User talk:MarkSweep

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)

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

• /archive1 10:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• /archive2 07:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• /archive3 05:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• /archive4 15:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• /archive5 07:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• /archive6 07:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Architectural Photography

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

User:PistolPower

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)

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)

Thanks for the cleanup on my page as well :) Wyss 02:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

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)

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)

re: CSD T1

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)

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)

Ausflag growing up

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)

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)

RfC and TfD

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)

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)

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)

User confusion

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)

Can you post this on WP:AN#User:Userboxes please? Thanks, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have done so. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Thanks. And, no, not yet, as far as I know. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've asked nicely on User talk:Boxes - David Gerard 00:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

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)

UserBox editing

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

Speedying Template:Offensive

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)

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

Pearson's Chi squared

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)

Setting the record straight

• On Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates you accuse me multiple times of having deleted templates like {{User_participant_userbox_war}}. Since the situation has already been explained to you, I would appreciate it if you would retract these false statements and set the record straight. Thanks, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• You didn't think it was necessary to ask me what was going on in the first place. You didn't think it was necessary to inform me of the RfC you tried to file. And now your misguided accusations are still up and causing problems, so I've asked you to do something about it. At least you could try to discuss this with me. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The discussion on the RFC wasn't enough? Sct72 00:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Apparently not: Your false accusations are still present on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. At the very least, you could retract them. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you like to discuss this first? Sct72 00:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• No, I would like to discuss your false accusations on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the RFC wasn't enough, I don't know what would be. Sct72 01:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • accuse : to charge with a fault or offense; blame
    • opinion : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
• Don't split hairs. Your comments on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates are out of order. Please have at least the decency to retract them. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

userbox nonsense

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)

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)

Karmafist Manifesto

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)

The Welcome Message

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)

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)

For vandal who deleted Template:No_Marxism

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)

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)

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

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)

• I know, one has to use underscores instead of whitespace. I hope this gets fixed in the software, since it also affects things like Template:vandal (e.g. Willy_on_Wheels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 14:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Resolving the Template:User No Marxism dispute

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)

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)

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)

Greasysteve13 01:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your actions are "INFLAMMATORY"

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.
  Guðsþegn – UTCE – 18:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox debates

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)

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)

Excellent suggestion. Done. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

DRV blanking

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)

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

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)

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)

• Is that another threat? What gives you the right to silence the opinions of others?--God of War 20:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

DRV

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)

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)

Kruskal tree theorem?

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)

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)

TfD

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. -Splash^talk 00:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Template:User Libertarian US

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)

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

This is your only warning

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)

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)

Rationale?

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

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)

Bush Templates

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts

• 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)

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)

You know how baseless that is? Give me a break. --CFIF 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

optional questions on RFA

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)

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)

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)

Template:User freedom

• 2006-02-17 18:58:04 MarkSweep deleted "Template:User freedom" (no campaigning; see WP:POINT, WP:DICK)

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)

It's simply provocative and increasingly inaccurate. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Do we really need to go through this again? Sct72 00:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Barnstar

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)

Alexander Hamilton

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)

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

TfD nomination of Template:Polemical userboxes

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)

Hello Old Chap

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

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)

I second that :-).--Alhutch 09:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

User freedom

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)

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)

Your recent disBush deletion

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)

Deletion of {{User userbox insurgent}} and {{User userbox revolution}}

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)

Template deletion

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

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

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

Don't warn me

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

Bush Userboxes

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)

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

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)

Optional additional questions from MarkSweep

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

This is your only warning

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)

User:CFIF

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)

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)

I have posted to the mailing list about this.Geni 03:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

See his response at User talk:CFIF. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

You claim your actions were justified because you were provoked? Admins should be better than that.Geni 21:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've explained it. Twice. And I said: "Good day!" --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thank you. Haukur 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Bush Userboxes

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)

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)

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)

Fuel to the fire

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)

Userboxes

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)

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)

i second that.--Alhutch 06:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued support! --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Two thumbs up...

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

MySpace

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)

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)

Yes, but Jimbo should remove the section as to prevent a MySpace-style profile. --Shell <e> 02:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Alexander Hamilton

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)

erm....

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)

Appreciation

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)

Sailor Moon userbox

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)

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)

It was transcluded, and you orphaned it.  Denelson83  09:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because it had a low reference count. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As in not enough people were using it???  Denelson83  09:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

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)

My RFA

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. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

People shot by standing... cat

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Susting

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)

Stop

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

Gentle advice

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)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

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)

Your edit on my talk page

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)

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)

Another usertalk 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)

Re:Userboxes

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)

Template:User homeless userbox category

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)

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)

People shot by standing Vice PThresidents

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)

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)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

Apology

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)

My RfA

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)

My userpage

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)

Kaiser Permanente

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)

Your Assistance as an Admin requested urgently

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)

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)

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)

"Orphaned"

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

But why do we need templates that nobody uses? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

Don't vandalize my userpage

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)

My RfA

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)

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)

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

• 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)

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)

Remove category from UB

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

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

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

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)

• 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)

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)

Userboxes

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)

Communication and rollback guidelines

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)

Speedy deletion of orphan templates

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)

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)

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)

Speedy Category Deletion without Cause

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

It's available right here. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mass removal of categories from userboxes

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)

3RR

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)