User talk:Wik/Archive February 2004

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Wik,

U don't like "formerly in English: Danzig" and "Gdansk or Danzig". Nico doesn't like "formerly also in German: Danzig". The problem is that "formerly Danzig" is unacceptable because is suggest that Gdansk is a new, artifficial name created after 1945. This is a nonsens of course. But we should to solve this problem in any way. Do you have any proposal? user:Yeti

Yeti: What the city was called in foreign languages before 1945 is irrelevant. This is the English Wiki. In English it was Danzig and never Gdansk before 1945. Thus, "formerly Danzig" is correct here. Please stop making more trouble. You can explain that it has always been Gdansk in Polish in this section: [1] Nico 20:01, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Does "St Petersburg, formerly Leningrad", suggest that St. Petersburg is an artificial name created after 1991? If not, I don't see why "Gdansk, formerly Danzig" would do this. john 21:04, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

well spotted[edit]

Thanks for spotting my mistake on Provinces of Cameroon, I'll upload a corrected image. - snoyes 23:25, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hey Wik, thanks for the help on AtStart's links. Dori | Talk 00:46, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

Independence - strike?[edit]

I would move to strike the line on the table on the right that lists an independence date. Iraq is currently an occupied power - it is not an independent state, and thus, an independence date doesn't apply. As soon as the coalition authority officially cedes power to an Iraqi governing body, then it will be independent, and that line would apply once again, but with a new date.

Comments?

Apology[edit]

I'm sorry I offended you on Slashdot. Maybe I'm the idiot... that said... are there better ways to handle this little crisis maybe? Thanks. Pakaran. 04:01, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Oh, yeah, and if you're going to read slashdot, dude, you may want to be aware that you're going to find stuff you consider deliberately offensive. Last time I checked, there's no requirement under policy for sysops to speak kindly to others (and I don't think I'm the worst offender there, despite my ill-considered remark). This whole thing is making you look far worse than it is me. Pakaran. 04:05, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dude, there's ways to deal with this a bit more professionally than reverting for the rest of the evening. Pakaran. 04:12, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you can't behave on the real pages, have you own so you don't need to bother the rest of us: Wikipedia:Wik's requests for deadminship. Angela. 04:24, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • Wik, if you're going to keep moving pages around all day, fix the stinkin' redirects. - Hephaestos 04:34, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Gee Wik! You really get into their nerves... I guess one of the two: 1) You do it for the fun of it ; 2) You do it because you like Wikipedia better than your blood pressure. Either of them, i'm starting to like you. But maybe there is a third... Muriel 17:34, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like Wikipedia and my blood pressure is fine. Maybe theirs is getting up, but they only have themselves to blame. --Wik 17:55, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Danzig[edit]

Re: [2]


Wik, you are lying!

  • "Searched the web for danzig polen": 37,800 [3]
  • "Searched the web for gdansk polen": 31,000 [4] (and that includes a couple of other languages in addition to German, in which Poland is known as Polen) -- Nico 04:52, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"Danzig Polen" 1,650
"Gdansk Polen" 1,790
The quotes are necessary to limit the search to references to the present (Polish) city. --Wik 04:56, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

You usually do not write it in that way. It would be a horrible language, and in any event, you operate with too small numbers. Nico 05:01, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which one is marginally ahead. It is clear that both versions are used almost equally, so it cannot be simply said that the German name is Danzig in the same way that, for example, Warschau is the German name for Warsaw. As the Google test demonstrates:
"Warschau Polen" 8,390
"Warszawa Polen" 1,740
Clearly a much different ratio there. --Wik 05:24, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
"gdansk polen", German domains, German language sites: 1,250: [5]
"danzig polen", German domains, German language sites: 1,720 [6]
But, as noted, Germans usually don't write "London England", but rather "London in England" or something like that. And btw, the internet consists of much trash and is not very representive for German usage. German newspapers nearly always use Danzig. -- Nico 05:54, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Great Britain[edit]

I added Faroe Islands to the list of non-GB territories in the British archipelago for a reason, namely that it is mentioned as a part of the archipelago in the very first paragraph of the article. It could very well not be (and British Isles indeed says it isn't), but if so you should delete it from the introduction as well. -- Jao 10:05, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wik, I'm asking you formally here to relax and not enter into any edit wars for at least a week or so. You're getting on people's nerves. Take a breather, it isn't worth it. I've seen your work, and a lot of it is good, but at the same time, you violate general etiquette pretty often, too.

Wikipedia appears to be in a state of anarchy, but rest assured that it is not. We do have some rules and those rules will be enforced. I prefer persuasion, but ultimately the community has to be respected, and if that means some people have to go, then some people have to go.

So relax, huh?

Jimbo Wales 10:31, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that rules will be enforced. I take this to mean that Hephaestos will be de-adminned for his repeated unilateral bans of logged-in non-vandals. You might also want to explicitly inform Angela of the fact that, until the committee is ready, you are still responsible for bans and that therefore there is no power vacuum into which individual sysops can pretend to step in without your authorization, otherwise there will be pointless ban-unban revert wars between sysops (as there have been). (See Delirium's mailing list message and Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship.)
As to my supposed violations of etiquette, can you document them please so that I know what the problem is? I am at a loss here, since I take special care to avoid insults, although I have been repeatedly insulted by some sysops. If it's about edit wars, can you clarify when exactly an edit war becomes wrong, considering that almost everyone naturally gets involved in them; are you saying that every edit war is wrong (in that case, should persistent vandals etc. just be allowed to have their way? how are content disputes to be decided when one side is not willing to engage in good-faith discussion?) or, if you agree individual edit wars may be justified, then can you tell me which of the ones I was involved in were not justified? I'm the first to agree that there must be a way to avoid edit wars in general, but the only solution here is to create an arbitration committee for content disputes, and before we have that edit wars are inevitable. --Wik 17:54, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Consideration[edit]

Thanks for fixing the "may be considered a forerunner" thing. You have good copy-editing skills. --Uncle Ed 20:10, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Death camp is not semi permanently protected. It is protected until you and Lir can agree on the issue that you were edit warring about. Stop messing up Wikipedia:Protected page. Angela. 03:36, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Agreement with Lir will not happen. So if you wait for that, it's permanent. If you don't like me pointing that fact out, just unprotect the article. --Wik 03:39, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

VfD[edit]

I moved a lot things off VfD to the talk pages today because VfD was 110kb, which is completely unacceptable. I tend to move discussions where they are too long, or liable to get too long, or where the outcome is almost certainly delete. In the Cruikshank case, I thought the article was almost certainly going to be delete at the end of the five days and that the discussion was not likely to be interesting enough to be archived, so it might as well take place on the talk page and be deleted along with the article. Other discussions are worth saving and are moved to /delete subpages at the end of the five days, which is probably what I'll do with some of the other ones I moved today that were moved for the reason they were too long. Angela. 20:30, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Earlier this evening I deleted George Francis Cruickshank per your request on the Pump, but Angela just alerted me that Anthony listed it on VfU because it had not been listed five days so I undeleted it. Tomorrow will be five days so, unless the vote suddently swings the other way or someone else beats me to it, I will redelete it tomorrow. -- Viajero 23:14, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --Wik 23:18, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Adminship[edit]

You have been nominated for adminship. Although some nasty comments from the usual people, I think there are enough support votes. 66.36.249.149 07:15, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've removed that nomination, as it was from an anonymous user (217...) with a history of troublemaking and vandalism, who in fact was banned shortly thereafter for vandalizing another article. The user above (66...) is an anonymous proxy, and possibly the same user. None of this is particularly related to you or a comment on your fitness for adminship; you're free to nominate yourself for adminship if you believe you should have it. --Delirium 07:21, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

What article exactly did he vandalize? I guess nominating me for adminship was just too much "troublemaking". In any case, I don't see why there was a need to remove the nomination so quickly, even though there is no doubt the Angela cabal will always muster enough votes to veto such a nomination. But I want to thank two of the coolest Wikipedians, Dori and Secretlondon, for their admirable groupthink-resistance. --Wik 19:17, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
There is no cabal. Angela. 23:08, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
I would be pleased to nominate you on my own account, Wik, if that fits in with your wishes. Frankly, I'm not sure that I'd vote for you. But then I'm not sure I'd vote against you either. I greatly admire your edits and your ruthless dedication to accuracy, but am less enamoured with your propensity to get into edit wars. (Yeah, pot, kettle, "he that is without sin, cast the first stone", all that stuff.) I thought about doing exactly that yesterday - i.e., replacing your (probably invalid) anon nomination with a (presumably valid) nomination of my own. But in the end I decided not to as I wasn't sure if you really wanted to deal with the wikistress of it all. Anyway, just say the word, and I'll nominate you. Or not, as you please. And vote for you? .... Maybe. I'm still thinking about that. Best wishes -- Tannin 08:08, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't see how you can nominate one without implicitly voting for him. In general, of course I could make use of the adminship, so if I were successfully nominated I'd accept. But that is unlikely given the known hostility of a number of users, who already called for my ban. --Wik 08:11, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

East Germany[edit]

Wik, please... cut out the pointless multiple reversions and edit wars. Even if/when your edit may be better, you wind up looking bad. Try discussing differences in talk, and if that doesn't work, try asking other wikipedians for their opinions. -- Infrogmation 07:21, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I care more about the quality of the articles than how I look. Asking other Wikipedians has never resolved an edit war I was in; what's needed is a formal arbitration procedure that would result in binding decisions on disputed content. --Wik 07:26, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry Wik - we are going to mostly focus on behavior. So listen to Infrogmation. --mav 07:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yes, he's trying to cut out alternate spellings in some of the cities that are in Bavaria, Germany.

Wik, what is the big problem with those alternate spellings in those articles about Germany? Please don't touch the articles until we get to some agreement over this. WhisperToMe 00:04, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Those are insignificant villages which are not "often called" anything in English. Just because every German ä, ö, ü can be rendered ae, oe, ue, does not mean we mention this in every article containing such letters. We don't have "Gerhard Schröder, often spelled in English Gerhard Schroeder" either. --Wik 00:11, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

But look at Hermann Goering... and besides, thanks for tipping me off. ;) And yes, we SHOULD mention this as the difference in spelling of names can be confusing for some. I know that people have been confused over multiple spellings of names, e.g. Akhilleus, an alt spelling of Achilles. WhisperToMe 00:49, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This shouldn't be in the article as it gives the false impression that it is a particular alternate spelling for that name. Redirects are OK, though. Feel free to create Schoellkrippen etc. --Wik 01:02, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

But it is an alternate spelling. Most people who speak English do not use the umlauts, so the spelling Goering is more commonly seen than Göring. Therefore, one should not that Goering is the spelling most often used in the English language. WhisperToMe 01:49, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree on that particular name, but I agree with Wik that we don't need this for every single German village that has an umlaut in its name. --Delirium 02:02, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'd add that while, say, fifty years ago, umlauts were rarely used in English, their use has been increasing tremendously in recent times. Many books now use Göring or Führer, rather than Goering or Fuehrer. (Goebbels, say, is a different matter, since that is how the name is spelled in German). john 02:20, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It depends on which name it is. E.G. Düsseldorf is most commonly spelled as just that in English, displacing Duesseldorf, while "Goering" is still more common than "Göring". WhisperToMe 02:33, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps over all. But in recent scholarly works, Göring is probably replacing Goering as the spelling of choice. Presumably this will eventually filter on down to the masses. john 03:17, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anthony DiPierro[edit]

Hi Wik,

please stop reverting all of Anthony's edits. Anthony is not officially banned. He has, in my opinion, done some trolling, but it will be up to the arbitration committee to decide whether this is grounds for banning. In the meantime, please treat Anthony with the same respect that you extend to other Wikipedians, and only revert edits when you really have to. Better yet, spend time doing something else entirely and let others deal with the problem.

Please also note that our guidelines recommend not to revert the same page more than 3 times a day.—Eloquence 21:17, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not reverting all of his edits, only the most stupid ones. And I don't see others dealing with the problem. As to the 3-revert guideline, it's not official and it doesn't make sense to me, so I'm not following it. --Wik 21:25, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

Stettin[edit]

Let's keep one name in the article okay? The Polish Szczecin is mentioned in the first sentence, and the German and English Stettin is used elsewhere. Jor 23:28, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stettin is not English. --Wik 00:12, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
It is the more common name. And most English speakers can't even pronounce Szczecin. Jor 00:22, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No it isn't. Google: "Stettin Poland" - 524, "Szczecin Poland" - 15,000. --Wik 00:23, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Words[edit]

Wik, please stop rv the defintion that was used ... and is explained by wordspy. Wordspy is an authority on words; it is the exact explainations. Sincerely, JDR [as an expample, it is used in the google article ... http://www.wordspy.com/words/google.asp in the links ...]

No, it isn't. It's just some website. It's OK as an external link, but not within the article. --Wik 19:49, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Wik here; I'd never even heard of this website, so I searched for it on Alexa.com (amazon.com's website traffic ranking service), and this site is barely on the radar: [7] -DropDeadGorgias 20:55, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
199 Alexa is not "barely on the radar." Wikipedia is around 800. - Hephaestos|§ 20:58, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oops, I'm a moron, I included the wrong link. Here's the right one: [8] - it ranks something like 36,000. -DropDeadGorgias 19:25, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't take a side. But please please don't just revert the edit by saying only 'rv'. Such revertion is immediately followed by another revertion. -- Taku 20:48, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
Look at the edit history. I made my point before. --Wik 20:49, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
Not everyone is closely involved in edits. -- Taku 20:50, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

I unbanned you. I feel I need to protect you from the US right. Hope you don't mind. Secretlondon 20:50, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Of course not. Thanks. It's great to have you here. --Wik 21:05, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, I've protected Pila now. Can you please stop and converse with the people you are reverting? Follow Wikipedia:Conflict resolution. If you feel it's broken down, request comments, request mediation, do what you have to do. Just please stop the revert wars. I know, it takes two sides. I'm asking you not to be one of those sides right now. Let's settle things. Thanks, Wik. Jwrosenzweig 20:56, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I made my point. The Google stats clearly prove that it is not the German name today. Nico didn't react to that. Furthermore, I announced a slowdown in the reverts precisely to defuse the edit war. And what's the thanks for that? Since Nico immediately reverted, you now protected the Wrong Version! --Wik 21:05, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
A google result of exactly 262 is irrelevant as a source of German usage. The German name of the city is surely Scheidemühl. The fact that some people may use a foreign (local) name on the internet does not make any difference. You, a Pole (I guess), have no right to decide which names can be used in German. Nico 21:19, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
262 for the one, and only 6 for the other, is certainly statistically relevant. Schneidemühl is no longer used. It has gone out of business. It is history. It is an ex-name. --Wik 21:27, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
Am I just in a humorous mood today, or were you alluding to the Dead Parrot sketch there? Anyhow, Wik, I'm sorry you feel I protected the wrong version...of course, your versions have been protected by me in the past, and no one has complained to me about it. Anyhow, auto-reverting a page every hour isn't really an end to the edit war....it's just a way of trying to keep it stealthy and unnoticed on RC, in my opinion. I don't see that agreeing to only launch attacks every three days would make war any less warlike than attacking everyday would. Maybe I missed something. I hope though that your note above indicates a general desire to avoid edit wars...you really need to, in my humble opinion. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 21:36, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you, but people have told me previously that edit wars are bad precisely because they clutter up RC. That's why they came up with the 3-revert rule, which of course does nothing to solve an edit war and only stretches it out. So I thought it would be appreciated if I reverted only once an hour. Apparently I was wrong, so I will revert immediately again next time. I want to avoid edit wars, but if the other side can't be reasoned with, and there is no arbitration system for content disputes, I have no other option (except leaving things stand which I know are wrong, and that I refuse to do; if I'm banned for that, so be it). (You are right about the parrot. To get the correct version through can be as difficult here as it is for the man in the sketch to get a replacement for his dead parrot. Sometimes it's even as futile as the attempt of the man in the cheese shop to get some cheese.) --Wik 21:51, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

You need to chill out - Anthony is not worth being banned for. Secretlondon 23:14, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think his trolling is obvious enough for him to be banned before me. --Wik 23:16, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
I think they'll ban both of you. Even though Anthony is clearly worse. Secretlondon 23:18, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

To continue the original discussion... [9] shows that this city is really named Pila, so what's wrong with getting rid of the old name? ugen64 02:41, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on Talk:Pila. --Wik 16:52, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Dear Wik, why dont you just lay low for a while, to allow everybody else's adrenaline levels to normal? You can help me fix the Punic Wars and subpages. There are so many things to be done! And since its such a boring subject its edit war free! Tell me what you think, all the best, Muriel 10:47, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • please dont start rverting again. If you want to see Anthony banned or something, atracting sympathy to his cause is not going to help. And this is the last time i bother you! Muriel 16:40, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
He started reverting. --Wik 16:42, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
Every time I see you getting into revert wars, I think of all the existing and new articles that you could be using your considerable talents in improving without annoying people or making enemies. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:59, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Revert wars are about improving articles. I don't care if I annoy trolls, or those people who can't discern trolls from serious editors. --Wik 17:05, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

German names[edit]

I see you are allowed back. Are you going to continue removing all German names from German towns currently in Poland, or claiming they are historical names only? If that's the case, I'll just wait until you are banned again before correcting your misinformation, I'm tired of your revert wars. Jor 16:47, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are you going to stop lying? I have never removed a German name. That they are historical only is an incontrovertible fact. You might have missed a little event in 1945. --Wik 16:52, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion[edit]

How about instead of constantly reverting, you do it once, if you get reverted, put the page and maybe the diff in a list of your own (call it "Articles that I think are innaccurate" or whatever). Keep making other good contributions like you do (new articles, info, spelling, catching vandalisms, copyediting of). There is plenty of things that need fixing on Wikipedia that no one would argue with. As it looks to me, the reversions do not contribute anything worthwhile to wikipedia. It seems to me that where you are likely to get into a revert war is in matters of convention and inclusions of different names. This may be important in the long term, but it is not important in the short term. I think you are a very good contributor, and you could make Wikipedia better if you stopped engaging in these wasteful revert wars. Obviously it is your time to spent as you please. If however your goal is to make Wikipedia better, I would suggest changing course. I really think that your behavior is hurting Wikipedia a lot more than any innacuracies or unconventionalities do. Just let the process work for a while. Report users you think are making bad edits and see if mediation/arbitration works. Give it a couple of months, and then you can go back to the old behavior if it doesn't work. You'll have your target list as I mentioned above and you can continue to shoot from the hip. Of course the changes others make, may nag you to the point that you just can't let it go, but I hope that's not the case. Also, I guess you may disagree with me on which behavior improves and hurts Wikipedia more. Just some friendly advice, Dori | Talk 17:23, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

What hurts Wikipedia is the tolerance of all kinds of trolls, POV pushers, and morons. Ignoring them doesn't help. Is it better to have an apparent peace and an uncluttered RC while under the surface one article after the other is damaged? The list you suggest would just get longer and longer, and what am I supposed to do with it? If I later were to revert all of it at once it would be even more disrupting. A revert war is not wasteful if the right side prevails, as I have many times; it was me who made that Indian POV-pusher give up after reverting 2002 Gujarat violence a hundred times, otherwise this article would still be full of nonsense today, and not only that, the person would have been encouraged to spread his POV onto more and more articles. Ultimately trolls and POV pushers are less determined than one who cares about the truth. As I said over and over, I wish there was a way to avoid edit wars other than just giving in to the trolls - but this would require a system of content arbitration. As long as no one seems to be interested in that, I can't be blamed for edit wars. No one, not even Jimbo (see above on this page), has ever explicitly answered me this: what am I to do when I am in a conflict with someone who insists on something I am certain is wrong, and who cannot be reasoned with, and not enough other people are getting involved? 1) Let the error stand, or 2) Edit war? --Wik 18:03, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
Arbitration is also for content disputes, so I would say let the error stand, until it is resolved. All disputes result from the content of some page. As I said, I wouldn't want the pages to degenerate, but the wiki process is to use the conglomeration of many knowledgeable individuals to make pages better. Answer this, what if you get banned? Will those pages be any better than if you hadn't reverted them? I would say no, but at the same time your other contributions will have been lost, and this would hurt Wikipedia more. I am not saying that bad editors should be allowed to roam, but rather that it needs to be an orderly process. Also, I don't think name-calling helps anyone. I think mediation/arbitration is currently broken, but it was just the first attempt, and it can be fixed IMO. You just have to give it time. Dori | Talk 18:12, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
That is not my understanding. Mav said on this page: "we are going to mostly focus on behavior". And indeed, the present arbitration committee is probably not qualified for content arbitration. A content arbitration committee would have to consist of editors recognized for their knowledge in the various fields, not for their experience in wikipolitics. I agree there should be an orderly process, I just don't see it in the near future. So if edit wars underline the need for it and speed up the establishment of such a process, that's a good thing. As to what if I'm banned - in that case Wikipedia would have indicted itself so that I would just give up on it for the time being, though I would expect that sooner or later (though it may take years) either Wikipedia would adopt better governance or there would be a successful fork with better governance (which essentially would mean zero tolerance for trolls and other useless users who tyrannize the real editors). --Wik 18:34, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
Well, focussing on behavior does not preclude focussing on vandalistic (?), trolling, POV, inaccurate editing, etc behaviors. The arbitration committee does not need to know directly whether the content is valid. Each side has to provide evidence for their claims, and the committee can look at the evidence and decide who is right. Content that cannot be verified shouldn't be in Wikipedia anyway. Also, if you took more time to converse with other editors (not necessarily those you have a conflict with), to explain your position, and solicit their help, I think you would fare a lot better in getting yourself taken more seriously, as well as getting issues resolved. I would strongly suggest you show up on IRC from time to time and chat with other editors there. This is after all a Wiki and one person cannot do it alone. Dori | Talk 18:57, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
I tried that before without success. The result is always that a page is protected, and then nothing happens, as one side will be satisfied to have its version protected and not feel the need to discuss anything. Or can I ask you to unprotect Pila and defend my edit, which I have backed up with Google figures but which Nico and Darkelf, two German-revisionists, like to revert based on nothing but empty claims? And this is indeed a wiki - which is why I don't like extra-wiki forums like mailing lists or IRC which just help form cabals. I want to abolish cabals not become part of them. --Wik 19:09, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
I can look at the issue on Pila if the other editors also want me to take a look and would agree for me to resolve the issue. If they won't accept that, then there is no point in removing the protection because another revert war will ensue, and I hate revert wars. Most of these naming issues could be resolved by explaining what has happened (i.e. this was the name from so and so, it changed to so after so, now it is so...) Sure it would be ugly, but that's still encyclopedic in value as it gives a part of the history.
I also hate the mailing lists, but IRC is different. You can't have a real time conversation on a wiki. Dori | Talk 21:32, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Paid you 5 wikis for MPs elected in the UK general election, 1974 (October) - sorry it took me a while to notice. Secretlondon 23:15, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, I'd hate to see you get banned over something as idiotic as Yellow Pig Day. Please choose your battles, there is always more to do on Wikipedia than any person has time to do. Reverting over and over again is not a discussion, nor an arguement. It looks like you're just trying to get your way by brute force. I notice you've been reverting people like Angela and MyRedDice, who I hope even you will not dismiss as being "trolls" or "vandals". I'm starting to loose my patience with you. -- Infrogmation 00:52, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I notice you think anyone who reverts Angela or MyRedDice must be wrong automatically. The fact is that I gave my reason repeatedly, and they reverted me without discussion. You may want to tell Angela or MyRedDice to choose their battles, or to stop trying to get their way by brute force. Finally RickK of all people deleted the page. I was perfectly right about the issue. This page would have been deleted long before if it hadn't been deleted from VfD by Anthony, causing the recent edit war over VfD, which derailed the normal processing of that item. --Wik 00:57, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
"I notice you think anyone who reverts Angela or MyRedDice must be wrong automatically." Hunh? You are jumping to an incorrect assumption there, unsupported by the text you have read. Where in the world did you get that conclusion? Or are you stating something you believe is false, intending your comment as sarcasm? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 01:09, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Then why did you say "I notice you've been reverting people like Angela and MyRedDice, who I hope even you will not dismiss as being "trolls" or "vandals". I'm starting to loose my patience with you."? Seems like you were condemning the very idea of reverting Angela or MyRedDice. --Wik 01:14, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
I said "I notice you've been reverting people like Angela and MyRedDice, who I hope even you will not dismiss as being "trolls" or "vandals" because you have tried to defend your multiple revert practice as necessary agains trolls and vandals, and I hoped you would recognize that not everyone you revert can reasonably be put in that category. Is that any clearer? Sometimes you seem to be struggling to create unstated (and unintended) meanings to add to my comment. The "must be wrong automatically" and "condemning the very idea of reverting Angela or MyRedDice" seems to me like you are pulling in ideas out of thin air. This is one of the things that mistifies me about you Wik: your reading comprehension seems so excellent one minute, and so poor the next. Returning to your question, I said "I'm starting to loose my patience with you." because I have been starting to loose patience with you. -- Infrogmation 05:19, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well, that's brilliant logic, you are losing your patience with me because you're losing my patience with me. Are you suggesting that your last two sentences were not connected? Was I wrong to assume that you're losing your patience with me because I revert Angela and MyRedDice? And, if so, does it not follow that you think it is bad to revert Angela and MyRedDice? (And if not, what other reason causes you to lose your patience with me?) I have never said I revert only trolls and vandals, though that is certainly the bulk of the problem. --Wik 05:25, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
You asked me why I wrote it, I explained that I wrote it because it was true. That last sentence was connected equally to all the other sentence of the paragraph as to reasons for my diminishing patience. My diminishing patience is connected to your continued proclivity to get into edit wars, and to my perception that you are wasting much of your energies in heated conflicts over trivialities. I wish to add that my diminishing patience is also connected to my frustration with myself for spending time trying to give you advice that will improve relations for both you and many other valuable contributors and lessen the likelyhood of your being banned. I may well have been wasting my time. Right now, though, I'm feeling more amused than impatient. I'm amused that you seem to think you know what I mean better than I do. I'm amused that I got an edit conflict when last I tried to post here because you were having an edit war on your own talk page. You and Anthony have both stated that you disagree with the proposition that multiple revert are bad for the Wikipedia. Perhaps we should fork a new project out, the "Revertpedia" or "Wikirevertrevert", where you and others of this opinion could spend all your time reverting each other. As for me, I'm going to find some different trivia for my attention now. Cheers, -- amused Infrogmation 05:41, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"This page would have been deleted long before if it hadn't been deleted from VfD by Anthony, causing the recent edit war over VfD, which derailed the normal processing of that item. " Quite possibly. It might have been deleted sooner without the distraction of your multiple reverts as well. -- Infrogmation 01:11, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No, nothing was happening. I asked for its deletion on the Village Pump to no effect. --Wik 01:14, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

I notice that you have requested the arbitration of Dark Elf. If you wish to be represented by an advocate in the matter, please see Wikipedia:Office of Members' Advocates. -- Emsworth 19:18, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Why did you delete The Dullness of 1729? RickK 04:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anthony is an obvious troll, I revert him on principle. --Wik 04:11, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
Not an acceptable answer. This cannot stand. RickK 04:12, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It stands as long as I'm here. --Wik 04:13, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
And it will be reverted and page protected as long as I'm here. RickK 04:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Unless you get a consensus that this is the proper response to Anthony, blanket reverting another user's edits regardless of content is a fast track to getting blocked again. -- Infrogmation 19:01, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I unblocked you as I felt you were getting a hard time. However you have to help yourself. Anthony is clearly disruptive to the project, but why waste your time fighting him? Some people will even protect Anthony because he's fighting you. You need to concentrate on writing good articles (which I know you do) and less time fighting trolls and morons. You seem to be your own worse enemy at the moment. Please lay off the reversion wars, you are getting on everyone's nerves (myself included). Secretlondon 19:05, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

And let the trolls loose? Someone has to fight them, I wish someone else would do it. Just consider Alexandros, without my vigilance he would be sysop by now. In any case, RickK's unilateral ban was squarely against the rules, and I appreciate your reversal. I know it's possible that I get officially banned, but I take that risk. If Jimbo or the committee decide that an archtroll like Anthony is valued more than one of the most prolific contributors, that is their choice to make. --Wik 19:23, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

If you do it again, I will block you again. RickK 19:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Let's move forward. Anthony is pissing people off. Why don't we propose that the committee consider Anthony's banning? Once he's banned we can all revert his edits Secretlondon 19:39, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. But the committee doesn't seem to move at the moment. They take only Jimbo's referrals, and it's hard to get Jimbo's ear. I'll try anyway. By the way, if you're getting a hard time for unblocking me, I understand if you don't do it next time. I don't want you to be the next to be banned (or desysopped). --Wik 19:49, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
Wik. You know what I think of your behavior, and I am afraid you are not willing to take the least advice from me. Nevertheless, I would like to tell you that this kind of polarisation that you are trying to propagate ("good" vs. "bad" sysops) will make you even more unpopular, and I shouldn't wonder if you were blocked again and again in violation of protocols, in which case I predict that everybody would be rather relieved to see such drastic measures being applied to you. I suggest you don't let it come to that. You don't gain much by annoying everybody, including those who still defend you. Kosebamse 20:06, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I am saying what I think, popular or not. And I do happen to think that there are good and bad sysops. As to violation of protocols, tell that to Hephaestos, Ed, and RickK who banned me against the rules. (Yes, those are "bad" sysops.) --Wik 20:10, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
You might wish to waste a thought on the question why such excellent sysops went that far. No, it's not because they are "bad sysops". You are exceptional in your desire to dominate, and if they decided that it would be appropriate to violate procedures in order to stop you from damaging Wikipedia even further, that only demonstrates the quality of their judgement. Kosebamse 20:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
That comment only demonstrates that your mind is set up and you are incapable of even entertaining the thought that maybe they aren't excellent sysops. You are explicitly saying that violating the rules is OK if the right people do it! As to me "damaging Wikipedia", well, that comment is just beyond the pale to be worth of a reply. I guess you also think Anthony is a just fine contributor. And black is white. --Wik 20:25, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
It is my experience that tells me they are excellent sysops and that their judgement is to be trusted. I have been here long before you, and so have Ed and Hephaestos (not sure about Rick). I don't say it's okay what they did, but it's understandable in view of your reckless behavior. Extraordinary challenges, extraordinary measures, sad as it may be. You are damaging Wikipedia by your total disregard of civility and discussion and your inability to avoid silly wars. I won't discuss your cheap polemics. Kosebamse 20:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please grow up and learn to discuss and compromise. These are skills that are beneficial to adults in today's international community. silsor 23:03, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

I have discussed. I don't see room for a compromise here. It's a case of blatant self-promotion. If anyone needs to grow up, it's probably one who pretends to have an empire in his living room. --Wik 23:05, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, I am unblocking you. But you have to be on good behavior. I'm not going to help you out again. Basically, I'd suggest not reverting pages simply because a user you don't like has modified them. If Anthony posts something bad, by all means change it, but don't do it simply for the purpose of reverting it. I'd also suggest that posting in the talk page as to why you are taking action is a good idea (not to persuade Mr. DiPierro, but to persuade others not to block you). Why don't you work on other stuff, and leave the edit wars alone, at least for a while? john 04:39, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

Hi Wik, RickK has requested mediation between you and him on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Are you willing to accept this request? If so, please could you express any preferences regarding who should mediate this dispute. The members of Wikipedia:Mediation Committee are the recommended choice, but you may ask anyone if you like. Please state whether there are any mediators that are acceptable to you, or any that you would refuse to accept. You may also e-mail me or any of the other mediators if you do not want your concerns publically posted and this communication will kept as private as you like. Our e-mail addresses are listed at Wikipedia:Mediation committee. If you choose not to accept mediation, please state this on the page or let one of the mediators know. Thank you. Angela. 12:30, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo has already made clear that the vigilantism must stop. And otherwise, my issues with Anthony are not Rick's business; besides, I have already asked for arbitration on those. Rick is clearly out to have me banned, and I don't see how any mediation could change his mind on this, so I'm not interested. --Wik 17:36, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. Angela. 00:01, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

p.s. I forgot to say thanks for spotting that Alexandros was Sennheiser and averting a potential RFA disaster. :)

Didn't you support him even after he admitted it? --Wik 17:36, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but supporting him knowing it was Alexandros, not Sennheiser, is a very different thing in my opinion. He wouldn't have been made one anyway, even with my supporting vote as so many people were against it as a result of your suggestion the two were the same person. It avoided the issues of this being found out later which would have undoubtedly led to a lengthy de-sysopping discussion. Angela. 00:01, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration[edit]

Perhaps you could help keep an eye on user:OneVoice [10]. He is determined to give articles a pro-Israel/anti-Arab slant wherever he can. Sometimes it is subtle, other times blatant. Thanks. -- Viajero 21:05, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But that would mean getting into edit wars with him. Some people don't like that. --The Incorrigible Wik 22:48, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
My point is that if you are going get into edit wars, why waste your time with a silly troll like Anthony? This is target far more worthy of your attention. Glad to see you keep up with the mailing list. ;-) -- Viajero 23:28, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Gödel machine[edit]

That wasn't a minor edit of Gödel machine.  :-) Paul Beardsell 07:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I just moved the "proposed" inside the main text. That seemed out of place. --Wik 07:29, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

It is this type of misinformation which is much more dangerous than the likes of that of Arthur T Murray on the AI page. But then, in my view, it is the whole of Science that needs to be on its guard. And, in this case, the Swiss tax payer! Paul Beardsell 07:34, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

evidence[edit]

Please add your evidence to Wikipedia:Matter of Anthony DiPierro evidence and/or Wikipedia:Matter of Wik evidence. Specifically please track down specific diffs and add them to that page and explain what the problems are. You may want to work together with other users in order to create a summary of the evidence. The arbitration committee cannot decide an issue based on statements (statements are only a starting point) - we need evidence. --mav 04:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

invitation[edit]

Please see Talk:American twenty dollar bill. You get this invitation because your name appears in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (US vs American). Feel free to ignore if you are disinterested. - Optim 05:11, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

List of Green Party issues[edit]

Hi Wik, the "List of Green Party issues" got started by me with the goal in mind to list all articles concerning green party issues. One problem was that most of the articles can be found also by at least one redirect; sometimes seemingly equal articles (Green party vs. Green Party vs. Green parties) weren't redirects (they are now), but entirely different articles. The same with some of the parties listed by native name. To avoid confusion and to ease the work of editors concerned with green party issues, I decided to include a list of the "also known as" for each entry, so it is easy to see if something isn't correct yet. I don't think it is a problem for readers to have some lists attached, and it helps editors. If you don't think this is true, I would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on Talk:List of Green Party issues instead of deciding and starting what easily could become an edit war. Maybe there are good reasons for not listing the redirects and aliases -- but at the moment, I don't see them (and even if one wants to do this, one should find a coherent way to list the parties -- by english name or by native name, etc.). till we *) 12:32, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You need to go to the [11] page and vote regarding the changes some are trying to make there.

Hey Wik, I very much like the 1920 in Germany, 1921 in France, and so forth pages. What's the source you're using for those, though? The style seems rather antiquated, so I assume it's a near contemporary source of some sort? john 19:48, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's mainly adapted from the Annual Register of the time. --Wik 23:35, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Hey WiK - When you have a moment, could you leave a comment at Talk:Zviad Gamsakhurdia#Request for Comment? I noticed that you reverted Levzur's removal of a paragraph - he deleted it again (after reverts by others as well). --mav 05:02, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Wiki - seconded. :-) I was about to ask for your views when I noticed that Mav had beaten me to the punch... Anyway, your thoughts would be most welcome. -- ChrisO 08:30, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Danzig[edit]

Wik, do you really think Danzig ought to be a disambiguation page? It seems to me that nearly all references to Danzig will be to the city, rather than to the band, which is not especially well known. What's wrong with a redirect with a disambiguation notice at the top? john 05:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't like disambiguation notices that don't correspond to the actual title of a page. And the existing links to Danzig could be changed to go directly to Gdansk. --Wik 05:50, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

That's true. I suppose this is a better solution, but we should work to change all the Danzig links to Gdansk. john 05:52, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've made a start on changing the links, but there's a ton of them. john 06:04, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Finished. --Wik 06:14, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

I left a question for you on Talk:One thousand seven hundred twenty-nine. -- Toby Bartels 04:07, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I believe that you have previously requested arbitration against RickK, and possibly others. If you wish to make a statement on the matter at wikipedia:Matter of Wik, that would be very helpful. Thanks. Martin 21:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Since this is treated simply as the "Matter of Wik", which probably means that any judgement can only go against me, I don't think it would be worthwhile to make a case against others. I requested arbitration against Anthony, but this matter has not been accepted. --Wik 22:36, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

The arbitrators currently have the freedom to Decree anything they like. Further, "Matter of Wik" naturally includes both your actions, and the actions of others towards you. No man is an island. However, if you do not feel that commenting would be an efficient use of your time, that is not a problem.

You may wish to answer any allegations against yourself that you feel are inaccurate or dated, or else accept criticism where you feel it is accurate. Again, if you feel this would be a waste of your time, we will manage without. Martin 22:54, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jumping in... it seems that you're being heard first, and anthony's case will either get accepted or rejected by the committee after that. You weren't expecting the arbitration committee to say that one of the two of you is right and the other is wrong were you? Both your actions and his impact on the whole community, a great many other users are involved. You might choose to make a statement in defence of your actions without lodging complaints against other users – there's an empty section at Wikipedia:Matter of Wik waiting for your input.  :) Have you seen Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates? fabiform | talk 22:59, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Friendly warning[edit]

Removing entire sections full of facts that don't sertve your political agenda is not the way to improve encyclopedia. You will be stopped from vandalizing either easy way or hard way. Your choice. Consider yourself warned. --Humus sapiens 22:08, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wik/Archive_February_2004&oldid=572210762"