User talk:ROGNNTUDJUU!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 How this page is kept tidy 2 Welcome! 2.1 Additional tips 2.2 Be Bold!! 2.3 Hello and Welcome! 3 Crossing out flags 3.1 Why? 3.2 Umm. 4 About my User Page 5 Reply:Bongo drums? 6 Re:Cuba 7 ICJ 8 Template:User GOP criminal 9 Please do not continue to recreate inflammatory templates 10 Re: Stop deleting pages that were voted to be kept 11 "Consensus" 12 Re: Your deletions violate wikipedia policy! 13 Use of userpage, and undeletion of deleted templates 14 Recreation 15 Protection 16 Block totally out of place 17 Hello! 18 take care now 19 Good Luck! 20 Unblock request 21 Templates 22 LordRevan 23 Fair use rationale for Image:Ph pres arroyo.jpg

[edit] Welcome!

Joe I 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello and Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. It appears that in your first day or so here, you've become very involved in lots of edits on here and seem like you might not fully understand that system yet. This is completely and totally understandable. I, myself, have only been a contributer around there for a little over 2 months (since December 19th).

First of all, I'd like to humbly request that you keep this edit/post on your talk page, and please, do not move the talk over to my user talk page. You have stated that you would like your talk page to remain tidy, like others around here. Well, truth be told, the most active of the contributors around here have lengthy discussion pages that include all types of discussions, questions, and comments. When a user wishes to tidy their page up, they archive all the old discussion by making a new page, putting all those edits in that archive, and blanking their talk page so it is fresh and blank. There is absolutely no need to delete each comment as it is given to your user page and paste it to someone else's page. If a user posts a message to your page, they will (almost always) watch your page for replies to continue their discussion there. So, please, if someone adds comments to your page, do not delete them, unless they are obviously vandalism.

Secondly, what you did today in contacting everyone who had the No-EU userbox is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia policy. It is, in fact, spamming. From WP:TP: The practice of "spamming" - posting similar messages to more than a few users' talk pages, often for the purpose of soliciting a certain action - is discouraged. What you did falls into this category, in that you did it to "more than a few" pages (several dozen certainly qualifies as that) and you did it for the purpose of "soliciting a certain action" (that they delete their user box).

I hope that you and the other contributors with whom you are presently debating this issue can resolve your disputes civilly, and I hope that you stay on as an asset to this community. Once again, if you please, please post any responses or thoughts you may have regarding this matter as a response to this post on your page, and not by copying and pasting this over to my page. Thank you, and again, welcome--Metros232 00:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that you do not like my way to keep discussions together by posting everything together at one talk page. I saw that some users here have discussions on their talk pages that are virtually impossible to follow because the questions are on one user's page and the answers on the other one's, and if there are edits in between and the pages get archived it gets really tedious to find out what belonged together. I will not allow that on my page. I read that talk pages can be kept the user wants them and I will for sure not allow people to post slanderous comments there to let others read them when they visit me. And I do regard it impractical to watch every user page where I left a comment - some may not answer for weeks if they are no regular contributors. So the easiest way of discussions seems to be keeping it all together.

Contacting everyone who had the No-EU userbox in my eyes was the right thing to do because the alternative was to just get it speedy deleted - as it now is - which is respectless to the users who had it if they have not been previously informed. It is not spamming as it was a legitimate criticism of a violation of wikipedia policy not to abuse user boxes for divisive reasons. Soliciting to play by the rules cannot be a violation of policy.

We have a vital discussion with two other users and while some were annoyed several others have already exchanged their thoughts in a fruitful way with me. Many have deleted the box on their own. ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Quick question for you, you've stated on several occasions that these user boxes violate policy of Wikipedia, can you please point me towards the policy? I know there are proposals and discouragements out there, but under what official policy are you citing these violations? Thank you.--Metros232 13:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Just look at the criteria for speedy deletion of templates - in this case user boxes: divisive and and inflammatory. Crossing out an official symbol representing several hundred million people is respectless and does not help in any way to improve an encyclopedia. ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As UkPaolo pointed out, there is a proposed policy on how to handle userboxes now at WP:UPP. Here's a hypothetical situation for you. Assume that someone created this userbox on their page without prior knowledge that it was ever a template or before a template ever existed. What grounds would you have then? I'm trying to help you refine your argument here since it relies so heavily on the fact that at one point this was a template. How would you handle this if it was just merely an image that people were using in their userboxes?--Metros232 14:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Abusing wikipedia for divisive purposes should not be tolerated in any way. The image is solely used for divisive user boxes that are equally bad no matter if template or set up individually. There are thousands of respectful ways to express legitimate concerns. ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crossing out flags

you are not upholding wikipedia policy, you are a common vandal. i realize that you are very offended by people opposing the EU. But what i can't understand is why you think that someone crossing out an EU flag on their page is obscene. this is in no way an insult to the people of europe, it is simply a statement against the organization. i heavily doubt that anyone is at all offended by it other than you, and crossing out the us flag honestly does not bother me, even though i would actually have some vague reason for it, as the US flag represents a people, not an organization. for the love of God, leave us all alone. you will not change anything. -Joeyramoney 17:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Joeyramoney, exactly my thought. LordRevan 00:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm offended by people mangling the European flag. A flag is a flag, you can't claim that the EU one is less important because it "represents an organisation, not a people". It represents the people of Europe. If you think it wrong for someone to deface the American flag, then it is equally wrong to deface the European flag. Rusty2005 13:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I answered LordRevan and Joeyramoney at their pages. I am not "very offended" by people opposing the EU, I just think that more respect would be nice. I would never cross out a flag because I know people get offended by these things and I think there are many easy ways to express legitimate concerns avoiding unnecessary bad feelings. I am concerned about some aspects of the EU as well, e.g. the agricultural subsidies and the antidumping cases the EU and US use to disrupt the message of free trade they are proclaiming themselves. I however acknowledge that the EU has enormous achievements in allowing a continent to prosper that was previously very diverse in economic development and civil liberties. I already did change something as several users saw my point and chose not to use the crossed out flag any longer. ROGNNTUDJUU! 23:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

JamieBattenbo thinks that users should be able to cross out any flag they want. And any user who has a problem with that is showing a lack of respect for their fellow user.

I pity those who do not understand the concept of respect. ROGNNTUDJUU! 20:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Why does a nation or political entity automatically deserve respect? —Chowbok 05:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not the political entity but the people who feel represented by it. ROGNNTUDJUU! 23:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. A flag represents a political system, not a people. If people feel represented by a flag, then they presumably agree with the ideals expressed by it. It's perfectly reasonable for me to express my disagreement with those ideals by crossing out said symbol.

If I crossed out the Nazi flag, everyone would understand I meant that I was against the ideals of the Nazi state. They wouldn't take it to mean that I was against German people, even though the flag did at one time represent Germany.

There's nothing holy about a flag. I am under no obligation to show respect to a symbol that represents a system unworthy of respect. So why don't you mind your own business? —Chowbok 00:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A flag represents those who choose it and who feel represented by it. If you cross out the Nazi flag you offend those who feel represented by Nazi ideology. Few remain today, and as the Nazi party was convicted for crimes disrespecting it is nothing surprising. Disrespecting the people who feel represented by a political entity that has achieved prosperity for hundreds of millions today is just rude. ROGNNTUDJUU! 00:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so it's okay to cross out a Nazi flag because there aren't many Nazis anymore? By your logic, I wouldn't have been allowed to cross out the swastika in 1938, because a lot of people felt represented by it, and the Nazi regime had achieved prosperity for millions of Germans.

Sorry, you lose. First of all, the UN hasn't achieved prosperity for anybody aside from a couple hundred bureaucrats. They can't even keep people from being massacred. Secondly, even if they had, "achieving prosperity" is not synonymous with "morally upstanding". It's a corrupt, ineffectual, incompetent blight upon the world. I am under no obligation to show it respect or refrain from being "rude" towards it, any more than I would be obligated to be respectful to a child molester or a bank robber. —Chowbok 00:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Is starting a comment with "Sorry, you lose" your way to show how much respect you have for others? The UNHCR an UNAID help millions of people not to starve or get massacred every day. The UN helped to end the Iran-Iraq war and many others. Not the UN's fault that member countries do not commit themselves enough. ROGNNTUDJUU! 00:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The UN is worse than worthless. It's inherently immoral. It pretends that a government that rules by force is just as legitimate as one that is elected by its people. Any organization that treats Syria the same as Sweden is unworthy of respect. It's as simple as that. We don't even need to go into how they sat by during the Bosnian ethnic cleansing, or the Rwandan genocide, or the Cambodian genocide, or how the highest officials were on the take from Saddam, or how they used to turn over human rights complaints to the secret police of the country in question, or how they elected a Nazi as Secretary General, or how they refuse to admit Taiwan, or... (etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum) —Chowbok 02:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that not enough has been done to prevent or stop certain conflicts. It is however to be blamed on the member states and not the UN. Allowing every country to join regardless of their form of government is the only possibility to have cooperation of all countries. Even if I oppose a lot of what certain governments do - including the illegal invasion of Iraq - I am however glad that there is an organization that helps to deal with such problems and facilitate negotiations. And in spite of all the shortcomings, the UN has enormous achievements like the help to millions of people who are refugees or suffer from droughts and other catastrophees. The UN has also helped to find solutions for several conflicts, like the Iran-Iraq war and most recently the first case at the ICC. ROGNNTUDJUU! 20:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You are ignoring most of my points, I see. Well, whatever. The small amount of good the UN does could just as easily be done by a coalition of legitimate governments. The harm the UN does more than cancels it out , anyway.

By the way, the invasion of Iraq was not illegal. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal. Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire terms of the first Gulf War by firing on airplanes enforcing the no-fly zones and refusing to allow weapons inspections. It's fine to say you were against renewing the war despite this, but you can't say it's illegal. —Chowbok 21:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A coalition of "legitimate" governments would not be able to convince as many governments to cooperate with it. Cooperation by as many as possible is pivotal in order to allow the UN to aid those who need it and to send peacekeepers or trial criminals.

The invasion of Iraq violated the UN Charter, there is consensus about this among legal experts except for some who think that legal is what the US considers legal like in the Nicaragua vs. United States case. Iraq allowed weapons inspections. The five veto powers in the UN Security Council, who have the biggest arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, do not: United States and weapons of mass destruction, Russia and weapons of mass destruction, United Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction, China and weapons of mass destruction, France and weapons of mass destruction. ROGNNTUDJUU! 15:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't resist commenting on Chowbok's comments... all states 'rule by force', otherwise they wouldn't be states. I'm saddened when people (not always from the USA) trash the UN and presumably by implication organisations like WHO/FAO/ICJ and diplomatic attempts to find peace. I wouldn't be offended by a crossed out Union Flag, but it could certainly be interpreted in two ways (nationalist and non-nationalist). It's not just userboxes which are potential causes of flamewars, but maybe they do need a fair degree of consensus as neutral and inoffensive descriptors. --Cedders 09:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Umm.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, and I do get annoyed by the people who trash the UN and EU, but isn't it a little high and mighty of you to say that one cannot cross out a picture of a flag on an internet encyclopedia? I'm just wondering, because that doesn't sound exactly rational to me. Just a thought, though.

Mister Mister 15:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am only asking for some respect, nothing more, nothing less. ROGNNTUDJUU! 23:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About my User Page

The person depicted on my user page is Tom Fox. He was one of the Christian Peacemaker hostages in Iraq, and he was found murdered (and had some signs of torture, as well) in Iraq, about a week ago. I admire a lot of what he did during his life so I thought I might honor his memory on my page (especially since I've seen a lot of really disrespectful and mocking comments made by some far-right conservatives lately, making light of, and in some cases praising, his death.)

Mister Mister 15:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply:Bongo drums?

Hi there, as you play the handbell maybe you are interested in the new template: Template:User bongo. ROGNNTUDJUU! 12:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for linking me to this new userbox! Did you make it yourself? I've stolen a few from your page.Tigeriz

[edit] Re:Cuba

Hi there, just found you as one of the few here who identify as Cubans. I have a friend in Holguín but lost contact as apparently his email address was blocked. Could you help to get in contact with him, please? ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I can help you with that I live in Holguín (Cuba)KatKiller 06:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Hey right back at ya. I'm sorry but i really can't help you, as I live in the United States. You could check Category:Wikipedians in Cuba for some users who possibly could. Good luck --ThrashedParanoid★ 17:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Already tried. There are few, so I wrote to all of them. Can you go to Cuba if you have relatives there or is it forbidden for everyone who lives in the US? ROGNNTUDJUU! 17:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have a parent or grandparent in cuba you can go from the US to Cuba legaly, but you can only go for a few days once every few years. Some people go to mexico then go from mexico to cuba illegaly (don't know exactly how, i just know they do). --ThrashedParanoid★ 19:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That sucks. Here in Europe people toppled the governments that restricted the freedom of movement... ROGNNTUDJUU! 19:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ICJ

Just saw your userbox that you put up. It'll probably be speedied, but just so you know: The US is not under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. They are not entitled to rule on American actions, so no case against those Americans pictured would be brought forth. Blair, on the other hand, since Britain agreed to be under the Court's jurisdiction, could. See the jurisdiction secion on the ICJ page. -M^ask 01:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You are probably thinking about the International Criminal Court. The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction over all countries. And the ICC, too, has, as long as crimes were committed in a country that signed the Statute of Rome. That is why the US was trying to get an exemption from the ICC but failed after the war had started. Bush can be tried in the US as breaking the UN Charter is a crime there, too. ROGNNTUDJUU! 08:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the ICJ page, they mention that the US pulled out in the mid 80's. -M^ask 22:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the userbox to your user space (User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/User against Iraq war of aggression). It would be unlikely to be allowed to stay in the template space (mind you, I oppose speedy deletion of userboxes without a consensus). You can use {{User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/User against Iraq war of aggression}} or {{subst:User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/User against Iraq war of aggression}} to place it on your user page - or on another user's one to replace the broken link. - Mike Rosoft 14:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for kind notice. Would however prefer to have a vote over deletion. ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid it won't happen; it seems to meet the the speedy deletion criterion for templates. Hopefully, it'll be safe in your user space. (And if brought to WP:MFD, I'll gladly vote to keep it.) - Mike Rosoft 14:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should it be inflammatory to ask for a trial while not inflammatory to endorse someone accused of having raged a war of aggression? Cannot follow. ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You could try putting it back into Template namespace and when it (sooner or later) gets deleted, talk to the deleting admin (most probably MarkSweep, who specialises in such deletions, be they justified or out-of-process). Mind you, however, that you'll more probably get yourself blocked than manage to mediate with him on any matter. Generally, playing with political userboxes is a dangerous path on Wikipedia and has recently led to many great contributors leaving the Project out of frustration. Misza13 ^{T C} 19:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User GOP criminal

Please stop restoring this template. It was deleted per WP:CSD#T1. If you want to contest its deletion, take it to WP:DRV. If equating a political party with the Nazi party isn't inflammatory, I don't know what is. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not continue to recreate inflammatory templates

Dear Rognntudjuu: Please stop recreating T1 templates that have been deleted by myself and other administrators; they will simply removed again. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for free speech, as I've already explained to you. If you persist, you will be blocked from editing. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not blank warnings from your talk page; it is considered poor Wikipedia etiquette, and is generally not considered good practice. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I already replied to you at your talk page, and I will file a complaint against your censorship. ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved administrator, I'd say NicholasTurnbull is right. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you persist in using it as such, you will eventually be blocked, rightly. You should take the advice you were given above and stay away from political userboxes. We choose our battles in this life; you don't want to choose that one. That race has already been run, and lost. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There are all sorts of political userboxes, singling out mine because you disagree with them does not speak highly of you. Deleting them from the user space is censorship. ROGNNTUDJUU! 02:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, deleting transcluded soapboxery is censorship - the good kind, that's encouraged here. As for singling out your userboxes, get over yourself. I don't know you from Adam, you're just some kid who showed up at AN/I whining about losing a political userbox that's been deleted before, and who seems to be utterly ignorant of the userbox situation. Namely this: Wikipedia is in the process of deciding that you don't get to use our resources in this way - you don't get to transclude little userboxes that serve only to promote some political view. That's not what this website's for, and we'll censor it no matter what your politics are. This argument has already happened hundreds of times; you should go read about it and get as sick of it as the rest of us are, and then you'll know better than to stir up userbox shit.

If you want a political userbox, put the code directly onto your userpage. I still think it's inappropriate, but it probably won't get deleted. If you set it up as a separate page and then transclude it onto your userpage - that means by using the double curly braces ({{ }}) - it'll get redeleted, and... notice how outraged the community is about the horrifying "censorship"? That's right, not at all.

If you're smart, you'll go add "subst:" to all of your political userboxes, so they're safe from being deleted as policy evolves. It only takes a minute, and saves you from this kind of nonsense happening again. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I followed the discussion. The proposal to userfy all userboxes did not succeed, and in the meantime there is nothing ruling out political userboxes, not to speak of deleting them from the user space. Singling out someone you do not agree with like NicholasTurnbull does is just obscene, and as long as you do not delete all the userboxes - which I would be perfectly ok with - stop picking on mine. ROGNNTUDJUU! 02:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about NicholasTurnbull's politics, nor care to. My impression of the outcome of the userbox mess was that we really needed to gradually subst out and delete all transcluded userboxes that don't contribute to the writing of the encyclopedia. Meanwhile, particularly divisive ones get deleted on sight, per CSD T1.

Oh, and of course that proposal didn't succeed. We need to feel out what our new policy is first; that was a premature poll. I stand by my earlier prediction about how WP policy is evolving. If you're pretty sure I'm wrong, act accordingly, see what happens. I'll walk away. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, there is no rule by now that allows deletion of userfied userboxes. And the Iraq independence template was voted to be kept, so a single admin is not entitled to remove it just because he does not like it. ROGNNTUDJUU! 03:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, the whole point in getting them out of template space is moot if you're going to use them as templates anyway. The issue is transclusion of non-encyclopedic content. That's the line not to cross. Don't do it - no problems. If it walks like a template and talks like a template, then it's a template, and T1 applies. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I support your creation of so called "inflammatory" userboxes. But many Wikipedia bureaucrats actively oppose the creation of any new userboxes in non-userspace (most oppose userboxes outrightly). All you can and should do is create the userbox on you're userpage and keep it there. And if any administrator deletes that, they could have their privelages revoked.

Another thing: the whole motive behind banning userboxes is ludicrous. Many admins advocate the policy with the hope that all of Wikipedia will one day become neutral, but that would involve heavy censorship, something which is contrary to Wikipedia. The fact is that people are going to express their opinions regardless of whether or not userboxes exist; userboxes are simply a convenient way of doing so. And since these userboxes are only displayed on userpages, does the banning of userboxes not equate to censorship of a type of userpage expression?

Just my opinion.

WGee 03:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

WGee, hi. You've said that the motive for banning userboxes is ludicrous, and then you're incorrectly stated what that motive is, and then drawn more incorrect conclusions from an incorrect assumption. Why don't you ask me what my motive is for thinking political userboxes shouldn't be used? My motive is not to "make all of Wikipedia neutral", nor would that necessarily involve heavy censorship, if that were the goal, nor is censorship necessarily "contrary to Wikipedia", nor will people necessarily assume that an encyclopedia is a place to express their opinions. Finally, in response to your last question, since you can still use the code from the templates, it's not particularly censorship, just making you work a little more for your expression. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish you were right about privileges revoked for admins who delete from my user space. NicholasTurnbull did just that, and other admins have not even warned him yet. He also deleted our template that had been there for a while and was voted to be kept. ROGNNTUDJUU! 03:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm definately not impressed. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why this particular userbox should be deleted, and others, such as the Roman Catholic userbox (which is as equally divisive) and anti-Americanization userboxes (which many Americans feel are inflammatory), be kept. The deletion of this userbox is driven by American right-wing interests, the type of partisan interests that many on Wikipedia strive to abolish. --WGee 03:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Just keep it on you're userpage. If an admin deletes it, I, and some other anti-censorship Wikipedians I know, will persistently request the revocation of that particular admin's privelages. --WGee 03:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot, the page was not only deleted but also blocked. ROGNNTUDJUU! 03:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You want the code for your page? Have you asked anyone for it? I'll bet NicholasTurnbull would leave a non-transcluded box on your page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I want the pages unblocked such that other users can use it and link to each other. ROGNNTUDJUU! 03:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't support that. Why would you want to do that? That's where you cross the line from expressing yourself on your userpage to using Wikipedia resources to organize by POV, which is simply at cross-purposes with the writing of an encyclopedia. We're all here to write a good, neutral encyclopedia, right? If you're here for some other reason, then seriously: leave. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, because of the convoluted userbox debate, it's going to be hard to launch a complaint against an admin for deleting the userbox. However, I will surely file a complaint regarding the admin's gratuitous blocking of the page, whereby he demonstrated his desire to prevent you from expressing that opinion on your userspace. All you can do is try to remake the userbox and keep it out of all non-userspace. I'm in the process of gathering the code for all my userboxes, and you should be too. --WGee 03:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Stop deleting pages that were voted to be kept

Template:User independent Iraq, see its talk page. ROGNNTUDJUU! 03:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the result of the discussion was no consensus not keep; and secondly, the recreation of deleted content is not permitted, and may be speedily deleted on sight. If you feel that the deletion of the template was inappropriate, you can request a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Snottygobble 04:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course deleting a page that was voted not to be deleted is inappropriate, therefore recreation comes naturally. ROGNNTUDJUU! 04:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a vote, so it wasn't voted not to be deleted. It was a debate that attempted to find consensus, and it did not succeed. I see no evidence that you have requested a review of this particular deletion. I'm going to treat this deletion/recreation as a 3RR situation. I have already "reverted" to the deleted version three times in 24 hours, so I will not delete again. You, however, have recreated the article four times, and are therefore liable to be blocked for a 3RR violation. Snottygobble 04:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it was a vote, deletions are always voted upon. There was a 9 to 5 decision to keep, and if you disagree go to review. ROGNNTUDJUU! 04:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I won't argue over whether or not it was a vote. And I won't argue with your statement on that template's talk page that "There was a vote that ended in a majority in favour of keeping it." But your assertion that "there was a 9 to 5 decision to keep" is rubbish. The result of the debate was no consensus; it says so in big bold letters at the top of the debate, and that's a fact no matter how you spin the figures. Snottygobble 04:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a vote that you ignored. Even if it had been 5 to 9 you still would not have been entitled to speedy delete as the debate shows it cannot be as easy tagged "divisive" as you would like to. ROGNNTUDJUU! 04:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete the template because I thought it was divisive. I deleted it because it was a re-post of deleted material. Reposts of deleted material may be speedily deleted on sight. Snottygobble 04:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is idiotic. If you do it that way, any admin who ever chooses to delete something or even does it by accident can never be corrected. The deletion clearly ignored a vote, so recreating it and in case of any concerns taking it to deletion review is obviously the best alternative. Please restore immediately. ROGNNTUDJUU! 04:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

At no point have I said that I deleted it because there was no consensus. I keep pointing out there there was no consensus in order to counter your lies. Every time you state that there was a consensus to keep the template, you tell the same lie afresh. I can no longer assume good faith here. Snottygobble 04:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Now you even call me a liar. Ican no longer assume good faith. First you back your deletion with "there was no consensus". Then you change to "had already been deleted, so I was entitled to delete again". You know what: The deletion debate had taken place exactly because someone had speedy deleted and others did not agree. Decision was 9 to 5 to keep. I call 9 to 5 a consensus. It is nearly 2/3, that can be easily called a consensus, and as far as I know, wikipedia usually uses 60 percent to call a majority a consensus. ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay, lets break this down.

1. I didn't backed my deletion with "there was no consensus". A look at the deletion log will show that I deleted on the grounds that it was a repost.
2. The only reason I keep saying there was no consensus is because you insist on falsely stating that there was a consensus to keep.
3. "Decision was 9 to 5 to keep" is not simply not true. The votes were 9 to 5 to keep, yes; but the decision was no consensus.
4. You know very well that anonymous IPs are not taken into account in these matters, especially obvious sockpuppets whose only contributions are to userbox deletion debates. So the ratio was 8 to 5 not 9 to 5.
5. You are welcome to say that you think 8 to 5 rates as a consensus, but you are not welcome to say that the result of this debate was keep, because it was not; it was no consensus.

Snottygobble 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume your deletion of my comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents was an accident? Snottygobble 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

First you argued that there was no consensus to keep, than you changed your line of argumentation to the idiotic "had to delete because had been deleted before". 8 to 5 is still a clear majority, and you just ignored it. This is self-righteous and censorship.

Sorry if I for a change deleted something. ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You behaviour is self-righteous censorship. If you do not like a vote there are ways to reviews. Speedy deletion was out of place in the first place and redoing it in spite of someone pointing out to you it was wrong is just abusive. ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Rot. I haven't even bothered to vote in the review, that's how much I care about your silly userbox. I deleted the template because it was a re-creation of deleted content. I will continue to oppose your false assertions that there was consensus to keep, because there wasn't. I have nothing else to say. Snottygobble 05:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I already explained why redeleting something that to delete was wrong in the first place is obviously wrong. If you have nothing to say why do you not just keep away instead of deleting the work of others? ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one seeing only 8 keep votes? ROGNNTUDJUU!'s, James S., Moe ε, Mike McGregor (Can), HJV, Sammysam, Jamie Battenbo, and 70.218.15.218. So that's 8 users, then take the IP out of the question and it's 7.--Metros232 11:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There were two IPs in favour of keeping, sorry I did not take a look whether to count them. 7 to 5 is still a clear majority. ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Consensus"

Rognntudjuu, please read Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority, and please try to understand how we think of consensus here - it's not a simple open-and-shut matter, and it's not about counting votes. Deletion discussion are not votes. It is perfectly normal for the results of the discussion to result in an action that was not supported by a majority of people commenting, much less a consensus. The purpose of deletion discussions is to get the reasons for deletion or keeping on the table where we can see them. The decision is made based on those reasons, and other Wikipedia policies. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a vote is good if it goes the way you like, right? There was a clear majority to keep the template, and ignoring it is just self-righteous. ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, you show a clear understanding of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not a democracy. You should go edit some articles, or maybe you get a kick out of digging yourself a hole. I'm walking away again now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If wikipedia works like "some administrator have all the right to pick opinions they do not like and bully the editors who cannot easily be silenced" then it is indeed digging itself a hole. ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that mere vote counting does not matter (WP:NOT a democracy), a side note: the referred discussion was a TfD = Templates for Deletion, so there was a lack of consensus to delete. Therefore, it should have been kept. Likewise, failure of consensus on deletion review defaults to keep deleted. Am I misinterpreting something here? Misza13 ^{T C} 08:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That is nice, the outcome was to keep, and an admin who disagrees just overrules and thereby can make the same outcome - no consensus - go in his favour. Ridiculous. Default for the review of a wrongfully deleted page needs to be keep. But, ROGGNNTUDJUU!, please do not waste too much of your lifetime on this. De mortuis... 14:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your deletions violate wikipedia policy!

Consensus had been reached to keep Template talk:User independent Iraq. ROGNNTUDJUU! 02:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you are mistaken, ROGNNTUDJUU!. The result of the debate was "no consensus", not specifically to keep. This does not thus prevent administrators from applying speedy deletion criteria to it, since no specific consensus as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy indicates likewise. And besides, votes do not override WP:CSD anyway. You say my deletion violates Wikipedia policy - prove it. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is just evident, many had looked at the template, decision was to keep it, Misza agrees with me, and you were warned by Mike_Rosoft who warned you for ignoring policy. How ugly this make you threaten me at his page. Contested deletion decisions go to review, no self-righteous deletions. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of userpage, and undeletion of deleted templates

Hi, I'm somewhat concerned about the use to which you have put your userpage.

Presently it contains the following items which I think are so inflammatory as to be questionable use of a userpage:

• a large box in which you show pictures of some international politicians and members of the current US administration and the preceding one, and leaders of the US military, with wording saying that you want them tried in the International Criminal Court;
• a smaller box with the wording: "This user regards the U.S. Republican Party as a criminal organization like the NSDAP because both were responsible for a war of aggression."

If you examine Wikipedia:User page, which is a Wikipedia guideline, you'll see that Wikipedians shouldn't have on their userpages "Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia." There is a certain amount of tolerance on such matters--expressing your political opinion is permitted, within reason, so that other editors can know about your biases. However your statements above amount to charges of criminal misconduct by a large number of people, and thus go far beyond reasonable expression of a political stance, and firmly into polemical campaigning.

I'm also rather concerned about your repeated attempts to recreate userboxes that had been speedy deleted under the T1 criterion Template:User_GOP_criminal and (several times) Template:User independent Iraq. Please don't do this. If you think someone has speedily deleted a page wrongly, take it up with that administrator, and perhaps another administrator and, if necessary, ask for a review of the deletion in the appropriate place. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There was discussion about this, and it was decided that there is no way to censor this, deletion was wrong. People show all sorts of political opinions on their pages, and asking for a trial by no means is inflammatory. Furthermore, wikipedia policy is no personal attacks, and you used foul language. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh I have to disagree on this. To state that a political party is a criminal organisation is to brand the leadership, and everybody voluntary associated with it, and subscribing voluntarily to its aims and objectives, as a criminal. This is inflammatory--you're basically saying that all the Republican Senators, every senior member of the current Administration and that preceding it, and the leaders in the States are de facto criminals. Please consider getting a website and putting your inflammatory opinion there. This is not a place for political campaigning, it's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes for membership of the NSDAP would be banned. As userboxes endorsing the US Republicans is not, opposition to it must be accepted as well, at least in the user space. De mortuis... 20:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recreation

Hello. Please be aware that you have recreated the deleted content of User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/GOP criminal very many times now. I'm going to delete them again as recreations of previously deleted content, please do not recreate them again unless the consensus of deletion review is to do so. Also, the sheer amount of recreations in a short period of time has now reached the level of (if I count right) well beyond WP:3RR. Please only engage in discussion rather than recreation, as you may be blocked for further recreations. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 18:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for that userfied userbox. --WGee 18:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The deletion was out of process, as already found by administrator Mike Rosoft who recreated. As Misza correctly explains above, moving controversial userboxes to the user space is ok, and there is no rule allowing deletion. De mortuis... 20:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

ROGNNTUDJUU!, if you or someone else try to convince Dmcdevit at his talk page that he violated the rules and he refuses to give in I will file a complaint at RFC. Sorry I cannot do more right now. De mortuis... 00:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Don't know why, page was protected claiming there were fair use images on it. I had replaced them. Must be an error. I think it should have been pointed out here. ROGNNTUDJUU! 12:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, this isn't clear. It may be that the images that you placed on your User page weren't fair-use, but looking at the Berlusconi one, it's provenance and status are unclear. You say that you "cut" it from public domain, by which I suppose that you mean that you took it from a larger public-domain image —but you don't give a source, and you've placed on it a copyright notice in which you claim to be its creator. As you're not the photographer, you're not the creator.

While I agree that User:Borghunter acted hastily, and should at least have warned you before protecting the page, the protection isn't obviously wrong. Could you clarify the status of the images, and place the account here? Then either he or I (or some other admin) can assess it and make a decision on lifting the protection. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see that was the problem. The Berlusconi picture was taken from the Berlusconi article where he is shown on a public domain image together with a Texan politician. I cut out the Texan, what's wrong with that? It is also explained in the image summary. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I went on what the image licensing said. All images I removed were used under fair use. For the record, I protected the page after I warned you in the edit summary (after doing so at the template page this came from twice, for a net re-additions by you of three), which links to a page explaining the action and linking to the appropriate policy. Next step is protection, which can be lifted provided you say you read the policy and agree to abide by it. I dont think this is unreasonable; fair use images on user pages are vehemently prohibited because the Wikimedia Foundation could be sued, and the protection is merely an effort to prevent them from appearing any more. Sorry if you think I acted unfairly. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait! I see what you're saying now. You're absolutely right, and I'm wrong, I apologize profusely. I thought I checked the images and saw fair use, but it seems I did not. I may have just gone on the edit summary, which seemed sarcastic to me, and I equated "Replaced" with "Reverted". Those are all okay for your user page; I'm sorry. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block totally out of place

The fact that NicholasTurnbull blocked ROGNNTUDJUU! indefinitely after he had already been told his deletions were wrong is totally out of place. This needs to be undone immediately. I wonder how he comes to the conclusion ROGNNTUDJUU! did not help the project as he had many valuable edits in the article space. And this is not on a single admin to decide. De mortuis... 15:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

ROGNNTUDJUU!, I've unblocked you because you were blocked without warning, and without specific justification. I feel as though a bit more process needs to be gone through before blocking users for With that said, let this serve as warning. The purpose of this project is to write an encyclopedia. I would strongly suggest you focus the majority of your energies on that project. Don't worry so much about your userpage, or userboxes, or protecting freedom of individual expression. Let's get this encyclopedia written. I would urge you to go to the administrator's noticeboard, where a discussion about your block is raging on, and voluntarily submit to take a hiatus from the userbox discussion for a while, focusing instead on article improvement. Let's say, eh, 15 days? Don't worry, the userbox debates will rage on when you get back. If you don't, you'll probably end up reblocked, and as you've now received warning that your behavior is considered disruptive, I won't unblock you. That's not a threat, just a prediction and warning. But please, try to give being a full-time encyclopedia crafter a chance for a while. Don't go running right back to the userbox debates, or you and I will both look a bit silly. If you have any questions about this, or anything, please drop me a line. I was involved for a long while in this debate, and have done a lot of thinking about it, and about the effects both sides are having on Wikipedia. So, if you want to wean yourself off the debates, let's you and I discuss the issues. Truly, JDoorjam Talk 17:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is just another example of a group of users that disaprove of userboxes, going after a user with many userboxes - Jamie Battenbo 00:26:, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Way to assume good faith. Johnleemk | Talk 12:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

I never thought I'd find a Wikipedia user with that user name! I don't know whether to feel proud or ashamed for recognising it instantly. What country are you from? JIP | Talk 18:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Now you got me wondering. I googled for it and it seems that it does apparently mean something. Ufortunately, all hits outside Wikipedia seem to be in french, so I still don't get it. Can you enlighten me, please? Or is it some sort of Cabal? --Misza13 ^{T C} 18:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, "ROGNNTUDJUU!" is what Fantasio says every time Gaston Lagaffe has screwed up something. French comics are really popular in Finland, so I picked it up from that. JIP | Talk 18:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, do not really like to reveal my country online. But it seems they throw me out here anyway, so I let you know I am from Germany, but I read Gaston in French because the translations are not as funny. Which are your favourites? Mine are the ones with the soufflé and the one where Léon (that is the guy who say ROGNNTUDJUU!, he followed Fantasio) tries to make him work at a farm and the only way the farmer sees to make use of him is breeding. Do you also know Le Petit Spirou? ROGNNTUDJUU! 10:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] take care now

I hope you'll take care now not to be blocked again. StabiloBoss 06:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Already happened, this time because they say I am someone else. Funny thing is I guess I am indeed related to that guy as he writes about a friend who committed suicide, and we had a neighbour who hanged up himself some weeks ago. ROGNNTUDJUU! 09:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hallo, nehme mal an, ich kann auf deutsch schreiben, wenn wir den gleichen Service Provider benutzen. Erstens heißt es "hung up" und nicht "hanged up", und zweitens ist Henrik von einer Brücke gesprungen. Leider offenbar nicht der einzige Selbstmord in letzter Zeit. Tut mir leid, dass Du gesperrt worden bist, werde mal fragen, was das soll. De mortuis... 11:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Du, ich habe meinen Mitbewohner gefragt, der meint, das stimmt, dass unser Nachbar Henrik von einer Brücke gesprungen ist. ROGNNTUDJUU! 20:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Also wenn das ein Scherz sein soll, ist er ziemlich makaber. Ich verbringe in letzter Zeit die meisten Tage in Henriks Zimmer, um seine Sachen zu regeln. Wenn Du wirklich ein Nachbar bist, brauchst Du nur zu klingeln, dann können wir einen Tee trinken. De mortuis... 00:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Luck!

• Honestly, sometimes I have to wonder just how many of you people are the same person--205.188.116.14 00:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If you register you might be able to remember your name better. ROGNNTUDJUU! 12:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Kann ich dir auch helfen? Sag mal nur. Habe Geduld nur ok? StabiloBoss 12:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ich habe mit einigen Admins gesprochen. Jetzt können wir nur warten. Bis dann. --StabiloBoss 13:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request

It does not appear there is support on WP:AN/I for unblocking this account, which was indefinately blocked as an abusive sockpuppet by Dave Gerard. If you would like to email the blocking admin and ask him to reconsider, you are free to do so. My recommendation, however, would be to limit yourself to just the one account and use it to make positive contributions to the encyclopedia. Jonathunder 22:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No. I agree that he should be unblocked first and then we'll see about how he will behave. --StabiloBoss 22:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I only use this one account, which is blocked. I had another account, which was accused of sockpuppetry apparently for the same reason that we have a shared router for the whole house as I explain above. I abandoned the other account and do not even remember the password. David Gerard did not get back to me when I emailed him, nor did Kelly Lynn who according to David had also done a user check. ROGNNTUDJUU! (who wonders why this should not be a good user name.) 00:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I posted your request on WP:AN/I. Let's see what other Admins will say about it. StabiloBoss 10:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Even though this user has been banned, the code of his templates is still there:

Image:Anders Fogh.jpg 41pxImage:José Manuel Durão Barroso.jpg Image:Pres Wolfie.jpg This user longs for the International Court of Justice to rule upon the war of aggression in Iraq and wants to see these people tried.

This user thinks that the detainment of prisoners without trial, abductions and torture need to be stopped and those responsible be held accountable.

? ? ? This user thinks that users who cross out flags show a lack of respect for those represented by them.

This user supports the resistance against the US-occupation of Iraq but thinks that different means should be chosen.

De mortuis... 21:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LordRevan

Sorry about that, ROGNNTUDJUU. I have moved my response to my talkpage. LordRevan 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ph pres arroyo.jpg

Image:Ph pres arroyo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)