"Please don't add nonsense and nonsense articles to the Wikipedia. RickK 06:01, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)"

I'm really sorry about this... I used to be UsagiTaro, but that account repeatedly got hacked by someone... I made this new account to try to get rid of that problem but apparently someone still likes to hack my account. I wish people would stop doing that and at least make their own account to add bogus information.

Regarding Wanwan's identity: see my comment on Wikipedia:Problem users -- Tim Starling 06:35, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

You see I told you this. -Wanwan

Rick--

thanks for adding the Rocky and Bullwinkle reference to the flying squirrel page I have initiated. I've reformatted it slightly since - is that ok with you?

Also I have added yet more meanings for that protean word Shag. --Stephen Lea (an Englishman temporarily in Northern California, sharing your predeliction for complete sentences and accurate facts).

Rick--

 now got round to logging myself in...

--Stephen

I know. Perhaps you should reprotect it but there's no hope in an edit war between Wik and Lir and it seems pointless to keep it protected. It seems very hard to get Wik to stop reverting once he's got the idea into his head. I've had the same problem with him recently myself. Angela 08:43, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Well I agreed with Wik about the excessive linking but he still accused me of being biased. I'm not sure protecting it will help if he will just revert the minute he gets the chance. Angela 08:48, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Regarding the talk page message thing - are you using a proxy? This might be affecting it. Angela 08:52, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to explain it. Proxy server isn't very useful either. Angela 09:04, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I noticed that you moved Kiev to it's most common name. Shouldn't the same be done for Mumbai (Bombay), Kolkata (Calcutta), and Chornobyl (Chernobyl). Maximus Rex 03:14, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'll do what I please to ensure conformity with the guidelines on city names, which stipulates using the modern form if it has caught on in English. However, since you insist on being so obsessed with preserving the old name and not making the article conform to other examples, this issue will have to be resolved on the mailing list.

By the way, I'm not Ukrainian, and while I have visited there I have little interest in the land or its people. My concern is ensuring optimal conformity in Wikipedia so that it is a more usuable resource. Kricxjo 03:29, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've unblocked 216.68.43.85 as I'm not convinced the blanking of VfD was deliberate. This has happened to other people on large pages and appears to be a browser issue. Judging from the edits to List of comedies from this IP and to Family Matters (television) from a similar IP, this user does not appear to have shown any other signs of vandalism. It is possible this was accidental. If he continues to do this to VfD without explanation then do block him again, but I think blocking him so soon after Adam left him a message on his talk page may have been too soon. Angela 03:42, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

If it happens then fair enough as he will have had time to read his talk page by then. Browser issues do cause complete blanking, not just truncation. See BL's talk page for example [1]. Angela 03:49, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, it appears I was wrong. I was assuming too much good faith! I got Tim Starling to look in the 216.68.43.85 issue. It seems highly unlikely the blanking was accidental. After he blanked it, he went to the history, and refreshed the page every few seconds until someone reverted it. Then immediately after you blocked him he tried to revert the page to an earlier version, but the obviously that edit was blocked. He then read some pages and left at 3.47, which was after I unblocked him. Angela 04:21, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to defend VfD on the mailing list. I wouldn't be too worried about it though. I can't see anyone seriously agreeing to a complete ban on deletions. I don't really see why people have such an issue with VfD, but then I also don't understand why people are defending things like this! You might be better off deleting them outright. Angela 11:49, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, you may take this as me being a bossy-boots, but it's not intended that way. Ahh well.

I unprotected User:RickK - assuming accidental/old vandal/etc. If deliberate, please re-protect and drop a quick line of explanation on wikipedia:protected page and/or on the page itself. Thanks. Martin 18:09, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't know why you feel the status of my User page is of any concern to you, and why you feel it should be unprotected, since no one but the User is supposed to make any changes to User pages. I have reprotected my User page and hope that you will keep your hands off of it, please. RickK 19:34, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ahh, and you also dropped a line on wikipedia:protected page. Thanks, that's all I was asking for, at least for now. By all means delete this thread now this is resolved. Martin 20:12, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Btw, I can't see anyone calling you worthless on the mailing list. Perhaps you could link to a specific mailing list post? Or is this just the general impression you're getting? Martin 20:19, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, there's this and this. RickK 20:25, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, the second post (by Lir) is simply saying that writing articles is more useful than listing articles on VfD, which is obviously his opinion. However, Lir does not state that he believes that listing articles on VfD is worthless, only that it is less useful. In any case, as you make many contributions to Wikipedia on pages other than VfD, I don't think you can extrapolate from Lir's criticism of some of your (and lots of other people's) edits to VfD into a belief that your contribution to Wikipedia is worthless.

The first post, by Eclecticology, is just his agreement with Lir - again, hardly a statement that your entire Wikipedia history is worthless. Also, he's interpreted your questions "Am I not worth keeping around? Should I go away?" as rhetorical questions - questions where the answer is obvious and universally agreed, asked for rhetorical effect rather than because of any uncertainty or dispute. The implication is that he thinks you should stay, and he doesn't think that his and Lir's criticism of your edits bring that into question at all.

For the record, I don't think that you're worthless either. I do think that you occasionally shoot yourself in the foot, but a handful of such incidents doesn't add up to a desire to see you leave. On the other hand, I wouldn't want you, or anyone else, to stay here if you're unhappy. However, Assume good faith! If people want you to leave, they'll say so directly - just as we say so directly to vandals and trolls. Since people aren't saying that to you, chances are very good that they don't want you to leave. Martin 20:55, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)