Wik

Revision as of 02:58, 8 March 2004

Latest revision as of 23:09, 13 May 2025

(625 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{pp-protected|small=yes}}

[[User_talk:Wik/Archive July-August 2003]]<br>

{{nobots}}

[[User_talk:Wik/Archive September 2003]]<br>

Wik was a Wikipedian from July 16, 2003, to May 21, 2004.

[[User_talk:Wik/Archive October 2003]]<br>

[[User_talk:Wik/Archive November 2003]]<br>

[[User_talk:Wik/Archive December 2003]]<br>

[[User_talk:Wik/Archive January 2004]]<br>

[[User_talk:Wik/Archive February 2004]]<br>

----

It is my intention that Wik's user pages be left alone, in their current state, i.e. with the simple message above. Please do not harass him or continue this petty fight. Sysops, please feel free to enforce this by deleting subpages that show up here. Wik is trying to go in peace, let's let him leave with dignity.

== Boyerism ==

[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 12:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

You keep on describing things others have invented, and with which I have either very little, or indeed no connexion, as "Boyerisms." This term is misleading (when it is applied to the inventions, theories and techniques generated by others and in which I have played either no, or a decided minor role) and inaccurate. Please either justify the use of this term or abandon it is an implicit admission of an anti-Daniel C. Boyer bias. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 18:43, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

----

==Why I remove stuff from VfD==

VfD is ansolutley huge now. I make sure I leave things that are likely to be deleted on for the full five days, but weed out stuff that isn't going to get consensus early in order to shorten the page. If an article is rewritten for example, then votes before it are invalid. [[User:Theresa knott|theresa knott]] 14:10, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:Rewriting doesn't make a difference when the topic is irrelevant. And things should stay for five days unless the votes are nearly unanimous. --[[User:Wik|Wik]] 14:15, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

I see you are talking about [[yes-no]] pen. There are four seperate people who want to keep this article. I removed it because i felt there was no way that anyone was going to delete with so many keep votes. Still no harm done, clearly you feel strongly about it, so you restored it. As for nearly unanimous, i completely agree when it comes to deleting stuff. I would never delete something before the 5 days is up even if everyone agreed it should go (vandalism, and newbie tests excepted)But when it comes to stuff that is not going to be deleted I remove it early.

:That's ridiculous- it should definitely be left the entire five days. For one thing, by the fifth day, the article will have risen to the top of the page, so its possible that more people will have the chance to see it. - [[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] [[User_talk:DropDeadGorgias|(talk)]] 17:30, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

::Not true, often the top of the page is over five days old because of difficult articles where admins can't decide if they should delete or not. Then someone brave comes along and deletes a whole batch. You are actually backing up my argument if you think about it. The reason that people don't read the whole page is because it's too long. This is why I removed stuff that isn't going to get deleted. We have to be pragmatic here, the page is too long [[User:Theresa knott|theresa knott]] 17:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::How can you predict that something "isn't going to get deleted"? Just because something seems ''likely'' not to get deleted based on the votes so far you shouldn't remove it before the five days are up. --[[User:Wik|Wik]] 17:43, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

::::Look we can argue about this all day. I've said just about everything i can on the subject. The guide to admins says look for a "rough consensus". It doesn't say what "rough consensus" actually means though. I take it to mean that there are no ''reasonable'' arguments for keeping. Clearly you think otherwise. It doesn't to my mind present a problem because you feel strongly enough about it to revert me. So where is the harm? [[User:Theresa knott|theresa knott]] 18:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::::So you won't delete anything as long as one person makes a "reasonable" argument? The harm is that I have to restore the things you remove, so I would prefer if you don't remove them in the first place. --[[User:Wik|Wik]] 18:09, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

::::::You don't ''have'' to do anything. You don't even ''have'' to be here. - [[User:Hephaestos|Hephaestos]]|[[User talk:Hephaestos|&#167;]] 18:13, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::::::Personally no. I don't delete stuff if there is a "reasonable" argument to keep. But we are not really discussing deletion here, though. We are discussing removing from VfD. In the case of the pen, there was a reasonable argument to keep - cyan vouches that such pens exist. Plus there were 3 other votes to keep the article. So I judged that no admin was likely to delete the article. Like I said it's pragmatism.

::::::I'll tell you what - if I remove an article on VfD ''before'' the 5 days is up I'll put a note on whoever nominated the article explaining my reasons along with a link for easy reverion. That way I am, doing the leg work, you don't have to check up, and can easily revert if you think i made an error. Is that reasonable ? [[User:Theresa knott|theresa knott]] 18:20, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::::::Well, if it's me who nominated the article you can safely assume that I oppose its premature removal, so just leave it there. As to the yes-no pen, Cyan's argument is completely unrasonable. So what if such pens exist? I never said they don't. The point is they are irrelevant.

::::::::What is your basis for saying they're irrelevant? --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 19:25, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::::::::Completely fails the Google test. As it is not something historical, but supposedly something that exists today, it should have a significant number of hits on Google, otherwise it's irrelevant. --[[User:Wik|Wik]] 19:28, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

::::::::::This is completely ridiculous. The extent to which Google is viewed as an authority here is threatening to make Wikipedia simply a rehash of topics indexed in Google. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 19:31, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::::::Lots of things exist, that alone is not sufficient reason to have an article on them. Nor do I understand your argument that if four people vote to keep, it won't or shouldn't be deleted. Four people also voted to delete - by the same logic you could say that's reason enough that it shouldn't be kept. Personally I don't understand the bias in favour of keeping - the decisions should be made by simple majority. But in any case 2/3 must be sufficient, and if a vote stands at 4-4 after 3 days it is not impossible that it gets 4 more votes to delete (and none to keep) in the remaining two days, bringing it to a 2/3 majority. --[[User:Wik|Wik]] 18:37, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

::::::::Policy is consensus not 2/3 majority. I completely agree and support ths policy and would oppose anything approaching 2/3 majority for the simple reason that it is impoosible to "vote" fairly here on wikipedia. There is absolutely nothing to stop people creating sock puppet accounts, most people don't vote at all, some people vote for the wrong reasons (i.e. to make a point rather than careing about the actual articles), and there is nothing to stop people from recreating an article once it has been deleted. Plus the whole point of wikipedia is to include all knowledge. Deleting pages therfore is an occasional necessary evil, not something that should be taken lightly.[[User:Theresa knott|theresa knott]] 20:19, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::::::::There is absolutely nothing to stop us from excluding sock puppet votes.

::::::::::I agree that sock puppet votes (if we have definite or quite convincing evidence that they ''are'' sock puppet votes) should be excluded. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 22:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::::::::The other points apply to the present system just the same: most people don't comment at all, some people make points rather than caring about the actual articles. Recreating an article that was deleted should make it liable to instant deletion. As to including all knowledge, the question of what is knowledge and what is irrelevant fluff should be decided democratically, since that is a subjective question where there simply is no consensus to be found. I don't understand the logic of saying we only delete articles if we have a consensus to delete, but not to keep articles only if there is a consensus to keep. Just as with disputed article content, consensus is to be preferred but where this can not be reached, there has to be some kind of majority decision. --[[User:Wik|Wik]] 20:38, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Wik. That's not the current policy. If you want to change the policy, I suggest expressing your views in the poll at [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy]], as I suspect Eloquence's proposal may be in line with your wishes. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 21:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

can you please stop putting my name on the de-admin page. the information is not true. there was no discussion or vote [[User:Kils|Kils]] 12:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

==De-sysopping==

As I said, I'm not into the case, but at a first glance at [[Wikipedia:De-adminship]], it seems to me these stories are posted like a deterring warning signs to others. This is a highly unconfortable impression, but I guess it was not written to be; but - if you can take offence from it, it should be reformulated. When I see Wikipedia: in the title, I think 'policy' (this should be taken seriously); having semi-personal disputes laid out on such a page only infects the disputes. I don't really see why we have that little page summing up 'pedia-history of sysops crashing -- we should redirect it to WP:Rfd-adminship, I think. [[User:Sverdrup|&mdash; Sverdrup]] [[User talk:Sverdrup|(talk)]] 21:02, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Sverdrup. [[User:Kils|Kils]] 22:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:I'm not at all interested in the dispute you had with other sysops. True or not, it's not in my point. [[User:Sverdrup|&mdash; Sverdrup]] [[User talk:Sverdrup|(talk)]] 11:01, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

----

Wik and Anthony, would you please stop making so many edits without summary to VfD in a short time, as that makes it difficult to decide whether you have returned to your hobby of editwarring in that particularly inappropriate place. [[User:Kosebamse|Kosebamse]] 17:01, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

----

==1729==

Hi,

Would you mind telling me why you're against moving the paradox out of [[1729 (number)]]? Not that I care much, but I want to edit the taxicab part without running into your revert wars (and edit conflicts). -- [[User:Arvindn|Arvindn]] 18:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:OK, saw your comment on the talk page. Nevermind. -- [[User:Arvindn|Arvindn]] 18:11, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

----

==VENEZUELA==

hi wik, this is obarraiz from venezuela. do you have any connection with my country or you know anything about hugo chavez? i was just wondering because if you do i will be interested in talking. things down here are turning very critical and democracy is on risk.

== hey ==

hey wik, i am kind of new in wikipedia, do you think i am doing okey with my articles?

:I think you have a bit of an anti-Chávez bias. Try to keep the articles neutral. --[[User:Wik|Wik]] 00:42, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, ofcourse i am anti chavist. But although i to have try to be neutral and thats completely true and i recognize it. Bolivarian Circles have been going all around the city for days shooting neighborhoods. Ive seen it, and the situation that i put in Chavez article concerning 2004 electoral caos is totally true, why you erase it? this should be a litte more open source. If you want to be better informed about Chavez regime you should read International Anministy Venezuelan last report. Maybe you can try with OAS "Fraud electoral inform" or Washington´s Post todays editorial, they all agree with one thing; Chavez democracy is not very clear legally speaking.

:What's very clear is that Chávez was democratically elected, and his opponents tried to stage a coup with U.S. backing. What I removed was your biased version of the events; that the Bolivarian Circles are "shooting neighborhoods" is obviously just your point of view, others disagree. See for example [http://www.venezuelanalysis.com] for another point of view. --[[User:Wik|Wik]] 14:16, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

----

Please explain why you are reverting Bauder's edits at [[East Germany]]. [[User:Nico|Nico]] 01:54, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

----

If I see one more "rv" from you within the next 10 minutes I'm going to personally ban you. Consider this a fair warning. This is not a kindergarten, we discuss things around here.[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]]

:Then why don't you answer my questions on [[Talk:McFly]]? And who do you think you are? Jimbo? If you ban me, someone else will just unban me. --[[User:Wik|Wik]] 15:39, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

::We'll see.[[User:Eloquence|&mdash;Eloquence]]

:I was just coming over to say the same thing as Eloquence. You can't just follow people around and revert their edits for no particular reason. [[User:Bcorr|BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; ]] 15:41, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

::But I guess you ''can'' ignore due process of VfD. --[[User:Wik|Wik]] 15:43, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

----

Please stop trying to unilaterally change policy at [[Wikipedia:Protected page]]. - [[User:Hephaestos|Hephaestos]]|[[User talk:Hephaestos|&#167;]] 20:06, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:I'm not changing policy, I'm describing reality. --[[User:Wik|Wik]] 20:18, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

----

==10,000==

Congratulations on your 10,000th edit! (I'm a bit late, though) -- [[User:Kokiri|Kokiri]] 23:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:Thanks. Actually, it was the 10,000th watchlist entry...meaning I have edited 10,000 different articles (altogether over 17,000 edits). --[[User:Wik|Wik]] 00:02, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

== edit wars ==

Wik,

Could you please find a way to stop yourself from entering an edit war? A review of [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot]] is always helpful. There are any number of ways to avoid edit wars. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 02:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)