User talk:Wik/Archive March 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Boyerism

You keep on describing things others have invented, and with which I have either very little, or indeed no connexion, as "Boyerisms." This term is misleading (when it is applied to the inventions, theories and techniques generated by others and in which I have played either no, or a decided minor role) and inaccurate. Please either justify the use of this term or abandon it is an implicit admission of an anti-Daniel C. Boyer bias. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:43, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why I remove stuff from VfD

VfD is ansolutley huge now. I make sure I leave things that are likely to be deleted on for the full five days, but weed out stuff that isn't going to get consensus early in order to shorten the page. If an article is rewritten for example, then votes before it are invalid. theresa knott 14:10, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rewriting doesn't make a difference when the topic is irrelevant. And things should stay for five days unless the votes are nearly unanimous. --Wik 14:15, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

I see you are talking about yes-no pen. There are four seperate people who want to keep this article. I removed it because i felt there was no way that anyone was going to delete with so many keep votes. Still no harm done, clearly you feel strongly about it, so you restored it. As for nearly unanimous, i completely agree when it comes to deleting stuff. I would never delete something before the 5 days is up even if everyone agreed it should go (vandalism, and newbie tests excepted)But when it comes to stuff that is not going to be deleted I remove it early.

That's ridiculous- it should definitely be left the entire five days. For one thing, by the fifth day, the article will have risen to the top of the page, so its possible that more people will have the chance to see it. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:30, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
Not true, often the top of the page is over five days old because of difficult articles where admins can't decide if they should delete or not. Then someone brave comes along and deletes a whole batch. You are actually backing up my argument if you think about it. The reason that people don't read the whole page is because it's too long. This is why I removed stuff that isn't going to get deleted. We have to be pragmatic here, the page is too long theresa knott 17:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
How can you predict that something "isn't going to get deleted"? Just because something seems likely not to get deleted based on the votes so far you shouldn't remove it before the five days are up. --Wik 17:43, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
Look we can argue about this all day. I've said just about everything i can on the subject. The guide to admins says look for a "rough consensus". It doesn't say what "rough consensus" actually means though. I take it to mean that there are no reasonable arguments for keeping. Clearly you think otherwise. It doesn't to my mind present a problem because you feel strongly enough about it to revert me. So where is the harm? theresa knott 18:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
So you won't delete anything as long as one person makes a "reasonable" argument? The harm is that I have to restore the things you remove, so I would prefer if you don't remove them in the first place. --Wik 18:09, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
You don't have to do anything. You don't even have to be here. - Hephaestos|§ 18:13, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Personally no. I don't delete stuff if there is a "reasonable" argument to keep. But we are not really discussing deletion here, though. We are discussing removing from VfD. In the case of the pen, there was a reasonable argument to keep - cyan vouches that such pens exist. Plus there were 3 other votes to keep the article. So I judged that no admin was likely to delete the article. Like I said it's pragmatism.
I'll tell you what - if I remove an article on VfD before the 5 days is up I'll put a note on whoever nominated the article explaining my reasons along with a link for easy reverion. That way I am, doing the leg work, you don't have to check up, and can easily revert if you think i made an error. Is that reasonable ? theresa knott 18:20, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, if it's me who nominated the article you can safely assume that I oppose its premature removal, so just leave it there. As to the yes-no pen, Cyan's argument is completely unrasonable. So what if such pens exist? I never said they don't. The point is they are irrelevant.
What is your basis for saying they're irrelevant? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:25, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Completely fails the Google test. As it is not something historical, but supposedly something that exists today, it should have a significant number of hits on Google, otherwise it's irrelevant. --Wik 19:28, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
This is completely ridiculous. The extent to which Google is viewed as an authority here is threatening to make Wikipedia simply a rehash of topics indexed in Google. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:31, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Lots of things exist, that alone is not sufficient reason to have an article on them. Nor do I understand your argument that if four people vote to keep, it won't or shouldn't be deleted. Four people also voted to delete - by the same logic you could say that's reason enough that it shouldn't be kept. Personally I don't understand the bias in favour of keeping - the decisions should be made by simple majority. But in any case 2/3 must be sufficient, and if a vote stands at 4-4 after 3 days it is not impossible that it gets 4 more votes to delete (and none to keep) in the remaining two days, bringing it to a 2/3 majority. --Wik 18:37, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
Policy is consensus not 2/3 majority. I completely agree and support ths policy and would oppose anything approaching 2/3 majority for the simple reason that it is impoosible to "vote" fairly here on wikipedia. There is absolutely nothing to stop people creating sock puppet accounts, most people don't vote at all, some people vote for the wrong reasons (i.e. to make a point rather than careing about the actual articles), and there is nothing to stop people from recreating an article once it has been deleted. Plus the whole point of wikipedia is to include all knowledge. Deleting pages therfore is an occasional necessary evil, not something that should be taken lightly.theresa knott 20:19, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing to stop us from excluding sock puppet votes.
I agree that sock puppet votes (if we have definite or quite convincing evidence that they are sock puppet votes) should be excluded. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The other points apply to the present system just the same: most people don't comment at all, some people make points rather than caring about the actual articles. Recreating an article that was deleted should make it liable to instant deletion. As to including all knowledge, the question of what is knowledge and what is irrelevant fluff should be decided democratically, since that is a subjective question where there simply is no consensus to be found. I don't understand the logic of saying we only delete articles if we have a consensus to delete, but not to keep articles only if there is a consensus to keep. Just as with disputed article content, consensus is to be preferred but where this can not be reached, there has to be some kind of majority decision. --Wik 20:38, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Wik. That's not the current policy. If you want to change the policy, I suggest expressing your views in the poll at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, as I suspect Eloquence's proposal may be in line with your wishes. Martin 21:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

can you please stop putting my name on the de-admin page. the information is not true. there was no discussion or vote Kils 12:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] De-sysopping

As I said, I'm not into the case, but at a first glance at Wikipedia:De-adminship, it seems to me these stories are posted like a deterring warning signs to others. This is a highly unconfortable impression, but I guess it was not written to be; but - if you can take offence from it, it should be reformulated. When I see Wikipedia: in the title, I think 'policy' (this should be taken seriously); having semi-personal disputes laid out on such a page only infects the disputes. I don't really see why we have that little page summing up 'pedia-history of sysops crashing -- we should redirect it to WP:Rfd-adminship, I think. — Sverdrup (talk) 21:02, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Sverdrup. Kils 22:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not at all interested in the dispute you had with other sysops. True or not, it's not in my point. — Sverdrup (talk) 11:01, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wik and Anthony, would you please stop making so many edits without summary to VfD in a short time, as that makes it difficult to decide whether you have returned to your hobby of editwarring in that particularly inappropriate place. Kosebamse 17:01, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 1729

Hi,

Would you mind telling me why you're against moving the paradox out of 1729 (number)? Not that I care much, but I want to edit the taxicab part without running into your revert wars (and edit conflicts). -- Arvindn 18:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, saw your comment on the talk page. Nevermind. -- Arvindn 18:11, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VENEZUELA

hi wik, this is obarraiz from venezuela. do you have any connection with my country or you know anything about hugo chavez? i was just wondering because if you do i will be interested in talking. things down here are turning very critical and democracy is on risk.

[edit] hey

hey wik, i am kind of new in wikipedia, do you think i am doing okey with my articles?

I think you have a bit of an anti-Chávez bias. Try to keep the articles neutral. --Wik 00:42, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, ofcourse i am anti chavist. But although i to have try to be neutral and thats completely true and i recognize it. Bolivarian Circles have been going all around the city for days shooting neighborhoods. Ive seen it, and the situation that i put in Chavez article concerning 2004 electoral caos is totally true, why you erase it? this should be a litte more open source. If you want to be better informed about Chavez regime you should read International Anministy Venezuelan last report. Maybe you can try with OAS "Fraud electoral inform" or Washington´s Post todays editorial, they all agree with one thing; Chavez democracy is not very clear legally speaking.

What's very clear is that Chávez was democratically elected, and his opponents tried to stage a coup with U.S. backing. What I removed was your biased version of the events; that the Bolivarian Circles are "shooting neighborhoods" is obviously just your point of view, others disagree. See for example [1] for another point of view. --Wik 14:16, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Please explain why you are reverting Bauder's edits at East Germany. Nico 01:54, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If I see one more "rv" from you within the next 10 minutes I'm going to personally ban you. Consider this a fair warning. This is not a kindergarten, we discuss things around here.—Eloquence

Then why don't you answer my questions on Talk:McFly? And who do you think you are? Jimbo? If you ban me, someone else will just unban me. --Wik 15:39, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
We'll see.—Eloquence
I was just coming over to say the same thing as Eloquence. You can't just follow people around and revert their edits for no particular reason. BCorr ? Брайен 15:41, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
But I guess you can ignore due process of VfD. --Wik 15:43, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Please stop trying to unilaterally change policy at Wikipedia:Protected page. - Hephaestos|§ 20:06, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not changing policy, I'm describing reality. --Wik 20:18, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 10,000

Congratulations on your 10,000th edit! (I'm a bit late, though) -- Kokiri 23:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, it was the 10,000th watchlist entry...meaning I have edited 10,000 different articles (altogether over 17,000 edits). --Wik 00:02, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] edit wars

Wik, Could you please find a way to stop yourself from entering an edit war? A review of Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot is always helpful. There are any number of ways to avoid edit wars. Kingturtle 02:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Avoid edit wars = leave POV or vandalism in place. --Wik 14:43, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

I don't mean to make an issue out of it (Fiji coup of 2000), but isn't it a standard rule of English writing that TITLES are supposed to be capitalized (except for articles prepositions, and conjunctions)? I am, after all, an English teacher. I am very much aware that multitudes of pages on Wikipedia do not conform to this practice, but any page that I edit will be made to conform to it, unless there is a clear Wikipedia policy to the contrary. Is there? Davidcannon 01:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

De facto Wikipedia style is to avoid unnecessary capitalization. It makes sense to distinguish proper names from arbitrary constructions. --Wik 01:29, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

Upper Silesia Plebiscite I think that it would have been better to have the article NPOV and be only a link in 1921 in Germany. Cautious 15:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind a separate article about the plebiscite which can go into further detail, but the section in 1921 in Germany needs to remain because the rest of the article refers to it, and the article is supposed to describe all important events of the year in one flow, without forcing the reader to follow links to other articles. --Wik 16:03, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

http://www.geocities.com/progressivepix/wikiwatch Venceremos 10:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Danzig-Westpreußen was not occupied, but a legal part of Germany. So please stop inserting your POV in the Steinbach article. I will defend that article. Nico 20:35, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Szczecin and former German name

Dear Wik, Thank you for once again causing protecting of Szczecin page. Thank you for disregarding my pleas of refraing from editing Szczecin, and for not using the Talk page. Thank you for not saying why are you changed the name. Finally thank you for for extensive checking of sources in order to change the name. Google in German gets 135,000 hits for Stettin, while Szczecin gets 29,200 hits. I am deeply indebted to you. There is major difference between Poznan and Szczecin. Poznan is a capitol of Greater Poland and it was German due to Partitions, it was in a sense liberated from German occupation. Szczecin is Polish due to Yalta treaty and was German at least from 16th century (and initial slavic name was Stetin by the way.) I shall copy this to Talk:Szczecin, feel free to reply in any page you wish.Przepla 17:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I said all there is to it before. You're searching wrong, the numbers of "Stettin Polen" (2,750) and "Szczecin Polen" (2,440) are about equal, so you can't simply say it's the German name today. --Wik 18:02, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Responded on Talk:Szczecin Przepla 19:12, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Erika Steinbach once again

Steinbach was born in Rahmel in West Prussia in Germany. Please see the official Bundestag biography: http://www.bundestag.de/mdb15/bio/S/steiner0.html Your unjustified reversions are inappropriate. Nico 18:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • moved to Talk Poznan by Ruhrjung 18:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Every edit conflict has a winner and a loser. I don't see why I should always be the loser. Adam 00:29, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. If you get the edit conflict screen, you are responsible for merging the edits correctly. If you consider that "losing", well it happens to everyone. You just don't notice it when you "win" and the other person gets into the same situation. --Wik 00:34, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Andalucia gets plenty of Google hits as an English spelling. I suspect it's displacing Andalusia as people favour more authentic spellings for foreign placenames in English (note the increased use of Milano in English for example). Adam 03:27, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Redrwan awards

Dear Wik, sick and tired of correcting typos? Add the funniest ones to the Redrwan awards! (Kingturtle created this one to award me for my silliest typo ever.) Cheers, Muriel 10:06, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sealand

Hi Wik, why is adding Sealand to List of countries nonsense? -- Schnee 22:31, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not a country. Want to add Atlantium too? --Wik 22:33, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
Why isn't it a country? They at least *think* they're one.. -- Schnee 23:23, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Gene Poole thinks he has a country in his living room too. The problem is no real country recognizes it. --Wik 23:30, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Plank

What you are doing isn't nice. I also see no precedent, as sock puppets are technically allowed. Even the arbitrators use them. Please keep in mind that this is a volunteer site, and that we must accept a certain give and take when dealing with volunteers. The important thing is to consider the cost/benifit ratio. Mr. Plank is clearly worth the costs involved, and harassing him unduely would seem to be minimal in its benifit. Sam Spade 22:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All he's doing serves his goal of getting adminship, nothing else. He has behaved intolerably and there's no benefit in keeping him. --Wik 22:53, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration committee ruling

Dear Wik,

The arbitration committee has investigated your case, and reached a decision. As a result of that decision:

The arbitration committee reminds you that auto-reverting any one user's edits is only acceptable if that user has been banned through the proper channels, or following clear community consensus.

The arbitration committee rules that you shall be placed on probation for a period of three months. If during that time period you revert the same page more than three times on the same day, you may be given a 24 hour "timeout" ban, at sysop's judgement. This measure is intended to be in addition to any wider policy that the community may decide to apply. Thus, if the community decides to permit sysops to temp-ban users in revert wars, you may be banned for an additional 24 hours, above the normal banning period.

Sincerely,
Martin (on behalf of the arbitration committee)

Does "three times on the same day" mean on the same calendar day (if so, according to which timezone) or does it mean three times within any 24-hour period? Also, does "sysop's judgement" mean that if one sysop bans me, another who disagrees with it could immediately unban me? --Wik 23:39, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
I would suggest concentrating on avoiding making multiple reverts, rather than worrying about the exact definition of the word "day". You may wish to err on the side of safety. Martin 23:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If you can't give a clear answer, I'll assume calendar days according to UTC. --Wik 00:00, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
You assumed wrong. See you in 24 hours. Martin 02:08, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Paradox

I have Paradox on my watchlist; I ask you to come to some sort of non-edit-war accomodation with Anthony, so that it isn't showing up over and over. -- Cyan 02:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That is an impossibility, as you well know. --Wik 02:26, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

It's only as impossible as you and Anthony collectively choose to make it. -- Cyan 02:33, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't lump me into a collective with Anthony. He is the troll, not me. --Wik 02:42, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

IMO, however much of an idiot Anthony is being with respect to that article, your idiocy is exactly equal in magnitude to his, if opposite in direction. -- Cyan 02:48, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What exactly is idiocy about adding this disambiguation note that Anthony keeps deleting? --Wik 02:51, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

The idiocy is this: in practical terms, so little is gained by adding it, and so little is lost by removing it, that a dispute about it as implacable as the one you share with Anthony boggles the mind, and leaves one breathless at the sheer bloody-mindedness of some members of my sad, sad species. -- Cyan 03:03, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That would be the case if this were a singular case. It isn't. The question is, should I just give in every time? Half the time? Or what do you suggest? I'd like to see you do nothing when an article you care about is attacked like that. --Wik 03:12, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Cry me a freakin' river. We aren't talking about something like calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel or some other highly contentious topic. We're talking about a disambiguation notice for an obscure rock band. For a case that appears to me to be of greater than or equal importance, see Talk:Scientific opinion of global warming, where another user made a decision I thought was bad, and I did nothing except talk about the issue on the relevant talk page, like all good Wikipedians do. I know this will come as a shock to you, but sometimes that's all that's called for. -- Cyan 03:24, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you were in a disagreement with a reasonable user about something reasonable people can disagree over. I'm not edit warring in such cases either. But Anthony is just trolling, he's doing nothing else. --Wik 03:30, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

What I see is Anthony moving the link from disambig format to "see also" format [2], and you picking a fight with him by reverting one minute later [3]. Your convictions about Anthony's trolling are long outdated, and were never as solid as you seemed to feel they are. -- Cyan 03:47, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You haven't reverted Paradox as of this writing, and I'm grateful for it. But you and I will never see eye to eye on your justifications for your previous edit war on that page. I'm content to let matters sit there. -- Cyan 03:55, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How am I "picking a fight" with him when I make a perfectly sensible edit - "see also" is for related topics, not for disambiguation, which belongs at the top or bottom, clearly separated from the main article. There is no question at all about this. And for his trolling, the evidence is as clear as it could be. Calling completely obscure people "famous", clear vanity "not vanity", etc. is not trolling? Duplicating a birth year in an article and when asked why he needs it twice, answering "Why not?" is not trolling? Running a fork named "McFly" on "slashdotsucks.com" is evidence of a serious user? What do you consider trolling? And what is "outdated" here? He has not changed a bit. And finally, even if you don't see that I'm right in the substance - the fact is he reverts as much as me (and contrary to me, he does little else), yet you blame me and defend Anthony. Why? --Wik 04:12, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Your edit was sensible. Reverting him one minute after his edit without discussing was picking a fight, particularly since it was obvious that you were targeting his edits in one fashion or another. "There is no question at all about this." As for his previous behavior, apparently one person's sardonic sense of humor is another's trolling. And I seem to recall more or less calling both of you idiots, with specific reference to your collective actions on Paradox. On the subject of Anthony's wider action, to my knowledge, he has not done anything particularly trollish in some time; it seems he has learned something of Wikipedia community norms from experience. Is what Anthony is doing on Al Gore and its talk page trolling, or defending the integrity of Wikipedia as he sees it? The only difference between you two is that Anthony feels no need to justify himself to me, whereas you, for some unknown reason, do. -- Cyan 04:54, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was targeting him?! Do I really have to give you a list of articles that prove he was targeting me? I will not bother if you don't agree in advance that you will apologize if I can prove it. As to "sense of humor", we are talking about actual votes for deletion, that is not a place for humor. It's not as if he had another, sensible reason, and gave a "humorous" reason instead. The votes themselves were clearly trolling, the idea of keeping everything, no matter how irrelevant, is absurd. And if you think he gave that up, just watch what he's doing at John Edwards. --Wik 05:03, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

I expect you are each watching and targeting the other. I'll be happy to apologize if you explain how the impression I got that you were targeting him on Paradox is factually incorrect. Let's be clear: you can fight Anthony all over Wikipedia, but when you do it on a page on my watchlist, I will leave you both a message on your respective talk pages asking you not to, and if you try to defend your actions, I will call bullshit on your self-righteousness. As for his "keep everything" stance, he doesn't make nonserious votes on VfD anymore, nor does he do other trollish things; he's figured out that the best way to push his views is by edit wars. (Even if you disagree with his views and think they are absurd, you are hardly in a position to object to his method.) I notice you do not comment on his actions at Al Gore. -- Cyan 19:27, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you look at the page history, you'll see that I edited Paradox before, in August and October 2003, which is why it was on my Watchlist, and I'm watching all edits there. I would have reacted the same if anyone else had made the edit Anthony did. As to VfD, he keeps removing things even when they have 2/3 majorities to delete (see [4]), to keep them out of the sight of sysops who might consider this enough to delete. Of course I don't object to the method of edit wars per se, the question is what you are fighting for. As to Al Gore, it is rather trollish, he seems to fight with ChrisDJackson for the fun of it, and making blanket accusations against him. --Wik 20:16, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

You have failed to explain how it was that your revert took place one minute after his edit; it seems far more plausible that you were watching his contributions or his actions on RC, rather than your watchlist. His actions on VfD are under scrutiny, but to my knowledge, there has been no outcry. I think he has about as much "fun" watching for copyright violations as you do reverting bad edits; and you are hardly in a position to deride Anthony's blanket accusations, as you are leveling such an accusation against him, with about as much cause.

Now, on the subject of watchlists, Paradox is on mine, and I'd prefer if your edit war didn't show up there, as it inconveniences me: I have to check the page history daily for substantive changes masked by your reverts, or risk missing them. In spite of your over-dramatization ("I'd like to see you do nothing when an article you care about is attacked like that" - snort) the existence or non-existence of this disambiguation notice is almost entirely without any practical consequences whatsoever. You can choose to inconvenience me and everyone else with this page on their watchlist over this matter, or you can choose to resolve the matter some other way. It's up to you. Anthony, at least, has extended the invitation for some non-edit-war resolution to some of your conflicts, and I think it will reflect very badly on you if you don't at least try to figure out a non-edit-war solution. -- Cyan 21:40, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I check my watchlist often and it's not unusual that I edit articles that have been edited a minute before. It might as well have been RC, which makes no difference - my Watchlist entries are bolded there, and this is what would have attracted my attention, not that Anthony edited it. Obviously I revert a lot of other people's edits too, without any personal prejudice. The difference is that most other people will see that their edit was wrong, and will not re-revert it, while Anthony never admits that. My calling Anthony a troll is based on enough evidence. If that's a blanket accusation, it is nevertheless true. This doesn't mean that every single edit of his is problematic, though the balance is certainly negative. His useful contributions are minimal. As to Paradox, sorry that you have to check the page history, but that's how it goes. The issue is minor, but that's no reason to just let it go the wrong way. If you want to solve it, you should take sides. Either support me, or explain why this disambiguation should not be there. Anthony is likewise free to explain it, which he hasn't so far. I don't see what I am supposed to say to defend the obvious. It's clearly a likely misspelling of Paradoxx, so there should be a disambiguation. --Wik 22:07, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for accusing you of monitoring Anthony's changes, when other plausible explanations exist. The thrust of my statement about blanket accusations isn't that you are necessarily wrong, but rather that you are in no position to deride Anthony for making one as well. In fact, the thrust of many of my statements here is that your actions with regards to edit warring are roughly equivalent to his. You wrote, "Anthony never admits that [he is wrong]." Well, that would be another trait that you share with him. Don't bother to respond, I've heard it before: "I always admit when I'm wrong, I'm just never wrong." <snort> In case you haven't noticed, I have picked a side: I'm on the side of people who think the matter of the disambiguation link for Paradoxx is without practical consequence one way or the other. This puts me in opposition to both you and Anthony (although Anthony, as of this writing, has not reverted, and has my gratitude for it). Your argument is, "It's clearly a likely misspelling of Paradoxx, so there should be a disambiguation." I agree with everything before the word "so". I would argue that so few people are going to be searching Wikipedia for the 80s band Paradoxx while under the impression that it is called Paradox that the second part of your argument does not follow, and there is no strong argument for including the link. I would also argue that nothing is lost by including the disambiguation notice, so there is no strong argument for deleting the link. Although this is as plain as day to me, it's clearly not obvious to you or Anthony. You should invest some time considering the possibility that different people have different perceptions about what is "obvious"; it may give in insight what you are "supposed to say to defend the obvious". -- Cyan 22:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Once you agree with the first part, the rest does follow. If you say few people are going to look for it there, while agreeing that is a likely misspelling, then your point can only be that the band itself is so irrelevant that few people will search for it at all. In this case, you can try to get its article deleted. But as long as the article is there, there should also be the disambiguation for a likely misspelling, as it is with any other article. The question is only how likely is a search for the misspelling in relation to a search for the correct spelling, and based on a Google test the rate here is as high as 25% ("Paradox" "New Devotion" - 79; "Paradoxx" "New Devotion" - 242). If that is not obvious to you, well, I will just quote Heinz von Foerster, who once said: "He who does not see that he is blind, is blind. But he who sees that he is blind, isn't blind." --Wik 23:29, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

I do believe that the band itself is so irrelevant that few people will search for it at all. I find the existence or non-existence of the article to be a question much like the existence or non-existence of the disambiguation note: so little is gained by allowing it to continue to exist, and so little is lost by removing it, that in practical terms, it doesn't matter. You argue, "The issue is minor, but that's no reason to just let it go the wrong way." I assert that it is a perfectly good reason to let it go the "wrong" way, particularly since your continuing edit war is inconveniencing me and quite possibly others as well. (I would make this argument to Anthony as well.) From my point of view, your Google sample isn't really pertinent, and is flawed anyway: the conclusion only applies if the sampling population is exchangeable with the population of Wikipedia users. This is not obviously the case, and your Google numbers may be skewed: it is at least plausible that people who want to find the Wikipedia article on the band are more likely to be enthusiasts (i.e. already know the correct spelling) who want to write or add to the article than to be people who are interested in finding out about the band. Your pithy quote is a nice rhetorical flourish; I congratulate you on it. -- Cyan 00:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I respect your view about the "perfectly good reason" and would agree that your inconvenience might well outweigh the other considerations in this case, but I tend to have a larger view and don't see this as an isolated case. Letting minor issues go the wrong way sends a signal - not just to Anthony but to other trolls as well - that as long as their edits are minor enough they can damage Wikipedia little by little. No need to respond, I know what you're saying, the edit wars are the worst damage of all... --Wik 01:30, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

See, if you supported quickpolls, "Yarko Brachini" would end up on one right now ..—Eloquence

[edit] Powell on CIA in Chile

Reference? What document did he cite, or was he part of the CIA in 1973? --AstroNomer 04:32, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Document? He said "With respect to your earlier comments about Chile in the 1970s and what happened with Mr. Allende, it is not a part of American history that we're proud of." What do you think that means? --Wik 04:42, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

CIA intervened in the three years of Allende's government, contributed to his opposition and help destabilize the country, that is mentioned in the article. However, there is no document released that talks about backing by the CIA of the coup itself. CIA foes tend to give the agency even more importance than that it has, and tend to belive that nothing would ever happen in the world without CIA intervention.--AstroNomer 05:04, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

The destabilization was the most important thing about it. That laid the groundwork for the coup and perfectly justifies calling it a CIA-backed coup, regardless of to what extent the CIA was involved on the day of the coup. --Wik 05:08, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, is there any way we can come to an agreement on things? Let's take a look at all the pages we're currently disputing, and try to reach some sort of agreement on them. If needed we can open up questions to others. And then we can try our best to go our own separate ways. Since we both have substantial watchlists this isn't going to be completely possible, but for the most part we can try not to get involved in the edits of each other. I think it's clear that we're both here to stay. Anyway, let me know if we can at least talk about this. Anthony DiPierro 05:15, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just stop trolling. It's never too late. --Wik 05:18, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
You've got to be more specific than that. I have a right to oppose the deletion of certain pages I feel should be on Wikipedia. I have a right to disagree with you on issues. In the case of some of the pages, I don't even know what your issue is. Anthony DiPierro 05:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Even if you would seriously believe in your keep-everything philosophy, you would have noticed by now that you are not going to find support for that. But you keep wasting people's time like on John Edwards. --Wik 05:26, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
I think there is a lot of support. Even Jimbo has said that verifiability and NPOV should be the considerations, not fame or importance. The problem is that these issues are posed to a very select group of individuals, and so the editing community at large rarely pipes in. Anthony DiPierro 05:41, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
A lot of support? The "Fame and importance" poll is about 2-1 for an importance requirement, even though the question was rather misleading and I don't think Jimbo, for example, supports the addition of random persons from the phone book. --Wik 06:05, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
I haven't seen any random people from the phone book listed. Something more than just a name, address, and phone number is certainly necessary, since we don't generally keep addresses and phone numbers anyway. In any case, yes, I consider one out of three a lot. Anthony DiPierro 10:58, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, why don't we? According to you anything that's verifiable is fine. That would mean we should not only add addresses and phone numbers (where we know them) to the existing articles on prominent people, but also add stubs on unimportant people with nothing but their address and phone number. The only reason not to do so would be because that's unimportant, and you reject any importance requirement. --Wik 19:16, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
Of course importance isn't the criterion. Addresses and phone numbers are important. That's why we have phone books. But we're not building a phone book, we're building an encyclopedia. This isn't a question of whether or not to include a person, it is a question of what the contents of that person's article should be. It should be a biography. It should make sense 100 years from now. What someone's phone number and address is is constantly under change. So addresses and phone numbers generally shouldn't be listed in the first place. So what you're left is with the person's name. I wouldn't oppose the deletion of a blank page or a page consisting solely of a person's name. And I never said that anything that's verifiable is fine. Anthony DiPierro 02:53, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wik, I'd like for you to consider staying away from 1729 (number) et. al. for a while. There are now many people involved in those pages, and I think you can rest assured that any trolling which I might do will be corrected by them. Is there any way I can convince you to do this? Anthony DiPierro 05:51, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No. Why on Earth should I do that? Although you started the mess there, it's not just about you. Charles Matthews isn't helpful either. But it's protected anyway. --Wik 06:05, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
Well, there are lots of reasons you might do it. Yes, it's protected right now, but if you agreed to this I'm sure it would be unprotected. Right now the pages are absolutely horrible, and I figured you'd agree that any changes which do occur would be better than nothing. But perhaps most importantly, you only have three reverts per day right now anyway, so you're going to lose any edit war anyway, and you might as well save as much face as you can in the mean time. Anthony DiPierro 10:58, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I am far from sure that anything you might do there would be better than nothing. And my three-revert limit does not mean I am losing any edit war at all, I will not give up on any article. The edit war would just be drawn out indefinitely with six reverts per day until it is protected again or until there is a system of content arbitration. --Wik 19:16, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Spade

Thanks for correcting that typo, good eye. Sam Spade 02:38, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 1921 Germany

- - What is the problem with Upper Silesia Plebiscite? Cautious 18:25, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I told you before on this page. Why don't you concentrate on the separate pages before making deletions here? --Wik 18:29, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
The Upper Silesia Plebiscite I consider finished. Please review. Cautious 18:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That article is rather pointless. You put most of the material into Third Silesian Uprising, why then a separate article for one paragraph about the plebiscite? The first sentence makes no sense there, "The clause of the Treaty of Versailles demanding a plebiscite in Upper Silesia was next taken in hand." Next to what? This belongs into the context of 1921 in Germany. --Wik 18:39, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
Voila! Cautious 18:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That was just an example. You need to do better. --Wik 18:50, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

It has been suggested that you should participate in mediation regarding the naming of places in Poland, Germany, etc, involving User:Gdansk and a myriad of others. Please explain if you are willing to participate (and if so, any preferences regarding the mediator) at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Tuf-Kat 21:45, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC) (P.S. You need a new talk archive)

I don't see what this should accomplish. --Wik 00:02, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to revert someone when typing 3 characters would do? Evercat 01:37, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is when I typed those three characters before. --Wik 01:39, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Polish government in exile: I have always found rulers.org to be extremely reliable, so I assume you have a firm source for changing the date on which Edward Szczepanik became PM of the govt in exile? If so, can you find the exact dates of the last three PMs' terms, which rulers does not give? Adam 07:29, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rulers.org has 1986. You may have copied it wrong. I found some more exact dates, but not all. --Wik 18:29, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The article needs more on the activities of the govt in exile between 1945 and 1990, and the details of the split in 1954. Do you have any sources on this? Adam 04:14, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Date on which Edward Szczepanik became PM of the Polish Government in Exile is in "W walce o niepodległość". Rozmowy Ewy Prządki z Edwardem Szczepanikiem ISBN1872286348 Polska Fundacja Kulturalma Londyn 2001 Nota biograficzna pg 62:: 7 Kwietnia/April 1986 - 22 Grudnia/December 1990

"A short history of the Polish Government in Exile" was published in the quarterly "Polish Affairs" No 127 (Final) 1990. See also The Guardian Obituary, December 19, 2005, Edward Szczepanik [5]

Details can also be found in The Poles in Britain, 1940-2000: From Betrayal to Assimilation by Peter D Stachura ISBN 0714655627 Routledge (UK) (including the split) [6]

Tom Szczepanik 02:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Experienced editors

Wik, I believe you misunderstood my point, or perhaps I simply communicated it badly. My point was not that "if an experienced editor nominates someone, you must support!" That would be an absurd position, as your counterexample rightly points out. My point was fairly simple: if the only reason to oppose Hcheney is that a new user nominated him, take 172 or myself as an experienced nominator. If, however, you see something in Hcheney that is undeserving of adminship, by all means, point it out. I'd respect that completely. And as far as the story not holding water about using for a long time and only now editing, I used Wikipedia as a resource starting in August of 2002 but did not edit until July of 2003: within 3 weeks, I am certain I was reading RfA, though I can't recall if I was nominating (I doubt I was, I'm usually much more cautious than the average person). I don't know if that's the case with the editor you're concerned about, but I, for one, find the story plausible. And as I said before, the issue here is not who the nominator is, but who the nominee is. And of course, you can disregard all this if you wish, but I think I'm making at least a small amount of sense. Thanks. Jwrosenzweig 20:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The reason to oppose is not simply that a new user nominated him. I wouldn't oppose if I knew the nominator was a real new user. But since there is a certain probability that it is a sockpuppet, I think it's safer to oppose for now, because it would disqualify not just the nominator but the nominated if the two were the same person. As to using Wikipedia as a resource without editing, that is quite possible, but then you're likely just looking up and reading the current revisions of articles and won't spend much time looking at Recent Changes, Watchlists, talk pages, or article histories and therefore you won't have much of an opinion about specific users. But when Grazingship said he's using Wikipedia for years, he apparently didn't mean as a reader; he was suggesting that he was familiar with Wikipedia's inner workings and with the user Hcheney for more than 13 days. And indeed, he now says he was editing before that time, he just didn't log in. However, that is hard to believe when analyzing his edits - just 11 days ago he appeared ignorant of some rather basic conventions ([7]). So there are two possibilities: 1) It's a real new user, who for whatever reason decided to nominate Hcheney and is now even lying about his history to get the nomination through. 2) It's a sockpuppet by Hcheney, who deliberately made it appear like a clueless newbie. --Wik 23:49, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I have really had about enough of this dude. I AM NOT NOW NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN A SOCKPUPPET. Thats for the record. When I said I've been using it for years I DID mean as a reader, the reason I have such high regard for Wikipedia is because I used it constantly for my school research papers. You have yet to produce ONE shred of evidence that I am a sockpuppet so until you do (which won't ever happen) stop calling me one. I have contributed to Wikipedia as can be seen from my edit list on many topics with little conflict. I nominated him because I wanted to nominate somebody and he was a good candidate especially considering the amount of vandalism here. So stop making baseless accusations or I WILL seek action against you. thanks.--GrazingshipIV 00:40, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, now it's as a reader again. But when I wondered why you only started editing 13 days ago, you said "No I got a user name 13 days ago." That suggested you were editing anonymously before. What is it? When did you start editing? --Wik 00:54, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel as though there is some less than savoury motive behind my request for adminship. If you feel that I, or GrazingshipIV, is a sockpuppet. I assure you that I have never edited wikipedia under any other username, and since you have a justified right to be skeptical due to the past, I am encouraging you to have a developer check the server log for our IPs.

If you would like me cite some of my work, I have fought trolls and vandals (see Daniel Wright and John Edwards) and scan the recent changes whenever possible. I have a cool head and good discretion, and if you would like to see my additions to substance, check my user page for links.

Best regards --Hcheney 00:03, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gdansk was obviously trolling...but anyway, the block should have undone itself after 24 hours, and he doesn't appear to be blocked right now. Adam Bishop 03:29, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies Please help me to keep the page. Cautious

No, the title is POV. This belongs in History of Poland (1939-1945). --Wik 20:27, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for the questionable actions I took on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, i.e. when I edited your comments. However, I felt that it was the right thing to do, as you were degrading (and I think I provoked you to flame) Aplank. Whether or not you think he deserves to be a sysop is beyond the point. Saying "other users" did not degrade from the actual point of the statement; i.e. that sockpuppets have been used, and that there is a good reason for why you were suspicious of Grazingship and Hcheney. However, again, I sincerely apologize, although you probably did not have the best choice of words... my edits were anti-useful! ugen64 22:41, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Please check Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Hcheney so you can make an informed decision on my Request for Adminship --Hcheney 17:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Perl comment

I know you feel no obligation to edit your comment on RfA. I'm asking you to consider this anyway, in the hope of getting the page unprotected and moving forward. Would you consider rephrasing the last sentence of your comment as, "He has Asperger's syndrome, which apparently makes some people overly lenient towards him, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a place for therapy."?

I'm hoping that phrasing might prove tolerable to the community. I know it doesn't have the same bite to it as before, but perhaps it could still get your point across. Please, consider it. --Michael Snow 00:22, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, never mind now, Perl has decided to withdraw his request. --Michael Snow 01:34, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily

Please take a moment to express your thoughts on this page, if you have the time. 172 00:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Could you please explain your abrupt reversion of Ken Saro-Wiwa? Simply reverting an article that someone has spent some time expanding, with absolutely no comment on why this may be appropriate, seems much the same as vandalism to me. If you feel the article requires editing for POV, then please go ahead. User:Dirtbiscuit Dirtbiscuit 04:07, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your "expanding" actually removed information (such as the exact birth date). You can't just rewrite an article completely and disregard the previous version as long as your version is longer. --Wik 04:11, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I see - perhaps it would be more constructive to insert the missing information (or at least draw attention to this) rather than reverting. In any case, I'll see what I can do to fix that. As for rewriting articles - I think it is much easier to retain the precise phrasing of existing articles if you are only adding a sentence or two, and more difficult if you have a lot to add. User:Dirtbiscuit (is there an echo in here ;-))Dirtbiscuit 04:27, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Quickpoll

Based on your current misbehaviour I'm placing you on Wikipedia:Quickpolls. — Jor (Talk) 19:20, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Additionally I am hereby informing you that I am requesting community consensus on your misbehaviour on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wik and since you are still under probation I am requesting a re-opening of your case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. — Jor (Talk) 19:57, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy Shit

  • People have bent over backwards to accomodate you, mostly out of a pure concern for fairness and justice. You have eroded all the good will left in my body. Any more crap out of you, and I will "take steps". Better listen up good, because I'm one the oldest "old hands" around here and I know how to work the system. Don't get me riled up against you, or I will force you out!! (A word to the wise is sufficient.) --Uncle Ed 14:14, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • No matter how old you are, you don't have the authority to force anyone out unilaterally. This rhetoric just once again shows how unfit you are for sysophood. --Wik 14:54, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well; who would have thought we could ever; agree? Ed Poor is totally unfit. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[edit] Sealand

Your user page claims that I am "adding unverifiable claims". This is not the case. I haven't "added" anything; I'm putting back what you insist on deleting, undoing your attempts to turn the article to your point of view. -Branddobbe 06:57, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Exclamation mark

Hi,

I offer you hearty congratulations for using a ! in an edit summary. Is this the first time ever that you have done such a thing?

Arvindn 13:18, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, about the seventh time. --Wik 13:26, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Message on Nazism

This ain't worth an edit war, but Hitler did follow some socialist policies and some left-wing groups do consider Nazism a form of socialism due to the Philosophical nature of those policies (not the aryan aspect) some right wing groups really do beleive Hitler was a socialist due to his redistribution of wealth and rejection of free market principles (not everyone is trying to discredit socialism). Fascism is not an economic theory unless you conisder corporatism a form of fascism which Hitler did not practice. Despite his disgusting actions against the Jews and other Europeans Hitler did indeed improve life for the average working class German-by pursuing, to a large extent, the economic theory of marxism. Your adding POV to the page by not using qualifiers to your statements. You do not know 99% about what any group beleives let alone one so immense. GrazingshipIV 18:47, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] JOR

I requested NEW QUICKPOLL for JOR POV PUSHER. Please vote!!

[edit] Keep up the good work!

Hi. Some people made me aware of your existence. You seems to be doing good work! Keep it up! I'm proud to have something in common with you! Wik Lir 21:46, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/User_talk%7EWik_Archive_March_2004_4f3f.html"