This is a record regarding Alex Plank, who is aplank or Alexandros or sometimes Greenmountainboy on Wikipedia. It is here because some very relevant things happened on IRC freenode #wikipedia, and IRC is not Wikipedia (new slogan?). Note: Alex has Asperger's syndrome which makes it difficult for him to comprehend others.
After being refused several times in nominations and self-nominations on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, User:Alexandros used the account User:Greenmountainboy for a period of around a month. During this time he declared that he was Alexandros' brother. He self-nominated on RfA after five days, and again after one month. End result of second nomination, before removal from the page: [1].
On January 11 he admitted on freenode #wikipedia that he had been using the Greenmountainboy account as a sock puppet. He stated that he does indeed have a brother who has the Greenmountainboy account, and that brother may use Greenmountainboy to contribute in the future. He also stated that he was leaving Wikipedia (again), and would head to internet-encyclopedia.org. He will not issue apologies.
Short consensus was reached to leave him alone if he returns (again), and bring up his deceit if he applies for adminship again.
silsor 22:26, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
snoyes 22:47, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Martin 19:10, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Secretlondon
BCorr ¤ Брайен 13:34, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Well, what a surprise. To those who supported Alexandros and/or Greenmountain for adminship: I TOLD YOU SO. He is the personification of untrustworthiness. Maybe we can all agree now that adminship for Alexandros (or any of his clones) is out of the question for at least six months. --Wik 22:36, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, good old Wik. He can always be counted on for a gracious repartee, for an amiable demonstration of his goodwill and generosity of spirit towards his fellow Wikipedians. Note that this community's trust in him is such that we con't even bother holding a vote whether to confer admin status on him; the result would be a foregone conclusion. -- Viajero 10:58, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Aplank is a religious crank who is incapable of co-operative editing on subjects relating to Catholicism (see Mother Theresa. Adam 09:58, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hephaestos and RickK (Wik)
editQuote from Talk:Richard Neustadt:
- "Give me your reason." "No that's not reason enough." Just have it your way, I'm sick of your circular argument bullshit. I'll wait until you're banned to change it back. - Hephaestos 04:04, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Please look at that talk page and tell me if that's called for, or if Hephaestos has indeed given any substantive reason for his intended format, which runs counter to established practice. --Wik 04:17, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
Quote from right here:
- Go away, Wik, you're ridiculous. RickK 04:19, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
RickK has also removed himself from this page against the rules. (By the way, you two, I'm by now quite sure that Jimbo is not impressed by your mobbing tactics, so your calls for banning me ring hollow. It is you who's violating rules, not me.) --Wik 04:29, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Ah yes, the same Jimbo who asked you directly to cool it with the reverts (as seen in [2]) , and whose request you've repeatedly flouted since then, to the extent of whining here about hardworking sysops whose page protection interferes with your obsessive reversion? Impressive chutzpah! Stan 04:47, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree that it is innapropriate to remove oneself from this page. Jack 04:35, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You're right, it was the wrong thing to do. RickK 04:49, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- One good reason why its a bad idea is that placing you here accurately calls attention to both you and wik, as well as any troubles you two (and some others it seems) may be having. I am of the opinion (see talk) that this page is ment to be used as the title states, as a location to air unresolved grievences, and put a fight out in the open. If there needs to be a problem user page, I think it should be seperate, and this page should come before it in that process. I agreed w wik placing angela here as well, if its any consolation. The fact that someone feels a conflict w you shouldn't of necessity place you in a bad light, but rather shine a light on the whole situation. Jack 05:14, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Hephaestos' quote clearly shows how he ended the discussion among insults. Likewise what do you discuss with someone who tells you "Go away"? Your comment just again demonstrates your own partiality. I am using this page to expose other users' insults, instead of responding in kind. --Wik 21:32, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
- I just made a big red mark on my calendar. Of all the unfounded, ill-advised wiki-political listings Wik has made; this one actually had something remotely resembling a legitimate procedural point. The intent though is the same. Wik, you are a troll. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 12:13, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Are you going to substantiate this allegation or is this just another empty insult? In the latter case, I will not respond in kind. --Wik 15:23, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
RickK now votes Keep on every single item on VfD to make some point. Now who's ridiculous? --Wik 08:57, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
207.44.154.35 & Daniel Quinlan (Bcorr)
editUser:Daniel Quinlan had a reversion war with User:207.44.154.35 yesterday at Glasses (see here), and it does not seem to be Daniel's fault at all. And 207.44.154.35 may have been following Daniel around -- check what they did to Hacker's diet after Daniel edited it (Daniel's version vs. [Hacker's diet|current version by 207.44.154.35]). I'm not sure if this qualifies as a conflict between users or not, as Daniel has left (temporarily I hope).... I've included my original note and other comments from Vandalism in progress below:
:I'm not sure about User:207.44.154.35 (contributions), but the number of edits and stubs strikes me as suspicious -- I know this hasn't risen to the level of vandalism, but it seems like Wikipedia:Clueless newbies is dormant. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 03:24, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Suspicious in what way? Copyright violations? --snoyes 03:26, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Sorry, I ought to have been more specific. The stubs seem very random, have lots of (intentional?) capitalization and spelling errors and remind me of the sort of edits that some banned users have made in the past -- here's a good example: Conformity. I should also have specified that I hope some people who've been around longer might be able to recognize the style or to say this user doesn't seem like a problem. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен
BCorr ¤ Брайен 19:02, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- See also User:207.44.154.35's repeated reversions of pages, to have every refernce to a UK monarch referred to as "Majesty". We don;t seem to do this for other monarchs, or similar for presidents, ambassidors, etc. Examples: George V of the United Kingdom; List of Royal Titles of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom; Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom Andy Mabbett 01:07, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- If we dont do it for other monarchies, then we should. It is correct and befits an encyclopedia, just as we refer to people as "he" and "she" rather than "it". Its a matter of both convention and courtesy. Andy Mabbett has been following me around, deliberatly reverting edits for no good reason, Ill add. Judging by his other listings on this page, he obviously makes a habit of it. 207.44.154.35
- Pure paranoia, and a lie. Andy Mabbett 11:21, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I think it just makes things sound more pretentious and ridiculous. I'd rather see running text refer to "King George V" or "Justice Clarence Thomas" rather than "His Majesty King George V" or "The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas". --Delirium 11:30, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
- Note also Moulvi Ibrahim; Iajuddin Ahmed. (I await 207.44.154.35's changes to Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin and the Ceaucescus with interest :-) )Andy Mabbett 11:33, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- If we dont do it for other monarchies, then we should. It is correct and befits an encyclopedia, just as we refer to people as "he" and "she" rather than "it". Its a matter of both convention and courtesy. Andy Mabbett has been following me around, deliberatly reverting edits for no good reason, Ill add. Judging by his other listings on this page, he obviously makes a habit of it. 207.44.154.35
User:Stardust
editUser:Stardust continues to upload coyprighted Settlers of Catan cards despite repeated requests to stop. RickK 08:22, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- well, that and the 15 edits an hour on that page. That entire article is now an adaptation of the rule book for the game, and is a big, 40K copyright violation. Gentgeen 09:25, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Er, is it a copyvio to write your own text explaining the rules of a game? 'Cause that's what I did for Martian Chess. I thought ideas couldn't be copyrighted, only expressions. Tualha 05:49, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Ideas cannot be copyrighted, only expressions. However, if one's expression is influenced above a certain degree by someone else's, then it's at least arguable that it's a derivative work. Translations, for example, are derivative works EVEN THOUGH every word is new -- because the former work was the base.
- A bigger argument, to me, is that Wikipedia is not the place for a detailed game guide. That's not an encyclopedia, it's a book in itself. --Morven 22:57, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- That makes two of us with that opinion. I've been saying from close to the begining of this conflict that most of this work belongs at wikibooks, just to get shouted down by stardust. Gentgeen 09:17, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Would either of you say Martian Chess should just talk about the game a little, without going into how to play? Tualha 14:46, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I'll put my comments on that page's talk page. Gentgeen 19:06, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Would either of you say Martian Chess should just talk about the game a little, without going into how to play? Tualha 14:46, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- That makes two of us with that opinion. I've been saying from close to the begining of this conflict that most of this work belongs at wikibooks, just to get shouted down by stardust. Gentgeen 09:17, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- A bigger argument, to me, is that Wikipedia is not the place for a detailed game guide. That's not an encyclopedia, it's a book in itself. --Morven 22:57, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- No, this isn't a copyvio. Just RickK not considering fair use in the context of the article. The way an experienced contributor talked to a newbie was lamentable, though. Morven is right in general on works copying most of an other work by paraphrasing equivalents (yes, paraphrasing can infringe!) but game mechanics/rules are treated as facts, not expression, so it probably won't apply in this case, even if all of the facts are conveyed. Jamesday 08:55, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Which experienced contributor, when and where, please? Mostly what I've seen is Stardust being belligerent. If someone set her off I want to read it. Tualha 14:46, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- See the early revisions of User talk:Stardust, where RickK was telling her not to do something entirely lawful and appropriate, uploading a copyrighted images which were fair use. For a newcomer, Stardust did pretty well in the face of being told not to do something which was fine, though not as well as a more experienced contibutor might have done. Talk:Settlers of Catan/copyright and fair use covers how that fair use discussion evolved. Jamesday 08:35, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Caius2ga, taw, 24.2.152.139 (Daniel Quinlan)
editSeveral users (Caius2ga, taw, 24.2.152.139, maybe others) are engaged in a dedicated campaign to change English names to Polish names merely because the English names are based on the German ones. We have German cities that use non-German names like the French-named Cologne because those names are what is used in English, so there is absolutely no bias shown in using English names that happen to be closer to the German ones. This repeated vandalism needs to stop. Here is an example where Caius2ga and taw enter revert war against a dozen other people. Daniel Quinlan 05:12, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
Also, based on their actions, failure to work with other editors, and disregard for en policy, I have serious doubts that their complaints against Nico are well-founded. Daniel Quinlan 05:12, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
- This is coming form an obviously biased user. 24.2.152.139 03:48, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)~
As someone who comsiders himself unbiased, this argument is becoming ridiculously damaging to Wikipedia: we're expending large amounts of effort and server space to do this bizarre conversion. Caius2ga, Taw, and 24.2.152.139 are in the wrong: this is the English Wikipedia, and we need to be consistent with English usage. Is there anyone who can intervene? Now that we're moving pages like Second Treaty of Thorn around, my frustration has reached the level that I want to step in and move it back, but am refusing to out of respect for Wikipedia's vision and rules--I don't want to start an edit war. Can someone come up with a way of ending this before my patience gives out? I'm at a loss, other than to say as a community that Caius2ga, Taw, and 24.2.152.139 are stirring up trouble out of apparently nationalist concerns, and that we are committed to reverting their changes when they are purely intended to disregard English usage. Is anyone else out there frustrated? Jwrosenzweig 22:11, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Upon reflection, I think I was too hard initially on Caius, Taw, and the anonymous user. While I do believe that this edit war is harmful, I'm not totally convinced that there is no wisdom in adopting a country's naming convention, if it is widely spread enough. Some looking around on Google gives me mixed feelings on this. I think the reversion wars mst stop, though: they are indeed frustrating. Somewhere on a talk page, dialogue needs to happen, with more Wikipedians than the five who seem most tied to this discussion: without outside influence, I doubt they will compromise. If one of the participants will tell me where they are discussing this difference of opinion, I'll certainly be one of the people who tries to build consensus, or do my best, at least. Jwrosenzweig 22:46, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- English pages, English domains: Oder-Odra ratio 4,4-1 (88% Oder). Oder is the official English name in accordance with NIMA: http://www.nima.mil/gns/html/index.html. The Oder case has been discussed for months, and the three persons Quinlan mention have declared that they not respect the en policy, that they will "erase any German name from Polish territories", they've even planned an "odrabot" (spamming robot) to damage Wikipedia. Btw, look at this IP 24.2.xxx's edit history. He is doing nothing but vandalizing articles, like this one: http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Kaliningrad&diff=0&oldid=1872609 and attacking my person -- Nico 01:49, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- P.S., I wrote the above comment at the same time as 24.2's below...had reached my position on my own. I will look at the history, though, and see what I think. This isn't about which user is right, though, but what's right for WP, in my opinion. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig
Before you judge us please take a look at Nico's history and find one page of a Polish City where he didn't try to add a German city name to the page. Look at his edit in Warsaw there was no reason for that except to start an edit war. He seems to be spreading his POV to all the cities in Poland even during the period that a city was in Poland like Gdansk. As to the Odra debate look at any current English atlas and look how the river is spelled.It is most likely odra.
24.2.152.139 22:35, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Point one: Nico added Warschau as the German spelling immediately after someone else added the Russian name for the city. If the Russian name is to be included having the German name (given that Prussia ruled the city for 11 years), at least makes a little bit of sense. I tend to think that only the English and Polish names should be given...as far as English atlases, yes, that's true, they call it Odra for the part in Poland. But most other English works called it the Oder. My atlas also calls Vienna Wien, Munich München, Moscow Moskva, and so forth (with the more familiar English name generally underneath). Atlases should not be the guide for Wikipedia standards. john 00:14, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
That IP 24.2.xxx is adding Polish names elsewhere, they even demand the Polish name of Kaliningrad to listed because East Prussia had some connections to Poland for centuries ago, so what's wrong with adding the German name on Warsaw, a name which has been the official name of the city - even recently? One rule for you, and one for the rest of the Wikipedians? -- Nico 01:18, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Re: "City where he didn't try to add a German city name to the page"
I even do not add German names to Lower Silesian Voivodship. But you are spamming Lower Silesia (Prussian province) with Polish names and changing English names to their Polish equalents all over the Wikipedia. Why? -- Nico 01:18, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
24.2.152.139 deletes english translations of german entities: Landsmannschaft Ostpreussen. Not acceptable. --snoyes 19:03, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
24.2.152.139
editFrom Vandalism in progress
24.2.152.139 vandalized Lower Silesia (Prussian province). Seems to be simple vandalism. He deleted flag, interwiki links etc.Should be blocked before he make more damage. Nico 18:07, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I have not removed any part of that page the only thing I did was edit it with Polish City names like (Now Wroclaw). Nico dosent seem to like that :)
24.2.152.139 22:30, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- See the page history. He deleted flag, interwiki links, made unnecessary duplications of text and inserted unnecessary foreign names. Lower Silesian Voivodship does not mention German names, and I see no reason for why Lower Silesia (Prussian province) should mention a bunch of Polish names.Btw, that IP is lying, since my version already mention the name Wroclaw. Nico 22:51, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Please note that the vandal 24.2.152.139 deleted my comment. -- Nico 01:10, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Nico
editNico has removed my two sections about him from this page (he is doing it all the time) -- Caius2ga 04:22, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
My primary area of interest is the history and geography of Poland, its cities, rivers, provinces and counties. I would like to contribute my knowledge and resources for the benefit of the WWW community. -- Caius2ga 00:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Nico primary area of interst is also Poland. His activities are mainly making sure every single town and river in Poland is reffered to by its German name used in times Poland was occupied by German, Polish language forbidden, Polish people exterminated by the Germans. Nico activities are very destructive and annoying. -- Caius2ga 00:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I have not removed anything. I reverted you as you removed (or tried to hidden) Maximus Rex' complaint against you. Caius2ga is dedicated to "erase any German names from Polish territories" [3], rename Oder (English name) to Odra (Polish name) and in every possible way belittle and deny any signs of German history in former German territories in present-day Poland. Opposite Caius2ga, I don't wish or try to belittle Polish history, but prevent him from removing information about German history. Nico 04:35, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I am sorry, my remarks on you Nico, removed themselves several times, and this just strange accident, that the history says it was by someone called Nico. It could be anybody -- Caius2ga 04:45, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
User:Caius2ga has also called his opponents Nazis [4], recently compared me with Hitler [5], vandalized my user page several times (it' currently protected), vandalized the silesian talk (deleted vote) etc. etc. Nico 04:42, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
If ignorance was lighter than air, you could fly like a bird. It was a reference to "Ein Eeich, ein, Volk, ein Gott" Good luck -- Caius2ga 04:47, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Caius2ga
editUser:Caius2ga seems to have picked up where User:Taw left off in changing Oder to Odra etc. At Talk:Oder River he said, among other things, "It's a matter of honour to erase any German names from Polish territories". Maximus Rex 00:05, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Nico (Caius2ga)
editIn Talk:Gdansk user Nico seems to be censoring the discussions page by removing the comments by Spacecadet.
Seems to have an interest to make sure that there is a bold German Name of a City in each article. See Kaliningrad and Poznan. Seems to dissaggre with the Lower Silesia map which has beent here long before he came along. 24.2.152.139 17:23, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Nico is constantly vandalizing several pages like Gdansk, Torun, Szczecin, Silesia, Upper Silesia, Lower Silesia, and others. He activities are very annoying because he introduces Germans names everywhere, especially outside of Germany. He intriduces a biased extreme-German version of historical events and even erases information about Nazi concentration camps. -- Caius2ga 12:44, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I confirm that Nico is constantly censoring the Talk pages erasing what he doesn't like in other users opinion showing that he is wrong. He also enters into edit wars in the Talk pages if others want to revert his vandalism. Nico constantly erases all complains about his person, for example in this page -- Caius2ga 12:47, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to ban Caius2ga now (last time I read the WikiEn-list he was about to be banned, don't now the current status). He recently vandalized my user page (see history), and he continue to spam this page with ridiculous and shameless lies. The fact is that Caius2ga DELETED my comment from Talk:Gdansk and I then reverted the page. Furthermore, I changed his misleading heading at Talk:Silesia from "Neutral version" to "Caius2ga's version". That's not censorship.
According to IP 24.2.152.139 (c-24-2-152-139.client.comcast.net), he is a known vandal, unworthy to comment. Nico 17:44, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Nico seems well able to keep up with Caius2ga abusewise; I'd be in favor of banning the pair of them because both of them seem unable to stop fighting. Stan 18:13, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Ridiculous. He is attacking me. Shouldn't I be supposed to defend myself? Nico 18:23, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- "ridiculous and shameless lies"? That sounds like an attack to me, not "defense". It's against the rules to delete comments written by other people - I had a look at the history of this page, you're clearly guilty on that count, and I haven't seen an apology anywhere. Fortunately for you, Jimbo is super-nice; if I were in charge, you'd have been gone the second time you made an ad hominem attack on anybody, vandal or no. Stan 21:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Pardon? Who was deleting comments? When someone vandalize the page and delete my comments, I revert. Finito! And I don't have time for this nonsense. You know nothing about the case. Come back when you have studied the page histories of the pages they mention, Kaliningrad (with talk), Silesia, Talk:Silesia (with archives 4, 5 and 6) and the vandal's talk page: User talk: 24.2.152.139. According to Caius2ga, see for instance http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008514.html. Nico 23:06, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- (personal attacks from User:Stan Shebs striked)
- I've undone all the strikes, because that is childish. BTW, the message you link to mentions you as one of the "main combatants", which does not exactly help make your case! And I have indeed read all the back and forth - not easy when the participants delete the parts they don't like. You and Caius2ga need to cool it before you make enemies out of the people you need to have as allies. Stan 00:47, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
More caius2ga issues: Vandalizing Talk:Silesia. Look at the page history: http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Silesia&action=history , he has already been reverted by three contributors in the last minutes. ~
Caius2ga was able to contribute much to wikipedia. Let's hope Nico and Caius2ga will find some agreement..
- Just to note that User:Caius2ga constantly makes false claims about others, especially Nico. The earlier argument here, in which he and user:random IP address accuse Nico of censoring the Talk:Gdansk page, is rather Orwellian - Caius2ga, saying he was "archiving", deleted a comment by Nico, leading to a revert war. Then his buddy random IP address reverts Nico, telling him there's no need for censorship! This kind of thing is simply outrageous, and Caius2ga is constantly doing these kinds of things. He makes no effort to talk things through, and constantly simply asserts his point of view, generally refusing to actually discuss things on talk pages, but instead making constant ad hominem attacks (accusing people of being fond of the Reich, and so forth - and then lying about his intentions). I suppose he's made many useful contributions about Polish history and geography, and so on, but his behavior whenever he gets into a dispute is simply atrocious. john 04:00, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Leumi
editUser:Leumi: Despite good faith shown on Talk pages, Leumi insists on inserting pro-Israel/anti-Palestine bias in many of the articles he works on. He is either unwilling or unable to learn NPOV. Please see my documentation at User:Viajero/Leumi. Respond at User_Talk:Viajero/Leumi. Thanks. -- Viajero 15:10, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I, and others, have responded to this at length, as is shown in User Talk:Viajero/Leumi. An examination of my user contributions will show a fixing of biases by introducing the fact that opposing perspectives do exist on the issues. I do not introduce bias, I correct it by simply stating that other opinions exist. I don't represent these opinions as fact, as has been done by others, or do anything to violate NPOV. Any examination of my contributions will show this, I have absolutely nothing to hide. (Respond on User Talk:Viajero/Leumi
(rest of discussion moved to User_Talk:Viajero/Leumi)
Taw
editUser:Taw, a sysop, has decided that only the Polish names for the German-Polish border rivers can be used, although clearly the 'German' names are more popular in English as indicated by Google and confirmed by several native English speakers. A revert war has broken out.
Maximus Rex 18:19, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Oder is a common German word meaning or so these statistics are not about the Odra/Oder river -- Caius2ga 22:18, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- They are - note that Oder and Odre are taken here to be directly before river in an English-language text. If Oder here were the German word for or, then "und River" should be at least as common. It occurs 54 times. Substracting 54 from 4,640 still gives a number well above 2,690. Current count is 3,150 against 1,830 by the way, both significantly lower but with the same general tendency. - Andre Engels 01:02, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
After speaking to Taw on IRC and on his user page we explained that the English names for two rivers and the German-Polish border are Oder (not Odra), Neisse (not Nysa) and Oder-Neisse Line (nor Orda-Nysa). He keeps reverting to the Polish spellings and will not compromise. Google has many more hits for Oder and Neisse and native English speakers from England, the US and Canada agree.
I don't want a reversion war but this is just bloody-mindness bordering on vandalism.
Secretlondon 18:21, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
On IRC he admitted that he thinks English users should 'switch' and that '58 years' was enough time for that, thus implicitly agreeing that is not currently the most used form in English at the moment. Morwen 18:23, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Just for the record: Encyclopedia Britannica uses the German spelling, while noting the Polish & Czech spellings. (As should we) [8] --snoyes 18:36, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
If I read "Orda-Nysa", I have absolutely no idea what is being talked about. It's "Oder-Neisse" in English. taw is being reverted by at least half a dozen people on a slew of articles. Daniel Quinlan 18:38, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
Taw has said on IRC that he is not going to compromise on this. So what do we do now? One for the arbritration committee? Secretlondon 18:48, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to see that, but expect Taw would not feel bound by a decision in our favour, or even a compromise. Morwen 18:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Nothing like a good ol' misrepresentation of what someone said:
<secretlondon> taw: so you have no intention of compromising on this? <taw> secretlondon: no <taw> at least if your definition of "compromise" is to stfu and go away
And I never claimed that Oder/Neisse are English names now.
- Let me quote what you said
- taw: so it's high time for you to switch
- taw: you had some 58 years now
- I assume you aren't referring to any of us personally, but to the English language, since probably none of us are that old. Morwen 19:20, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
There are many Nysa Something/Neisse Something rivers (see Nysa for incomplete list). Calling one of them Neisse (without appropriate adjective), and leaving others as Nysa Something it just silly.
Oder and Neisse aren't original names but borrowings from Slovian languages (Polish/Czech). Odra and Nysa are official names now. Most English-speaking people who would ever care to discuss these rivers live somewhere around them and use their Slovian names. Google is divided on the issue. Taw 18:56, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- They are the official Polish names, not the names commonly used in English. Google is somewhat divided on the issue, but it's 2-to-1 for Oder and Neisse, plus that's what most native English speakers use. Daniel Quinlan 19:02, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
- Also, I'm not sure that I should take English lectures from someone who thinks 'Slovian' is an English word. Do you mean West Slavic, perchance? Morwen 19:06, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Taw also made an Oder-to-Odra edit on Silesia, which is a protected page, thus abusing his sysop powers in pursuit of his obsession. --Zundark 19:15, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- It does not seem that Taw followed the protected page guidelines in that case. He did not discuss it in advance on talk and there is a NPOV dispute (between taw and the rest of the English Wikipedia, apparently) over the naming of the Oder River. Taw, would you please revert your change to Silesia? Daniel Quinlan 19:34, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
- This person should at least be desysoped Nico 20:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
On IRC, Taw claims have created an 'odrabot' to change the names automatically. Saying:
<taw> i think i'll make an odrabot [snip] <taw> odrabot complete ;-) <taw> but i'm not going to run in <taw> still, it may be useful in future
Since he is a developer, I have no reason to doubt that he has made such a bot, or at least he is certainly capable of making one. Maximus Rex 21:00, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Maximus Rex: that is an absurd allegation. Taw was obviously joking. Taw doesn't care about being a sysop on the english wikipedia anyway. Alexandros 22:56, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Whether or not he was joking, I do not know. That he doesn't care about being a sysop on .en if anything would indicate to me that he would be more willing to engage in reckless/unwise activities (such as for example building a bot to change instance of 'oder' to 'odra'). Maximus Rex 20:09, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Taw is still reverting Oder to Odra river today with the faintly ridiculous summary of "English name in English Wikipedia", when he is doing the exact opposite. Secretlondon 15:55, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
81.130.175.55 (Leumi)
editmoved to User_Talk:Leumi/81.130.175.55 v. Leumi
(contribs) Repeatedly blanking and removing material contributed in good faith to controversial discussions (usually relating to Croatian langauge) and replacing them with aggressive and threatening replies (eg "Greater Serbian crap about Croatian & Bosnian "newspeak" deleted. Heal your inferiority complexes elsewhere. If this crap persist-you'll get exposed in a way you truly deserve. Mind your own biz and keep out of Croatian lang page with your filthy hate.")Almost impossible to engage, as he repeatedly blanks and erases any attemps. At a loss to know what to do.
- Also appears to edit from the 195.29.xxx.xxx range. I don't know who's right, factually and morally speaking, but Mir Harven hasn't really cottoned on to the whole Wikiquette and consensus-editing concepts. -- Cyan 06:59, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Not removing, because still an issue - recent edit: "The page, as it is now is-crap. Another piece of dumb Serbian propaganda, and easily detectable at at that". Could someone else have a word with him? I've already tried to chat to him, so it might be more effective if someone else intervened. Martin 23:23, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Mir Harven is a Croat nationalist, that's a given, but would restrain himself much more were it not for Serb nationalist stuff that occasionally gets inserted into pages that involve Croatian matters which is offensive even to non-nationalist Croats (and Bosniaks). --Shallot 10:37, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
See also the assorted POV rants he added in the edit history of Vladimir Lenin. Kwertii 12:07, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)