User talk:Tomtrinity7

Anti-war topics

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Please do not blank the anti-war topics template any further. Kalkin 17:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The items you were blanking were NOT on the Conscientious objector page. You blanked the "anti-war topics" template, a template which shows up on a number of pages related to anti-war ideas or movements. This is why it does not show up in the edit box of the C.O. page itself, except as the phrase "anti-war topics" enclosed by brackets. When you blank it, you blank it on every page. It's fine not to know these things if you're new to Wikipedia, but please be careful.

If you think that the template should not be on the C.O. page, we can discuss that. I think it's relevant, though I did not put it on the page initially nor make the decision to include the conscientious objector as one of the links from the template itself. Your C.O. status gives you credibility on the subject, but you also need to give reasons if you want to persuade me. But if we decide it's unrelated, it should only be removed from that page, NOT blanked.

Note this has very little to do with my personal politics. I didn't make the anti-war template, and didn't contribute significantly to any of the articles on it except for the ANSWER one, and I am not a member or fan of ANSWER.

Finally, please sign your posts. Just inserting four tildes will automatically add your name and the date and time. (That one took me months to figure out, actually.) Kalkin 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to post my Bush-Cheney 2004 bumpersticker on this page since the anti-war template only represents one side and not even the Conscientious Objector side for that matter. tomtrinity7 10:47, 8 February 2006 (Switzerland)

Did you read the obove post? If you want to discuss the use of the anti-war template on the Conscientious objector page or on any page the best place is probally Template talk:Anti-war topics. Please do not delete the page again without discusion.--JK the unwise 09:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion, this template does not belong on this page period. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia by placing your personal political views on a non-political page. STOP PLACING YOUR PEACE SYMBOLS ON THIS PAGEtomtrinity7 10:47, 8 February 2006 (Switzerland)

Vandalism warning #2

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please refrain from blanking Template:Anti-war topics in the future. As JK the unwise already mentioned, Template talk:Anti-war topics would be a fine place to discuss the issues you're having with the template in a civil manner. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin, exactly where is this nonsense you are speaking of. I take exception that my opinsions are cosidered nonesense considering I am editing a page that I am considered an expert of. Tomtrinity713:18, 8 February 2006 (Switzerland)

You're not editing a page in the article namespace. The page you have been editing is the anti-war topics template, which appears on many pages besides that one [1]. Your blanking of the template in its entirety is considered vandalism, which we ask that you do not do. Removing the template from the Conscientious objector page is a different process entirely, and should only be done if there is adequate consensus to do so. I believe that the most appropriate place for discussion of that would be at Talk:Conscientious objector. Let me know if you have any more questions. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you consider consensus over accuracy or apparent political vandalism? The Peace Sign is grafitti and has no place here.

Tomtrinity715:18, 8 February 2006 (Switzerland)

Vandalism warning #2

Admin, I have a question for you. Say you have a business and someone comes by and spraypaints a Swastika on the outside of the building. Since the owner of the shop does not sell any products related to Nazis then the person would have the grafitti removed. This is the same thing, this placement has nothing to do with Conscientious Objection. I challenge you to take a closer look and discover that the "true vandals" are those posting this information on a topic that claims no political or movement affiliations. There is no civil manner with Swastikas, so why is the Liberal Swastika tolerated. If this is the case I claim the right to place a Bush-Cheney 2004 bumpersticker on the page to show that conscientious objection has nothing to do with the Peace Movement or songs, slogans, etc. against a war they do not care for. As the only true Conscientious Objector contributing to this page, you would do a great disservice bowing to their threats. As Wikipedia states: "Do not come here if you do not want someone merclilessly editing you." I am exercising this option. Tomtrinity7 (Talk) 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation seems flawed in one important way. You do not own Wikipedia, and do not have the final say on what goes on here. Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, who is the ultimate arbiter on what goes around here. However, you are welcome to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. Just no vandalism, please. In addition, your suggestion of placing a Bush-Cheney sticker on the template or page would be a violation of WP:POINT, which instructs users not to disrupt Wikipedia for purposes of making a point. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are aboslutely right, it is apparent you have no commitment to providing corect information rather providing disinformation from unreliable sources through consensus. You misuse the term "vandalism" by allowing vandalism to occur through the placement of the Peace Symbol and censoring the educated and informed. Please remove all of my posts and account. You have lost a genuine consientious objector due to the political motivations of individuals who have no understanding on the subject. I do not wish to be a member of the Wikipedia community. Please remove all of my posts and account. Peace out!

Tomtrinity7 (Talk) 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad to hear that you plan to leave Wikipedia and would urge you to stay. Please remember that everyone heer wants to build a excellent encycopedia, if you paciently explain your arguments to us as to why the anti-war template should not be used you may be able to convice us. I will be willing to hear your arguments note: I have not replaced the anti-war template on the Consientious objector page and I for one am willing to leave it off untill we have reached consensous or at least had a good go at doing so. Unfortunatly, when you post on wikipedia you release the rights to your posts so you can no longer ask for them to be withdrawn.--JK the unwise 15:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your argument?

Is your argument that

That having a template about the anti-war movment at all violates NPOV policy because it spreads the anti-war view point? If so please explain how it is differnt from other templates like Template:Fascism sidebar? The best place for discusion on this is Template talk:Anti-war topics
That use of the anti-war template on the conscientious objector promates the POV and in your view wroung idea that conscientious objection has something to do with anti-war movments. If so please discuss this on the conscientious objector page. Do not mess with the template that you do not think is wroung for all the other pages it is on.
That having a template is fine but that use of the "Peace symbol" on the anti-war template (banner) is POV because it implies support of the anti-war movement? Firstly, the symbol is mearly illistrative of anti-war topics. As generaly is the case with wikipedia's use of logo's; no support is implied. Secondly, it is common practice on Wikipedia to use symbols that are associated with their topic in templates. That the Christianity template shows a Christian cross does not imply support for Christianity any more then the pictureing of a tank in the History of war template shows support for war/tanks or the use the anarchist symbol in the Anarcisism template implies support for anarchism. Indeed the Template:Fascism sidebar template may not have a Swastika on it but it does have the Fasces which is generally regarded as a facist symbol (see Fascist symbolism). If this is the case please discuss this at Template talk:Anti-war topics.
I assume that your edits are in good faith please assume the same of mine.--JK the unwise 15:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Bartok.JPG

The file File:Bartok.JPG has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the file should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]