User talk:God of War/0.0.0.0.0-12.19.13.2.1

 This page is a free speech zone. Tell me what you really think. Do not remove comments of other users, even if you think they could be personal attacks like U R teh sux0r.

Sign your posts on talk pages
Greetings God of War,

Please sign your posts on talk pages for them to be easily attributed to.

Thanking you,

Grumpy Troll (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC).

Semi-Pro
Add the tag and click the protect tag as you already know and it should work. I believe that several other users have tested it. I went to the protect tab here and you didn't actually semiprotect it, so I removed it so it wouldn't show up on the semi-protected pages list. Voice of  All T 00:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Section editing in Firefox
Regarding your comment at Talk:George W. Bush, the following link might be useful to you: Tools/Browser Integration. &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  08:00, Dec. 25, 2005

--God_of War 05:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Leon soundtrack
If it's not the fourth movement, I think it must have been the second. You've made me want to see the film again now :) Natgoo 18:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the "ugly" vandalism tag on GWB article
I see that you deleted my vandalism disclaimer on the George W. Bush article -- just wanted to discuss why it wasn't needed.

crazy
i just want to state that you are f-ing crazy! :) you remind me of the war nerd gary brecher... do you really think youre from another planet? how deranged are you?  the thing is, i actually think youre interesting, just wondering. peace, --Urthogie 15:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush and Category:Facist Leaders
android 79  01:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) It's spelled fascist.
 * 2) Extreme POV of this sort to a high-profile article such as George W. Bush will be reverted very quickly and may even be considered vandalism by some.
 * People with this much bais just make me sad.70.238.250.111 05:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I could back up my claim with several arguments but then I don't think you are the type of person that would have the patience to sit through a logical debate.--God_of War 06:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm more interested in writing an encyclopedia. If you want to debate about GWB, there are other places to do that. android  79  06:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Bore me. --Lewk_of_Serthic 04:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Bush Article
Dear god the talk page moves to the archives fast! DyslexicEditor 17:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Strawman?
Thanks for playing, but it doesn't take much brain power to see that you're a parody of a liberal, rather than the real thing--63.22.95.82 18:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right - I am a conservative - I used to support GWB because I thought that republicans were fore small government - He has shown himself to be the exact opposite using terroism to expand the powers of government like never before. I no longer call myself a republican. Also, umm, who the hell are you?--God_of War 19:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:User rainbow
I changed the template image to 40px because the size of the picture causes it to clash horribly with the other colour userboxes. See for yourself: Userboxes/Colors Morgan695 00:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Unblock me
Why have I been blocked. What trolling are you talking about? I have been given no notice to stop doing anything and no examples of trolling have been cited. Please unblock me.--God_of War 02:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone please do something about this! He listed the block as infinite!--God_of War 02:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, sorry. Morgan695 03:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well - Thankyou for caring. I've haven't gotten any response to the messages I have sent out yet.--God_of War 03:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have asked Neutrality to explain the block.-gadfium 03:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that Neutrality has unblocked you. You should be careful not to repeat the behaviour that led to the block. I assume that was the edit, or one of the edits, which led to the block. If I see such edits from you again, I'll block you too.-gadfium 05:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I apoligize for my one talk page comment about gay cowboys, it was too tempting. However, neutrality has never told me why he blocked me or even given me the memo that I was unblocked. I do not believe gay cowboys was ever a blockable offense or the reason for my block. I think Neutralliy blocked me because I disagreed with him over the issues over userboxes and he wanted to silence me.--God_of War 05:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality
Sorry for the delay, I was at a new year's party. It looks like neutrality unblocked you two hours later, so no harm, no foul I suppose. karmafist 09:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Templated
Thanks a bunch. I may swap it back, 'cause the template takes less space & clutter on edits. If you're inclined, have a look at my page & see if there's anything else you like. I'm makin' 'em for me, but if you think anybody else might like 'em, hey... Trekphiler 23:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Testing my sig--God of War 23:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

GWB 2 template
Hey, I like the template a whole lot. On my talk page, I chnaged the link from the PATRIOT Act to this, which I think is funnier. I thought I'd let you consider this version. Even if you decide against changing it, I hope you like the file I linked to. Happy 2006, Dave (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a fine piece of parody, but it is a bit hard to read. Thanks anyway.--God of War 03:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My first Vandal
I must be important now! I got vandalised :) thanks royboy for fixing it. I still wonder how the vandal wound up here - all of his contributions are to page i've never been too.

Missing user boxes
if you are going to remove userboxes from a page - could you please make a note of it in the deletion log. This action orphans the boxes and is almost the same as deleting them because they become impossible to find. If your are going to delete boxes from one section make sure you add those same boxes to a different section. Thankyou--God of War 18:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete any, as far as I know. I moved many to where they had more appropriate categories. I wonder what I may have missed, and offer to put it back.  &mdash;James S. 19:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"C Pound"

 * This # is a pound sign. Every person I talk to says C Pound. Can we please change this?--God of War 18:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you'd like something in the article to change regarding the way to pronounce the name of the language, but I don't understand whether you want to change the article to agree with your acquaintences' pronunciation or to warn people like your acquaintences to say "C Sharp" instead of "C Pound". If you want the former, the place to take up your argument is with the ECMA, the owners of language specification, as they say it's pronounced "C Sharp". If you want the latter, that's already in the Language name section. The Rod 20:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC) (copied from Talk:C Sharp)

Guns, ammo, & stuff
Sorry to take so long to reply. I like what you did with the gun control & carry templates; sorry to see they're now up for deletion by censor-loonies. I also agree with your W=Geo3. When major media outlets repeat the lies, it's hard to get people to do anything. If you didn't think media consolidation was bad for democracy, that ought to convince you. Trekphiler 16:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions
Hi. You listed Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions for deletion at Miscellany for deletion. I have closed that debate as a speedy keep, because we keep such discussion pages as a record of the debate. To delete such a page interferes with deletion policy. However, I have not judged your actions to be in anything but good faith, and so I thought I would return that good faith and pay you the courtesy of explaining my decision. I hope you can appreciate the position. Steve block talk 21:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Listen to Me
Here's a song I just made up in my head - I thought it might help :)


 * I wanna pick u up.
 * In my rusty ol' pickup truck.
 * Take u down by the lake.
 * We can forn-i-cate.

Woaaaaah.....God of War 05:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish didn't do it that way, because now they have an opportunity to strike back
This whole story has escalated already, because it isn't solely about the userboxes but more about the misuse of power and the failure to deal with misuse of power, however if you leave messages at those who are feel the same way, it can (or probably will) be used against you and it has the opposite effect of what you are trying to achieve.

Upto now the other party has made premature moves with the deletion of templates, pages, categories, failure to rule on the matters etc. and has therefore severely undermined their own goal, however if you also try to by pass the guidelines which are there it too will undermine our side.

Even though this particular deletion can be considered a way to wipe out the past, it has failed in their objective. But if a lot of people are now called to vote instead of determining it by themselves, it'll have an adverse effect. KittenKlub 21:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
I've blocked you for 24 hours for your repeated reposting of personal attacks on Deletion review. Perhaps tomorrow you'll be more willing to interact more civilly with your fellow users. If not, I foresee a long line of similar blocks in your future. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What incivility? - How can people possibly be expected to vote on something if they can't see it?--God of War 04:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It was agreed upon in the review that the incivil thing was the picture of stalin. That is why I removed the picture of stalin before I reposted it, I was doing my best to be civil while allowing people to see the box so they could vote on it.--God of War 04:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The template was described earlier in the review. What you were posting was not the template as deleted. And if you attempt to evade your block again, I will happily make it permanent. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for repling. I was not trying to evade my block. Evading my block would be to use different acounts to do the same action I was blocked for. I only used different accounts so I could communicate with you as you were not responding to me here. What I posted was an alternate version I hoped people would agree on. I was not in violation of WP:CIVIL, I was attempting to make a compromise that everyone could agree was acceptable. However, you blocked me without any discussion or warning. If you had posted a note on my talk page I would have been willing to work through this without any more reverting.--God of War 05:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You didn't warn me before you blocked me.
 * I was not attacking anyone - You should have assumed good faith.
 * You did not post a note on my talk page and attempt to discuss the issue first.
 * When blocking may not be used - Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute
 * The content was not incivil and was relevant to the discussion. - I removed the offending picture before I posted the box.
 * The 3RR was not violated, I reverted back to my version once and I left a summary explaining why I was doing this.
 * Blocks are not inteded as punishment. They are inteded to stop the negative actions from occuring. Asking me to stop what I was doing would have been enough.

Having read the above and looked at the edits in question, I see no good justification for the block. I see God of War engaging in civilized discussion and explaining his reasoning. Whether the template was a personal attack is debatable, but I think we can reasonably assume good faith on God of War's edits. Friday (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So you agree that the block is unjustifiable. Unblock me then, I've got things to do.--God of War 22:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's sad when my attempts to find a compromise to a dispute are singled out as a Personal Attack by an Admin who disagrees with me. An almost identical copy of the template is undergoing a tfd right now at Templates_for_deletion. Selina did exactly what I did, she posted the box in the discussion so that everyone could see what it looked like. However while I removed the stalin image to try and find a compromise userbox, she did not. Now I was blocked and she was not. There is no way for me to appeal my block and now I will forever be known as a troll and a trouble maker for taking a POV opposite to that of an admin in a debate.


 * With the current state of things, anyone criticising an admins actions is cited with a WP:NPA. There can be no consensus when critical speech is censored and taking the opposite view of an admin in a debate is incivil. With no checks on admin power, I am forced to wonder why I stick around this project at all. Someday all the disallusioned editors who believe in true consensus and debate over everyone feeling happy about themselves will make a mirror of this site and the editors from wikipedia will see that it is better and slowly start to move there. I am sure that within a few minutes a block will be re-instated against me even though I have taken pains to follow all of the Wiki-ettiquite laws I know of, in this message. If I am blocked for this post then everything I think to be true of wikipedia censorship will be confirmed--God of War 05:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Change?
Why the image change in Template:User screw?
 * Okay, I am just asking since it makes the userbox a rather odd size (I also personally liked the old image). Thanks for reply. Ian13ID:540053 20:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

User paranoia2
Is this really necessary? We already have "User paranoia", and it just seems like you're poking fun at people who actually suffer from paranoia. Morgan695 22:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is actually a quote from Grand Theft Auto that I liked. if you click on the links, you will see.--God of War 23:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Then put it on the humour page. We already have a userbox for paranoia, and like I said, it's fairly offensive. Morgan695 01:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is acceptable--God of War 01:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you feel that way? Like I said, given the prior existance of a paranoia userbox and the fact that you're poking fun at paranoia, the box seems to be fairly unnessicary. Morgan695 01:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * umm, I agreed to do what you asked of me. What is it you are complaining about?--God of War 01:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Images
Hi, I have removed two images from your userpage, which do not appear to comply with the 'fair use' policy for images (seeWP:FU). Thanks. --Doc ask? 01:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you could find some other pictures - Cheers--Doc ask? 01:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting
I am sorry, but your vote at Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Kelly_Martin was removed because it did not meet the requirement of being from an account registered on or before 30 September 2005. - Evil saltine 06:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked
I unblocked you, sorry, I misinterpreted what you were doing (not that it's necessarily a good idea, but not something I'd block you for). My mistake. -- Curps 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now reverted the reverts, which were nearly simultaneous with the mistaken block, thanks for pointing it out. My apologies once again. -- Curps 20:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hang in there -- User Box dispute
Hey God, Just wanted to say hang in there. I think you are making some really good arguments about the user boxes and the use of power by WP admins. Also, thank you for putting something up on the Template User_War_on_drugs page redirecting users to the Deletion Review page. I am... disenchanted that even that post was deleted. --Tiger Marc ROAR! 02:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the fair use on usrpages userbox
It might be less controversial if it had something like "And wished the United States copyright laws clearly allowed fair use images on userpages." or "supports a policy and legislative change, in reverse order" to rebut all the "illegal" naysayers. 68.39.174.238 00:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:No Copyrights.png
Hey, do you happen to know what happened to the image above? It's not showing up. Regardless, thanks for making me feel like i'm not the only one who think the copyright fearmongers have gone too far. karmafist 04:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: user allboxes
Oh, sorry, the template deletion warning frame had the wrong link, which should have been to Templates for deletion. Instead it had some weird parameter which was null. I fixed it at Template:User allboxes. Sorry.

Do you want to go through and make sure that the deletion warning frame is correct for all the userboxes in Templates for deletion? James S. 19:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

God of War. I wish you lots of luck fighting
But personally I have seen more than enough of Wikipedia. Most the time spend here is either reverting nonsense from anonymous users who keep on putting all kinds of vandalism in the documents and the other time you have to fight censorship, abusive administrators and receive all kinds of insults. The irony is that vandals cannot be stopped and just continue their abuse especially if they have a dynamic IP which allows them to return daily and start playing the same games over and over again.

I have come to the conclusion that Wikipedia has failed as an encyclopedia. It is definitely not a nice place and everybody who contributes is crazy since it's a route to nowhere with documents filled with inaccuracy and very tainted by whomever happens to control the subject. There is huge abuse by the administrators and this userbox story is just one example of the clique. They have no idea of the Constitution and it does apply to wikipedia. They want everybody to be gray slaves who do nothing but to revert the constant attack of vandals.

I feel that anonymous user shouldn't be allowed to edit, it's a crazy idea and they are unable to counter the attacks and that will just get worse since the site keeps on expanding. I have been gone for two days and of the 160 pages on the watchlist 20 pages seemed to have been vandalised and 14 of them still had nonsense or vandalism on them. That means 70% was not reverted.

I just finished another round of voting but this bunch of people who want to impose censorship will continue to abuse the system because it will be unlikely that they'll ever be desysoped since the owner feels exactly the same way. You can't have trolls running the place, but it seems that it's perfectly normal here.

I've started on the Dutch wiki and there was quite a lot of abuse and powerplay and it was pretty disgusting with a steward who is unable to utter a single line without an ad hominem attack and who bans people at random and simply terrorizes that place, however the English wikipedia is even worse since it's even bigger and more shit seems to have floated to the top. It is even amazing that those admins (or stewards) have a long list of being banned themselves because their behaviour went out of line many times, yet nobody dares to revoke their privileges.

To cut a long story short, I appreciate everything which you have done and wish you lots of strength fighting, but somehow this place doesn't seem worth it, however I just wanted to leave you a personal message, because you are on the few righteous people around here. KittenKlub 20:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Userbox
About my edit, I was trying to fix it because it was interfering with the userbox navigation at the bottom of the screen.- JustPhil 18:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Green Shahada
Hi God of War &mdash;

Looking through the history, it seems that the image I based Image:Green Shahada crescent.png on was deleted for lack of copyright information, and so my image, a derivative, was deleted for the same reason. I was worried about this when I first created the image, so couldn't release my image under a free license.

Sorry about the template. I expect that there are other free images you can replace it with, such as Image:Mosque02.png.

&mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  03:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Userbox catagorisiation
Well done! Ian13ID:540053 20:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you might consider...
I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political 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)


 * I have responded here .--God of War 19:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Irony
Ceci n'est pas un userbox. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't sort of reflexively illogical? &rArr; normxxx|  talk   &rArr;   email  02:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Notice
I have added a new notice to the top of my userpage, I feel it may interest you. Ian13ID:540053 18:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * THanks for suggestions, updated. Ian13ID:540053 19:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No confidence
Edicts from above are a growing concern for those who believe Wikipedia should be what it purports itself to be in newspapers, magazines, and to new members: a community of editors. As a community, we believe that members who have greater power should use that power to promote consensus and a neutral point of view. When an administrator abuses his or her greater power to promote self interest or personal POV against or without the consent of the community, we believe that member should lose his or her administrative or higher powers. Would you be interested in starting and/or promoting a No confidence area for the purpose of demoting administrators and above who use their power to push personal POV?

In such an area, any editor could call for a show of support or no-confidence for an administrator or higher. People would sign for either support or no-confidence along with examples of the editor in question creating an edict without consensus, or a statement of why they believe the alleged edicts are in line with community consensus. Please feel free to start or add to No confidence and to duplicate this message or tell other editors who want to see Wikipedia succeed. --KIMP (spewage) 18:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I started the article. Please feel free to initiate votes for those who have been abusing their higher access privileges. --Cunning Linguist 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

HRC userbox
Thanks for the code. You rock! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian1979 (talk • contribs)

Image:Amerika.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Amerika.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

requesting a comment
Hello God of War (hard to type it with a straight face). Since I use a duplicate of your fine template, I request your comment on an issue. Of course one does not follow the other but I sense a sneeze of humor and that's why I'm requesting a comment. The Scientology series of articles is undergoing edit wars. My perception of its root lies in: "Is Scientology original research" or, "Is Scientology a primary source of information." Obviously it isn't a secondary source but whether it is solid enough to be a primary source seems to be in question. At Talk:Clear_%28Scientology%29 I've initiated an attempt to resolve the issue, may I invite your disinterested comment please? Terryeo 18:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Just when I was starting to get uneasy about the arbitrary application of WP policy...
Hey, I appreciate that you got the speedy delete of the KKK userbox template reversed. It's not that I want to have a KKK template, but I'd like to think that there is at least some level at which WP operates according to agreed upon rules. Certainly, the process for discussing deletions is one of the more refined and, hopefully, adhered to WP policies. Having the template speedied in the middle of an AfD discussion that was focused on a healthy discussion of philosophical principles, and not on the ideology of the KKK, was causing me to rethink whether the level of anarchy at WP is too high to make continuing to contribute here worth my time. Your action has restored some hope, although the jury is still out. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 02:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

An error
I believe you made an error in tagging Image:205px-Dreamcatcher_on_Wall.png. Are you really the photographer/copyright holder? --Gmaxwell 23:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts
What is the point of WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts? I see you seem to be the one editing it the most often. Also, I'm fixing the "leave a message" templates on your pages (as they're broken for people with some interface modifications). -- Cyde Weys 10:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstars!
I'll leave it up to you wether you move them to your user page or leave them here. Larix 15:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Barnstar
This template defeats the point of having a Template Maker's Barnstar. I believe that it was advertently said in the discussion about the creation of this barnstar that it should not be used for the creation of userboxes, as they take very little effort to create. Morgan695 19:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah...I actually did see that...However, it's GDFL so we can use it like we want too. :)--God of War 19:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but why needlessly piss off people who are actually making templates that help out articles? Just use the standard barnstar, and everyone wins. Morgan695 19:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!
I appreciate your tireless advocacy for userbox rights! I am getting really frustrated that I cannot work on articles which interest me because of the incessant jihad against userboxen. Keep up the good fight. BTW, dunno if you've seen it, but you might like. Cheers! --Dragon695 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Check
Salut Dieu (ca rhyme ha ha),

It's Esseye wondering if you were talking to me or to MDD4696. I bet we (you and I) have a lot of the same userboxes - except mine aren't actually on my page yet.

Peace,

--Esseye 05:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC for Tony Sidaway
Jesus Christ, he's had a lot of 'em. This'll make the third. Anywho, the summary I'm going to put on the RfC page:


 * Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3: Continuing vandalism of userboxes currently undergoing deletion process in attempts to garner delete votes.  Will not acknowledge discussion on talk pages.  See here and here.  Rogue 9 07:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Having never initiated one of these before, I was wondering if I could get a little help putting all this together. I've got a blank RfC form in my personal sandbox, here. Feel free to edit there. Rogue 9 08:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
Nice Userboxes. --Z.Spy 23:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox Alert
I guess I was a little faster - glad to see I am not the only one keeping an eye on things. You are doing a great job here, keep up the good work. --Dschor 21:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

New Userbox
Given your arguments on WP:TFD, I thought you might be interested in a new userbox I've created at Template:User process. Just a heads-up. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Paris_Cellphone_Pics.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Paris_Cellphone_Pics.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 08:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain
Your edit summary here says you are making note of an action related to userboxes, but I see no mention of userboxes on WP:CSD. What am I missing? --Gmaxwell 05:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Richard Dewdney
Greetings o God of War. I notice you edited Richard Dewdney and thought you might have a view on the AfD vote currently in progress. Best wishes Flapdragon 12:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving ahead with the RfC
Clicky. This needs to go forward now before the issue grows stale; I just hope it's enough. It can still be improved while on the RfC page. Rogue 9 16:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Gangster
Perhaps you're right that the picture iconifies better, though UZI-type pistols are associated with terrorists rather than good ol' gangsters. Any ideas? Halibutt 00:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

help yourself
User:Mike McGregor (Can)/code page
 * you know which one you want... BTW, if you know how to link to a category to group like-minded users together, please modify...Mike McGregor (Can) 03:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting DRV
Please stop disrupting DRV by restoring debates that are moot. This is your only warning. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The discussions are over and are now in the archive. Please don't push this any further. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't unilaterally stop all discussion like that. What are you thinking?--God of War 19:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no point in prolonging a debate that has outlived its purpose. Please stop the filibustering. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please vote to keep CDP-USA userbox
Please consider going to here and voting to keep the CDP-USA userbox. Thanks. Guðsþegn – UTCE – 21:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Doc glasgow
Seriously, this guy has gone out of control in relation to userboxes. Is there nothing we can do? --Horses In The Sky 00:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar




User:God of War/Was REVENGE worth it President Bush?
Would you please consider removing this? No, I'm not into censorship - actually I'm vermently opposed to it. And (if it matters to you) I'm also very anti-Bush. But Wikipedia is not a webhost for essays, and this doesn't seem to serve any purpose related to the encyclopedia. (Maybe I've missed something, of course.)

I've read the banner on it - ''Warning! The following contains a Point Of View that will tempt some to censor it by listing it at WP:MFD. If you do not like critical thinking read no further!''. Frankly, that could be mistaken for trolling (wrongly I hope). As if you want somone to MfD it, so you can jump on a soapbox say it is all about the censorship of your views. Well, I hope that's not your motive, and as I want to assume good faith - I thought I'd just ask you very nicely to blank it or mark it for deletion. In any case, I have no intention of MfD'ing this.

If you really understand wikipedia and what it is about, then I know, once you think about it, you will agree to my request. Thanks --Doc ask?  00:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, I thought you were more subtle than to be blatant troll - blank it and mark it for a speedy. --Doc ask?  00:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually think you should get rid of it too. Get a free web host like geocities, put it there and link to it from here. No point dying on this issue when there are much more important ones to deal with. I can see why this might be considered a waste of userspace since it is much more than just a few simple bits of info on yourself. Some admins might try to pursue action against you about this and it is not that important IMHO. You should however keep the userbox essay, because that is directly related to wikipedia, but this other one is not and should be removed by you to avoid unnecessary conflict. Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 10:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again
Sigh Well it seems that they are now resorting to nominating userboxes en mass. Not to mention that contentious edict of There Shall Be No More GWB Userboxes. My wikibloodpressure is shooting through the roof! It seems like the whole kerfuffle has caused our side to loose a bunch of support (which is a shame since userboxes weren't really the cause, but rather a symptom of the problem) and emboldened the boo-hoo brigade. Do we have any admins on our side who could try to talk some reason with these people? --Dragon695 02:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems as though all the political party userboxes have been killed. Mine still appears on my userpage, but I'm new to userboxes so I'm not sure if that's odd. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 04:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw on a website about wiki that User: Sarge Baldy supports them, but he's an anarchist like me, so no surprise. It mentioned others, but sarge was the only one I recognized. I'm with you man. We should start a userbox and catergory for wiki-police state resistors, but of course it will be deleted--my attempt already was. The Ungovernable Force 07:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My rant
You might be interested in this. The Ungovernable Force 07:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Rfc
God,

Within the next 24 hours, I will submit an Rfc against the admins who continuously speedy userboxes without consensus, and whatever else. If there's anything you think should be included on there, please let me know. -- D -Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 14:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

background color change
Not bad. I originally had normal green, but it was really bad, so I went to the page with different colors, but they were alphabetical and it was a really long page, so I just went down to about the c's or d's before settling on that color green (asparagus). But yeah, that is better, thanks. The Ungovernable Force 05:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

AmE-0
My problem is that DRV and TFD are both flawed in that in the current climate, there are very few userboxes that wouldn't be kept/undeleted. The template was divisive under CSD T1, and so that's what I went by. "Consensus" has never been overruled by policy, particularly policy from Jimbo Wales. I invite you to ask another administrator to undelete; if someone does so, I won't delete it again. Ral315 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to expand CSD T1
There is a movement underway to insert language at Criteria for speedy deletion that would expand CSD T1 to include anything anywhere, including user space, that could be transcluded. This would make T1 capable, prettymuch, of deleting any template-like code that administrators anywhere didn't like. Proponents of such an expansion are seeking to show they have community consensus to do so; I figured you'd want to know. Regards, JDoorj a m    Talk 23:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Urgent, LordRevan
Hello God of War. I was just wondering if you were aware of the left-wing move to delete many of the right-wing templates. I am outraged and we need to band together to stop the left-wing move to shove the Politcally Correct bull down our throats. Spread the word. LordRevan 22:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement against Jimbocracy
read my Statement against Jimbocracy. --Revolución hablar ver 00:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by none other than Mark Sweep
According to ANB I was infinitly blocked without warning for this. Regardless of how anyone feels about the sub-page. I was not trolling. It is my understanding that there is a different level of acceptablility between the main user page and the sub-pages. If this is not true then I recant my statement. However I have read this many times on wikipedia and believe it to be true.--God of War 08:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am looking into this. It may take me 15 minutes or so. -- SCZenz 08:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to other admins: there is a discussion of this block, which is intended not to be permenant, at WP:AN/I. -- SCZenz 08:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Before you can be unblocked, please confirm that you will abide by the spirit of the decision made at MFD. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I will follow the MFD result but I still think people are getting too upset too easily over a silly sub-page.--God of War 09:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright you have been unblocked. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

w00t that was lame - oh and thanks for unblocking me so fast.--God of War 09:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Have I given you the judo-Ghandi speech yet? - <font color="#000000">brenneman <font color="#000000">{T} {L}  14:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Brenneman can you please clarify?--God of War 22:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My Sub-page
Is up for deletion. If anyone would like to comment on this, please go here.--God of War 22:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please comment
Please comment on my counteroffer on the talk page of Doc's userbox proposal. --Dragon695 05:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

(removing link and/or promotion of hate/attack site per WP:BADSITES.)
(removing link and/or promotion of hate/attack site per WP:BADSITES.)

It was at fmtest but has moved, and is now up for public consumption.

Feel free to pass it on to all and sundry.

The old one still exists, but something tells me people won't be posting there much.

As for User:Grace Note's ideas, they are just ideas, and I personally don't think that they are likely to turn in to anything substantial, at least not unless there's more thought put in to it.

Hopefully we can go back to doing what it was meant for soon. User:Zordrac 14:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox
I've restored all edits on User:God of War/Warboxen. —Guanaco 21:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Jordanhill Railway Station PNG/JPG image issue
Ooh ok, I totally forgot about that. Thanks for JPEGengizing it. --TechnoGuyRob 06:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

conditional support
Check out my "Conditional Support" entry on the userbox poll page. I'm curious to see what you think. <font style="background: lightblue" color="#000000">  GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 20:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, O God of War!
I stand before you a weary combattant, though I know I have thus far prevailed and will tonight sleep the sleep of the just, regardless of what the morrow may bring. Hear of my deeds— as I have of yours— that we may ally in opposition to this abomination wreaked upon our very assemblages. Beware the Faithless One, who steals into userpages, templates and categories to delete beyond his writ.

Know ye that I've wrought my growing assemblage from the very metal of which you have yours, and indeed in places they may overlap. Let us regard one another in mutual respect of our right to assemble, and stand together against those who in petty fear would have us disolve.

StrangerInParadise 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Tell it like it is! I'm pretty neutral on userboxes, I can see some of the argument for some kind of change, but deletion of categories is just plain censorship, and the disruption of community. Alex Law 23:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And the proof -- edits by MarkSweeps removing categories from my user page to empty them for deletion. Alex Law 00:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

User:TIRESONG and email spamming
It looks highly likely that User:TIRESONG, who spammed using 'email this user' a great many people about userbox deletion, was you.

Don't do this. Seriously. You know that it's wrong, because if you didn't, you'd have done it using your own name. I am blocking you for 24 hours for disruption. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm, who is Tiresong and what the hell are you talking about?--God <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω War 17:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Having recieved your assurances this wasn't you, I've unblocked you. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments requested
I'd like your thoughts on a brainstorm I've tried to articulate here: User:Leifern/Adminwatch idea. And feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 16:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Technical Solution
The poll looks like it is going nowhere so I have proposed a technical solution to the userbox debates. This should make everyone on both sides of the debate happy. Please look here Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes--God <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω War 21:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

about userboxes?
What do you think of this? Am I too bold?--ikiroid | (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooh. Nifty idea. You might also see this, where I have a small handful of hardcoded userboxes that have been TFD'd, T1'd, Jimb0wned, or never created in the first place, because they would be one of those things if they had been created (ie, "This user opposes fascism in all it's forms", with the anti-fascist image replaced with the Wikipedia logo). I really outta add some of them to my userpage, but I'm lazy, and my browser doesn't like loading the edit dialogue on a page with that much code on it. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So I see I'm not alone. That's good to know.--ikiroid | (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm, you seem to be looking for one so here it is...good job with the banned userboxes page. I like it.--God <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω War 21:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

no.
You are a strong proponent of one side of the poll. It is not appropriate for you to close it - it would not be appropriate for me to do so either. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I dispute your closure of the poll, and have noted such on the page. It is transparently bad faith. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Discussion about this is taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Userbox_policy_poll.--God <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω War 21:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that WP:3RR applies to the poll page, and I am going to be a bit strict about it, since this is not the kind of page we need to have an edit war on. Hipocrite is receiving the same message. --Golbez 21:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It was not a warning. It was a ... well, yes, it was a warning, but not that you were in imminent risk, just an advisory. I didn't want to warn one party without touching base with the other. Neutrality, remember. Again, this is not a good page to have any kind of edit war on. It just lowers the credibility of the whole process, such as it is. --Golbez 21:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And while I'm at it, I'll apologize for the "kids" comment in the summary. --Golbez 22:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Here's a userbox for you. --<b style="color:#0055aa;">Cyde Weys</b> 05:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Main page redesign
It seems that your motion for including the article count in the main page redesign won out, and has now been included on the project page. Would you consider changing your vote from "Conditional Support" to "Support" now? Fieari 22:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)