User talk:Wik/Archive April 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Wik. Could you avoid making comments like ____ "has mental issues, but this is an encyclopaedia, not an asylum" in future please. I find them offensive. fabiform | talk 12:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I find them factual and will continue to make them every time he applies. --Wik 16:38, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

I have mental health problems. About one in ten people do. Your remarks are not only unkind towards Perl, but offensive to many more people. I didn't support Perl either, and I think I was sufficiently crushing without stooping to insults. Perhaps you could simply vote "oppose" without an explanation next time he applies, if no polite reason leaps to mind (since I've asked you nicely, if for no other reason)? fabiform | talk 19:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What exactly is offensive about it? I didn't say anyone with any mental health problems doesn't belong here. But <name removed>'s are serious enough to cause major disruption, his constant lies and other bizarre behaviour outweigh any useful contributions he may make. That is not an insult. But if it offends <name removed> it is actually useful - he withdrew his request and it may deter him from reapplying every other day. --Wik 19:22, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

The implicit message behind "X has mental issues, but this is an encyclopaedia, not an asylum" is that having mental issues means that one should not edit Wikipedia, and should be in an asylum.

Now, I don't know whether you meant to imply that or not, and your clarification above is certainly welcome. Still, as the sentence is written, I'm afraid I do find it somewhat offensive. Perhaps you could consider rephrasing it to make it clear that you're referring solely to <name removed>'s mental issues, rather than making a generic statement about all people with mental health problems.

The other implicit message is that <name removed> belongs in an asylum. While I can certainly respect your opinion that certain Wikipedians should not be editing Wikipedia, and I'm sure we've all had that thought from time to time, I don't think it's fair for you to publically judge people as requiring incarceration. Since your key point seems to be that he should not be an admin, not that he needs to be banged up, again, perhaps you could be clearer.

For example, you might write "I believe that <name removed>'s specific mental health problems will prevent him doing a good job as admin". That kind of statement I would have no objection too (of course, I can't speak for others). Even if you think offending <name removed> is a positive thing, I hope you would not regard offending myself and fabi, and potentially others, in the same light. Martin 19:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You're the right one to talk about offending people. Remember this:

01:32, Dec 7, 2003 . . MyRedDice (the best of the world of sanity, coupled with the best of the world of anti-social paranoia :-))

Not to mention your behaviour regarding the arbitration decision when you refused to clarify the ruling and then blocked me based on one of two possible interpretations, even though I announced in advance that I assumed the other. So don't expect me to give any more consideration to your views than you give to mine. --Wik 19:58, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

I'm just trying to keep you informed of how your words might be misinterpreted. It's up to you how much consideration to give to my views, and indeed those of everyone else. Incidentally, I'm happy to discuss the arbitration matter further at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Wik, if you'd like. Martin 20:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree with Martin and Fabiform. -- sannse (talk) 19:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, you're not qualified to declare people sane or insane over the internet (nor in real life, I imagine). You're making an assumption which is, in and of itself, offensive to Perl. It is an assumption which may be true, but you cannot positively show that it is so, therefore you cannot treat it as "fact".

Secondly you're saying that "user:foo has X problem, but this is an encyclopaedia, not somewhere people with X problem belong". You don't think that you're implying that users (other than user:foo) with X problem don't belong here?

Thirdly, if none of that convinced you, would you please simply humour me and avoid making comments like that in future? :) fabiform | talk 19:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What I write on non-article pages is obviously my opinion. It is factual enough to me, but you are entitled to disagree and state your own opinion. Second, no, it only implies that users with comparable problems to X don't belong here. Third, no, why should I if you don't give me a good reason? --Wik 20:07, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that, for you, what you said only implies that users with comparable problems to X don't belong here. We're just making you aware that, for other people, what you said implies more than that. Now you're aware of that, I'm happy to leave this discussion. Martin 20:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wik, what Fabiform is saying so politely can be found in Wikipedia:avoid personal attacks. Please read and heed. By the way, good catch on the POV in current events today. My comment on journalistic bias didn't really belong in the news item. --Uncle Ed 20:12, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Very funny, coming from you. How about you read and heed Wikipedia:Don't block people unilaterally and Wikipedia:Don't threaten to 'work the system' to force people out etc. Happy editing quand même! --Wik 20:30, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem

By the way, you inadvertantly reverted my hdr edit, of which I think you will approve. :) I'll remake it. Martin 23:36, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gdansk

Wik, I know you feel that it should be made clear that Danzig is a former name of Gdansk, but do you really think that a) it should not be bolded; and b) that it should be preceded in the list of names by the Kashubian and Latin names of the city, as the version you were reverting to had it? john 00:01, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, you may well change that. --Wik 00:21, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Good to know. Personally, I favor just saying "(formerly Danzig)". Of course, it's currently protected again. john 04:15, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you have evidence or any remarks to add at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nico, please do so.Halibutt

[edit] What to do about Zviad Gamsakhurdia edit war?

I see Levzur is up to his usual tricks on Zviad Gamsakhurdia yet again. Hephaestos has suggested mediation followed by arbitration, which I'm sure Levzur will decline, but it's a step which clearly needs to be taken. Otherwise I see no end in sight to the edit war, given that even a temp ban hasn't deterred Levzur. Do you agree with this and given your involvement with the article, would you wish to be one of the parties requesting mediation? -- ChrisO 10:44, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mediation is clearly a waste of time here. If it has to be tried to get to arbitration, go ahead, but I don't want to participate. --Wik 11:24, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it's very unlikely to achieve results, but if we're to get this resolved once and for all it's a box which has to be checked. Thanks anyway. -- ChrisO 13:23, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] block for violation of arbitration parole

Your reverts to wikipedia:quickpolls in the last 24 hours:

17:25, 3 Apr 2004
18:01, 3 Apr 2004
18:04, 3 Apr 2004
18:07, 3 Apr 2004
18:13, 3 Apr 2004
18:17, 3 Apr 2004
18:50, 3 Apr 2004
19:03, 3 Apr 2004

You are duly temp-banned for violation of arbitration parole. See you in 24 hours. Martin 19:22, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just now, I left a note on User talk:Jor expressing my sorrow that two good contributors were spending so much time on a matter like the Polish/German controversy. Of course, it's important--but your contributions to Wikipedia, and Jor's, are more important. I don't want this issue to prove divisive, driving people away from the project. I suppose that I felt somewhat responsible as well, for nominating Jor without knowledge of the apparently simmering Polish/German conflict.

I extended to Jor a request, and I'd like to make the same of you: will you consider me as an unofficial mediator? I know nothing about Europe, or this controversy; I'm a disinterested party. My only goal is making sure that both you and Jor are doing the most you can to help the Wikipedia. What I'd like you to do is to submit to me your account of the conflict, starting from Day 1. I want to learn what this is all about, so I can hopefully help end what I inadvertently caused to flare up. With luck, I'll be able to help you and Jor come to a better understanding, and improve the atmosphere of the project. Please reply on my talk page. Yours, Meelar 22:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Naziwatch

If you like to hunt people on the far right, you might be interested in the contributions done by this seemingly identical Finnish speaker:

Have fun!
--Ruhrjung 02:41, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not delete my comments

Wik, please do not delete my comments. The comment you deleted on Quickpolls may not have been especially important but I would appreciate it if you did not modify any of my comments. Thank you. - Tεx τ urε 22:43, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, that was accidental. I was about to restore this but you were faster. --Wik 22:53, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Np. Thanks - Tεx τ urε 23:08, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jor quickpoll

How did the Jor quickpoll not meet the policy for removal? There were 20 votes with 50% approval. This is exactly the amount needed as per the table on Wikipedia:Quickpolls policy.--Eloquence * 03:12, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

Seems you're right, I was probably misled by the toctally which wasn't updated and said 9-9 although the actual vote was already 10-10. --Wik 00:31, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Atlantium

Wik, please participate on the discussion on Talk:Atlantium rather than continuing to revert on a daily basis. The arbitration ruling was made to make you reflect about your habit of reverting over debating, not to merely stretch your reverts over more time. If you refuse to discuss the matter, I will ask for another arbitration ruling.--Eloquence * 00:25, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

I made my point before, and it still stands. Is there anything specific you want me to reply to? --Wik 00:31, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Well, first of all, which parts of the article are now problematic and which are OK in your opinion? Is the new intro OK / not OK? I can understand that Gene doesn't like a phrase like "not taken seriously", certainly a phrasing that is no less accurate but less offensive can be found. Wikipedia is all about searching compromises. That can only be accomplished through ongoing discussion and experiments.--Eloquence * 00:34, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

There is no compromise between truth and falsehood. It is a fact that Atlantium is not a state, therefore I won't accept the word "claims" in the intro, which gives the impression of some real controversy (such as Israel claims Jerusalem) when it is in fact an objectively false claim. And that's exactly what I already said on the talk page. Do I need to repeat my position on a weekly basis or what? --Wik 00:39, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

How is it a falsehood that they claim to be a state? You could similarly argue that it is a falsehood to say "Christians claim there is a God" on the basis that there is no evidence that supports this claim. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, which explains this all in greater detail.--Eloquence * 01:01, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

It is misleading. Why do you think Gene Poole insists on it? It is certainly not a falsehood either that they pretend to be a state, and that's more precise. The number of people believing there is a God is a tad higher than those believing that Atlantium is a state. The question of the existence of God is a serious dispute in the real world, Atlantium isn't. --Wik 01:06, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

There aren't too many followers or opponents of Atlantium. Representing each side fairly means not deliberately chosen loaded words to do so, and "pretend" is a loaded word. If you don't like the God example, how about Transcendental Meditation? We do not say that advocates of TM pretend to be able to fly if they try hard enough, we say the claim or believe that. If you have evidence to the effect that Gene does not really believe the things he says, please cite it. Otherwise let's use standard NPOV language.--Eloquence * 02:18, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, "claims" is a loaded word here, suggesting a significance that isn't there. Even Transcendental Meditation is orders of magnitude more significant than Atlantium, which just brings me back to my point that this article shouldn't even exist. But if it does, it must be made clear to the reader that this is someone's personal idea which is of no consequence in the real world. There is an endless number of "micronations" out there, and we can't let everyone advertise for their own one. Note how Gene even spams other articles such as Decimal calendar with Atlantium nonsense. --Wik 11:18, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

If Wikipedia was written from the rational point of view, I would agree with you. It is not. It is written from the neutral point of view, and we have to acknowledge the major views on a subject no matter how silly they are. In the case of Atlantium, Gene's view is one major view, so it needs to be properly cited and attributed.--Eloquence * 11:33, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

It is not a major view at all. We can't even verify his claimed following of 1,000, so this view may only be held by a handful of people. --Wik 11:48, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gene Poole

The Quickpoll policy requires that a user be warned before a quickpoll is started on the user. I left him a note, and if he continues, then a quickpoll may be started. I don't like starting quickpolls, unless I feel absolutely necessary, so I'll have a look at the article, and maybe revert (in which case I suppose I'll become somewhat involved anyway). Dori | Talk 02:20, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Dori. --Wik 16:58, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, can you tell me why you think that reverting is the right thing to do here? Why not change the article to try to reach a mutually acceptable solution? I'm sure you are aware that you are on the verge of being banned for this, and although I do understand that you can't agree that this is the proper solution, I do think that it's something that you should keep in mind, and try really hard to find better ways to interact with others.

To narrow this down in a way that is perhaps more likely to be helpful, let's take a look together at Atlantium. In particular take a look at this revert. Is it really true that there is nothing in the other person's version that you can compromise on, that the only possible response is the direct slap in the fac e of a revert?

Even your characterization of what's going on there reveals an insensitivity to the work of others. You say that people are insisting on "wording that suggests Atlantium has a serious claim to being a state". This is transparently false. Indeed, it is only your version which appears to give a tip of the hat to the idea that "Atlantium is considered by some people to be a micronation" -- the version which you reverted suggests no such thing. (And while your statement may be techincally true for some vanishingly small number of people, it seems that even the people involved in Atlantium view it more as a political statement than as a genuine micronation.)

But I'm not here to argue over the content of the article. What I'm saying is that it is entirely inappropriate for you to respond to such things with a revert, rather than an attempt to incorporate what the other person is saying. Reverts should be used, especially by you given your social history, only in the most extreme and egregious cases. Otherwise, you should work for a new wording that is mutually satisfactory.

The best way to do this is to try to write the article so that it is minimally satisfying to you. That is, so that you give the other person as much as you in good conscience can. This is the same advice I would give anyone. Try to give, give, give. Jimbo Wales 14:40, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo, you have a way of leaving a single message here but then not continuing the discussion. About Atlantium, if you're not here to argue over the content, then why do you start doing so?

It is necessary to give just a little bit of context regarding the content, to illustrate that (a) I have read over the edits there and (b) to show that there are a variety of ways forward that don't require you to behave badly. But as to the exact wording of that article, I'm not very interested in hashing it out. Do you find this explanation helpful?

Well, obviously I disagree that I behaved badly. But there's no point for me to start discussing my behaviour with regard to this article if you are not prepared to enter a discussion about the substance of this article, so we should just discuss my behaviour in general terms.

I will not bother replying until you're willing to enter a full discussion; and if you are willing, I suggest you leave a note on Talk:Atlantium and we can discuss it there.

But we aren't talking about Atlantium, we are talking about your behavior and whether or not you have a future here. Your behavior is simply unacceptable and must change. I am trying to see if I can convince you of that before the only other possible alternative comes to pass.

Then define exactly what is wrong with my behaviour.

As to your general point, "why not change the article to try to reach a mutually acceptable solution?" - because there is no mutual acceptable solution between a POV pusher and one who tries to follow NPOV!

But that does not seem to be what's going on here. The people on the other side of this little campaign of yours are all solid contributors who stand ready to work with you to find a mutually acceptable wording, but you refuse to even try. It's just revert, revert, revert, and a standing threat to do it every day until you get your way. That's totally unacceptable.

I'm just as solid a contributor as the others and they are reverting me just as much as I revert them, obviously. And that your claim is wrong that I "refuse to even try" can be seen above on this very page, where I had a talk with Eloquence, which he ended. I have never refused to answer any question on a talk page, and I have always explained my position. What more do you want?

I can give a handful of suggestions of how the article might be changed to please you and the other side, but you're an intelligent person, and unless you're completely unreasonable (in which case it is you who has a POV problem) I am sure that you can think of them. Instead, it seems, you want to play some kind of martyr.

There's no way to please me and Gene Poole on this article at the same time, since his sole reason for being on Wikipedia is to promote his micronation and paint it as more important than it actually is, which I will never accept. For me it's already a compromise that this article even exists, which I don't think it should.

Also, I am not going to submit to just anything. The 3-revert limit that is unilaterally enforced against me is the last thing I accepted. I consider further restrictions equivalent to a permanent ban, and that is of course your (or the committee's) choice to make. If self-promoters like Gene Poole or extremist POV pushers like Nico who considers half of Poland as "occupied Germany" can have their way and the one who is trying his best to stem this tide is being attacked, then this is no longer a serious encyclopaedia. --Wik 16:58, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

But I consider this to be a totally dishonest evasion of the real issue. No one is saying that POV pushers should have their way. What we are saying is that your behavior, yours, not theirs, is *also* unacceptable. There is a better way than engaging in revert wars. Notice, again, that the revert wars I'm talking about are not revert wars with vandals or kooks, but with other very well respected contributors who have earned their respect through long patient work on the encyclopedia.

But now the POV pushers do have their way. There is no other solution than revert wars. Tell me another way that works, and I won't need to revert. Anything that has previously been suggested does not work. The vast majority of my revert wars are with POV pushers or kooks; the "respected contributors" often enter an ongoing revert war completely uninformed and make judgements, just as you do now, based on superficial "behaviour", not the substance of the matter, and are thus fooled by clever POV pushers who make a pretense of being open-minded, like Uriber, who just keeps repeating the same argument that I have already replied to six months ago, and if I don't play along with this pointless circular argument, I am accused of being uncommunicative.

It's just a slap in the face to those people to simply revert, revert, revert them under the rather ludicrous pretense that you're the only one who cares about this being a serious encyclopedia. I care about that very deeply, but your way is the wrong way.

It's as much a slap in the face to me that those people revert, revert, revert me. A revert war has two sides.

I leave you with a choice here. I strongly recommend that you swear off reverts altogether. Make no edit without a serious attempt to improve the article while accomodating the other side as much as you possibly can. Fail to do that, and I fail to see any other possible outcome to this but a ban, which I would personally consider to be a great tragedy, because I think you do a ton of excellent and valuable work.

I'll swear off reverts when everyone else does. It would help if the three-revert rule would be strictly enforced against everyone. Why don't you make it a hard-and-fast rule which sysops are obliged to enforce? As it stands, the quickpolls are purely popularity contests.

Consider this: I think you're 100% right on just about every issue of content. But where you're wrong is in behavior, and that's just not acceptable. Contrary to your posturing there are hundreds of people who are serious about making a serious encyclopedia, who do great battle every day against POV crusaders, vandals, and so on... but those people do so in a spirit of co-operation, not bullying and reverting.

There is no "spirit of co-operation" with POV crusaders or vandals. And if you agree I'm right on the issues of content, just what do you suggest I should do to establish that content against those who are wrong? I've asked over and over for a system of content arbitration. Absent this, just what is supposed to happen when two positions are simply irreconcilable? If I swear off reverts, the wrong version wins. Is the absence of edit wars more important to you than to have correct NPOV content?

Just chill yout, you know. Swear off the reverts. Have a change of heart. Or don't, and see what happens. Jimbo Wales 03:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I will not swear off reverts under the current conditions. Show me another way against POV pushers that actually works. Or preserve the illusion of "consensus" by banning people until you have a consensus among the remaining. A good contributor named Daniel Quinlan left Wikipedia months ago with this comment: "An extended period of editing articles has convinced me that the NPOV policy does not work. Many articles at Wikipedia have evolved into agenda vehicles and Wikipedia lacks the will and the technology to allow neutral authors to effectively overrule vocal minorities pushing various agendas. Since neutral editors must be just as vocal as those minorities, it just takes too much time to keep up with people who have more free time to bias Wikipedia, and it never ends." I am an exception in that I am a passionate "NPOV pusher" if you will. I took the time it takes to fight against many POV pushers, often to a successful conclusion. But most people don't have this determination - they will make compromises where no compromises should be made, i.e. between NPOV and POV. That's not what I'm prepared to do.

[edit] Vilem Tausky

What is so hard to understand about this? Apparently the accented Y doesn't work on some browsers, so why bother putting the accents in at all? Without the accents it redirects to the proper name. Why do you have to be so difficult? (This goes for the person you were reverting before too - I haven't looked to see who it was, but they were just as difficult.) Adam Bishop 15:43, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We use those accents everywhere. I told MusiCitizen that there's a problem with his browser, and he did not respond at all, and just continues to mutilate those characters. We can't clean up behind his edits every time. He will have to get the message that he has to fix or change his browser; he can't continue editing with this one. --Wik 16:41, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Why can't we just use the link without those characters? It redirects to the right page. Adam Bishop 19:46, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Because it would be wrong. We are using diacritics on Wikipedia, and it seems rather ridiculous to make an exception to accommodate someone's faulty browser. --Wik 19:48, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] behavior

Wik, I would really appreciate you making an effort to stop reverting edits over and over again. There are so many things to do in wikipedia. Thanks, Kingturtle 17:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with reverting per se? Are you suggesting I am reverting any correct edits? Then point them out please, and we can discuss them. --Wik 17:15, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

My comment was not regarding reverts per se. It was regarding reverting over and over again. Just something to consider, Kingturtle 20:13, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If it's not wrong per se, how or why does reverting "over and over again" become a problem? --Wik 20:15, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Reverting is never constructive. It never adds anything useful to Wikipedia. At best it provides a net gain of zero. You have talent; try to put it toward edits that will improve Wikipedia, edits that will take it places it has never been before, rather than reverts that simply return it to a previous state. —Bkell 20:28, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My reverts improve Wikipedia. How is it a net gain of zero to revert a POV towards an NPOV version? What does it matter if it was a previous state? What matters is always the current state, which is what the reader will see. So it is useful to revert to a previous state if it is better than the current. --Wik 20:44, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps what I meant to say was that reverting never gives anything new to Wikipedia. If no one ever did anything but revert articles, Wikipedia would not grow. This is not to say that reverting is not occasionally necessary, but it should be a last resort. I don't believe that any revert actually improves Wikipedia. If two people are locked in a revert war over a page, the dispute can never be resolved, and the article becomes stagnant, because it can't grow and adapt.

I consider a constructive edit to be one that adds something new to Wikipedia. Adding a new paragraph about a topic, or rewording a sentence to make it clearer, or disambiguating links, or correcting spelling or grammatical errors—these all add something new. Discussing a dispute on a talk page to reach a mutually agreeable wording is also constructive. Reverting a page is not.

I too have done my fair share of reverting pages, but I always feel slightly guilty when I do so, because I'm not contributing anything new. I have never reverted a page more than once. Locking a page in a perpetual state of reversion prevents the page from finding middle ground or mutually acceptable content. Please, Wik, if you find something POV in an article, try to reword it, rather than simply reverting to an earlier version. If someone reverts your edit, ask them on the talk page why they did so, rather than promulgating an unproductive revert war. No one gains from a page that constantly switches back and forth between two versions. —Bkell 21:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is wrong to seek a middle ground between POV and NPOV, and talking to POV pushers is a waste of time. And it's not quite true that "no one gains" from an edit war. If you don't revert, the other side wins. When you switch back and forth, the article is on your version at least half the time. And if you're more determined than your opponent, he may at some time give up. Those are simply the sordid facts of the current setup - I wish there was a better mechanism to decide such matters, but the idea that you can settle any dispute by talking is illusory, because there are some users who are not acting in good faith. --Wik 21:15, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

I'm curious what you mean by "It is wrong to seek a middle ground between POV and NPOV". Can I have an example of a POV sentence and a replacement NPOV sentence for which there is no middle ground? —Bkell 21:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, we want NPOV, so if someone wants to push a POV, it is wrong to make a compromise and adopt a watered-down POV which is still a POV. If the article says "2+2=4" (NPOV), and someone wants to change it to "2+2=6" (POV), it is wrong to agree on "2+2=5" (still POV). --Wik 21:29, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

That's tremendously contrived. In fact, I wouldn't even call those POV sentences; I would call them provably false. Can I have an example of a POV sentence and a replacement NPOV sentence for which there is no middle ground, this time from an actual, historical Wikipedia revert war? —Bkell 21:32, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think the middle ground would be: Scientific community agrees that 2+2=4, althought some believe that 2+2=6. Przepla 21:40, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, that would still be POV by giving credence to a crackpot view. Some things have just to be rejected outright, and that means reversion if the person is impervious to rational argument. --Wik 21:45, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Some people insist on writing: "Sealand has not been officially recognized by any government in the world." This clearly suggests that it has been unofficially recognized, which is not the case. So my NPOV version is: "Sealand has not been recognized by any government in the world." Where's the middle ground there? --Wik 21:45, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

What does it mean for a government to unofficially recognize an entity? —Bkell 22:01, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, having some kind of quasi-diplomatic relations which are not called that, like various countries have with Taiwan. --Wik 22:05, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Middle ground: "There is no evidence that Sealand has been recognized by any government in the world." anthony (see warning) 22:47, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. So maybe a better idea than reversion would be to change it to "Sealand has not been recognized by any government in the world, either officially or unofficially." This removes any ambiguity that may be caused by either of the two previous versions. What do you think? —Bkell 22:12, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's equivalent to my version. The other side wouldn't be any more likely to accept this. --Wik 22:25, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

In addition, I think it would be more difficult for someone to bring themselves to return to the "officially recognized" version, since it offers less information than the "officially or unofficially" version does. —Bkell 22:14, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sure, see if you get Branddobbe to agree with this. He claims it was unofficially recognized, but refuses to provide documentation. --Wik 22:25, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I just reread the Sealand article and perused its history, so I'm slightly more competent now. :) What kind of documentation do you think would be sufficient to show that Sealand was unofficially recognized? —Bkell 22:37, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Any kind of confirmation by a credible source of the supposed court cases in which, according to Branddobbe, British courts have declared that Sealand is outside the U.K., even after the territorial waters were extended. --Wik 22:43, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. I'll see what I can find. —Bkell 22:53, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have learned that it is difficult for me, in Nebraska, to find information about British court cases. I found a transcript of the November 1968 case. Perhaps some further digging will find something else. It does seem that the burden of proof is on those that say that Britain has unofficially recognized Sealand. —Bkell 00:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The 1968 case is not in doubt. It merely recognized that the tower was outside the 3-mile limit then. But that doesn't mean that Sealand was recognized in any way, and in 1987 the territorial waters were extended, and the area thereby became British territory. If there were a post-1987 court case declaring Sealand to be outside British jurisdiction, Sealand itself would surely publish it far and wide, but there's nothing. --Wik 01:19, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Philippine Page move

There's no other way to move this page. I'm trying to move it to "List of Presidents of the Philippines" to make it conform to other presidential lists. But moving it the normal way didn't work. Anyway, it isn't really cut-and-paste, as it was ORIGINALLY at the page I'm moving it to anyway. Davidcannon 23:47, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you can't move it, ask a sysop to delete the target page, then you can move it. --Wik 23:49, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Will you join me on the mailing list? Or in a private email conversation?

I think that the issues you raised in your response to me deserve a long reply, but I don't find the format of a wiki page to be suitable for such things. I would like to interact with you through several rounds of discussion, back and forth, because (a) I think that I can convince you of some things and (b) I think that you can offer me some valuable advice (and convince me of some things, likely).

The biggest problem I have with your behavior is your open defiance of community standards. That's just totally unacceptable, and it will get you banned. I, and the community at large, refuse to be held hostage to your petulant demand that we find another way to solve POV issues BEFORE you cease your annoying behavior. It's going to get you banned, and I'm going to say a sad good riddance, because as I say, I think that you have a lot of good things to say about NPOV.

But your valid points about NPOV are getting lost because of your asshole behavior.

Listen, saying that it takes two to revert is just shocking to me. It indicates to me that you don't even grasp what this is about. I do not think you made that remark seriously.. if I thought you did, I would think you were just either yanking my chain or that you're too clueless to even bother talking to anymore.

You know full well that you have on your user page placed a standing threat to revert a bunch of pages over and over, once per day, until you get your way. That is just absolutely and monumentally unacceptable, unforgiveable, and something that I hope you will delete right now when you read this.

You can win this debate, but you can't win this battle. If you want it to be a debate, you can argue cogently and convince people that you're right. If you want it to be a battle, you can't win. If your actual goal is to get yourself banned so you can go and tell the world how corrupt we are, well my friend, I'm sad to say that we have virtually no values in common after all.

You seem to care about this project. So do I. You seem to care about making the encyclopedia better. So do I. I'm interested in careful policy and governance changes to make this a better place. If you'll work *with* me instead of against me, you'll have a great ally. But if you continue to simply demand that we let you do as you please, if you continue to use methods of force rather than persuasion, then I'm very sorry.

So, please, as a kindness to me, call a total ceasefire on your reverting behaviors until such time as we've hashed it out in email. If I can't convince you in a couple of weeks, and you still want to continue as you are now, and go out in a blaze of glory, you can still do that then, and I will absolutely be willing to help you hasten your inevitable departure. Jimbo Wales 03:21, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

p.s. I don't usually log in much on the weekends, so don't despair if you write me and you don't hear back right away. Jimbo Wales 03:23, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You're sending rather mixed signals there, Jimbo. I'm sorry that you misunderstand me. I meant what I said. I don't want to be banned, I want to continue editing, I am not making any "demand", but just as some things are unacceptable to you, some things are unacceptable to me. Maybe I'm a clueless asshole, but I can't help having the views I have, as you have yours, and maybe we just won't get together there. You are the boss, so it is your decision if you think my presence here on the whole is detrimental. If so, it will be a sad goodbye, there will be no glory involved, and I won't "tell the world how corrupt you are". I think, however, that in the long run you will come to the same conclusions as I and see that reversion wars are inevitable under the current conditions and banning users like me will not be the solution.

It is shocking to me that you don't see that a revert war has two sides. The list of articles to be reverted on my user page is obviously occasioned by the fact that there are other people who revert those articles just the same. Otherwise I wouldn't have to revert them again and again. (The list as such is not intended as a "threat", by the way, but mainly as an aid for my own use.) I don't know why that should be unforgivable for me and not for others, especially since you agreed that I'm right on the issues.

However, I am glad you are willing to enter a discussion on the matter and I have no problem with a reversion ceasefire for its duration; after all, in the end we either have a solution that will take care of those disputes or I will be gone and then those articles will all return to The Wrong Versions anyway. I wonder though why you think a wiki page is not suitable. I don't like the cabal nature of the mailing list, and even less the secretiveness of private emails. This is surely of interest to others, so we should discuss it openly. Would you mind doing it here, maybe on some subpage like User talk:Wik/Jimbo discussion? --Wik 18:40, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer a mailing list discussion, then, because I find the wiki format gets very clumsy when a discussion gets nested more than a couple of turns back and forth. Is there a reason why that's not o.k. with you?

I don't know what you mean by 'the cabal nature of the mailing list'. I think that's a completely silly thing to say. The list is, just like the wiki, an integral part of the project, and it is unmoderated, and it is equally open to everyone. It's no more of "cabal nature" than VfD or indeed User_talk pages or meta.wikipedia.org or anything else. A cabal would be better set using wiki pages because the history can be (and is) obscured by subsequent edits. The mailing list is the exact opposite, with a permanent public record with clearly delineated threads, etc.

Even though I'm still strongly preferring a mailing list discussion, I will write a little bit on User talk:Wik/Jimbo discussion.

[edit] Discussion continued at my talk page

Wik, copied text from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wik and my comment is at my talk page. Kosebamse 20:15, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A comment of yours

I found this comment of yours (which, I believe, Kosebamse copied from that requests for comment page), a bit odd.

anyone just needs to look on any current English-language map of Poland to see what the name of Gdansk is, for example.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Even Nico isn't denying that Gdansk is the current English-language name of Gdansk. The arguments have resolved around a) how to describe what sort of name "Danzig" is for the city, whether or not it's a former name, or a current German name; and b) how to refer to the city at earlier times. I agree there's been far too much argument about the first, which I really don't care about, so long as Danzig is prominent and in bold, but the second is a fairly valid argument, and it's almost certainly not been Nico who's been most problematic in terms of finding an acceptable compromise, although he's rarely helped matters. Ah well, I'm so sick of the whole mess at this point. john 21:15, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jor tried to move St. Mary's Church, Gdansk to St. Mary's Church, Danzig (Gdansk) as if the proper name today was Danzig. He reverted the page 20 times in an hour and got away with it. --Wik 21:17, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. That is indeed ridiculous. john 23:53, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] GSG 9 vs Grenzschutzgruppe 9

Hi. Just noticed you reverted my moving of GSG-9 to Grenzschutzgruppe 9. I thought the full name is better because it is less likely to create confusion in case something else uses the same acronym. For example RAF means Red Army Faction, Royal Air Force, and Rigas Autobusu Fabrika . However, I am not sure if there is a policy about this in Wikipedia. I will have a look. -- chris_73 03:10, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is much better known as GSG-9. Many people will recognize "GSG-9" without knowing what it stands for. And it doesn't seem as if anything else uses the same acronym. --Wik 03:13, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense. A quick search showed a lot of GSG acronyms [1], but only one GSG 9. -- chris_73 03:17, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] arbitration

As you may already be aware, the arbitration committee has agreed to review your case. Please add any further statements you may wish to make to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2, and add evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2/Evidence.

Additionally, I'm interested to know if there are any formal complaints you wish to make against those who have brought the case to arbitration, or against others involved in the disputes.

Any questions, just ask. Martin 17:55, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wik, may I protect your talk page for now? Danny 22:32, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, what does that solve? He's harassing me for weeks, he needs to be banned. --Wik 22:33, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, please let Cantus in his many incarnations put whatever he wants on that page. It really doesnt bother me. Danny 23:32, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It bothers me when he's vandalizing this page. Why can't you just immediately block each new incarnation, then he'll give up pretty soon. --Wik 23:36, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Talking to a user on hir talk page is not vandalism, Wik, however bothering it might be. Sorry. Martin 23:54, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It certainly is when it is repeating the same thing 20 times. --Wik 23:54, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Glad to see you're back. Danny 23:26, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Wik. I hope your conversation with Jimbo bears fruit. fabiform | talk 02:39, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Me too, but it doesn't look too good. --Wik 02:46, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Nomination

Hello, I would appreciate your help by earning your vote as an admin. I have been here about 5 months now and have been nominated. I have made many contributions and have improved on my editing and behavior. I take this seriously, that is why I have gotten into it with Anthony so much. You can look at my user page yourself and see my contribtions. I would appreciate a vote in the yes column if you agree. Again, thanks for your time and help. ChrisDJackson 02:34, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think you might potentially be a good sysop and I certainly won't blame you for getting into it with Anthony. But there are some legitimate issues of concern that other users have already raised, which make me withhold support for now. Wait two months or so, and if there are no new complaints then, you will have a better chance. --Wik 07:17, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hello "Wik"

I will cut to chase as they say, although i'm a marxist i seriously don't think the CIA was involved in coup in Chile, there has never been full documented proof of this i don't know why you say "AstroNomer and VeryVerily denying CIA backing of coup," they are correct Comrade Wik, if you have no concrate you deny something correct? Comrade Nick

Powell admitted it, what more do you need? --Wik 07:17, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] cap or no

{sigh} Wanna weigh in on the subject? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Capitalization of species common names again

Whoops... never mind... I meant to put this on another user's talk. Feel frr to ignore or participate as you see fit. :) - UtherSRG 18:35, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Benjamin Boyer

What is the basis for your reverting Carl Benjamin Boyer? Your describing the edit as "minor" is misleading. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:17, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There was no revert. I just removed an obsolete reference to Daniel C. Boyer. --Wik 18:21, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

O.k.; my apologies for incorrectly calling it a "revert". But I was unaware that I have become obsolete. I'll go buy a Daniel C. Boyer-2000 ASAP. Or is Carl Benjamin Boyer no longer my grandfather? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:28, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are not encyclopedic. We don't list random nonfamous grandsons of people. --Wik 18:36, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pinochet

Cantus seems to be going after me on the Pinochet page. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at the ongoing polls. 172 23:19, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nico

Mind starting a quick poll to ban Nico? Reverted Erika Whats-her-name 8 times today. I can't do it as I haven't been here 3 months. --Voodoo 09:41, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think I can't do it because I have been involved in this conflict. --Wik 09:46, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hcheney's nomination

Wik, would you mind reviewing the additional comments regarding this nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship? I assume that you are basing your claim that Hcheney lied about knowing GrazingshipIV on the discussion cited there by moink. I believe if you re-read the statement carefully, with my comment in mind, you will find that Hcheney did not deny knowing the person who goes by the username of GrazingshipIV.

I do not necessarily expect you to withdraw your opposition to the nomination. However, I suggest that it would be appropriate to retract the accusation you have made. Respectfully, Michael Snow

Wik, you removed by and large the entire arcticle about the Pat Metheny Group. I urge you to give your motives on the relating talk page. Jost ammon 02:01, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please have the decency to explain why you are reverting, and to justify your actions on the relevant talk page. Tannin 13:02, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wik

I see you have been 'reverting' articles yet again, last time you wanted to revert it to Tannin's version; this time you don't like Tannin's work? You may have failed to have notice that he had put an herculean effort into coming up to speed on the West Papua subject matter and performing careful reviews. Your thoughtless reversions appear to be pure vandalism at its mindless worse.

I sincerely hope your motives in doing so are not out of some perverseness, that you are doing these things just because you are a lonely person who spends every day week after week on Wikipedia so you can have the last word on every subject. That's o,k,, everyone gets lonely sometimes. But stop destroying good work. Mine was good & well researched & supported, Tannin's is good.

Above ALL, do not deny the West Papuan people the ONLY VOICE they have, THE TRUTH.

You may think it is funny to insert the Indonesian mis-naming on this article, and to deny the murders and tortures of Papuans on the West Papuan Genocide page; but it is not.Daeron 05:04, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Would you want to take a look at Augusto Pinochet now? VV's at it with his bullshit again. 172 05:23, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Wik

I'm very sorry for any inconvenience that I could have caused. Following this message I will make the necessary adjustments.

If necessary, please contact me if you have any comments or suggestions.

Thanks.

MusiCitizen 16:35, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hello again.

Well. I am trying to colaborate. (eg) é to &eacute. Please report if something still wrong.

Best regards.

MusiCitizen 16:34, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

That is not necessary. The problem was only with the accented y. --Wik 16:42, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Incumbents by Year

Hey Wik, when adding incumbents by year, be sure to use appropriate format so the links all work. [[George II of Great Britain|George II]] rather than simply [[George II]], as you did for many of your additions at 1747 incumbents. john 16:36, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I was to fix that. But on another matter, do we really want all the German mini-states? You realize that with your latest additions it still is far from complete? And doing those 150 or so entities for each year is going to be tedious. --Wik 17:35, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. My thought would be that, for the Holy Roman Empire, just the Emperor himself and the electors should be listed on the main page. Sub pages could be created, as necessary, for all the other states. john 18:26, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On HRE incumbents, what should be the criteria for inclusion? Some of the ones you've added, like Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg, did not possess Landeshoheit and were not immediate vassals of the Emperor - they owned their lands in fief to the Dukes of Schleswig-Holstein-Segeburg and Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp. But I'm not sure how to figure this out. john 22:25, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a good source on this either. But I think most of the ones I added were indeed reichsunmittelbar, and it still is far from complete, and probably never will be. Some sources say there were over 1,800 immediate territories in the 18th century. It's a big mess. --Wik 23:33, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it certainly is. Perhaps limiting to those who had representation in the Imperial Diet or in Imperial Circle Estates? That'd give you the ecclesiastical territories, the free cities, and the important secular princes, although there'd probably still be some missing. john 23:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

The arbitration committee has referred the issues of Anthony's reverts and alleged trolling to the mediation committee. If you would like to be involved in mediation on these issues please leave a message at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I am cross-posting this message to all those who commented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro and to Anthony. Regards -- sannse (talk) 21:43, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee).

[edit] User:Angela (cabal)

What is this supposed to mean and what am I supposed to do about it? Is there any way of not being forever regarded as an "unsuitable sysop" by you if I don't believe there even is a cabal? Angela. 21:53, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you don't see it, no. --Wik 22:24, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you over whether there is a cabal makes me an unsuitable sysop? Please remove me from your page. I have done nothing wrong and do not belong to any perceived cabal. Even I did, surely that alone would not make me unsuitable unless you had some proof I was using that to abuse my admin powers, which I most certainly am not. Angela . 22:50, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yes you are, such as by promoting Fennec with 75% support while at another time you deny that 75% is good enough to delete a page on VfD. You frequently act according to your personal sympathies rather than applying rules equally to everyone. --Wik 23:33, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

I explained my justification for promoting Fennec on the talk page, and if you give me an example of an article I have not deleted despite a 75% vote in favor of that, I will justify that to you as well. I do not, can not, and will not base every decision I make on pure numbers. If it were that simple, a robot would be maintaining RfA and VfD. There are always other factors to take into account, and I am prepared to justify the decisions I take here and explain what those factors were. You are making a very wrong assumption when you suggest that I am acting according to my "personal sympathies". I'm not. I'm trying to make the right decisions, and get the outcome that best matches the consensus, regardless of what my personal views are. I'm sorry that you feel that my decisions are not objective and I don't see what I can do to change your mind about that, but I am highly offended that you would list me on your user page on some made up claim of me being in an imaginary cabal. Angela . 07:21, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed you explained your justification, by saying that the reasons given in support of Fennec are somehow better than those for opposing him, which is simply your personal view which you thereby put above the view of the voters. And that's also what you do on VfD. If you choose "the outcome that best matches the consensus", yet refuse to define a clear threshold for consensus, you necessarily let your personal view decide. --Wik 16:26, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Wik - I'm taking time out as I'm sick of all these people. Thought you'd like to know. Secretlondon 18:06, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Simple Wish

Just thought of wishing you with this poem. Have a nice day! --Rrjanbiah 19:53, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

There is some suspicion that Augustin and Augustine are alternate accounts created and run by yourself. Is this true? See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2/Evidence. Martin 22:51, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do you expect me to reply to all the nonsense on that page? Augustin and Augustine were (rather obvious) sockpuppets I used only after Cantus used his Augusta sockpuppet to get around the 3-revert limit and sysops wouldn't do anything about that. I have only used them to revert those articles Augusta had reverted. I was hoping that sysops would then step in and ban all sockpuppets. --Wik 23:06, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I have copied it to the page.

It may interest you to know (as explained on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2/Evidence) that the evidence is that Augusta is a sock puppet of Nico, not Cantus.

Oh, one more question. Have you been using any other Wikipedia accounts, besides these two? Martin 23:35, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No. Only when RickK blocked me because he miscounted my reverts the other day, I logged in as User:(Wik) to tell him. I find it hard to believe that Augusta would be a sockpuppet of Nico (it seemed to be Cantus' style) but in that case Nico should be included in the arbitration. --Wik 23:54, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that extra info. I have already left a note on user talk:Nico regarding the matter. Martin 00:10, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk

Nice article. Thanks. Isomorphic 23:00, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I thought Paul Vogel might like it. --Wik 23:06, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, please stop reverting with Cantus, so that you dont go over the revert limit. I will take care of it. Danny 03:03, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just went to the limit. Cantus, however, already crossed it. --Wik 03:04, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped. Let's leave it at that for now. Danny 03:08, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wik, just a suggestion, but if you removed words like "moron" and "nazi" from your lists on your userpage people wouldn't be able to accuse you of violating our "no personal attacks" rule.theresa knott 14:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Papua (or whatever)

Wik, it would've been better if you'd not moved it to a different location from before. At any rate, I'm going to try and edit the longer version of the body (with your version of the intro) to meet your exacting standards. Your case would be a lot better if Tannin could be unable to accuse you of "massive deletions." john 17:06, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't move it back to Papua (Indonesia) so I had to choose a different name that made sense. Editing the page will be a waste of time, as I did it before and Tannin reverted to the POV version as he will continue to do. His accusations are nonsense. --Wik 17:12, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that you couldn't move it back. I'd have done it, but perhaps it's okay, (Indonesian province) makes more sense anyway. As to editing it, even if Tannin reverts, at least editing it to a solid version gives a solid version to revert to, if that's what's necessary. john 17:23, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've tried to make changes. If you dislike some, I'd appreciate if you'd make edits, instead of reverting wholesale. john 17:42, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

Does it need to be protected? It seems to be approaching serious edit war territory. While I would prefer for you not to post these lists, if you think protection is necessary, I think basic courtesy would dictate that we protect your user page on your version. --Michael Snow 20:57, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, then I couldn't edit it myself. --Wik 21:00, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

True enough, I just thought it would discourage edits that you obviously consider vandalism. Some other users claim the right to protect their user pages from edits by others when they have been targets for vandalism, and I don't want to deprive you of this just because you're not a sysop. Feel free to request protection if necessary; I would be willing to let you make edits too, if you can live with the delay involved in requesting temporary unprotection, or having somebody else actually perform the edits according to your instructions. --Michael Snow 21:20, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A better solution would be to block the vandals. --Wik 21:38, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

If the only arguable vandalism they are doing is to your user page, then that option is not available. Especially since we're talking about people with usernames. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Vandalism. --Michael Snow 21:47, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Great work on Users that need to be banned (incomplete)! However, Tannin doesn't belong there. Although I haven't been following the "West Papua" disputes, I have seen steady evidence for the past 16 months that Tannin's among the site's most able, fair, productive, and reasonable contributors. Listing a good user among misfits who **really** are morons/insane/POV pushers/vandals/trolls all-in-one might obscure your point among users likely to back you up against the German nationalists and the Fox News users. 172 19:03, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are some people who push a certain POV in one area but at the same time do a lot of work in other areas where they appear completely fair and reasonable. That may be the case here. I haven't had much contact with Tannin before, but in the "West Papua" case he was not only pushing a POV, but also aggressively accusing me of "distorting facts", while it's him doing precisely that, not only on the subject matter, but also in his complaints against me on my arbitration page, with selective quotations from the talk page and then this lie: "That's it. Can't you read? Wik has not seen fit to make any other comment on an article that has been entirely rewritten since his original complaint — by me, not by Daeron — but he continues to revert". In fact I said "Can't you read?" when I had just made my point a few paragraphs above and he had not replied to it and had continued to revert me. --Wik 19:22, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

I demand to be reclassified from vigilante to cabal. I set key precedents for developer intervention, I decide policy issues on IRC, heck, there practically wouldn't be a cabal without me! On the other hand, I don't have much time for vigilantism these days. Of course I might give you a 24 hour ban just for kicks, but people like RickK do much more work in that area. I feel like I am being unfairly given credit for something I don't do, while denied credit for something I do!

In the long term, I would also appreciate an exclusive label such as "an evil person", "seeks to depose Jimbo", "hunts down and kills Wikipedians without justification", "likes pizza with tuna and garlic". Just kicking around a few ideas here, I don't mean to stifle your boundless creativity.--Eloquence * 01:39, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] re: Seh-Yong Richard Thomas Cannon-Jung

User:Menchi brought this article to my attention, and I see that you have deleted it. I was aware of the article, but had no interest in it whatsoever. It was created by User:Simon Mayer without my authorization. I didn't complain, because it was harmless, but I feel it has no academic value. I think I may have edited it once or twice to remove inaccuracies. It's best gone, and I'm happy to see that you've deleted it. I resent, however, the comment that you've put on it: "VANITY" - implying that I wrote the article out of vanity. I assure you that I neither wrote nor authorized the article, and did not find out about it until some time later. Your "vanity" claim sticks in my gullet. However, when I look at your user page and see how you've classified hard-working Sysops as "morons", "cabal," and "liars," I suppose "vanity" is a pretty mild detraction - in fact almost a compliment - in comparison. Thanks a lot. David Cannon 05:05, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)