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

Why are you reverting the content of Sarah Edmonds without comment? RickK 02:01, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I was reverted first. --Wik 02:03, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

No, you reverted me first. (Danny)

This is pretty clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Sarah_Edmonds&diff=1849085&oldid=1849069 --Wik 02:07, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

What is your problem with the Hank Eskin page? Can you please discuss it rather than reverting? Angela 20:51, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wik, please stop reverting so often. It's annoying to almost everyone. It's much better to respect what other people are doing, and to either edit the page to make it better, or to post your concerns on a talk page. Reverting is poor form. Jimbo Wales 23:47, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's also annoying to me when my edits are reverted. It is not logical that people can override edit conflicts without any consequence and I am blamed when I revert to my version. Another reason to revert is when my concerns on a talk page fall on deaf ears as the other side is just interested in pushing a POV or just trolling; absent any better mechanism for resolving such conflicts what am I to do but revert? --Wik 01:32, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

Well, my main suggestion, and not just to you but to anyone, is to avoid just writing 'rv' and reverting whenever you can. Generally speaking, it would be better if you made new edits that attempt to be mutually satisfactory. Yes, I know that sometimes it's difficult. But I feel that you rely too heavily on 'rv', and that it gets in the way of you ultimately getting the changes that you want. Jimbo Wales 21:29, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing Anton Chekhov. Martin 00:46, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that collage link in Mina Loy Bmills 09:01, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Umlaut

Re" your recent rename of Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius: is there a clear, canonical way to put an umlaut'ed vowel in an English-language topic title? Lack of certainty about that is exactly why I didn't move it when I recently edited. Is there somewhere I should have been able to look this up? Please reply on my talk page User talk:Jmabel. -- Jmabel 03:17, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. There is no reason not to include umlauts or any other ASCII characters in titles, only Unicode doesn't work. --Wik 03:23, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Well, I've noticed in general that a lot of titles seem to avoid them (same for acute accents & other diacriticals). My guess was that the intent was to make it easier to link: for example, I have no easy way to type an umlauted 'o' on my keyboard, so I insert them as 'ö', which of course would not link the same as 'ö'. Again, please reply on my talk page User talk:Jmabel, & thanks for the help. -- Jmabel 03:41, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Re: List of national leaders - where did you get your updated spellings from? I'm sure your right - just interested. I used the BBC's country profiles to compile it. Secretlondon 19:06, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Rulers.org is the best source for that. --Wik 19:12, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Please see the vote at Talk:2003 Canada-U.S. blackout. Angela . 04:35, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wik, I've noticed that you've occasionally come into the interminable Silesia arguments to express your agreement with Caius2ga. I was wondering if you could present more fully your thoughts on this article, as Caius2ga is extremely difficult to deal with, and perhaps more definite thoughts from you would help us arrive at some kind of consensus. john 22:03, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi WIk. I'd welcome your comments on Mother Teresa. I respect your factual integrity and ability, even though I have been critical of how I believe you rub others up the wrong way. Your independent voice would be most welcome. FearÉIREANN 03:41, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Wik, for offering your advice. It was much appreciated and was as valuable and honest as I expected; that was the reason I asked for your advice. I value your independence of mind and your judgment. And yes I have responded badly to Erik's criticism. I suppose I react badly to being accused of bias, a particular irony given that I went to the page in the first place to tone down the glorification tone of the start of the article, only to find that one third of the article sold a 'MT was the greatest human being of the 20th century' message, and that two-thirds sold a 'MT was a corrupt intolerant bitch' message. Both were repulsively OTT. Yet the moment the latter two-thirds were touched, a blitzkrieg erupted, with reversions, threatened deletions, accusations of censorship, theats of bans, of pro-catholic bias, etc etc. Those editing the page from a 'pro-catholic' perspective were open in saying that they did not in any way see my edits as 'pro-catholic'. One user did (as he did when Ed Poor raised questions as to the neutrality of the article, only to be then described as a "self confessed admirer of MT". Or when Daniel raised simple questions, only to be treated with a "read the fucking article" diatribe). I am use to seeing the odd extremist appear on wikipedia and highjack an article. It is depressing when one of the developers does it. So that is why I did react the way I did, and yes it was unwise. We all are human, I suppose!

But again, thank you for commenting. Your comments were highly thought-provoking. FearÉIREANN 06:40, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've tried to call a vote on the Silesia introduction, with various questions about different specific issues, so that perhaps we can try to get somewhere on this. Since you've participated in the debate, I'd appreciate your vote. john 21:41, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On Wikipedia talk:Edit conflicts, I wrote:

Well, what constitutes evidence that makes such an occurence [that is, someone ignoring an edit conflict] obvious? It would help if you could list edits where you think this has happened to you. Then we can ask the other people involved what they experienced, and come up with guidelines that will satisfy everyone. -- Cyan 03:31, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To which you replied:

If a user gets the edit conflict screen, he can be expected to either repeat his edit on the basis of the previous user's edit, or analyze the diff and repeat the previous user's edit on the basis of his. It may be an accident if a user applies the latter method and misses a part of the previous user's edit, but if he reverts the entire previous edit, he apparently hasn't even tried. --Wik 03:48, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

I was just looking through the history of Sarah Edmonds, and I noted that your edit [1] introduced three changes: "Emma", her middle name, "December", for her date of birth, and a wikilink for Houston, Texas. Danny's edit [2] reversed the first two of your changes, but left the third intact. By the standard you put forth in the quoted text above, it would appear that Danny's reversion of your edit was accidental. I felt you would want to know this, as I have observed you are meticulous about claiming responsibility when you feel you have made an error. Cheers, Cyan 05:10, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You're confusing my previous acknowledged practice (which included reversion even in case of accidents) with my compromise proposal for the new policy which would tolerate accidents but condemn deliberate reversion. --Wik 05:23, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

So let me ask you, did you know that Danny's reversion was accidental at the time you reverted? -- Cyan 05:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I didn't care. I was reverting anyway. --Wik 06:07, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

So did you or didn't you? -- Cyan 06:20, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't remember if I registered that he left the Houston wikilink intact. I just know that I noticed that he reverted the Emma and December. --Wik 06:26, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if that same situation arose again, and you did notice that part of your edit was kept, would you revert? Or has your personal policy now changed to the compromise version? -- Cyan 06:29, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I can live with the new policy, if it's stable now. --Wik 06:38, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Well I'm not fiddling with it, that's for sure. I wonder if you might be willing to make one further compromise: when you've been overwritten, if you do decide that it was deliberate and that reversion is justified, could you include more information in the edit summary as to why you're reverting? It seems to me that people are actually quite eager to include your edits in the cases where those edits been overwritten; folks just need some extra help figuring out why you're reverting. Just some specifics as to which words are being changed would help enormously. In terms of expended effort, doing this will save you having to watch articles that are being reverted back and forth, and it will very much reduce the hostile comments whose responses occupy much of your time that could more profitably be spent working on articles. What do you think? -- Cyan 06:45, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. --Wik 06:52, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

:-) -- Cyan 06:54, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ditto Cyan on the :-). Sorry for all the edit warring over it. I'm glad a compromise has been reached. Angela . 06:59, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

So am I. Perhaps we both learnt something. Martin 00:41, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

From 1886, both his mother and Louis Passinock faded from Godowsky's life. Passinock's fate is unknown and all we know of Anna Godowsky is that she died shortly before the First World War (she and her son had retained a nominal contact). (Wikikiwi)

Louis Passinock lived impoverished in the cellar of a fish factory on the West Coast. (No, actually, I have no idea what you're talking about.) --Wik 22:47, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

You have joined the discussion of whether Brunswick or Braunschweig should be the home of the article on the German city several times now. The decision still appears to be at an impasse. Could I ask you to take a few minutes to review the facts presented on Talk:Brunswick and share your current thoughts? Thanks. Rossami 22:28, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think we've made our case. Not sure what more to say to convince Jtdirl, but if the new vote is in favour of Braunschweig he may go along with that. --Wik 22:47, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

The debate on Brunswick/Braunschweig seems to have run its course. The vote has been open for a week with no new votes in over 5 days. Thanks again for your help. Would you do the honors with the page moves? Rossami

Hi Wik,

You and I have been going back and forth on the Free energy entry a few times now.

Could you please tell me why you keep removing a link to my Free Energy coverage at GreaterThings.com? It is recognized by many in that field of study as one of the best FE news and directory services.

I can't fathom why you refuse to allow people to be informed of it.

Sterlingda 16:44, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If your site were relevant at all, it would belong on Renewable energy, which is the term we use here. Free energy should not have more than a cross-reference. --Wik 21:44, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

Zimbabwe-Rhodesia

Do you have any conclusive proof that there should be no hyphen? I don't; I have only ever seen the name hyphenated, but will stand corrected if you can proove this to be incorrect. I'll see if I can find an atlas printed during the time when this name was current, but in the meantime, do you have any evidence? 80.255 21:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That is confirmed by any source from the time, e.g. "Nation of Zimbabwe Rhodesia Is Proclaimed and Muzorewa Hails Black Victory", New York Times, June 1, 1979. --Wik 21:44, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

The Beeb doesn't seem to agree - [3] and there is much disagreement in online sources. You'd need an actual government document of the time to be sure on this point. Stan 23:08, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Old Europe: thanks for fixing the Rumsfeld quote. I couldn't figure out how. Darkelf 19:29, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my spelling of "organizatoin" on the PLO page. sigh....cut and page from the UN page, and in changing all capital letters to mixed case, I bobbled two keys ;( Thank you again. OneVoice 13:19, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Spelling of Swiss Cantons

I've noticed that you've changed the spelling of Berne into Bern. I'm aware that the German spelling (Bern) is sometimes used in English, but I suggest we use Berne throughout. This so because we've got the Berne Convention. Also, the entry on Switzerland shows Berne. Kokiri 22:37, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've just seen that you changed Zurich into Zürich (with umlauts) in the Swiss Council of States article. Now, Zurich is definitely the English spelling for that place... Kokiri 22:42, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't think we should use "Berne" just to fit "Berne Convention". "Berne" is an old English version that is falling out of use. Google shows 130,000 hits for "Bern Switzerland" and only 40,300 for "Berne Switzerland". Also, Zurich is not an "English" spelling. It's an ignore-the-umlaut spelling. But we can and do use diacritics here. --Wik 22:56, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

Berne and Zurich are the standard spellings used in english. Please stop using ridiculous google searches. They are absolutely worthless because they are based on self-selecting sources and make no distinction between accuracy and bullshit, of which there is a vast amount on the net. As to umlauts, they are rarely used in english. Zurich is the correct version in english. FearÉIREANN 23:01, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl, it seems futile to repeat the discussion we already had at Brunswick, which is the same case as Berne, and I refer you to the vote at Talk:Brunswick. I don't want to repeat myself, but stripping a name of umlauts doesn't make it an "English name". Zurich, Dusseldorf, Malmo, Sao Tome and Principe - those are not "English" names. Those places simply don't have a special English name, so we use the original including diacritics. --Wik 23:10, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

Can I ask you to contribute on Talk:Switzerland? Kokiri 23:26, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For your Information: I merged List of years in politics with List of political events. Optim 22:47, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

format of years in India

Hi. I like the work you have done on years in India. Thanks. but could you specify the sources please. I also want to know the reason for a format different from the normal format for years. each date being a heading... Cheers! - Hemanshu 15:37, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The sources are BBC news reports and the like, I don't think they need to be included in each item. As to the format, I think it's more readable especially when the events are not just one-liners and contain other links; the dates wouldn't stand out enough in the other format. --Wik 15:55, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

Please provide on Talk:Myanmar how the PM there is head of government. If you think the CIA is wrong, the provide a counterargument. --Jia ng 23:48, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You haven't made an argument to counter yet. The CIA is just expressing its subjective judgment, since there is no possible objective basis for it. The Australian government, for example, does call him head of government: http://www.info.dfat.gov.au/info/hog/hog.nsf/ListSpecific?OpenForm&Start=1&Count=1000&ExpandView&RestrictToCategory=Burma. --Wik 23:59, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, do you keep an eye on Lir's contributions? Cheers, Cyan 05:32, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I keep an eye on anyone's contributions. But I have for some time left much of Lir's nonsense alone. However, if not even a clear-cut case like death camp can be rectified, I don't see why I should restrain myself and I will revert all moronic Lir edits. --Wik 15:37, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

I think there are medical terms for Wik's degree of obsessiveness. Unfortunately, the structure of WP is such that the obsessed usually get their way versus the rational. Stan 17:00, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wik, you removed several items from Current Events, one(?) that I added and others added by other people. Why should they not be on the page? Is there a guideline that I can follow so when adding material. For instance, I was surprised to see a Linux local root vulnerabilty added to the page. OneVoice 18:43, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. What exactly did I remove? --Wik 18:56, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, i should have provided you better information. this change to Current Events: "(cur) (last) . . M 16:44, 6 Jan 2004 . . Wik".

And what did I remove in that edit? --Wik 20:55, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

The item that interested me, and was restore by User:RickK is:

Pakistan is cited as the source of nuclear weapon technology supplied to Libya, Iran and North Korea. The components intercepted at sea by Italy en-route to Libya were fabricated in Malaysia. There is no evidence that the Pakistani government of President Pervez Musharraf knew about the transfer of technology of Libya. [15] [16]

OneVoice 21:22, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I did not delete that. You seem to have problems reading the diffs. --Wik 21:30, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

That could be, I wont ever argue that its not possible. Based upon the page history who did delete it? Your answer should help me learn how to read diffs correctly here at the Wikipedia. OneVoice 21:34, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No one did. --Wik 21:50, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry Wik. I just dont understand. When I look at [4] it appears to me that several items, including the one I listed above, were removed. Could you check that link and see if I am misreading the diff, please. OneVoice 22:12, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You are misreading. Several items were edited, not removed. --Wik 22:17, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. Now I understand. My browser is displaying the page as more than double the width of the screen. I did not notice and so did not scroll to the right to see the "+" section of the diff page. I only saw the "-" section and that without any red sections. Mea culpa. Thank you again for your patience. I will have to watch this browser more carefully or switch to another one. OneVoice 22:28, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Why did you revert an anon user on List of Prime Ministers of South Africa, when they made the "Malan" entry in the table actually point to the article? I don't know whether the circonflex is usually used in his name or not, but a link to the current page can be made with the pipetrick nonetheless. --snoyes 16:45, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The cedilla is correct. I have now moved the article. --Wik 16:57, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. --snoyes 17:17, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wik, I'm sorry that you feel there are conflicts between us, and that the issue was removed from wikc without being resolved. I'm not sure what the solution is. We do seem to disagree on a number of issues, but this is not because I am being purposefully biased against you as you seem to believe. I can stop protecting pages in which you and Lir and the primary combatants if you feel that would help, but if you think the issue is wider than that then perhaps we need to discuss it, or if you don't feel that is possible then ask for the mediation committee to intervene. Do you think that would help? Angela . 18:13, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

It would help if you simply reverted death camp to the correct version. There's no way you can argue this duplication of the text from extermination camp makes any sense. --Wik 19:36, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit a protected page. Is this all that the listing on problem users was about? Angela . 21:09, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

A revert to a previous version is not an edit, it is just a matter of deciding which version to protect the page on. And you deliberately protect Lir's version. Your bias is evident. --Wik 21:40, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflicts between users

Wikipedia:Conflicts between users is a page for discussion. I can post what I want. You can state your grieviances against my comments, but removing them is unacceptable and make you (not me) look bad. If I'm not responding, post there and say so and I'll look bad. --Jia ng 03:11, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I just edited a strange non-sequitur out of Lir's entry. This wasn't under a Wik heading. As I said, if you have a complaint against me, put it in the proper place. --Wik 03:12, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

You are free to respond there calling it a non-sequitur, but you are not free to remove it. What you think may ultimately be proved wrong. --Jia ng 03:15, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This kind of refactoring is perfectly normal and I'm very well free to do so. You, however, are violating all Wikiquette by making insinuations that you refuse to discuss. --Wik 03:17, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I will discuss it if you post there what you have against my comments. Ican't discuss it if you keep removing it. --Jia ng 03:20, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Then next time you restore it, answer my question. --Wik 03:22, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I tried, but you kept removing it. I'll leave it the way it is - it just makes you look silly wiping your own evidence against me off the page. I guess I won't be able to answer then. --Jia ng 03:33, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You could have included an answer at any time but instead you just reverted. --Wik 03:37, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Do you want an answer or not? --Jia ng

Yes, and you can add it any time. But if you just do a revert, I will do likewise. --Wik 03:47, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, an edit war over Wikipedia:Conflicts between users is a bad idea. I would agree with you that Jiang's comment was a non-sequitur, and that he should have explained himself, but that doesn't give you the right to delete the comment. At any rate, this kind of inflexible behavior on your part that leads to constant edit wars is massively unuseful. You need to figure out a way to get what you want that doesn't piss of so many people. I tend to think you're probably in the right in these edit wars you get into considerably more often than you're not, but that doesn't matter when you just piss of lots of people with constant edit wars, and then bring up anyone who disagrees with you on the Wikipedia: Conflicts between users page. I think that, in general, if you're right (as you usually are), it's possible to get your way through rational argument on the talk page. This is difficult with someone like Lir, I know, but it seems to me it's a better idea to try to convince others that you're right and then form a consensus to prevent Lir from doing whatever it is he wants to do than it is to engage in a unilateral edit war which accomplishes absolutely nothing except ruining edit histories and making you look like an ass, and then ultimately getting the page protected, with only a 50% chance of it being protected the way you want it. Just try to be a little flexible, to bend with the wind, or whatever, and things generally turn out better. john 03:41, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I only bring people up on Cbu as a last resort. I asked Jiang about the comment, but he simply wouldn't answer. I think it's him who looks like an ass here. --Wik 03:47, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think everybody comes off looking like something of an ass from a ridiculous edit war like that. And you seem to be involved in more of those than just about anybody else. If you were pissed off by Jiang's comment, ask him about it on his talk page, don't just delete the comment. And, at any rate, the point is, edit wars are hardly ever the best way to solve an issue with a page. Most of us seem to be able to get along without constantly engaging in edit wars. Perhaps you should think about how you go about things, and try to see what you can do to make it easier for other people to work with you, and also make it more likely you'll get your way. john 04:06, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I asked Jiang on the Cbu page, I have no reason to assume that he would answer elsewhere if he doesn't answer there. Other people can work with me just fine, as long as they don't stoop to insults or refuse to talk at all. If I'm involved in more edit wars than others, then it's partly because I simply do more edits than others and partly because I'm stubborn when I'm convinced that I'm right - and I'm not apologetic about that. Others may simply give up rather than getting into an edit war; that's their choice, but I don't think it's in the interest of the Wikipedia if you capitulate to trolls, self-promoters, or POV pushers (which makes up most of my edit wars). And no matter how much a small group of users may clamour for a ban, I am quite confident that Jimbo has his own mind about that and won't ban me for no good reason, and there is no such reason, since I am responsive and rational and not getting personal even when others are. --Wik 04:21, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, I certainly agree that you shouldn't capitulate to troll, self-promoters, and POV pusherrs, or, in general, anyone that you think is wrong. I think the "stubbornness when you think you're right" is pretty clearly the main reason you get into these kinds of fights. But I think you need to keep a sense of proportion about these things, and pick your battles. Was the fight over Richard Neustadt (or, even more, the one over Sarah Edmonds) really worth it? I agree with you on the Neustadt article, that Truman's first name ought to be mentioned, but is something like that really worth an edit war? If you were more careful about when to fight, I think people would be more likely to support you on the issues that really do matter. john 04:31, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Small things matter too. I don't see what advantage there would have been in not fighting over Richard Neustadt. As to Sarah Edmonds situations, I have accepted the new policy on edit conflicts, so that shouldn't cause further edit wars (although I think they were justified). That some people would be more likely to support me on other issues if I wouldn't fight the minor ones - that may be, but that is a stance that does not make sense to me and which I don't want to pander to, so I will just have to do without their support. --Wik 05:12, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I understand your position, although I think it's possible to get your way without getting into a reversion war. Calling like-minded people to help out at comment pages, for instance. And working slowly to improve things without offending people, rather than just blanket reverting. (Oh, and go vote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage. We're in need of intelligent people to vote the way I did! ;) john 05:30, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I can't help it when people like Lir are offended when their errors are corrected. Sometimes there is simply no alternative to a reversion war other than giving up and letting the error stand. (I haven't followed the peerage dispute, but I'll have a look.) --Wik 07:31, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo is preoccupied with hardware right now, so bannings have taken a back seat, but once that's resolved there are plenty of people who will be asking for a Wik ban. Jimbo is nicer than 99.99% of the human race, which is the only Wik isn't already gone, but the amount of wasted time caused by Wik's irrational reverting is simply not something that can be ignored. Stan 06:38, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

For someone who cares about wasted time, Stan sure does a lot of pointless sniping, doesn't he? Well, he'll get over the fact that I'm not going away. --Wik 07:31, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Protected page

No Wik, I am not going to edit a protected page. I see reverting a protected page as the same as editing it, so until you can convince someone to unprotect it I expect it will be staying the way it is. Perhaps you could discuss the issues on the talk page so that it may be unprotected. Simply reverting it would not solve anything in the long term would it? Angela . 11:45, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'm talking about Wikipedia:Conflicts between users. You just did edit a protected page! --Wik 11:47, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Oh that. I thought you were still going on about whatever page it was you were going about before. I hadn't noticed it was protected but it's not protected anymore. Angela . 12:42, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

"The Best Page in the Universe" article"

Please do not blank articles like this without listing them on VFD first and waiting to see if the page *should* be deleted.

Maddox's website is well known on several internet circles and gets a fair amount of hits, BTW. WhisperToMe 04:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 13

I've reverted your "minor" changes, taking into account Dcsohl's later adjustment. I can hardly see how stripping out all the Headers and removing a bunch of information counts as a minor edit. Not to mention the fact that it made that page look non-uniform (at least as against the preceding two days). Please don't do stuff like this: it makes me cross and I'm hardly the least reasonable person here. Phil 15:27, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have edited an old revision by mistake. Thanks for fixing. --Wik 16:52, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

Brianism

I notice you did the last edit to Brianism that everybody seems to revert back to when the page is vandalised. Would you care to have a look at Talk:Brianism and perhaps vote? (To keep I hope!) Thanks. SpellBott 12:45, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

http://politicalcompass.org/

I'm going to replace this link, with a description. You can feel free to join the discussion regarding it at Talk:Left-wing politics, but outside of the link maybe needing a description, I don't see the problem. You can write that its POV, but don't remove an external link, think of the ramifications! what link isn't POV? Jack 01:18, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Gdansk

Thanks for your cooperation on name of Gdansk. We might not all agree on whether Danzig is a "current" or "former" alternate name for that city, but it will help many English-speaking readers to have the D-word in the first sentence. --Unsolved Equation 16:40, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You've been given ψ5 for MPs elected in the UK general election, 1987. Thanks. Secretlondon 23:01, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

Danzig

Danzig is the actual German name of that city, see for instance de:Danzig, but that does not matter at all. This is an English language encyclopedia, and the name Danzig is interesting because it is the former English name. Nico 01:03, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)