NOTE: IF YOU ARE ANONYMOUS, AND POST ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE, YOU WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION.

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not: This whole hoo-ha seems like nothing more than an attempt to start an anti-American spelling revert war. RickK 21:13, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hello RickK. You mean I want to start an anti-American spelling revert war? Why you think that? (answer here, not at talk) Optim 23:28, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Because I'm paranoid. There is so much anti-Americanism rampant on Wikipedia that it seems to lurk everywhere. RickK 23:29, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I just feel the need for some reason to protect the non-American cultures. For example, Fair Use images were/are allowed in Wikipedia, but this (fair use) is primarily an American concept, if I am not mistaken (IANAL). English Wikipedia means a Wikipedia version written in English, not following the American law in particular. I wouldn't have a problem to see Fair Use images in an American Wikipedia (and I would contribute there). The English Wikipedia community has so many Americans that it seems to forget the existence of British, Australian, and other speakers of English, including the non-native ones. So many times I just feel the need to protect the international spirit of our project :) Optim 23:36, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rick, please see Coperincus Talk. If there are any constructive solutions to the edit wars constantly renewed by ignorant anonyms, I'd be happy to hear about it. Dandrake 01:14, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Please add your evidence to Wikipedia:Matter of Wik evidence. Specifically please track down specific diffs and add them to that page and explain what the problems are. You may want to work together with other users in order to create a summary of the evidence. The arbitration committee cannot decide an issue based on statements (statements are only a starting point) - we need evidence. --mav 04:32, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why are you only aksing people who support your position to comment on it? I see that Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (US vs American) and the articles linked from there have User:Daniel Quinlan, User:Jiang, User:Stan Shebs, User:Rossami, User:Tannin, User:Delirium, and User:Adam Bishop, supporting my position, and yet you didn't invite them to discuss the issue. RickK 05:23, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I invited them, I think. Surely I invited Jiang, Bishop, Stan and Rossami. If I forgot someone, feel free to invite him or her. I don't have time to check the linked pages. Optim 05:27, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the "invitation" discussion, you probably haven't read my policy at my talk page. Optim 05:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't intend to email you to discuss this. That's what Talk pages are for. If I'm not going to email you, how am I supposed to discuss things with you if you won't discuss them on your Talk page? RickK 05:32, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Simple: leave a notice on my talk saying "go to User_talk:RickK. After this notice I have the responsibility to watch your talk page viua my watchlist and discuss there. Optim 05:36, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey RickK - When you have a moment, could you leave a comment at Talk:Zviad Gamsakhurdia#Request for Comment? I noticed that you reverted Levzur's removal of a paragraph - he deleted it again (after reverts by others as well). --mav 04:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dude, there wasn't any Unicode in my edit on the John Kerry page. I was converting single and double quotes to their entity equivalents. Unless you were referring to something else...?
-- 160.39.193.101 05:18, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In my defense, there were already typographically correct quotes scattered around the document; I just tried to beautify the whole page. Is there a "Wiki-approved" method of using typographical niceties such as curly quotes, accented letters and the like? Also, is there somewhere more convenient we can take this discussion?
-- 160.39.193.101 05:29, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hope this clears up your confusion. Sorry for not being more clear.

• • No vote -- people PLEASE follow the format of VfD -- NO bars, please. Davodd 00:35, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't understand, what does this mean? RickK 01:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Same here, neither do I. Keep OR Merge AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry. See this version of VfD for the Zeal that was out of control on fmt. Davodd 05:26, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Davodd 05:30, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Hi. How can I communicate with you privately, outside Wikipedia? You can e-mail me. Optim 17:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd like you to consider removing me from conflicts between users. I think you're taking things way out of proportion. Anthony DiPierro 04:41, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I did stop removing that entry. I thought it was fixed. Anthony DiPierro 04:47, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If I block AOL proxies for any length of time, many genuine wikipedians who happen to use AOL will be blocked. Keeping the AOL proxies blocked won't stop Michael. Maximus Rex 04:51, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A compromise - only 6 hrs. If you don't like it, do what you will :) Dysprosia 04:51, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tahnk yoyu for not wiping out my edit summory for oyour userpate immeditely. Therews hope for your sense of huomour yet. The star though, was not a joke. I am probably one of the most delinquent of sysops in combatting vendalism (brought home by the listing at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Administrators), and thus immesurably at your debt for the work you (and frex. Heph.) do to protect wikipaedia. One reason I havent taken the path of hunting vandals is thet I have a Pentium with 133 MegaHertx clokrate, and 32 megabits memory; in a protracted battle, I woulsd simply not keep up. My puter often swaps on each page load. But that is not sufficient defence fro not making a more extensive effort. I bow deep, and flourish, before you. You are a better man than I. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 08:39, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my run for bureaucrat! :-) --cprompt 18:50, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's okay, John McLane is probably important enough to warrant an article (but not in the form it is in right now). I should have checked "what links here" first. Adam Bishop 05:17, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I saw the somewhat funny attack on you at Conflicts between users. Just wanted to let you know that User:Gdansk is User:Caius2ga. It's not the first time (to express it mildly) he is calling other contributors nazis. Nico 16:15, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A question on your edit of Jim the slave: what is Orelans? --Johnleemk 09:02, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A typo, obviously. RickK 23:38, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi RickK. Could you fix the second sentence in 2004 Brit Awards? There is obviously some mistake, but I'm not sure how it should read. Pstevenson 23:20, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I fixed it. RickK 23:38, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback on Eugenia Smith. Sometimes I'm interested in such obscure things I wonder if they'll ever be seen by anyone but me. Good to know there's a chance they will be! -- Happy Leap Day! Nunh-huh 00:42, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Got at bit on Jonathan Tunick - mostly just his credits, but updated the List of people who have won an Emmy, a Grammy, an Oscar and a Tony Award. I don't think Liza Minnelli belongs, because she hasn't won an OscarGrammy. -Nunh-huh 02:44, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Oops, it's the Grammy that she lacks. She won a Tony in 1965 and 1978, and the Oscar, like you said, in 1972! - Nunh-huh 02:53, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement to edit the Elaine Shaffer article. I got some additional information and corrections from John Solum, a flutist with whom I studied, and who was a close friend of Ms. Shaffer. I took the liberty of adding the entirety of my expanded bio -- I hope that isn't considered taking liberties. --Dmhulbert 05:41, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry if I was curt with you on Talk:List of United States radio networks. It seems to me like we're rehashing things gone over on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (US vs American). As you know, I'm one of those who think your prefered phrasing is unnecessarily vague, and frankly I find some of your arguments in favor of it more puzzling than explanitory. We've already stated our differing opinions. If you have any reccomendations of what we might do to get some sort of naming convention policy in place, I'm willing to help discuss it. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:30, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You've been stating again and again on the Wonderful Wizard of Oz page that Baum never intended Oz to be an allegory - could you give a source for that, or a specific quote? It would beef up the page and also reassure me that my psychotic compulsion to read between the lines of innocent childhoold literature is indeed just paranoia. --Alex S 02:24, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am looking for a reference to "original work". I thought original work was not appropriate for submission to Wikipedia and I wanted to read up on why and make sure I am doing the right thing on California Plan. I found it verbatim at a web site as a student's paper. It is highly likely that I have this confused. If you have any link to the term and how it applies to Wikipedia, I'd appreciate it. Thanks - Texture 04:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rick, why did you delete Frida? Anthony DiPierro 05:12, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was about to move it to Frida (movie) since Frida should be a redirect to the person. - Texture 05:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Note that I kept Glory (film) because it had content. Frida, on the other hand, just talked about what a wonderful movie it was. RickK 05:16, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We must be looking at two different articles, because the one I see has a lot of content, though it clearly does need to be made NPOV. Anthony DiPierro 05:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, we're seeing the same article. You just believe in keeping everything that ever got vomited onto Wikipedia. RickK 05:20, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know where the list is, nor do I know if there even is an updated list. Try google. Anthony DiPierro 01:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)