemical, no matter what side you're on. Per WP:CSD#T1, the polemical templates were deleted.
Again, there is a difference between using a POV template on a an article, and using a POV template on a userspace. Once again, userspaces do not have to NPOV.
Naturally, the sheer divisivness of these templates was confirmed when the side whose boxes were speedied started to list the boxes of the "other side" for deletion.
This came not from the userboxes themselves, but rather the perception that certain userboxes were being singled out for unfair and arbitrary deletion. It was the deletion process that set this off, not the userboxes. Your perception that userboxes lead to divisiveness because people became angry when some were deleted and others were not amounts to self-fullfilling prophecy.
Among the first things I see there: "This user is a native speaker of English. ... This user would like to be able to speak more languages." If this was an article, I would rewrite this as "I'm a native speaker of English and would like to be able to speak other languages." Similarly, "single female" instead of "This user is single" and "This user is female".
I like my userpage the way it is, and the userboxes take up considerably less time than it would to write my userpage as an article. I'd rather spend my time making real and valuable contributions to the encyclopedia itself instead of writing a page about myself, and userboxes are good way make my page more interesting without wasting a lot of time on it.
Personal essays are vastly preferrable because they do not interfere with the rest of the project the way the misuse of the template namespace for userboxes does. And they're a lot more informative and fun to read.
Personal essays be just as "polemical". Believe me, if I were to write out EXACTLY how I feel about Bush on my userspace (which would be liberally sprinkled obscenities), I'd upset far, far more people than a little userbox stating my dislike of him would. Besides, didn't you yourself state that user space is not a blog or a soapbox? A personal essay is much closer to a blog or a soapbox than userbox could ever be.
Please write me back. Asarelah 03:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel to the fire[edit]

I haven't taken the time to ask you this directly, so I suppose it's worth a shot at least.

What's the point in forcing the issue? I don't understand what is to be gained by hevay-handed tactics, and accusations of "wheel-warring".

Is there any chance that you could refrain from deleting any more boxen in the immediate future? That you could be convinced to use non-nuclear means of dealing with the problem like editing the offendind text or subst:ing low-use boxen?

Surely you can see that the "do it or else" method isn't working too well? Do you not also notice that lots of the people (like myself) who are asking for some calm desire the same ends as you do?

brenneman{T}{L} 06:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes[edit]

You have my support in your efforts to rid Wikipedia of obnoxious userboxes. I have but one and my next edit is to remove it, even though it isn't POV in the least.--MONGO 06:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikiproject boxes are useful, no need to get rid of them. They're almost by definition not obnoxious, since Wikiprojects have to meet some minimal standards. But thanks for your moral support. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i second that.--Alhutch 06:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your continued support! --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You delete userboxes and vandalize my userpage. What is wrong with you? The Republican 01:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two thumbs up...[edit]

...for your ability to use hand-wavey in a coherent sentence :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace[edit]

You are not getting what I am saying. Jimbo makes the argument that Wikipedia user pages are not myspace pages yet he allocates wikipages to create myspace-like space for himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DotShell (talk • contribs)

Once again, you are not listening to me. JIMBO WALES IS USING WIKIPEDIA SPACE TO HOST IMAGES THAT ARE NOT USED IN THE ENCYCLOPEDIA. THIS IS WHAT MYSPACES ARE USED FOR. Sorry about the caps but I feel like shouting. --Shell <e> 01:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He posted a picture gallery of pictures that mostly have no use in the encyclopedia. I consider that MySpace-ery. --Shell <e> 01:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Jimbo should remove the section as to prevent a MySpace-style profile. --Shell <e> 02:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned with Jimbo's pages because he is the one calling for these changes. To enforce a philosophy, he must first follow it himself. --Shell <e> 02:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mean to be rude but there is no point in arguing with you. You take it upon yourself to suck up to Jimbo and support him in everything he says. I posted this because I wanted Jimbo to respond, not one of his minions. --Shell <e> 02:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hamilton[edit]

Thanks for reverting that absurd category, although it might be more friendly not to use rollback for that. Anyway, I also noticed that you tagged Image:Mdew.png as perhaps unfree, but apparently didn't finish the tagging process. The tag is gone now but you might want to look into it. Cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

erm....[edit]

Hi MarkSweep. The think I was thinking of, I'm not sure it was a good idea to go ahead so quickly and forcefully on clearing out the userboxes.

  • Jimbo made the request for a voluntary change on userbox policy only on January 21. Yes I know that Jimbo then changed to a more direct-deletion stance shortly thereafter, but I think you (and others) basically forced his hand. He had to take a stand once a such a high level of interest had been raised in the subject, and he basically had to take the stand he did, for various reasons. I'm not sure that forcing Jimbo into a corner like that was overall a good thing.
  • Anyway, the only attempt that I know of to implement Jimbo's original policy is found here: User:Tony Sidaway/Jimbo's request, which seems cogent and commendable and, I think, could have been the basis for a larger effort (although shortly thereafter that editor speedied some boxes, so I'm not sure if he quickly gave up on that approach or what happened).
  • I was working on this myself, making templates with excerpts from Jimbo's quote, some examples of proper userboxes, etc. -- Templates, obviously, to speed contacting users.
    • It would be not very time consuming to to hit every what-link-here userpage with a template, starting with the most objectionable userboxes and working down.
    • Probably well over 50% of users so contacted would be willing to comply. Non-responders could be hit with a second template.
    • Of the remainder, most could be quickly engaged (per Jimbo's Jan 21 request) in one or two quick exchanges, and most could be persuaded.
    • The remaining holdouts -- those who required too much convincing, did not responde, or were simply recalcitrant -- would be isolated. Then the boxes could be deleted (perhaps with a warning to userfy first, for less objectionable ones) with much less fuss.

Yes this would be quite time-consuming but look how much time has been spent on sterile bitching. Also, its better to persuade than to force, even if it is more time consuming. Anyway, I would have been ready to announce and begin this days ago, and hopefully a few people would have joined up to help out. But it would be impossible now of course... what was the big hurry I wonder. Herostratus 03:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation[edit]

Mr. Sweep, I would like to thank you for having substituted the Capitalist not Globalist 'template' with its image upon my "page." I never attempted to be impolite to you, and I apologise that others have been disrespectful to you.--Anglius 04:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor Moon userbox[edit]

Okay, how come you deleted that template? I know there's a moratorium on new userboxes, but how come this one wasn't "grandfathered"? --  Denelson83  08:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was orphaned. You already have a copy of the code, so what's the problem? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was transcluded, and you orphaned it.  Denelson83  09:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because it had a low reference count. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As in not enough people were using it???  Denelson83  09:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.[edit]

Thank you for doing what needs to be done around here. I refer to everything, but especially the stupid category. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA[edit]

Thank you for supporting me in my successful RFA, and with your excellent questions. I'll be cautious should I encounter any such situations, and maybe call on your assistance. The admin tools will definitely be useful for dealing with vandalism more swiftly, and protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. Please drop a note on my talk page, should you have questions about any of my actions. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People shot by standing... cat[edit]

Mr Sweep, you just deleted this category, which is now undergoing at DRV. As a courtesy to that forum, and to me personally (since I have voted there), I ask you to undo that deletion please, and let process run as is proper. Best wishes, Xoloz 06:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do no such thing. There was a clear consensus to delete, and this category doesn't stand a WP:SNOWball's chance in hell of being kept. The faster we put this thing behind us and forget it ever existed, the better. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I consider that a personal affront. I, too, ultimately wish to see the category deleted, but took the time to write a reasoned opinion at DRV on the merit. Your action, and refusal to undo it, is disrespectful of my time so spent. I am disappointed. Xoloz 06:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, let me understand this: You consider it a personal affront to see a category deleted that you wish to see deleted? I don't think we need to be so process-obsessed that we cannot recognize a mistake for what it is, but rather cheerfully go through another round of arguing at DRV, then another CfD, and, who knows, maybe even more. Can we please just declare that this is the right outcome, that it happens to be supported by both common sense and consensus, and forget about slavishly following a rather predictable process? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will not do that, because some honest people have a real difference regarding this cat., because the memory of Alexander Hamilton is worth a little something, and because I firmly believe that Wikipedia is best served by discussing these matters calmly, without hasty action where no need for alarm exists (this cat. is just a bit odd, not inflammatory). I don't believe in "empty process"; I do believe in listening before acting, and in respecting the time people have taken to discuss this. I consider hasty action ill-thought, injurious to community spirit, and disrespectful of those who take the time to talk before we act. Xoloz 06:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you do what you did, this results. Enjoy this wild place; I'll got to find a hobby that honors deliberation, and doesn't get paranoid over imaginary fires. Best wishes, Xoloz 07:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I read some rather silly debates after the fact about these categories. Too bad, so sad, that it created so much drama. With so much media attention it's the kind of thing gauranteed to be created and argued about. My only thought was that they were useful, for the time being. Until the current item stops getting laughs on the Daily Show it's actually useful, people ARE coming to Wikipedia about it and this helps them navigate around. If this deletion proposal had occurred in a future two weeks, nobody would have noticed that it went away. It's unfortunate that the "rules are rules" policy and procedure dweebs butt heads (both ways) and create animosity over something so trivial that could have been temporary. SchmuckyTheCat 16:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susting[edit]

Hello Mark. I noticed that you replaced one of the userbox template on my user page with text and code, while giving the edit comment "subst", while leaving all the other templates intact. Which makes me wonder: what for? And what does subst mean? =I //Big Adamsky 10:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop[edit]

Stop vandalizing Wikipedia. --Revolución hablar ver 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle advice[edit]

Mark, calm down a little....chill a bit. Even when you are right, sometimes let it go, if it needs done, someone will do it. --Doc ask? 02:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop[edit]

I have just done a massive refactoring of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to

  • remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
  • make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on my talk page[edit]

Please never edit my talk page again, I would appreciate it. I will carry out the appropriate changes to it as I see fit. Эйрон Кинни 22:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that. But my talk page is also for historical purposes, and if you need to tell me something or request something, please just ask or tell me. Thanks. Эйрон Кинни 22:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another usertalk edit[edit]

I'm not here to make enemies, but please don't edit my usertalk page either. I try not to pay much attention to canvassing messages, but I will decide what to do with them.

If you could explain your actions to those people whose talk pages you have edited, that would be nice.

Cheers, Blarneytherinosaur 00:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Userboxes[edit]

As I've explained before, say what you want on your user page within the limits set by the ground rules, including WP:NOT.

You have merely restated your previous arguements and you have completely ignored my points regarding your interpretation of "the ground rules".

Keep template transclusion to a minimum, and don't use the official template namespace for personal politics. All of this follows from existing policies.

There is no rule saying the I must keep template transclusion at a minimum, and once again, there is no rule (as of yet) stating that userbox templates cannot contain personal politics.

You have not adequately defended your actions regarding the userboxes. Merely because you think your interpretation of policy is correct does not mean that it is.

I regard your arbitrary deletions of userboxes and protection against deletion review to be inappropriate and inflammatory. I would accept the deletion of POV userboxes if the policy said to, but since there is no such clear policy (aside from your controversial intepretation), I am pleading with you to leave the userboxes alone until one is created, for the sake of not exacerbating an already tense issue within the community. Please give my suggestion consideration. Asarelah 01:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User homeless userbox category[edit]

Why did you untie the category from the userbox? You didn't give a reason so I thought I'd ask. --Shultz III 04:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that request re Template:User dyslexic and about 20 other templates from what I can tell. --Salix alba (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People shot by standing Vice PThresidents[edit]

Hey, you deleted Category:People shot by standing Vice Presidents under WP:SNOW. I'm wondering why you chose to close off what had been a very contested deletion with no clear consensus with something that isn't even real policy. References to Alexander Hamilton in the Harry Whittington article—and visa versa—have routinely been removed. It seems like some category linking the two is the only way to reference this very notable similarity. I agree that the category needs rewording, but I am concerned that you closed off the discussion too quickly. Please let me know your reasons. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it was recently concluded there, but it doesn't really say much else or give a rationale. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kaiser Permanente, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Apology[edit]

Hi, I peviously wrote a comment on the deletion review of Template:User Anti-UN. By the time i wrote this comment, i wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes or of the new speedy deletion criterion. Also, i thought that deleting some POV userboxes and keeping others is a POV itself. However, after reading User:Dalbury's reply to a comment i wrote at the proposed policy talk and other discussions, i was convinced that POV templates or POV-pushing groups shouldn't be kept. Anyway, i feel now that i shouldn't have accused you of abuse. Please accept my apology.--Wedian 16:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

I have replied to a question you left on my RfA. I hope this helps you, and feel free to contact me or leave further questions at your will. Ian13/talk 10:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage[edit]

Thanks for your edits to my page--substing, etc. I'm always appreciative of random acts of kindess (or editing). Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiser Permanente[edit]

Pansophia (talk · contribs) continues to add her blog link to the article. I've run out of reverts, having just been reverted by Thsgrn (talk · contribs) on the (in my opinion) bogus grounds that "I never said [the link] was acceptable as a source - I'm fully aware it's not. However, as an link, the standards are different." This doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Assistance as an Admin requested urgently[edit]

Can you please assist with this.

User:Midgley appears to have registered himself today as User:The Invisible Anon.

He has seems to have applied yet again today to delete my talk page. If so, this will seem to be his fourth attempt at getting this talk page deleted in 72 hours and will be running concurrently with the MfD he initiated.

Here is his original IP address for the sock puppet he first started editing with on Wikipedia. This has to be him because only he would know where it is. The diffs clearly show him associated with his recently registed user IDs the User:Invisible Anon and User:The Invisible Anon:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=14287194 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=16799973 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=41250577 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=41457405

He is now editing as User:The Invisible Anon and Wikistalking me and following me around and adding edits as "The Invisible Anon". It is being done to cause confusion. Here is the link to his history of contributions and if you follow them you will see what he is up to:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=The+Invisible+Anon

Here is some of his mischief on the MfD page:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FUser_talk%3A86.10.231.219&diff=41466436&oldid=41447676

If you want to show you are fair and even handed can you please block him whilst this is sorted out.

The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 15:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Midgley if he was aware of the sockpuppetry, and his response is here - he deleted the question and simply thanked me for pointing it out. I think this needs to be investigated thorougly. --Leifern 16:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked the account indefinitely per Wikipedia:User name#Inappropriate usernames, since it seems to be designed to cause confusion. Will note this on WP:ANI. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Orphaned"[edit]

"Orphaned" is not a criterion for speedy deletion in any case. —Guanaco 03:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why do we need templates that nobody uses? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't do any harm and the alturnive is all the inclusions start point out wikipedia is not paper.Geni 03:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, is what-links-here actually fixed yet? --James S. 07:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He even deleted Naruto userboxes that would even be used in the future. I don't know why... but I bet the creator spent much time and effort on creating those. I hope this user knows Naruto before judging it to be deleted.

Don't vandalize my userpage[edit]

You removed my image of Dr.Evil. I'm goning to get my page protected, but in the meantime, don't do it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Republican 00:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Hi! Thanks for your support in my request for adminship (did you know that "adminiship" is not an English word? Unbelievable!). It ended with a tally of (51/0/0). As an administrator, I hope to better help this project and its participants: if you have any question or request, please let me know. - Liberatore(T) 12:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And also thanks for the questions. I think a candidate's answers may help people forming a better idea of how he/she will do as an administrator. - Liberatore(T) 12:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

06:25, 1 March 2006 MarkSweep deleted "Template:User admins ignoring policy" (CSD G5 (Bourbons3/Dussst))[edit]

  • G5 - Banned user. Contributions made by a banned user while they were banned.

That's a pretty big stretch of a CSD. Three out of fifty edits? C'mon. - brenneman{T}{L} 12:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey fair enough. Neat bit of policy interpritation. Of course it runs into the problem of someone doing a selective restore of those edits not done by banned uses but I don't think it was claimed the technique was flawless.Geni 13:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove category from UB[edit]

why did you remove [[Category:AFOL]] from {{User AFOL}} (See this revision)? -Reuvenk[T][C] 04:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a category from Template:User pro-cannabis, this constitutes vandalism and disruption[edit]

You have no authority to do so. Cease and desist immediately. StrangerInParadise 06:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This time, you vandalized this template, then deleted the category Category:Pro-cannabis Wikipedians (which you emptied) citing CSD C1 (which allows only for deleting an empty category). Again, this is an abuse of authority, and constitutes disruption and vandalism. On what grounds do you forcibly disassemble the users listed in that category? StrangerInParadise 06:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the grounds that he doesn't like it. MarkSweep is a big fan of violating policy, or inventing loopholes in policy. I'm tempted to create a userbox that says "This user feels that MarkSweep should be desysopped for repeated abuse of admin privelages", but that would get deleted in moments... probably by MarkSweep. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    if you *do* create that page I would be happy to put it on my page, and to support you in keeping it from being deleted. There is no way that MarkSweep can continually delete a page that dozens of users want to have continue to exist AdamJacobMuller 13:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redeleting Category:Pro-cannabis Wikipedians under CSD-G4 (redelete previously deleted) doesn't work when your original deletion under CSD-C1 (empty category), was invalid (since you emptied the category). Where do you find so much contempt for the community? You should be ashamed, and Jimbo should be ashamed of you! StrangerInParadise 08:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes[edit]

Thanks for substituting code on my userboxes. I prefer my userboxes on my page, whether they get deleted or not. Cheers. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom (Talk • Contribs) 06:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communication and rollback guidelines[edit]

Next time, make some attempt at communication before flatly reverting. Also, note that rollback should not be used in edit warring. To quote Brion Vibber and Wikipedia:Revert:

No one should ever be in an edit war, sysops in particular should be aware that that's not cool, so there's no need to think about whether or not 'rollback' should be used in an edit war. It shouldn't, because we shouldn't be in that position in the first place.
Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint. Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor; do not abuse it.
If you use the rollback feature other than against vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to explain on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted. Sarge Baldy 06:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of orphan templates[edit]

There is no policy allowing for this action. Someone recently suggested it on the relevant talk page, but raised a clear concern that if an unused template is deleted no one can subst in its content. Sarge Baldy 07:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion should only be used in cases where it is explictly allowed. In this case, it is not. My compromise would be to keep userbox templates as they are but include a note that users use subst instead. Subst'ing remains much more convenient than copying blocks of texts from elsewhere. Alternatively, you can take these templates to TfD, where they will undoubtably be kept as they were. Sarge Baldy 07:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly why he won't take it to TFD. Odds are pretty good the template would be kept with overwhelming consensus, hence MarkSweep's frequent attempts to circumvent process and policy. There's not really much point in assuming good faith - his actions speak for themselves. In the last two months, it's safe to say that he has single-handedly managed to violated nearly every policy on Wikipedia. Quite a feat. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 07:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Category Deletion without Cause[edit]

Hey, I was wondering if you could explain your reasons for deleting the category I made (Category:Sigma Nu Wikipedians). You marked it CSD C1, which I'm assuming means the following:

Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories. This does NOT apply to categories being discussed on WP:CFD. If the category isn't relatively new, it possibly contained articles earlier, and deeper investigation is needed. (bolding mine)

However, this is not at all the case with that page. First of all, the category hasn't even been online 24 hours, which doesn't meet the four-day rule. Second, my User page was a member of the category, which -- though perhaps insignificant -- doesn't meet the "only links to parent categories" rule. And had you given it close to the mandated four days, I feel sure it would have picked up additional members. (For what it's worth, other, similar categories have stood and are standing with two or three members.)

Please revert these changes immediately unless you have a good reason otherwise. Thanks. --SuperNova 07:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your quick feedback, and I understand your rationale; however, I have some concerns. First of all, it would have made things clearer if you'd stated that as the reason for your deletion, rather than a speedy deletion acronym that gives a totally different reason. Secondly, your statement (while I agree it might be a good policy) is just not true right now. There are tons of "Wikipedian" categories that are purely "affiliation" based with no bearing on Wikipedia. This isn't an "everybody's doing it" excuse... more of an "established precedent says these are OK; I see dozens of them right now; why is this one, or the others you deleted today, any different?"
Like I said, I'd be fine if these went away; I'm fine with them staying. I just want consistency and clarity in applying the speedy deletion. --SuperNova 08:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you say a lot, you're not kidding. Probably half the subcategories under Category:Wikipedians should be deleted, under that basis. However, I think that would be detrimental to the community, which, by and large, seems to enjoy categorizing itself as Flying_Spaghetti_Monsterist_Wikipedians or Furry_Wikipedians. Has this policy been enacted by some kind of poll, or is it just "a MarkSweep thing"? Who decides what stays and what goes? --SuperNova 08:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss this part? It's up top for you. "This is a discussion which may result in policy, but has not been decided in any way. The proposal is highly controversial." (bolding theirs) -- I think that says it all as far as whether you're acting on your own or as part of an actual policy. There are a number of concerns on the page you linked me to, explaining why limiting categories might be a bad thing. I think it would be ideal to take them OUT of the main article space, and I hope a solution to that end is proposed; however, that doesn't give you any license to delete whatever you want until then. --08:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User PT[edit]

This was not a G4 candidate, because there is a very clear exception in the WP:CSD: "except if it is ... undeleted per the undeletion policy". See the top entry at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archive. Please restore it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to my preceding deletion. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that deletion was based on which CSD? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On common sense. It's a template, not an article, and it was unused. Whoever wants to use its text can still get it from the userbox project page. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense? My common sense tells me that speedy deleting a template which just minutes ago was undeleted by an overwhelming DRV majority is needlessly provocative. Look, I don't like those userboxes, but by ignoring all the people who wanted it undeleted you are telling them that their voice doesn't matter, and thereby causing much more damage than the userbox ever could. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the fact that nobody actually uses it just goes to show that nobody cares about it. And if someone still wants to use it, the text is available. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh. It isn't available if you keep deleting it. And of course nobody is using a deleted template. Give it at least two weeks, the DRV just finished. Ashibaka tock 09:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's available right here. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass removal of categories from userboxes[edit]

I've taken this up on Wikipedia talk:Userboxes. Please resond there. So far User:Silence has sugested that your changes be reverted and that discusion happens first. --Salix alba (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

I support removing categories from userboxes, but if you can't get somebody else to revert the fourth time immediately, you should just wait until you can. I am blocking you for 3 hours for violation of WP:3RR at Template:User pro-cannabis with [2], [3], [4] and [5]. Please go do something else for a while. I'm also warning User:StrangerInParadise for shouting vandalism. Zocky | picture popups 11:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just try and be patient and hope Jimbo makes the decree that the adolescent userboxes that violate NPOV and do nothing to help editors build a better encyclopedia must go. Anyway, not to encourage you, but you have my support in your efforts.--MONGO 11:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of process deletion[edit]

I have restored Template:User review, which you deleted out of process. "Orphaned" is not a criterion for speedy deletion. —Guanaco 21:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying something different[edit]

Hey Mark,
I know that I've asked you this before, but I'm going to ask again: Please slow down. Do you notice that almost not one sensible is arguing with you about your goals? Or that you seem to be pushing harder and harder for smaller and smaller gains. We've got processes and systems, and thoe work most of the time. Use them.

What's happening is that people see things written down, they expect that if there are ways that they are expected to behave than others should also be expected to moderate thier behavior. We're increasingly seeing admins move totally outside the accepted bounds, and worse ignoring cries to "please stop." What message does this send to the serfs?

You want people to follow the guidelines about stupid categories and polemic userboxes, they want you to follow the policies about speedy deletion and excessive reverting.

It really all about respect. If we can engender an atmosphere of mutual respect, than people will be mroe amenable to reason with regards to user boxes and pot-smoker's categories. But that has to flow both ways.

You need do demonstrate respect for the existing practices as representing the hard work and consensus decisions of large numbers of editors, and also to demonstrate respect for the people "on the ground" who are asking you to desist. Until that happens, you're not going to get any respect back.

brenneman{T}{L} 22:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing this suggestion (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Ashibaka tock 04:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. HSchickel 23:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Xoloz 19:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. United Kingdom thegreatloofa Brighouse (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this suggestion (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Please do not vandalize my user page again. It's hardly in keeping with a cordial Wikipedia community environment. Rklawton 01:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User GWB[edit]

You deleted User GWB without a proper reason. And besides, the result of the CONSENSUS and the PROCESS was keep. I just don't understand, please explain this great example, that was made on the behalf of an administrator, will you? Preferable reply on my talk page Эйрон Кинни (t) 03:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support[edit]

rƒa · ɐƒɹ

Thank you for supporting me in my request for adminship! It ended with a tally of 39/5/4, and I am now an admin. I'm glad to have earned the trust of the community, and I will make use of it responsibly. Of course, you can let me know of any comments or concerns you have.

With a million articles in front of me, I'd better get mopping.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template removal from my user page[edit]

Just wondering - and I'm not trying to be antagonistic here - why you you removed {{User admins ignoring policy}} from my User page and replaced it with the underlying formatting? --Leifern 13:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is being done by many people (it's a process know as subst'ing, if you don't know) in preparation for the removal of userboxes from Template: space Cynical 15:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bayern Munich and Werder Bremen[edit]

If this doesn't work,i'll go to DRV. But first, I'd just like to say thanks for bringing back one of my userboxes in substitued mode. I apologize for any derogatory comments made by me regarding the userbox crisis towards you or any other user. Could you put the redirects back so that people that wanted to link to those templates could still just type the template name instead of the long user name and not be violating policy? This is regarding to Template:User Bayern Munich and Template:Werder Bremen. Thanks again, WriterFromAfar755 23:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"makes no sense"?[edit]

What's the proper forum to discuss? The edit seemed to me to make sense, which is why I fixed the double redir. ... aa:talk 06:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

polemical[edit]

and please be advised, that "polemical" is an abuse of english. the word is polemic. ... aa:talk 06:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rsc[edit]

I've been trying to figure out what you have been up to today per ANI, and I am troubled by your very abrupt edit summaries. "rsc" in particular. Which doesn't, to me, qualify exactly what you did. ... aa:talk 06:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edit warring[edit]

You and Guanaco are engaged in a destructive edit war on several Userbox templates. I find both of your actions to be disruptive, and am blocking you both for 12 hours. Please discontinue edit warring with each other, find somewhere to discuss your differences, and make some attempt to achieve consensus. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the reverts[edit]

Mark, I realize you may not want to listen to me, as my opinions most likely run contrary to yours. However, I'd like to respect, as humbly and respectfully as I can, that you stop going after userboxes. Or, for that matter, templates, or user categories, and the like. This isn't because of my opinion on the matter, or any particular judgement on your part.

Right now, we have a fractured community. And we seem to actually be coming together for the beginnings of consensus at the proposed userbox policy poll.

Let me put it another way. If the community decides a policy that includes removing userbox categories, let us (excuse me for a second) all go forth, hand-in-hand, to remove them. If not, what is the harm? The community wants them, and we are a community organization.

To go and do this sort of thing beforehand endangers the process of consensus and compromise. I would just like for you to wait until the results from the poll are in.

You're clearly very empassioned about this. Why not discuss on the poll's talk page with equal fervor (bearing in mind, and I don't have to remind you) that we need to remain civil or we can never reach compromise.

Thanks for your time, and I hope that our disagreements on policy won't extend to the instances where we cross paths editing.

... aa:talk 07:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use criteria[edit]

Regarding the image on your user page, please see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, and in particular the following provision: Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used [...] on user pages. Thanks, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. That is much more civil thank just putting something ugly on my user page. ROGNNTUDJUU! 22:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find out?[edit]

How did you find out that User:Shultzii existed in the first place? Did you happen to look where Shultzii posted, or did someone tell you? --Shultz III 02:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hands off my Userpage[edit]

Please refrain from making any further edits to my userpage, they are not wanted, they are not needed, they are intrusive, they are censorship, I will not tolerate you making any changes to my userpage AdamJacobMuller 13:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably didn't know this, but MarkSweep is an admin. I guess if you have a complaint against an admin, you could head over to either WP:GC or WP:RFC. --Shultz III 13:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's always best to approach the person first, regardless of their admin status. It's also worth noting that 1) Civility is not optional, AdamJacobMuller's post pushed the edge of it, and 2) It's the wiki foundation's user page, not his, and if he "won't tolerate" people changing it he should read the "Please note:" under the window in which he's editing.
brenneman{T}{L} 02:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User_All_Drugs[edit]

Hi, I have restored the User All Drugs userbox per this Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/userbox_templates_concerning_beliefs_and_convictions TfD, the decision of which was keep if you have a more recent vote on this template which would negate this, please state so. Simply deleting the page is vandalisim. AdamJacobMuller 13:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CSD#Templates - divisive or inflammatory templates can now be speedily deleted. Speedy Deletion trumps TfD. Cynical 19:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, speedy deletion never has and never will trump TfD. Also, that criterion is not supported by consensus and has not been forced into place by Jimbo. —Guanaco 00:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration[edit]

Be advised that I am in the process of filing a Request for Arbitration in relation to the edit war between Guanaco and MarkSweep. You are being named as an involved party. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You totally deserve this Mark. You are out of control. The Republican 02:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation[edit]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee in regard to the issue of categorizing userboxes. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the mediation, and indicate an agreement to mediate within fourteen days. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Userbox categorization, and indicate your agreement or refusal to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation or contact another member of the Mediation Committee. —Guanaco 04:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I would much rather work toward a mutually acceptable agreement than receive a mutually destructive arbitration ruling. In any case, I am not going to continue reverting the templates. —Guanaco 04:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category Deleted - WHY?[edit]

Hello. You deleted the category "Category:Seniors_with_Senioritis". I was wondering why? I'm new to wikipedia, but I see no reason to delete it. Chad 15:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That's all there is to it. Do you understand now? "Seniors with Senioritis" is an entirely non-encyclopedic category, and it's unverifiable anyway. --Cyde Weys 02:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain that you were a jerk in answering my question. Perhaps you should work on your personal skills. Aparantly, I've jumped into a viscious argument. Long story short: CydeWays needs to calm down and respond helpfully or at least civilly.Chad 00:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess then the whole Wikipedians category fits the whole "Wikipedia is an encylopedia" rule. What I don't understand is how an admin goes on a deletion rampage and marks the deletions as CSD C1 even though the ruling doesn't fit. I'm getting sick of this userboxen hatred. Douglasr007 01:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has precisely nothing at all to do with userboxes. It has to deal with encyclopedic categories. I frankly don't know whether or not "Seniors with Senioritis" was used in a template userbox and I could care less. It's non-encyclopedic. As for the Wikipedians categories ... at least they tend to start with "Wikipedians" or "User", so they don't get muddled in with the encyclopedic content as much, though in an ideal world, those would be gotten rid of too. --Cyde Weys 03:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with the fact that both the category and userbox were changed suddenly without much warning or explanation. The deletion was marked CSD C1. I honestly had no idea what that meant until now. The edit summary for the userbox by MarkSweep was "rsc". I could also not figure out what this meant. The above reasons by Cyde Weys for the deletion are sensible to me and I think they should have been provided at the time of alteration for those who used the category and/or the userbox. Otherwise, users without a lot of experience (including me) would be left in the dust and would probably try to revert the changes. LuckyPanda 08:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I have gotten way over my head on this one. This is a complex issue, I come to see, however, MarkSweep has yet to explain why he went and deleted category after category... And why did User:Cyde feel it necessary to give his two cents? This is MarkSweep's USER talk page, not an article where your opinion matters.Chad 00:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continued Provocative Edits[edit]

Tagging category removal actions as 'cleanup' is, at best, misleading. You appear to be testing the limits of good faith on an ongoing basis. If you wish to make such edits, and to create edit summaries, please be accurate. Your actions are unbecoming of an administrator. --!?! 02:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mark, read this![edit]

In the words of my buddy, User:Funnybunny,
I think userboxes should be kept, because if an administrator wants to delete the userbox, he/she should contact the creator of the userbox and tell the creator whats right and whats wrong. Then the admin should suggest ways to better the userbox not delete it! Userboxes show one's way of expressing themselves, and if that gets taken away, its like loosing the right to vote for your own government!
Use this instead of deleting userboxes as soon as you see them. I'm pretty sure you're a very hated person on wikipedia right now because of this mess you made. The Republican 02:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

featured pictures on commons[edit]

On February 4, 2005 (when the featured pictures category was created on commons) you tagged 36 pictures as featured. What was the base for this? I guess we have to remove the featured-status of these pics. -- 138.246.7.40 23:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 16:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain abbreviation?[edit]

What does "rsc" mean in an edit summary? Thanks - Her Pegship 03:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also ... aa:talk 03:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My guess would be Remove Special Category? (Also mentioned [6]) LuckyPanda 04:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 06:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Savage DOB[edit]

Hi, I was just wondering where you found Dan Savage's birthday, since I wanted to submit it to imdb as well, and can't find it on a non-wikipedia or wikipedia-mirror site for a source.--Fallout boy 06:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leifern[edit]

Would you take a look at Leifern's recent contributions, please: Special:Contributions/Leifern.

It may not have been immediately apparent above, but when Leifern's attention was first drawn to my existence - I had made the edit that a year ago Leifern expressed himself as content with no th discussion page, and commenced the separation of [Thimerosal controversy]] from Thimerosal - he commenced an almost unbroken series of attacks upon me. This has now recommenced after a quiet period. One of the elements is an attempt to destroy the anti-vaccinationist page, but looking back in Leifern's contribution history I see that very soon after he started making named edits, he stamped out any mention of anti-vaccinationists in teh Autism article. Basically there are a couple of subjects he is non-objective on, unfortunately they include ones I'm interested in, and knowledgeable about from the day to day use and general importance angles. I understand the basis of it - his son is autistic, as he throws at people from time to time, and I understand that he is having chelation therapy to remove Mercury, on the basis that only those who hold these to be effective treatment and single cause for Autism know anything about medicine. From the angle of writing an encyclopedia it makes little sense to have such writing, and WP risks becomeing something that most doctors (IE 99.999%+) tell people to avoid believing. I joined a project initiated by Leifern, on controversies in medicine, although I am unconvinced that he is the person to lead it, and despite his vitriolic initial attack (see rfd anti-vaccinationist - for some of the nastiest remarks I've yet seen in WP) I've been willing to be civil and occasionally we agree on something on talk pages. It hasn't worked. I'll go through the rfc procedure on him, but at the moment what I see is a series of attacks on me, and edits on articles by someone so angry he can't type straight. I'm not, today, but this really does impair my experience of WP, and while it isn't directly ascribed to Leifern's actions, I note that CDN99 who is clearly valuable, is giving indications of leaving (his user page is newly blank, and he got a welcome to WP from Ombudsman which is another story, but who is part of a small group attempting to push the same POV. Help please. Midgley 14:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many places Midgley has tried to lodge complaints against me, but I've repeatedly asked him to extend the courtesy of notifying me when he does. If Midgley wants to file a complaint against me, I am willing to defend myself, but this running around tattle-taling is not helpful. --Leifern 17:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid redundant clutter, see User:Leifern/Accusations by Midgley --Leifern 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC[edit]

Please comment on my rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 21:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good userbox for you[edit]

This userbox can freshen your userpage, if you like. But since you don't like userboxes, maybe I shouldn't have bothered you in the first place.TheOneAndOnlyFunnybunny 23:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC) {{user prouserboxdeletion}}[reply]

Sadly..[edit]

It ended up like this again - [7] :-( — Instantnood 17:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It got closed in this way, finally.. [8] — Instantnood 19:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JPE[edit]

hi mark would it be worth updating or archiving User:MarkSweep/JPE Mccready 02:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Evidence[edit]

Hello Mark,

I was just looking over the above page, and wonder if you might consider a suggestion made on the associated talk page that you place your lists in overflow boxes, as they are quite long. Incidentally, I have a question about how the evidence was generated. I presume that an automated method of some sort was utilized; were they inspected for error, however? I ask because in a (very) brief perusal, I came across one rollback [9] that I would hesitate to say is fair to include: it was an error for which the administrator in question made an immediately apology [10]. While it does appear that on the whole you have marshalled an impressive series of diffs that evidence the varied (mis?)uses of the rollback function in actual practice, I thought I'd point out that the lists may need (further) going-over. Best wishes —Encephalon 16:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter F. Paul[edit]

I made another big round of changes, added sources, checked the sock puppets' sources, etc. I'd appreciate your taking a look when you have a chance. Uucp 01:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PolandGov[edit]

Hi there! Could you please change the tag at {{PolandGov}} to some more appropriate tag? The template is neither lacking information on the copyright status (as it's clearly explained and linked) nor on source - as the link was already there, one only had to browse the website and go one level up. I linked to the gallery now, so the source is there. I though that perhaps some disclaimer about usage of non-commercial only images in wikipedia would suffice, as that's the problem with that template. Also, as a stop-gap measure until the ministry guy finally calls me back is to tag all of those as {{Non-free fair use in}}, though it takes ages as there's plenty of those pics. I'm done with those listed at Talk:Armia Krajowa, V-2 rocket, Talk:Polish September Campaign and Biuro Szyfrów. I'll tag the same way those at Talk:Warsaw Uprising. Halibutt 21:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much better now. Halibutt 17:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:signature[edit]

Hi, I tried the signature in my preffrences, but when i put the name in, it looked exactily like the code that I put in. Do Ineed to do anything diffrent?

Image Tagging for Image:Squid.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Squid.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 17:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chechnyan templates[edit]

Hi there! Could you possibly be so kind as to tell my why did you delete both templates? The new one was created by yours truly for all the guys complaining at Template talk:User independent Chechnya, but the original one was perfectly ok (despite being frequently vandalized). Besides, I can't remember any TfD started on it, which means that your action was somehow... unilateral. //Halibutt 21:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not reply to my question. As far as I know there was a consensus not to delete user boxes in wikipedia and even Jimbo suggested that they should stay for a while. So, all in all, I consider your action to be abuse of the TfD (as no process was started) and in fact taking part in the revert war. Or am I wrong? //Halibutt 21:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit you've taken part sides in the conflict and ruled it to your liking by using your admin rights? Strange. //Halibutt 22:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, basically there were two sides in that conflict: some 20+ people using the template in its original version and two Russian nationalists (namely Ghirlandajo and Kuban Kazak) trying to present it as either more inflammatory than it was (by changing its content to some mumbo-jumbo about dismemberment of Russia) or by simply changing it into something it was never meant to be (as pointed out at the talk page, one can hardly imagine people supporting both independent Chechnya and the Russian-imposed flag both of these users were persistently adding to the template). When their revert war failed, and they couldn't disrupt the template any further (they'd face the 3RR), they asked for someone with more powers to come. And that's when you came and did exactly what they wanted to do: disrupted the template in a rather extreme way - by deleting it. That's not impartial in any way. So, basically, you're wrong when you say that everybody involved is now in exactly the same situation. To be precise, those who wanted to use the template cannot use it, while those who wanted it disrupted achieved all they wanted.
I wonder could I ask you in the future to settle all my content disputes woth your help? When I find an article, say, on some nasty WWII subject I don't like, I'd simply ask you to delete it and all will be in exactly the same situation. Right? //Halibutt 23:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Halibutt, your calling me a "nationalist" on the pages of other editors is outrageous. The only nationalist posting on this page is yourself. I've asked you to restrain your nationalism and Russophobia too many times to count. As you seem to ignore my admonitions, please remember that your rudeness may get you blocked. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striken. //Halibutt
When we're at it, I don't like the article on History of the Soviet Union. Could you possibly delete it just like you did with the template? It's divisive and serves no purpose.. //Halibutt 12:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About template psprotected[edit]

You said that I should have had use the proper channels. I would like to tell you that the said template was a result of that (see [11]). Just so you know. →AzaToth 01:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sofixitreply TFD close[edit]

Smartass. ;D - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hemobag AfD[edit]

You erred in closing this AfD prematurely. Also, WP:SNOW is not policy nor a guideline. There is strong consensus, in fact, that it is a concise summary of exactly what not to do. You err to cite it when reverting a good faith edit.

What should happen now is that this improperly closed AfD goes to DRV. What is actually happening is that your action has been the incremental straw that has caused me to abandon my interest in the Wikipedia project.

Cheers, -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-CAGov[edit]

I personally don't think that there was a credible argument made because I think that the boilerplate on the CA websites makes it clear that except for commercial photos and artwork that they've acqured the rights for, that everything else is in the public domain.

In my opinion, that means that you should only have put the nosource template on those images that list no source URL where they can be checked to see if there is a photographer or artist listed for the image.

If you took SPUI's argument to the extreme, it would mean that everything on a CA website is suspect, which means that we would have to, for example, delete almost all of the articles on the Wikipedia on California State Parks, because most of them are verbatim copies from the CA State Parks website. BlankVerse 07:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that TFD was the wrong place to settle the issue.
I spent several hours recently looking through the California Constitution and CA statutes, but I couldn't find anything on the issue. It was quite frustrating because I swear that before I used the text and images from the CA Fish & Game website for the Grunion article I had found a more definitive answer on the public domain issue than the CA website boilderplate, but I can't find anything in my notes or bookmarks.
I sent a query to the webmaster of the main ca.gov website, but I have not had any response yet. The other most logical place to ask would be the State Attorney General's office, but I never get a response from them on a query of mine on another issue so I doubt that you'd get one on this issue. It may be that they only way that we can get a more definitive answer is to send a query from the Wikimedia Foundation.
I know that there is one trademark attorney who has edited articles on the Wikipedia, but I haven't run across any copyright attorneys. Still, it might be worth looking through the edits on the copyright article, and then checking the different editor's user pages to see if there are any attorneys with copyright knowledge that are Wikipedia editors. BlankVerse 08:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were you aware that redirecting this template to {{no license}} would cause OrphanBot to remove all the images using it from article-space? --Carnildo 18:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mdew.png[edit]

The Mountain Dew logo is a copyrighted graphic of the trademarked words and symbol that identifies the Mountain Dew product. Making a derivative is copyright infringement. This is very different from Warhol's Campbells soup can. Warhol maintained the copyright to his image and did not release it to the public domain, giving people the impression they could use the image for any purpose - even commercial. -Nv8200p talk 19:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/06/03/24a

Offensive templates[edit]

Hello, I see you speedy deleted the French National Front User template that I marked for deletion for being racist (and thus inflammatory). As I found out, such content does not need a vote and is liable to be speedy deleted. Since you just deleted the FN template, while you're at it, could you also delete the Russian Liberal Democratic Party User template? (If you don't know already, don't be fooled by the name, the name is completely oxymoronic, their a racist, anti-semitic and neo-nazi group, just like the BNP and the FN).

Regards, Jareand 03:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template on Commons[edit]

Please, cuold you make an only template of [12] and [13], because are used for few images, and an only tag is right too. Red Devil 666

Subst'ing of userboxes that still exist.[edit]

Thank you for your subst of a userbox on my page.

However, as this userbox still exists, I cannot assume good faith and I'd prefer that you stop substing userboxes on my userpages.

Thank you. — natha(?)nrdotcom (T • C • W) 23:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice - pity AGF isn't optional in practice - David Gerard 23:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I cannot assume good faith where MarkSweep is concerned, he:
  1. subst'ed userboxes on my page that still exist, just because he doesn't like or doesn't agree with the subject matter.
  2. deleted a userbox in my userspace which again he didn't like or didn't agree with out-of-processjust because he's an admin
  3. tried to remove an image out of one my userboxes just because he didn't agree it should be there.
No, if I don't agree with his motives, I absolutely will not assume good faith. There is no way you can use AGF in deleting someone's userbox for no reason at all. That's really a bad faith action. — natha(?)nrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your out-of-process deletion of my userbox[edit]

Please read this and please have a sense of humour.

Find a reason other than 'don't' to delete people's hard work. I cannot assume good faith when you keep tinkering with my files and making changes without rational discussion. Kindly start discussing these changes with me rationally or cease and desist (just because you are an admin doesn't mean you can delete whatever you want just because you don't agree with it. Follow process).

If you're willing to listen to reason: Look, you already have an RfAr against you regarding userboxes. Do the wise thing and stop what you're doing because you're only making matters worse for yourself. — natha(?)nrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your (again) out-of-process altering of my userboxes[edit]

Kindly leave User:nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/devilhead alone.

Again, I'm sorry but I cannot assume good faith when you're repeatedly undoing my work. Xytra.jpg is a company logo, yes, but if you look at the image and read the text, it says: I'm a member of the board for this company. It means I can use this image as I like. The company (effectively, me) owns the copyright for that image.

All changes by you will be reverted unless you can discuss them on my talk page instead of undoing my hard work. It's called communication, there's no reason why you can't discuss this with me first.

I've asked for an admin's help because these constant reversions are raising my stress level. You may familiarize yourself with the issue here. Please read this instead of blindly making changes! Thank you in advance. — natha(?)nrdotcom (T • C • W) 05:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States law would disagree with you on that. The company owns the logo, and unless you are the sole proprietor, you don't have the right to use the image as you wish.
If you do have the right, then in order to use the image on Wikipedia outside of article-space, it needs to be licensed under a free license, and I'm pretty sure you don't want to do that to a company logo. --Carnildo 06:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done that to get MarkSweep off my back. — natha(?)nrdotcom (T • C • W) 08:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Featured Picture[edit]

commons:Image:Pavo_cristatus_head001xx.jpg

commons:Featured_picture_candidates#Delisting_candidates

[14]


This is about to have the "Featured Picture" status removed. I am slightly puzzled about is being added in the first place. Can you enlighten me further? Cheers! Gordo 10:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oi[edit]

[15]. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communism box[edit]

Thank you for your speedy deletion of the neo-fascist and neo-nazi Userboxes (no sarcasm intended.) Gosh, you're quick. Now, please be so good as to be fair about this Userbox nonsense and speedy delete the User:UBX/Communist userbox, as well as the Anti-Fascist and "anti-fa" boxes, which are equally divisive. I'm sure you'll be fair about this. Nhprman UserLists 05:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tag licenses on Commons[edit]

Hi Mark. I removed your two tags of Mathew Brady, because are redundant of Pd-US, and I moved the source in the single pages, because on Commons we have more than 250 license tags, and is bad have a tag redundant for 4 images. Please in future, use an existent tag, and put the source in the single pages, without do a new tag. Bye RED DEVIL 666

Speedy deleted userboxes[edit]

Thank you for your message. I still regard it less inflammatory to ask for a trial than to endorse a party that is accused of having raged a war of aggression. I therefore listed template:user republican for deletion. I find it unacceptable that NicholasTurnbull deleted even the userfied box User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/User against Iraq war of aggression from my user space, blocked it and reverted me in a related article article although all I had done was adding factual information. As I see now, you also deleted User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/GOP criminal. That is just censorship and cannot be tolerated. Furthermore, your explanation shows you are not familiar with wikipedia policy. "G4" describes when pages can be deleted: "Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in user space or undeleted per the undeletion policy. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject. In case of a speedily deleted page, they must also determine that it did meet a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place." ROGNNTUDJUU! 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation. MarkSweep's been here since April, 2004. You just arrived a month ago. He's also an administrator. Telling someone with that much experience that he isn't "familiar with wikipedia policy" is pretty bold, and factually inaccurate. Nhprman 05:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:Catbar[edit]

Now I will remove the links to it with a bot, and then delete the template. Thanks for closing that discussion, seems that TfD has a big backlog indeed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of the Alt versions of the CAFE templates[edit]

The purpose of the Alt versions of the CAFE templates was to link to the wikisource doc section that lists groups of roads rather than a single road. See, for example, California State Route 28-- if you click on the Scenic Highway System link now, it defaults to the top of the "California Streets and Highways Code Section 260-284" doc (since there is no section for Route 28), rather than to Section 263.1, which is where Route 28 is listed. I don't think the SPUI crew ever quite figured this out. I'm not aware of any way to make this work properly without two templates for the two cases: one where the route is listed separately, one where the route appears in its own section. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, "it is possible to have a single template with optional parameters". Can you tell me how this is done, or point me towards a source for more info? TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 20:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I think it might work to keep them merged, but I'll have to scratch my head a bit. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rankism and merge[edit]

Rankism and Discrimination. I think some guidance and assistance would improve the article, possibly the process. You've been involved there previously. I think the subject has some merit, but the afd decision seems better than what is happening presently. Midgley 12:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sollog[edit]

Please take a look at the recent changes to the Sollog article. Vivaldi is removing all kinds of information there. Thank you. --12.192.160.2 16:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a discussion recently between Vivaldi and another user regarding the article.[16] --12.192.160.2 16:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the petty edits that 12.192.160.2 (talk · contribs · count) made here, here, and here. This is the kind of petty disruptive editing that User:12.192.160.2 engaged in after I reverted his ill-advised edits that are not discussed in talk pages or in edit summaries. Vivaldi 01:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category name on Commons[edit]

I have edited on Wikipedia for a while, but decided to finally upload images in Commons today. I noticed that you started a category called "Historic American Building Survey". FYI, in the actual name of the agency "Building" is "Buildings". (http://www.cr.nps.gov/habshaer/) — Eoghanacht talk 17:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision[edit]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al case. Raul654 00:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here! This ruling almost makes me have faith in wikijustice. (sniff, wiping tear from eye.) Lawyer2b 22:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just curious and I hope I don't upset anyone with this question... It says, "MarkSweep banned from userboxes" does this mean his userpage, too? So adding, changing, removing of userboxes on his userpage? DyslexicEditor 15:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it means that he cannot decategorize Userboxes anymore, which was a subject of the ruling. Frankly, I hope someone else (most appropriately, Jimbo) takes up the cause and reverts this social networking site back into an encyclopedia, the way it belongs. Unless I misunderstand what MarkSweep was accused of doing, I think he was right. Nhprman 23:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter![edit]

Happy Easter! --Misza13 T C 16:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Office Actions[edit]

I thought adding a link to a site critical of wikipedia policy might be controversial, interesting to see that you treated the addition as vandalism. Also a bit disappointing that the censorship moved in so swiftly. - Diceman 15:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've never talked but ...[edit]

Hi Mark

We've never talked but our paths have crossed. That exchange has only just come to my attention and I would really like to clear up in my own mind what, if anything, I did wrong, what did anyone else do wrong and how things could be improved.

You mentioned in your contribution that you felt you were "dealing with a case of harassment." I must admit I hadn't read that policy before tonight and can see how you might come to such a conclusion. However, I wonder if you would be willing to reconsider in the face of new evidence/explanation?

The policy itself notes early on that for example, calling certain editors "assholes" is a violation of NPA, but is not in itself harassment. I would include my rude comments in that category as they were a one-off, hopefully not to be repeated aberration.

My reasoning for making the copies of the talk pages in question was that they were about to be deleted and I had a number of contributions in there. I felt it waas important to keep them and making copies was my simplistic way of achieving that. I did ask if I had to delete them but as I have pointed out elsewhere I wasn't in a position to delete the pages. All I could do was blank them.

To summarise, I am a relatively new user who made a rude comment and tried to maintain a record of all his contribs. I failed miserably. But I believe I wasn't engaged in WP:HAR, and if others feel otherwise, they need to make me aware of this.

Have I convinced you ?

TIA Frelke 19:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-CAGov[edit]

Hi Mark, you added a disclaimer to {{PD-CAGov}} stating the copyright status these images is under investigation.

I just got the following email after talking to several State of California lawyers:

...The ownership issue disclosed on each State website puts the "information" contained on the website in the public domain. However, this does not include copyrightable materials such as photographs. Photographs taken by State of California workers while on State of California business are owned by the State of California, and should not be used commercially without State of California approval. Other photographs taken by and owned by individuals that may be on a State website should not be used commercially without the owner's approval.

Let me know if you'd like the emails and contact information forwarded to you. I'm going to redirect {{PD-CAGov}} to {{copyvio}} in a day or so (this has already been done on commons, see commons:Template:PD-CAGov) but wanted to check with you first since you closed the last TFD. --Duk 18:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic names[edit]

I noticed the reverts between you and User:CrazyInSane regarding Arabic names and dates of birth/death. I don't have strong preference either way as I largely stay out of such disputes over semantics. But, I would like to suggest a compromise here that follows the style used for Japanese biographical articles:

I have implemented this at Hani Hanjour and detailed this suggestion some more at User:Kmf164/Arabic names, with some see also links to other naming conventions. This is a slight variation on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Arabic)#Lead_paragraphs, but one I think is okay here, as the proposed guideline also says "Some cases will require variations on this format.". -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop[edit]

Please stop removing the information that I have added. I added the Wikipedia-standard date of Birth and death (i.e. 21 September 1972 – 11 September 2001) to all of the terrorist hijackers' articles, and doing so alongside their Arabic name wasn't possible due to some confliction. I definitely believe showing their date of birth and death is more important, especially since over 99% of English Wikipedians wouldn't understand the Arabic name anyway, and most of them would appreciate the DOB and DOD at the beginning of the article. Please cease and desist your removal of this information. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 19:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please[edit]

Do not make changes to my user page without discussing them with me first. --Leifern 12:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tag Deletion[edit]

Hi - I uploaded Image:Rockies.jpg yesterday with the PD-NYGov tag but today I've found that you changed the image page to state it lacks copyright status. Why is that? Nrbelex (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, when I gave it that tag it existed in this form. Is there any way the tag will come back? The image comes from a New York State website located at [17]. Nrbelex (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking sections of my talk page[edit]

I would appreciate it if you consulted me before blanking sections of my talk page, as you did here. I would like to decide for myself whether comments directed to me on my talk page are trolling or genuine conversation. Thanks. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Saturday, 6 May 2006 @ 23:06 UTC

Dinosaur edit[edit]

Just out of curiosity, why isn't the word "dinosaur" a portmanteau? Killdevil 01:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please do not delete userpage discussions[edit]

for some reason, you did this on my dicussion page. please refrain from this in the future. Joeyramoney 21:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rationales to impeach...[edit]

That was a tough close you had to do on Rationales to Impeach George W. Bush. I was wondering what your timetable was to delete that article (as well as Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush, which shared an AfD. JDoorjam Talk 13:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you interpret "Merge and Delete" in the context of the GFDL? Does this mean doing a history merge? Guettarda 15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what are your intentions for enacting the closure? --cj | talk 03:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh fake Admin, nice try trying to stop the Afd on the Rationales article. Did you think we wouldn't notice that the article is still not deleted?

PD-NCGov[edit]

Hello, I'd like to ask about {{PD-NCGov}}. This template cited state law that indicates that items produced by the North Carolina government are "property of the people". Your redirection of this page to {{no license}} indicated that it was because of some "precedent", and that more information is at WP:PDOMG. Please explain what the prcedent is. There is no addtional information at PDOMG, except for California. There is statute to back up this PD claim. Why was it redirected to no license? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general, works of the NC state government are protected by copyright. The statute [18] which you refer to only concerns public records (official announcements, court documents, mugshots, etc.), and "property of the people" in this context only means that public records can be obtained for free or for minimal cost. This is not even close to a provision that would place all works produced by the NC state government into the public domain. In fact, if you check the main NC government website [19], you'll see a prominent copyright notice ("Copyright © State of North Carolina"). If you keep following links to other state agencies from there, you'll find that all of them carry copyright notices. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The statue stats that "public records" include anything "made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions." This is very broad. Just because some contractor put a copyright statement on a page doesn't mean that it is valid or correct. Did you read the story of the person who wrote to NC agencies asking permission? See Template talk:PD-NCGov.
Regardless of whether you agree with me or not, this template was not taken to WP:TFD, and its removal was not up for public debate. It also cannot be reverted since the page is now locked. This is outside of the normal procedures. Please consider restoring the page and taking the issue to WP:TFD. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pr(x_i) in the variance article[edit]

Hi, I see you added a while back to the definition of population variance: [20]

It might be nice to have a comment in the article about the rationale behind this. Btyner 22:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're never full dressed without a smile![edit]

D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Reorganization of "China" articles[edit]

There are two parallel proposals that seek a massive reorganization of the "China" articles: The discussion here seeks to turn the current China page into a disambiguation page and the discussion here seeks to move/merge People's Republic of China into China. Please comment if you will. Thanks, Jiang 11:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Rationales to impeach George W. Bush[edit]

I noticed that you closed this AfD with the result of delete and merge but it has been neither deleted nor merged. How come? Is there a time frame in which this process must be done? --Strothra 19:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute about Weibull in the Exponential Family page[edit]

Hello MarkSweep. I think you raised a question about Weibull being written out of the exponential family. I went to the library and could not find any way of including Weibull in that family under the letter of the law. (E.g. using the definition of exponential family quoted in the page itself). See my proposal in the Talk page to remove the "dispute" label. Please respond in Talk:Exponential_family if you are still following this issue and you disagree with the proposed resolution. EdJohnston 20:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest something...[edit]

WP:ARCHIVE? :P Viridae 12:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello[edit]

I'm sure you'v been asked this before: where can I see content for something like template:user recreate if there is still an open "vote" on it? (Iv heard some votes aren't actually votes, I can't keep track) McKzzFizzer 19:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hotelling T square distribution[edit]

Regarding your revert of my edits, isn't the Hotelling's T-square distribution a multivariate one? The first sentence of the article describes it as multivariate, it tests vectors (Multivariate random variable) and it is derived from a multivariate Gaussian. Tony 03:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback of David Cruise[edit]

What is the reason for your rollback on Matrix addition? I remain to be convinced that this nonstandard definition of matrix addition is important enough to be included. Have you seen it being used anywhere? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I think that the stuff at matrix addition and matrix subtraction should be deleted, but I don't know enough stats to comment on the other articles. In case you haven't noticed, there is some further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#User:David Cruise. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked my friend MathStatWoman without a warning (against Wiki policy) and she needs to work on some mathematical articles Unblock her. Anyway, what she was writing was fact, so what is your problem, b/c she is a woman? b/c she is not in your in-crowd of administrators?

HectorHector[edit]

HectorHector is lucky you were the first to block him; I'd have meted out one week, not one hour. - Nunh-huh 17:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Stephencolbert[edit]

User talk:Stephencolbert[edit]

Howdy! Just a heads up, I posted a quick summary at WP:AN#User_talk:Stephencolbert. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image source?[edit]

Hi there! I noticed you appear to have been the original uploader of this image. I've added a fair-use rationale to it, but I'm hoping you can tell me what the original source for the screenshot is? Obviously, I know it's from the Daily Show, but hopefully you can tell me if you took the screenshot yourself or retrieved it from a specific url for I can complete the image description  :) Thanks in advance. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 08:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothea Lange image[edit]

Mark, the Dorothea Lange image you reverted to has problems that prevented it from achieving Featured Picture status. The edit addresses those problems, and is a featured picture -- a better choice for use on the article, IMO. What's the reasoning behind replacing it with the one on commons, other than the fact that it's on commons? As I understand it images uploaded to Wikipedia will be migrated to commons anyway. -- Moondigger 18:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify -- Image:Lange car.jpg was a new version developed from the original scanned TIFF file to address the shortcomings in the commons version. It has been greatly noise/grain reduced, straightened, and properly displays the sky as bright but not blown out. All of these improvements are clearly visible in the full-resolution photo, but may not be obvious in the thumbnails. It is smaller because it has been downsampled to a reasonable size yet still displays equal detail/information. (This is because the original scan was of greater resolution than that required by the information contained in the negative.)
I'm going to revert to the Wikipedia copy on each of the articles you modified, because I believe Image:Lange car.jpg is better for the purpose and because I'm guessing you were unaware of the above information when you modified them. I don't wish to get into a revert war over this, so if you disagree with this change let's discuss it and/or open the discussion to a wider audience. Thanks -- Moondigger 19:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:CFIF[edit]

As you have blocked this user in the past, you may want to take a look at his current activity, which incudes baseless sockpuppet allegations, and apparently he seems to work with an administrator User:Splash. I have decided to leave Wikipedia over this whole nonsense, but feel that there should be some sort of investigation. RMP 2584 20:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Picture Nomination[edit]

Congratulations. An image you uploaded: Image:Pulaski Skyway full view.jpg, has been nominated for Featured Picture over at Wikipedia:Featured Picture Candidates. Come and vote on it in hopes to get it Featured!. NauticaShades(talk) 09:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: China[edit]

Why did you revert my edits?100110100 01:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC) omin[reply]

Congrats[edit]

An image you uploaded, Image:Citrus fruits.jpg, has been nominated for Featured Picture over at Featured Picture Candidates. YOu cna go over there to vote on it and participate in the discussion NauticaShades 13:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helicobacter list[edit]

Mark - Thanks for nominating it, I'm glad others are happy with it. I added a note about specialist review. Thanks again. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPA (Dorothea Lange)[edit]

I strongly believe that informal pidgin pronunciations of words like "dor-a-THEE-a LANG" are appropriate in Wikipedia. I would never advocate removing IPA from an article, but it is not well understood and generally ignored by most readers. Informal spellings, while not as accurate, allow faster absorption of the information and are perfectly acceptable for conversational use. Assuming that only through IPA can the correct pronunciation be expressed is unnecessarily pedagogical and has a whiff of empire building to it. - Richfife 06:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to post on my talk page) Actually, my version was there first and I think (I'm not sure) that the IPA version was based on it. So it's not clear which one is actually correct. - Richfife 15:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split infinitive FAR/C[edit]

Hi there

I wonder whether you're in a position to help to bring this one back to FA standards. Tony 11:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today's featured article[edit]

Just wanted to let you know a featured article you worked on, 0.999..., was featured today on the Main Page. Tobacman 00:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you deleted all my corrections to the article on Bayes' Theorem. Could you provide a reason as to why you re-incorrected my corrections? Jordanolsommer 04:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Simple: WP:COMMONNAME. Bayes' theorem is grammatically unobjectionable and is by far the more common form."

Whatever you like - however, I think that's a spectacularly dopey reason for continuing with the convention. After all, the incorrect usage of the word "ironic" is by far the more common, and "Bayes' Theorem" is quite grammatically objectionable as there was, to the best of my knowledge, only one Thomas Bayes. Jordanolsommer 10:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotection of The Nativity Story[edit]

There didn't seem to be much of a vandalism problem there... why did you semi-protect it? I guess it was a pre-emptive measure? I didn't understand your edit summary. Staecker 16:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untagged image[edit]

An image you uploaded, Image:Turkmenistan coa.jpg, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 19:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Templates on categories[edit]

You reverted several places where I deleted categories from redirect pages. The guideline in question is WP:REDIRECT. The point of category pages is to list articles that actually exist, not to be a list of pointers to articles that might exist, or a list of topics. Having categories on redirect pages inflates the article count generated by MathBot, as well. Also, WP:LAYOUT suggests that the references sections should be References, Further Reading, and External Links. There is a method to my madness here. CMummert 12:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilobbying[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikilobbying. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TV4Fun 07:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review note[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:User Anti-UN. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wooyi 22:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fair use rationale for Image:Rome_episode_12.png[edit]

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Rome_episode_12.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sandstein 18:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Wire episodes[edit]

Noting that you edited List of The Wire episodes within the last few months I wonder if you have an opinion about the use of screenshots in this article and would welcome your opinion here if you have time.--Opark 77 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meet our Photographers[edit]

A discussion is going here about the possibility of creating a page named “Meet our Photographers”, where our best creators would be represented. Being one of them, you might be interested in participating. Regards, Alvesgaspar 22:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rome episode 1.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rome episode 1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 14:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rome episode 10.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rome episode 10.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 14:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rome episode 11.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rome episode 11.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 14:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rome episode 2.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rome episode 2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 14:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rome episode 3.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rome episode 3.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 14:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rome episode 4.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rome episode 4.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 14:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rome episode 6.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rome episode 6.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 14:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rome episode 7.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rome episode 7.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 14:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rome episode 8.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rome episode 8.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 14:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rome episode 9.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rome episode 9.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 14:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment request[edit]

Hi there, would you be so kind as to provide an indepenant neutral opinion of the image Construccionkaiserrick.jpg at the section of the same name on the talk page of Richmond Medical Center here please? Thank you very much as this may help to alleviate a current debate over its inclusion.CholgatalK! 01:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Rome title.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rome title.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I am a new user to wikipedia and I was wondering if I could get your input on an article that I have just posted. Any comments or feedback would be very helpful to me. Thanks. The article is titled Automated Quality control of meteorological observations. Or this should link to it Automated Quality control of meteorological observations --Amanrye 16:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Sam Spedding.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Sam Spedding.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree 18:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Did you used to be an administrator? I looked at some things, which I won't say, and it would seem you have used admin tools in the past although on your userpage you aren't listed in the wikipedia admins category. Please reply, and thanks. Wwefan981 02:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may answer for him; here. He's still a sysop. Master of Puppets Care to share? 02:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I appreciate it especially since you took your own time to help someone else. That's nice. Well yet again I appreciate it and thanks. I was curious but now I'm not. :) Wwefan981 02:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured List of the Day Experiment[edit]

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


LOTD experiment[edit]

My userpage List of the Day experiment is getting under way at WP:LOTD. One of your lists has been nominated. I invite you to come by and represent it. If you would like to represent your list article please reformat your username in the table so it is normal sized. Among the things you may want to do to represent your list are:

  1. Change the image selection
  2. Add talk page projects to the list and then add them on the summary table
  3. Write a summary of the article in less than 500 characters. I will begin doing this later today for those who don't do it themselves.
  4. Participate in the feed back process when it starts on December 1.
  5. Participate in the voting when it starts on December 11.

You are free to remain uninvolved. Your list was chosen for being among the first [[WP:FL]s ever created.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Emerson String Quartet.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Emerson String Quartet.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree 22:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Rupert_Russell.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Rupert_Russell.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hailsin![edit]

Hai thar, A jes tought A wid mae ah visit tae tae shrine o "MarkSweep", if A be o offend on your main page, please excuse me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Librarianofages (talk • contribs) 03:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion warning[edit]

Please see my deletion nomination for Template:US state seal. Superm401 - Talk 08:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:US state seal[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:US state seal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Nick Tanner.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Nick Tanner.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kansas state seal.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kansas state seal.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FPC Notification[edit]

Congratulations! A picture you uploaded, Image:Roasted coffee beans.jpg, has been nominated for Featured Picture status over at Wikipedia:Featured Picture Candidates. You can come to participate in the discussion and vote here. --NauticaShades 03:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Roasted Coffee Beans[edit]
An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, Image:Roasted coffee beans.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 04:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viterbi Algorithm Python example code[edit]

Hi Mark, thanks for your great work with the working Python code for the Viterbi Algorithm. I've found it a great help having some easily understood code to play with as I've learned about the algorithm. Cheers, Tim (TimTim (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Spam in Geberit[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Geberit, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Geberit is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Geberit, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The Hollow Men.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The Hollow Men.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification[edit]

POTD

Hi Mark,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Roasted coffee beans.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 28, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-12-28. howcheng {chat} 19:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Upright-tower-of-pisa.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Upright-tower-of-pisa.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC) --▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose Burnside image[edit]

Hi. Dropping a note to say that I'm filing a delist for File:Ambrose Everett Burnside.jpg as Featured Picture. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarkSweep/archive7&oldid=1143824679"