User talk:Wik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ugen64 (talk | contribs) at 02:41, 13 February 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Hi Wik,

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

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

well spotted

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

Thanks

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

Independence - strike?

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

Comments?

Apology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danzig

Re: [2]


Wik, you are lying!

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

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

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

Great Britain

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

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

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

So relax, huh?

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

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

Consideration

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

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

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

VfD

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

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

Adminship

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

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

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

East Germany

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anthony DiPierro

Hi Wik,

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

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

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

Stettin

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

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

Words

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To continue the original discussion... [8] shows that this city is really named Pila, so what's wrong with getting rid of the old name? ugen64 02:41, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wik&oldid=2375554"