User talk:Wik/Archive July-August 2003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greetings! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include:

Have fun! --Jiang 20:16 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the typo ("aides") and filling in some of the details I couldn't quite remember. The article is something of a stub at the moment. sugarfish 06:27 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your information on the old-europeness of the term "marionette". Couldn't you write a line about that in the article instead? I can contribute with the relation between the puppet-term and the marionette-term in what google classify as English language text, which is 500:1 - however, not that googling should be taken as the ultimate truth.
-- Ruhrjung 00:23, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the article. It's just the German translation. "Marionette regime" in English is about as rare as "Puppenregime" in German. People may understand what is meant, but it's not the regular term. Google is quite suitable to demonstrate this. --Wik 00:57, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

Re edit conflicts on Bundeswehr: What do you think the diff is good for? What I do in case of an edit conflict is looking which sections are changed, if the edits aren't in the same sections copy my edits (only that sections) from the lower form to the upper form, and save the upper form. Only I'm quite tired and the diff function is sometimes a bit silly (because it doesn't find the right paragraphs to compare), so it isn't that easy to see if there was a change or not. I didn't want to delete your helpful copy-edits, but I also don't think it's nice to revert without looking ... (as it seems you have done). A funny thing: the edit conflict you reverted (seemingly) last time was about putting the changes that got lost at your edit in the text ... -- till we *) 00:26, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

Well, if you get it right, I don't care how you do it. But as a matter of fact, you twice reverted my correction "in the Iraq"->"in Iraq". So you might be careful with copying whole paragraphs from the lower form, and instead just repeat your edits on the upper form. In fact, some edits can be almost invisible in the diff. In any case, it's up to the one who hits the edit conflict to sort it out. If you don't do it right, it's not for me to apply my previous changes a second time. I think it's ok in that case to just revert. --Wik 00:57, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)
Sorry for the "in the Iraq" reversion, and thanks for your third or whatever correction of that error. Regarding the "just revert", I'd say it depends on the changes -- I was quite frustrated as all the additions I put in the article were reverted because I missed three or so copyedits. But I think now the article is informative and not too much misspelt. -- till we *) 01:23, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Wik - and welcome.

About the ICC controversy (talk:victor's justice), I don't think it's merely that the US objects to following a "higher" law. The objection is that a superior court of jurisdiction would (a) have a "lower" standard of concern for human rights and (b) apply justice hypocritically, especially against the U.S.

But the important question for me is not whether the US is right to oppose the ICC, but rather how we should write about its opposition. Our mutual goal here is, I believe, to create neutrally-written articles.

So we need to say that ICC advocates favor the world court because of X, Y and Z. While the US oppose the wold court because of A, B and C. (Just a humble suggestion from a new friend... Uncle Ed 14:33, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC))

Hi Ed. Frankly I think the U.S. simply wants to reserve the right to commit war crimes. But that aside, I agree about the goal of neutrality, I just thought the article was sufficiently neutral as it stood. But I can live with the current revision. --Wik 16:00, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)
Hmm, sounds like you might agree with Sean Healy's views as expressed here. --Ed

I don't think Durres should be moved to Durrës since city names are supposed to be in the English language alphabet (at least that's the impression that I am under). Dori 23:23, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a general rule. I've seen many articles (about cities and otherwise) whose titles include diacritics. I don't see why this would be a problem, as long as the other version is set as a redirect. --Wik 07:04, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)
Here's the page I was referring to: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Dori 03:59, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't see anything about the English alphabet there. It's only about cities who have specific English names, such as Munich for München or Turin for Torino. But English names don't result from simply stripping the diacritics off the local names. --Wik 13:28, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)
Well on that note, I am moving the other pages. Hope no one complains. thanks Dori 03:10, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi. In articles about the UK written from a UK perspective. The periods (e.g. U.K.) are not required as it is standard practice not to put them in abberviations in British English. Mintguy 12:07, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, that's a matter of preference. I reinstated my version, however, as you also reverted some indisputable corrections. In an edit conflict, it's easier to just repeat your edits instead of using your text as a base and trying to repeat the previous person's edits, some of which (such as changes in spacing) may not be visible in red in the difference of revisions. --Wik 12:23, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)
Why do you keep putting back the external link to Page 3 three girl back in the text!? Mintguy
Because I'm not responsible for sorting out an edit conflict which you ran into. So as long as you revert some of my corrections, I will simply reinstate my old version. All you have to do is take my revision as a base and reapply your changes (changing the page 3 link and removing the dots from U.K.). But instead you keep copying and pasting over my corrections. --Wik 12:39, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)
Dont be such an arse. Mintguy 12:42, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I am an arse because you are too lazy to deal with an edit conflict properly? --Wik 12:45, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)
After finding an edit conflict, I noticed that some of your edits would need to be changed back (i.e. the UK thing). If this were not the case I would have re-added my stuff after your stuff as per norm. So I used my edits instead and then proceeded put back in the changes you made (minus the the U.K thing) on a separate edit. You decided to stand on principle and instantly revert. I then reverted to my version again and again made several edits to get the article back into the shape it was. You could have simply re-added the stuff but you decided to be and arse stand on principle and make me make numerous edits. Thank you for your cooperation. Mintguy 12:56, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
(later) OK maybe I was being an arse too. I apologise I wasn't trying to deliberately step on your toes. Let's just forget about it. But perhaps you should cut some slack to the next person. Mintguy 13:09, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You made yourself do numerous edits, because I made more edits than you. It would have been much easier for you from the start just to reapply your few edits instead of trying to recreate all my edits, which sure enough you failed to do properly. I would have cut some slack if this had been an exceptional case. But it happened a number of times before, and I'm tired of people carelessly overriding my edits. So I'm now reverting in those cases on principle. --Wik 13:25, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

Sure about this "on principle" policy? I don't find it easy sometimes, but I try to respect Wikipetiquette -- and find that helpful. -- till we *) 22:52, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

Since you appear to have the same opinion as me concerning the Daniel C. Boyer article, I wanted to let you know that I will be gone for the weekend, starting in a few minutes, and won't be able to "argue" with the others involved. Hopefully my opnion has been made clear, however, don't give up on it yet, I hope things will be resolved over the weekend, and I can come back and work on something else. Thanks, and good luck. ミハエル (MB) 22:11, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

I would request that you not respond in kind to JoeM. :-) Evercat 14:58, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, enough time has been wasted reverting his edits. Might as well escalate this until some sysop wakes up and bans him. --Wik 15:03, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

Sysops cannot ban logged-in users. We can only ban IP addresses. To ban a logged-in user takes a developer, and is usually only done with permission of Jimbo Wales (except in really obvious cases). Evercat 15:04, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That's the crux. It is trivial for a vandal to get a username and log in, but it seems to take a long time until a developer and/or Jimbo takes note of it. I think either sysops should have the power to ban logged-in users, or the process of getting a username should be made more tedious (which wouldn't be much of a problem for regular users, since it would be a one-time thing, but it would deter vandals because they'd have to go through it again and again whenever they're banned). --Wik 15:18, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

Please read my request on User talk:Nostrum/ban. マイカル (MB) 23:47, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

No need to apologise. I found myself repeating Taoiseach over and over again to make sure I had the pronounciation right. lol FearÉIREANN 18:33, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

While Fox News is not exactly the best source on earth, it is not somehting to simply remove as propaganda. Move it to the bottom if you like, but dont be so POV as to make its use an edit war -- and call those who use it "vandals" - this kind of nonsense is unacceptible.--戴&#30505sv 22:48, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)

It is not POV to remove it. FOX is POV, and removing it is making it NPOV. But the accusation of vandal was not about the FOX links, but about the use of the term "homicide bombing" instead of "suicide bombing". That term is only used by right-wing media (like FOX), and never by objective sources. And it's obviously propaganda, because information-wise it makes no sense. If I say "A suicide bomber killed 20" the homicide part is rather obvious; saying "homicide bomber" is redundant, but furthermore the information contained in the term "suicide bomber" is lost, as a homicide bomber could be someone who throws a bomb and gets away. Persisting (as Reddi did - he reversed it at least three times) on the use of "homicide bombing" is a blatant NPOV violation and qualifies him as a vandal. --Wik 23:01, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
I would just posit that an intermixing of the 2 terms would be fine [atleast to me ... YMMV] ... the term "homocide bombing" CLARIFIES the act ... as the thugs and criminals believe that thier suicide is a badge of honor (and the sole use of suicide only bolster thier sacrifical part, and not acknowledge the lawless act they commit). It may be a political act ... but clearly it is a criminal act. IMO, your continued refusal to acknowledge their intent to kill other people is a POV. BTW, A homicide bomber is anyone who uses explosives to kill people (if they die in their act or not). It'd be nice to allow BOTH instances. reddi 23:50, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Who is doing the reverting? Are you using the current events page to argue the merits of "homicide bombing" versus "suicide bombing" -- isnt that something for everyone to be a part of? And FOX news, despite how much you and I may dislike it, is still a news source -- no source is without its bias. I would rather see more links, than less -- otherwise your taking upon yourself the role of Wiki-censor and frankly thats not your job. If you think that it is -- I will take it to the WikiGods on the mailing list, and let them decide for you what your role is. -戴&#30505sv 23:10, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
What should everyone be a part of? That the term "homicide bombing" is POV is hardly a disputable matter. Why do you think CNN, BBC, or Reuters never use it? Do you think they have a bias? If you want to have a longer discussion on that, you may start one on some Talk page, but I think that argument will be quickly settled; note also that, unlike me, Reddi did not offer any word of justification for his reversals. And as to "censorship," removing POV is everyone's job here. If you call that "censorship" then I'm gladly a censor. --Wik 23:32, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
I agree entirely regarding the wording "homicide" as at least being redundant, if not POV. However, I don't believe that using a POV source is improper, so long as what is written and posted on the Wiki is distilled down to NPOV fact. Fox News is a legitimate, if famously biased, agency and should not be banned as a source to the Wikipedia. I don't want to incur another battle in an edit war, but I am reinstating the links to foxnews.com while leaving the "suicide" language. If you have a complaint agianst this, I suggest we move this entire discussion to a more trafficked forum, such as Talk:Current events. --Ed Cormany 23:15, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
That sounds like a good solution to me. I personally think CBS and CNN are biased but I am certainly not opposed to them being listed as a news source and would never remove them. I in fact used something from BBC today even though I consider them biased on other issues. I do agree with homicide bombing though....stupid phrase.Ark30inf 23:23, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I agree that CBS and CNN are also biased to some extent like all media inevitably is, but there is still a world of difference between those and FOX, which is quite explicitly and openly right-wing. --Wik 23:32, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
Just as there is a big difference between NPOV and your automatic removal of Fox News links. You might care to phrase the discussion more generally -- sunlight is the best disinfectant after all-- here is a link for you to ask your great and pressing question: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump#Is_Fox_News_a_real_news_source?
-戴&#30505sv 23:47, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
quite explicitly and openly right-wing, IYO ... YMMV ... atleast they give a different view than the Communist News Network =-) ... reddi 23:50, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

When writing generically about governor-generals, the office is not capitalised, when writing about a specific office of governor-general, or whether national or in a supra-national context, in British English is it capitalised. Only in American english and in Manuals of Style that follow AE is it lowercased. The article is written in British english and under wiki rules something written in BE is left in BE and follows BE style. FearÉIREANN 22:53, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"In some cases, where one person holds multiple headships of state, they may be represented by a Governor-General" - this seems generic enough for me. I don't think it's a matter of BE or AE. (See for example here or here - do you think the Telegraph and Guardian write in AE?) I know there are some people who prefer to always capitalize certain words like government, state, minister, etc. But that's rather outmoded and found mainly in older texts, so I don't think we should practice that here. --Wik 23:32, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)

Newspapers use a form of International english that combines AE and BE. It is not an option on wiki because

  • nobody on the planet is taught International english; they are taught BE, AE or their variants.
  • Use IE and everyone will think it breaks their language rules (try writing an article with BE dating and spelling, AE capitalisation and punctuation, and you will produce a mess that will offend 100% of users.) There are complicated procedural reasons why newspapers use IE (part of it is to do with archiving hardcopy of old editions) but which are irrelevant in the case of wiki.

Please stop changing agreed formats that everyone can live with to ones which you want and which many others don't. FearÉIREANN 15:44, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That's interesting about newspapers and "international English". Do you have a reference for that? Not that I don't believe you, I'm just curious. --Wik 18:35, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/vote. Please do not refactor pages about British subjects to use to the American date format, specifically Alex Higgins. Thank you. Mintguy 10:14, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This question is far from settled. Note: "This vote is currently declared pending." So I may well change dates to what is the de facto standard format here (it's not so much that I prefer the American format, I just think we should use the same format in all articles). But if you want to change it back on Alex Higgins, go ahead, I won't go to an edit war over that. --Wik 14:33, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

It is settled. That vote has been overtaken by events and is now obselete. In the last few weeks the preferences commands were adjusted to now allow people to set which format they wish to read dates in articles. The argument "I just think we should use the same format in all articles" has been settled after debate. The decision was 'no'. We are not doing that. It has proven when tried to be utterly unworkable.

In writing text, both AE and BE formats are correct. Whichever format is used by the original author of the article must be followed by everyone else in the article. Any changes, whether from BE to AE, or AE to BE, are simply and will continue to be reverted on sight. That is the agreement we reached. The original AE bias reflected a time when wiki was almost totally an American endeavour. It is now an internationally used sourcebook. As such, it has to take into account the differing preferences of readers worldwide; AE is the most spoken version of english, BE the most widely spoken version (ie though spoken by less numerically, AE is largely limited to the American continent, while worldwide english users use BE or local variants of it, Hiberno-english, Indian-english, International-english, etc.) And while AE may be spoken by more, International dating (dd/mm/yy) is used by 90% of the planet. If we had to one one format, international dating would be the only option. But we don't have to thanks to the preference change.

Please Wik, don't unilaterally try to change agreed rules on things like dates, spelling, AE and BE, etc. It is guaranteed to get you into monumental edit wars and piss off a lot of other users. FearÉIREANN 15:44, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl, that is not quite correct. The question has been settled by technical means. You can now choose your preferered date format in Special:Preferences. Automatic date conversion only works for linked dates (e.g. December 13, 1944 will appear according to your preference, but "13 December 1944" will not).—Eloquence 15:54, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)
Jtdirl, I was not aware of the subsequent debate you mentioned. Is this archived somewhere? I just went by the link Mintguy provided, and there it said the matter was pending. Maybe that page should be updated then. If indeed the dates are converted automatically according to everyone's preference (I wasn't aware of that, and it doesn't seem to work in all cases), then of course it doesn't matter much what format is used in the source. And anyway, as I said, I'm not getting into edit wars over a matter like this. --Wik 18:35, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)
I have to admit I wasn't aware of this date change thing added to the preferences. This must have been one of the many changes (like the sectioning and TOC) that occurred when I was on holiday. Nevertheless, whilst the dates are presented in the preferred format as set on preferences, I'm sure like myself, many users are either not aware of this or haven't set the option in their preferences. The source code still reflects the date format in which the articles were written and this should not be changed willy nilly. Mintguy 21:51, 2003 Aug 20 (UTC)

Thanks for working on my Chicago Sun-Times entry. It still needs work (halfway between stub and real article). Al 2003 Aug 20

I just noticed the reversion you made at User:Jimbo Wales/Pushing To 1.0. I assume you reverted because of technical issues with it rather than the content. In which case, you should have told Geoffrey that you had reverted what he wrote so he could re-do it as it deserved to be in there. Angela 01:54, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi wik... its me again... i noticed that you have taken out my message.. i just want to know if at least you will be able to leave the image? I would really appreciate that you do. I understand that the link to the actual artist was to big of a move for this encyclopedia, but I think that it would benefit all wikipedia users to keep the image... as my message said.

I'll leave the image, but meta messages like that don't belong in articles. You can put in on the article's Talk page. Also, if you want to talk to a user, please do so on the User Talk page, not on the User page. --Wik 03:35, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH... lesson learned.. im gonna sleep less stupid tonight!!

Good work on Chavéz. Hopefully the ongoing vandalism there is eventually stop. What is it about that page? lol FearÉIREANN 22:35, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the mess at Logitech, darned edit conflicts. I'll try to be a bit more observant in future :) Dysprosia 06:58, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Re: Carington/Carrington, confirmed through Burke's peerage.[1] Well you learn something every day. Mintguy 08:26, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Do you still believe Nostrum should be banned? See User talk:Nostrum/ban. Martin 11:07, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] kudos

Nice work on Viktor Klimenko. I invited the guy to discuss the matter on the talkpage. If he does so, try to be very polite. Gentle persuasion is best. In case he does not see his way to acting civilly, I have asked User:Jiang to standby as a disinterested administrator, in case that fails and protecting the page is the only avenue. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:36, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)

Im a amazed! Such a quick and good work about the parliaments of Albania! Andres 13:01, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the disambig on my sloppily created stub (Funken...). -- Cyan 01:30, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my user page yesterday after Heine/Rikke vandalised it. Angela 12:01, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)