User talk:Wik

User_talk:Wik/Archive July-August 2003
User_talk:Wik/Archive September 2003
User_talk:Wik/Archive October 2003
User_talk:Wik/Archive November 2003
User_talk:Wik/Archive December 2003
User_talk:Wik/Archive January 2004
User_talk:Wik/Archive February 2004
User_talk:Wik/Archive March 2004
User_talk:Wik/Archive April 2004

Hi. Nice work on July 1922 in the United Kingdom. Are you planning on creating a series of these articles? Danny 03:21, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did January to July 1922 so far. --Wik 03:25, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Great. Have you thought of a way of referencing them to History of the United Kingdom or the year 1922 article, so that people interested in that year can take advantage of these articles? Danny 03:28, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

When I have finished the year I will do an index page 1922 in the United Kingdom which will be listed on 1922 along with 1922 in France etc. --Wik 03:33, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'll be needing some help on Augusto Pinochet. 172 21:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the page has been protected. 172 02:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki talk:Europe

Just curious why you reverted the additions of Jan Mayen and Svalbard? Please comment at MediaWiki talk:Europe#Geographic definition and stuff and MediaWiki talk:Europe#Dependencies. Thank you, Pædia | talk 18:33, 2004 May 4 (UTC)

Welcome back. My browser has been running slowly today, so I guess Silsor beat me in the chase. 172 09:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to protect your user pages, given all the vandalism today? 172 20:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

No, I want to be able to edit it. But I think repeat vandals like User:node ue should be blocked. --Wik 20:25, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

The Mailing list

Wik - I don't know if you read the mailing list, but in the interest of fairness, I think you should know that there's a lot of discussion on the mailing list about changing our dispute resolution process, and your name has been coming up a lot. See http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-May/date.html →Raul654 20:23, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it. It's rather bad form of Jimbo to break up the discussion I've had with him on the wiki although he finds time to talk about me on the mailing list. --Wik 20:25, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Hey Wik. I noticed that you're kind of in violation of the suggested measures on Wikipedia:Talk Etiquette FAQ. Removing those comments looks sneaky, and bad. I don't think it helps your cause. -Fennec 20:25, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

What comments? Those of someone who vandalized my user page three times, which I guess is OK for you? Or that by one who complained about me reverting after he just did it himself? --Wik 20:27, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, those comments. I'm no node-lover (and I have him ignored at times on the IRC channel) but... it looks sneaky.

Speaking of which, have you ever joined or considered joining the IRC channel? (just out of curiousity)... - Fennec 20:58, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see what's sneaky about it, everyone does it. If you are not interested in talking to trolls and such, you might as well remove their blatherings. And no, as I said before, I will neither join the IRC channel nor the mailing list. --Wik 21:01, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Just, thanks for all you do for WP. Wish you weren't so angry! +sj + 20:36, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

Hi Wik. I don't know if you read the mailing list or watch the IRC channel, but I support you and try to defend you. I am going to ask you though, to please remove the "List of users who ought to be banned" and List of unsuitable sysops" as a gesture of goodwill. Without people constantly pointing to them, hopefully we will be able to focus on the real issues: trolls and people pushing POV agendas. Danny 10:49, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's wrong with the lists, my descriptions of the various users are well-founded. Of course, the lists are not essential, I might well compromise on them, however I don't think it's my turn for a gesture of goodwill. I'd remove the lists if, for example, Jimbo shows any readiness of discussing the real issues, which the lists are precisely pointing out. There are trolls, POV pushers, unsuitable sysops, etc. - blaming the messenger won't solve the problem. --Wik 11:05, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

If you remove this lists, even though it's not your turn for a gesture of goodwill, it will go a long way to help the situation. You want people to take you seriously don't you. Think about it, sometimes being the first to compromise gets you want you want in the end. The chief beneficiary of good diplomacy is you. theresa knott 11:28, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, let's see how long a way it goes. --Wik 11:32, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks let's hope I'm proved right. theresa knott 11:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Danny 11:43, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise advice

You may not want advice, but instead of removing your lists, why not move them to say User:Wik/? That way, you can update them without advertising. Cheers, Pædia | talk 16:59, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

Obviously I would advise against this. theresa knott 18:45, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Governors of Liaoning

I saw you corrected the dates for the governors of Liaoning province. Are you sure about them? The list of governor that I posted was incomplete, and there might have been other governors inbetween those mentioned, or not at all (for instance function assumed by a vice-governor). Thanks. olivier 18:35, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is the complete list since 1980. Vice-governors acting as governors usually end up being confirmed as official governors (e.g. Li Changchun became acting governor in April 1986 and governor in March 1987). --Wik 19:41, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Hamzah Fansuri

Thanks, Sam Spade 22:15, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sealand quotation marks

Wik, you need to stop putting quotation marks around Principality of Sealand at the Sealand article. It is completely POV, and it is wrong — that section is for the official name of the country in the country's official language, and the official name has no quotation marks. I've said this all on Sealand's talk page but you ignored it, so I'm saying it here in hopes that maybe you'll pay attention. -Branddobbe 18:39, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

I have made my point before on the talk page and it still stands. --Wik 18:44, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

No, as a matter of fact, you have never even mentioned your quotation marks on the talk page. Stop putting them in. All they add is sarcasm, which has no place in a Wikipedia article. -Branddobbe 19:02, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Nachricht

I think you are being stubborn on Schnorrer but considering your current situation (arbitration) I am just going to more or less piss off but some sort of compromise should be sought out I think Angela's suggestion was reasonable. GrazingshipIV 19:48, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

On this topic too I have said enough before and I'm not repeating myself. So, just do what you were more or less going to do. --Wik 19:54, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Is there any point?

Do you think the project is saveable? I'm wondering whether by contributing here I'm actually helping to give it credibility. If none of us contributed then it would consist of nonsense and US propaganda. Maybe we should just let it kill itself rather than fighting them. The "groupthink" where new contributors automatically agree with the establishment is, at best, unhelpful. It seems designed to make me feel that _I_ am the extremist. I often feel that I am the only person who has ever studied the things I write/wrote about. I guess the idea of an international group writing about international topics objectively is impossible when the "established truth" varies from country to country. Maybe I'm just incapable of working with people from the United States as I think it is unpleasant to work in an environment where their national perspective is dominant. I appreciate that one ends up damning all people from the United States but they have some terrible ambassadors here.

The only way to survive here seems to be to write about things that don't really matter - local history, music etc or to fight them until they want you to be banned. I either go out in a blaze of glory with a long ban or withdraw completely. I see no point in contributing trivia or doing their house keeping. Fundamentally I've got better things to do than engage in a war of attrition with a group of right wing men.

I expect they'll ban you soon but I wish you luck anyway. Secretlondon 23:25, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Secret. I'm not sure what advice to give you. On the one hand it's not good to just give up without a fight. On the other hand the fight is no fun and you may still lose in the end. But you're in a better position than me as you're a sysop - you will not so quickly be threatened by a ban. In any case, however, I think the project will survive in the long run, as the time will come when no one can deny the obvious any longer, and either the governance is drastically changed, or if not, there will be a successful fork with better governance. --Wik 09:29, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Wik. Obviously you've seen the case, and I expect you know which way we're leaning at the moment, though nothing's decided yet. At JamesDay's prompting, I wondered if you could suggest any other options other than the proposed remedies. It can't hurt to ask, right? Martin 00:17, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking me? Obviously I don't agree to any of those remedies, as they are based on patently false findings of fact; so the other option is to drop them and instead ban Nico and Cantus permanently. --Wik 09:29, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'm asking you because I thought you might come up with an innovative solution to this conflict, and because it couldn't hurt to ask. So, Cantus has asked that you be banned forever, and you ask that Cantus is banned forever. Well, I have my answer then. Thanks. Martin 13:38, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, I'm new to Wikipedia and, therefore, a nobody, and I don't know the specifics of the case, but I think a ban against Wik, if it's just over his User page and a few disagreements with other users, is a bit harsh.

Maybe Wik could work more on being a "team player"; he certainly has a reputation for being snide and quick to revert. On the same token, he has an equally extensive reputation for contributing important content to Wikipedia. I don't think we should ban/block a productive editor lightly. Bans and blocks are for strict vandals-- people (normally bored teenagers) who blank pages, damage information, or post insulting content for their own amusement. We ban them so we don't have to keep correcting their posts.

Wik, on the other hand, is a user with a mixed reputation but known for producing good work for Wikipedia. I think it would be a mistake to block him, unless he's done things I don't know about. We could alienate a good user.

By the way, I weakly supported Wik's right to maintain a "problem users" list (which I was on) just as I supported my right to ridicule said list. The list now gone, I have stubbified my "Hall of Fame" article in tandem.

Mike Church 03:58, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I too think that banning Wik is stupid. And seriously, I didn't find anything wrong with his list. The list eventually showed his love towards the project. The Wiki policies have many serious flaws. --Rrjanbiah 10:44, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found things wrong with his list, I just thought he had the right to have it. And to say it showed "his love toward the project" is a bit of a stretch. Would you say that most trollhunters do so out of the love for their respective message boards, or simply because they love a (electronic) fight? Mike Church 06:37, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed one week ban on Wik is for (A) engaging in excessive revert wars and thus being placed on parole limiting the frequency of his reverts - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik (B) for violating that parole (C) for doing so via the creation of sock puppet accounts - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2. Martin 13:38, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Wik,
Mind what you're reverting without so much as a comment! —Chameleon 01:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wik -- just FYI, I left the folowwing message for Chameleon after he left me a message complaining about one of my edit summaries:

Hi David -- my edit summaries were not directed specifically at you, but for anyone looking through the edit history. Although you may be completely satisfied with the logic and internal consistency of your decisions regarding Zaragoza and Sevilla, your changes are in contravention of Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Please refer to those pages and if you want to propose a change, please discuss them first on the talk pages of the convention page in question.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 01:39, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for following the Nationalist Congress Party article to keep the PR contact info out of it. Alcarillo 18:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV

I saw you had some knowledge of this user, and would offer you the opportunity to share any thoughts or observations. Thank you, Sam Spade 23:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

HA-Wik I think Spade was actually on your list. Well, he is also on mine and he is pretty mad about it. GrazingshipIV 00:03, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Central Asia

Hi Wik - could I trouble you to explain your objections on this page? Much appreciated, Mark Richards 16:04, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not wasting my time with Cantus. If you have an original criticism of my version, I will answer it, but if you're just trying to mediate between me and Cantus, that is futile. --Wik 17:37, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Right on, Wik! That's what I should've told Michael Snow, who's trying to ack as a mediator between Veriverily and me on Augusto Pinochet. 172 17:43, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the least bit interested in mediating, I'm interested in understanding (since you put nothing on the talk page) what it is that you find so offensive about the versions so that I do not contribute to the childish edit war there. Mark Richards 19:05, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Given that an edit war is going on, if you don't want to take part, just stay out of the article. Normal edits are not advisable as long as the edit war is on. Otherwise I don't know what you want. --Wik 19:17, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I want you to explain what it is that you don't want about the versions you are reverting (on the talk page). Declaring that other users should stay away because you can't be bothered to explan why you engaged in an edit war isn't very constructive. Mark Richards 19:30, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I already said I'm not dealing with Cantus, neither directly nor by proxy. So unless you have an original complaint about my version, I have nothing to explain to you. I'm not saying you should stay away, it was you who said you don't want to take part in the edit war. Unfortunately, another kind of participation is not possible at the moment. --Wik 19:36, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to deal with Cantus, I'm asking you to explain why you keep reverting the text on Central Asia. Mark Richards 20:03, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

That would amount to dealing with him. I don't see how this is your business unless you can tell me what's wrong with my version. --Wik 20:29, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

It is 'my business' since one of the things you are reverting is my contribution. I think that you should explain what about it you find offensive. Mark Richards 21:22, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I am just reverting Cantus. If you make edits on top of his version, they will of course be reverted too. I can't be expected to correct Cantus' nonsense again and again by hand - I will just revert to my version. --Wik 21:28, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think that engaging in edit reversions while refusing to explain why on the talk page is the kind of behavior that frequently gets people banned. Please explain why you are reverting the page. Thanks, Mark Richards 21:31, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It is Cantus' behaviour (the extent of which you may be unaware of) that gets people banned, and I don't have to explain myself to vandals. --Wik 21:34, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that nothing that I have written on that page can be construed as vandalism, and it is generally accepted that one does have to explain ones reverts to someone who asks. Especially when they are repeated. Thanks, Mark Richards 21:36, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Cantus is the vandal, and I'm not dealing with him either directly or indirectly. --Wik 21:39, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I don't care, but to the extent that that also means you will not respond to anyone else, that behavior seems unreasonable. Mark Richards 21:44, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are reverting me now, without explaining what's wrong with my version. --Wik 23:12, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Erm, no. I made some edits, which you reverted. Thanks, Mark Richards 23:30, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wik, your repeated reversions, without any attempt at discussion, do not affect just Cantus. It overwrites other users' contributions and makes it impossible for other users to edit the page. Please stop. --Lowellian 00:13, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Blame Cantus if it affects you. Not my fault that he can't be banned. I can not be expected to waste time with someone who has abused me like he has. Nor will I just let his nonsense stand. This causes an edit war, which naturally makes it impossible for other users to edit the page. It will only stop if either Cantus or me is gone, and I'm currently in talks with Jimbo which will either result in me leaving or in a method being adopted that allows the quick banning of useless users like Cantus. --Wik 00:20, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Don't be so ridiculous, you can't possibly expect other users to sit by while you grandstand whatever axe it is you are grinding here and refuse to even explain what it is you are warring over. Mark Richards 01:11, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, it is easy enough to include your additions on both versions of the edit war. Just add your additions to Wik's version, as well, and it'll be in both versions getting reverted. I've done this in similar instances with Wik, and had no further problems with him reverting said work. Getting along with Wik in edit war situations requires some extra work on one's own part, but is not especially difficult. john 03:22, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Dagestan blocked

I blocked User:Dagestan for vandalism, trolling, and use of sock puppets. Hopefully this will allow everyone to get back to serious work. 172 18:09, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ndash

Re: Karl Theodor Robert Luther, the ndash is a typographic standard for ranges of numbers or dates, such as 2–3 miles or 1977–2004. Where hyphens are used for these in articles, I change them to ndashes. -- Curps 21:42, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the typographic standard is, the hyphens are the de facto Wikipedia standard. Where ndashes are used for these in articles, I change them to hyphens. --Wik 22:56, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Tip

Here's a tip.

Don't call me a moron - this goes against "No personal attacks"

Yea, I was wrong on the "Am main" thing, but still... WhisperToMe 04:04, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this User:Burschenschafter? I think that this might be a banned vandal or a sock puppet. 172 20:55, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; in any case he's up to no good. --Wik 22:56, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Lst27

A general note to people who may be wondering whether this user is in fact Alex Plank. You may observe that Lst27's decision to remove his self-nomination for adminship, after it had received considerable opposition, is entirely consistent with Alex Plank's behavior when nominating himself in the past. --Michael Snow 21:04, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting on Talk:Empire of Atlantium

In the future, please do not remove [User:Gene Poole|]]'s comments, even if they are removing the comments of other users. I have restored all the comments that you are Gene Poole were removing. --"DICK" CHENEY 13:40, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to make some comments at Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Another poll? 172 15:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]