::You're not editing a page in the article namespace. The page you have been editing is the anti-war topics [[Wikipedia:Navigational templates|template]], which appears on many pages besides that one [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Anti-war_topics]. Your blanking of the template in its entirety is considered [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]], which we ask that you do not do. Removing the template from the [[Conscientious objector]] page is a different process entirely, and should only be done if there is adequate [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] to do so. I believe that the most appropriate place for discussion of that would be at [[Talk:Conscientious objector]]. Let me know if you have any more questions. [[User:Schuminweb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User_talk:Schuminweb|Talk]]) 15:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
:So you consider consensus over accuracy or apparent political vandalism? The Peace Sign is grafitti and has no place here.
[[User:Tomtrinity7|Tomtrinity7]]15:18, 8 February 2006 (Switzerland)
== Vandalism warning #2 ==
Revisionasof15:14,8February2006
Anti-war topics
Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thanks!
The items you were blanking were NOT on the Conscientious objector page. You blanked the "anti-war topics" template, a template which shows up on a number of pages related to anti-war ideas or movements. This is why it does not show up in the edit box of the C.O. page itself, except as the phrase "anti-war topics" enclosed by brackets. When you blank it, you blank it on every page. It's fine not to know these things if you're new to Wikipedia, but please be careful.
If you think that the template should not be on the C.O. page, we can discuss that. I think it's relevant, though I did not put it on the page initially nor make the decision to include the conscientious objector as one of the links from the template itself. Your C.O. status gives you credibility on the subject, but you also need to give reasons if you want to persuade me. But if we decide it's unrelated, it should only be removed from that page, NOT blanked.
Note this has very little to do with my personal politics. I didn't make the anti-war template, and didn't contribute significantly to any of the articles on it except for the ANSWER one, and I am not a member or fan of ANSWER.
Finally, please sign your posts. Just inserting four tildes will automatically add your name and the date and time. (That one took me months to figure out, actually.) Kalkin00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to post my Bush-Cheney 2004 bumpersticker on this page since the anti-war template only represents one side and not even the Conscientious Objector side for that matter. tomtrinity7 10:47, 8 February 2006 (Switzerland)
There is no discussion, this template does not belong on this page period. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia by placing your personal political views on a non-political page. STOP PLACING YOUR PEACE SYMBOLS ON THIS PAGEtomtrinity7 10:47, 8 February 2006 (Switzerland)
Vandalism warning #2
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
Admin, exactly where is this nonsense you are speaking of. I take exception that my opinsions are cosidered nonesense considering I am editing a page that I am considered an expert of. Tomtrinity713:18, 8 February 2006 (Switzerland)
You're not editing a page in the article namespace. The page you have been editing is the anti-war topics template, which appears on many pages besides that one [1]. Your blanking of the template in its entirety is considered vandalism, which we ask that you do not do. Removing the template from the Conscientious objector page is a different process entirely, and should only be done if there is adequate consensus to do so. I believe that the most appropriate place for discussion of that would be at Talk:Conscientious objector. Let me know if you have any more questions. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you consider consensus over accuracy or apparent political vandalism? The Peace Sign is grafitti and has no place here.
Admin, I have a question for you. Say you have a business and someone comes by and spraypaints a Swastika on the outside of the building. Since the owner of the shop does not sell any products related to Nazis then the person would have the grafitti removed. This is the same thing, this placement has nothing to do with Conscientious Objection. I challenge you to take a closer look and discover that the "true vandals" are those posting this information on a topic that claims no political or movement affiliations. There is no civil manner with Swastikas, so why is the Liberal Swastika tolerated. If this is the case I claim the right to place a Bush-Cheney 2004 bumpersticker on the page to show that conscientious objection has nothing to do with the Peace Movement or songs, slogans, etc. against a war they do not care for. As the only true Conscientious Objector contributing to this page, you would do a great disservice bowing to their threats. As Wikipedia states: "Do not come here if you do not want someone merclilessly editing you." I am exercising this option. Tomtrinity7 (Talk) 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation seems flawed in one important way. You do not own Wikipedia, and do not have the final say on what goes on here. Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, who is the ultimate arbiter on what goes around here. However, you are welcome to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. Just no vandalism, please. In addition, your suggestion of placing a Bush-Cheney sticker on the template or page would be a violation of WP:POINT, which instructs users not to disrupt Wikipedia for purposes of making a point. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]