User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 12

Fan club

A certain editor has decided to set up a fan club, and you have the honour of being its first member! [1]! Keep up the good work and good luck. --Mrfixter 13:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm honoured, of course. Mind you, he seems very shy about it — he's moved it umpteen times in order to avoid its being linked to, and when one finally gets there, surprise, surprise, there's no information or evidence after all, just a blurb about "scummy" editors. Still, for the moment I'm not only its first, but its only subject, so there's something to crow about. He claims to be using it to collect the diffs in support of his public claim (on Talk:Dreadlocks) that I'd lied about him and called him anti-semitic. As I've done neither, the page is going to wait empty for a long time, because there are no diffs to be collected.

It's now at User:Chameleon/Diff as requested by Mel. oops, I've linked to it, he'll have to move it again. Of course, as it's void of any real content, he could just delete it, but he's apparently not so ashamed of it that he wants to do that yet. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Ross McKitrick

Dude, what's your problem? You insist on engaging in edits that border on vandalism and you fail to justify any of them. Is is because you can't or are you just refusing to do so out of sheer rudeness? --JonGwynne 06:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Reply

• See User Talk:Mr Tan#From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#How to use talk if almost all passages of an article are disputed?

Tan 14:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Rebetiko

Hi Mel, that's unprotected again. I protected it only because the editor who moved it appears to have lost some edit history and didn't move the talk page; then once I'd moved it back, he edited the text in a way that suggested he might be preparing for a move again, but move-only protection wasn't working. I can see that it needs work, so enjoy. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:30, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I (even though that wasn't directed to me) see, ignore my question then, Slim. El_C 10:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

{inuse}

I wonder why you remove the template stated on the header in Wee Kim Wee/temp and Maharashtra/temp. If Bell can put up the message and the template stated above, I see no reason in you taking it down. It is not an imitation, for we had initial intentions to put a message on the top.

Post your objections on my talk page.

tan 20:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Then why you keep on removing it in the past? I demand an explanation (and/or apology).

I'm going for intensive editing on Wee Kim Wee/temp. Now!

So don't remove it unless I leave it four days untouched.

Tan 21:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Am almost finished. Just need to find out what "Quersaal" means. Anyway, I'll submit the first draft now and then you can check it out. JMBell° 13:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

(Apologise if you find me rude--I also feel that my hurry-burry attitude will offend people. I try to be polite then)

• Can you please explain why you remove the template stated on the header in Wee Kim Wee/temp and Maharashtra/temp? (If Bell can put up the message and the template stated above, I see no reason in you taking it down.) I would like to state that I do not have the intention for imitation, for both had initial intentions to put a message on the top.
• I understand what you said earlier on Wee Kim Wee. Thanks anyway.
• I'm sorry, but I do not understand where did I disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Can you please elaborate on your point?
• I did not say that I prohibit editing on Wee Kim Wee/temp no one should touch the notice unless you've not edited the article for four days is also not acceptable, see again on Wee Kim Wee/temp (the original notice [2]) Your statement seems to resemble something like a personal attack because of wrong accusation, I'm afraid. anyway, I have changed the message on Wee Kim Wee/temp to elaborate my reasons.

Tan 22:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

As my responses on your Talk page seem not have got through, I'll repeat them here.

1. I didn't remove the "inuse" template on Wee Kim Wee/temp, nor have I ever removed it. A glance at the page history will show you which editor did so, together with edit summary explaining his action).
2. I removed the "inuse" template from Maharashtra/temp when it was pointed out on its Talk page that the artcle hadn't been touched for three days. The "inuse" template should not be used as a way to stop other people from editing; it has a specific use, as its wording makes clear.
3. I have no idea what the rest of your message means. You seem to think that your command "So don't remove it unless I leave it four days untouched" doesn't mean that other editors chouldn't edit the page. It's difficult to interpret your words in any ther way. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Elkabong again

I notice that you suspended Elkabong a while back. He's left another extremely abusive message here Talk:Islamofascism (I've deleted it, but you can see it in the history). Elkabong is also apparently a sockpuppet for kainthescion (or vice versa) --Lee Hunter 19:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Wee Kim Wee

Okay, Wee Kim Wee/temp is now at User:Mr Tan/Wee Kim Wee, and Talk:Wee Kim Wee/Temp is at User talk:Mr Tan/Wee Kim Wee, which is why I'm posting a reply to you here, because the talk page is now his private user space. Wee Kim Wee and Talk:Wee Kim Wee are not affected. Let me know if he's created any others; I may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Colours of the World

"Spice Up Your Life" has to be given the power to be edited again. The chronology is being left out, and is disconnecting Spice Girls singles. Return the power to edit to the article, please. DrippingInk 21:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. DrippingInk 21:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I Drink Your Blood (imdb.com/title/tt0067229)

Hey, was that comment directed towards myself? El_C 22:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, good, because I Drink Your Blood! El_C 23:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Copyright Vio

Please see User:Jpbrenna/Osprey Copyright Violations. I have notifed Amir85 as well. I don't know what do do about them, but I noticed that you had left a message for him about another image, so I thought you might. --Jpbrenna 06:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

{inuse}

What? I removed it yesterday. Did you put it back? JMBell° 10:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm reverting your edits to Zossen because I'm still translating and it's confusing to find one section pop up or disappear in/from a totally different place. You know how much time it took to translate that thing? JMBell° 11:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Goodbye

Hi Mel, I'm taking a short break to regain my sanity and personality. I don't know how long it will take, or if I'll ever come back, but I should be back in a month, if ever. I'm giving Zossen to you to translate and edit. As for Tan, I'm not giving up hope on him. Be nice to him and if he strikes out at you, don't strike back. Same with Nanshu and the others.

So I guess that's it. Hope Wikipedia won't change while I'm away. Don't do anything foolish with Zossen, okay? Goodbye. :) JMBell° 14:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Stagecoach Articles

You will probably be happy to know that I have copied my Stagecoach articles to Wikitravel. Ted Ted 19:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Bernard Williams

Actually, I think the anon IP might be right. I always thought it was Knightsbridge prof, but I checked it today on Google. Both get a respectable number of hits, but Edward Craig, the current chair, says Knightbridge on his dept webpage. The Cambridge phil dept is small, and I could believe that was a typo, even on their own website, but the quality of the other sources who say Knightbridge makes me think it's right. OUP says Knightsbridge; the Telegraph also says Knightsbridge; and I've found both in the Guardian. I don't know who the chair was named after, that's the problem. But I'd say we should probably go with what Edward Craig is called on the philosophy website. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for the work you did with my Storm of chaos article! -Sindreman

Unprotecting List of kings of Persia

Thanks, Mel. So simple when one has one's POV in check! Sunray 09:22, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Which that when

Having never taking a grammar course, I largely approach English intuitively. So my question is: when is it propper to say 'which' viz. 'that' ? El_C 09:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You may find User:129.7.35.1 interesting

The exact nature and timing of this seems to be more than just coincidence: [3] Seems to share some common interests: [4]

FeloniousMonk 17:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The edits were apt; the continued attempt to push the POV wording of "right-wing" where it is not valid, is not good. Enviroknot Enviroknot 21:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Before I bother going through the effort of finding out for myself I'll ask you plainly: Are you User:129.7.35.1? The honesty of your answer will determine much. FeloniousMonk 21:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not. The speed with which you and Mel Etitis, among others, accuse people of being sockpuppets is nothing short of amazing. And in case you're wondering, I entered this because it came up on the en-l mailing list. Enviroknot 22:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

That IP address is the University of Houston; same range as the IP address ElKabong used. Enviroknot also posts, qua Enviroknot, from a Houston IP address. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Quick quiz, Slimvirgin: What is the population of Houston?Enviroknot 01:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

True, but how many of them edit Wikipedia; hold the same strong views on issues related to Islam; show marked similarities in writing style; defend each other against charges of sockpuppetry; and edit each other's user pages? That must narrow it down just a little. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:01, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, I came into this because I saw you treating at least one user unfairly. If you have decided to wage some personal war in relation to certain articles, by all means, be my guest. But do not expect me to sit by idle while I am slandered and my user page defaced by you and your cohorts. Enviroknot 03:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

See also user:66.69.141.11, also from Houston. -Willmcw 04:06, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Gor blimey, I go to London for less than twenty-four hours, and look what's waiting for me when I get back. It's disturbing to realise that I'm not really needed on my own Talk page — discussions are rich and full of interest without me, and I even discover that I'm one of SlimVirgin's cohorts (which sounds more exciting, not to mention comfortable, than being her sockpuppet — or am I getting confused with glove puppet?).

It's also disturbing to discover that our foul-mouthed hydra is probably at the University of Houston; not as anything very senior I'd guess (and hope). His claim that Houston is crawling with people independently wanting to leave childish insults on Wikipedia is surely an insult to the city, though, and would probably be actionable if officials discovered it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

Please archive RfC

The RfC opened on me has apparently reached a stable consensus to close. Would you please archive it appropriately? Thanks. Whig 19:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to support that, too. Although Whig and I were on opposing sides regarding the "styles" vote, he was a courteous opponent. Ann Heneghan 21:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism, Islamic fascism, and Christian fascism

Hi, I think there is slightly more agreement than disagreement for the redirects to Neofascism and religion from Islamofascism, Islamic fascism, and Christian fascism, so if you agree, could you remove page protection, archive up those pages, and plop in the redirects? I will make sure that it is clear up in the lead that these terms are contentious and disputed and sometimes just epithets.  :-) --Cberlet 20:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you do not do this. "Slightly more agreement than disagreement" means there is still plenty of controversy. The redirects are especially dishonest since at least one of those articles previously survived a vote for deletion. EnviroknotEnviroknot 21:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Official Notice: Stay Off My User Page

Your constant knee-jerk reverting without comment, your harassment, and your targeting of me needs to stop.

Since you saw fit to remove a comment from my user page, I hereby serve you notice: ANY attempt made by you to edit my User page or to remove content from my Talk page will be reported as vandalism. Do not do this again. Enviroknot

Farewell

Before I go (or at least considering), I would like to say a few words with you.

• Firstly, I appreciatem if you can take the initiative to see what I have written about you on the response section on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan.
• Secondly, I would like to extend my thanks on your good copyediting work (with minor objections)
• Thridly, I have seen that you have been accused me of being rude and conducting near-vandalism. The reason of this is because

• • You are not cooperative
  • You have no patience
  • You have a negative attitude in terms of stubborness
  • You have a tendency to ignore many of my questions (despite the fact that you said that that ...then don't use someone else's comments as a way of avoiding mine, and do me the courtesy of answering my questions. in Talk:Wee Kim Wee. But what is all this about in your attitude towards me? Am I a toy to you or something?

• Fourthly, the factors above has also led to some friction with other users such as User:Huaiwei, User:Nanshu and User:Vsion.
• Fifthly, if you are interested, you may join in on the discussion about the state of content of Zanskar. I'm afraid, that misundertsnadings will rupture again, and reverting my edits repeatedly. In any case, that you are not even willing to response to this statement of mine, I will assume that you have no objections in my copyediting plans of Zanskar.
• Last, but not least, I do not understand where did you get the ridiculous idea that I'm User:chan Han Xiang. Again, I would like to say that it is very interesting to see a User that shares so many similarities with me, an IP address can be shared by anybody who lives within my area. Anyway, in Singapore, many people share an IP address for they all live in a single HDB flat, but still do not know of anybody who is Chan Han Xiang who lives near me.

With that, I shall conclude my messages. I will also appreciate if you could spend a bit of time and look through my RfC response and the comment. Farewell.

Tan 18:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Sharon Interfaith Youth Leadership Program

Dear Mel. I took a stab at copy-editing Sharon Interfaith Youth Leadership Program, but being a new member I can't figure out how to remove the copy-edit notice at the top of the article. Perhaps I don't have permission to do this yet.

I was not able to demystify the style completely but at least fixed some structural & grammar issues..

Katherine Morrow Brussels

Francisca

I'm not quite sure what the point of your edits were. You changed a correctly capitalised link to an incorrectly capitalised one, you changed the standard abbreviation "c." to the non-standard full form "circa", you said that the axe has a distinctive shape without saying what it was, and you changed a perfectly clear sentence to another perfectly clear sentence, differing only in inessential matters of style. Why? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• The link didn't show up with a capital in the sentence, as it was piped "reenactor" — thus changing the capital made no difference to the text.

True. Sometimes I edit for the LOOK in trhe source text as well, where an upper-case letter can jar.

But when that means a caprialisation pipe, you're sacrificing efficiency for a minor (and subjective) improvement of what readers won't see. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Does piping really operate like that on lower-case? Pedant17 00:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I think so, though that's only deduction, not direct knowledge. Titles are generally case sensitive, so the fact that the first letter isn't makes me think that some sort of redirect is involved. We could ask. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Your argument concerning "circa" would make more sense if you'd changed it to "about" — but in any case, "c." (or sometime "ca") is used thoughout Wikipedia, and this is the first time I've seen "circa" used (though doubtless there are other places). Moreover, as I said, the abbreviation is standard; changing it is rather like changing "etc." to "et cætera" or "e.g." to "exempli gratia".

I take your pioint on the expansion of "etc." But I persist in disliking abbreviations in general, and ambiguous abbreviations (especially c. but also ca.) in particular. Circa appears as an English word (albeit semi-acclimatised) in the OED, and appears to me much more helpful to those readers of Wikipedia who do not have habitual familiarity with standard historiography.

Many people know what "c." means, because it's the standard term, but would be confused by "circa", which isn't. And anyone who didn't know what "c." means would surely not know what "circa" means. I can't see any ambiguity, incidentally. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. I wonder how one reads dates with c. out loud? - In context I see little ambiguity too, but I nevertheless pity the poor reader who tries to look up 'c' or 'ca' in a list of abbreviations. Pedant17 00:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there'd be a problem; I've just looked up "c." is Collins, and it gives ten expansions, one of which one specifies "when used before a date" &mdash a piece of cake, surely. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Pedant17 22:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Just to jump in, I'm seeing more and more articles using birth and death dates with wikified c. which seems to work well for people that might not know what it means. Fawcett5 23:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

That provides some sort of compromise while perpetuating the (in my view) ugly abbreviation. - I've scatterred circas through parts of Wikipedia myself, and a quick search suggests that others have done so too. -- What do you think we should do about fl.? Pedant17 00:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

My view is that "c." and "fl." are in any dictionary (and I don't know of any other reference work that spells out "circa" and "floruit"); if we start editing out all the words that some people might not understand without a dictionary, we'll have a Janet and John book, not an encyclopædia. Just to take the next unchecked item on my Watchlist, Arab world: would someone who doesn't know what "c." means in front of a date know what "comprise", "surpass", "anglophone", etc., mean?

The wikification is OK, I suppose, though I still think that we shouldn't assume that our readers are both ignorant and unable to use dictionaries. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

High hypocrisy

I just noticed User:Sam_Spade/Report_rogue_admin/Mel_Etitis_Email.

If you were half the rogue Sam insists you are, I suppose you would claim that his publishing of your emails to him was a copyright violation, just as he did in his attempt to suppress the evidence of his email. Sigh. When will people here stop making excuses for and protecting one of wikipedia's most persistently abusive editors? FeloniousMonk 02:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Um, thanks. I'm not entirely sure what that was all about, but I'm glad you reverted it. -Acjelen 14:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

policy

Thank you for agreeing with me. I'm glad it can happen! I wouldn't know how to go about implementing such a policy, but if you wanted to I would support it as pages such as this are basically no more than personal attacks. We have RfC for a reason. These pages are unnecessary. --Silversmith Hewwo 15:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

What you say sounds perfectly reasonable to me. But then, I would never have such a page. We shall see what comes of it. Cheers, --Silversmith Hewwo 18:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The RFA Troll

Looks like you were correct. I'm sorry for jumping the gun, and I admit that I was wrong. Thanks for pointing it out to me! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:32, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Mel, you so far only admin who accept good faith and understand I not trying to harm. You comment on RFC good or neutral maybe?

SSMR/Ssmr

(William M. Connolley 20:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)) Hi. You removed the delete tag on Ssmr but didn't say why. Errm... why? Its listed on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions too, BTW. So... I listed it because SSMR is the correct acronym (or SSM/R) not Ssmr, which isn't. Leaving Ssmr will do little harm I suppose, but also little good.

God and Sankara

I respectfully disagree. According to Merriam Webster, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=God&x=0&y=0, God, when capitalized means the Supreme Being. When you make it lower case, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=deity&x=0&y=0, such as deity, a god would mean a Greco-roman god, not a supreme Reality. Shaivities belive that Shiva is the Supreme Being vs. being a god or deva or deity. Subtle difference. I did drop the article the. Thanks.

Raj2004 22:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I still think it's important to make that point. Muslims believe Allah to be the only God just as Jews believe Yahweh to be the only God. The same goes with Shaivites although they think other aspects of God are different forms of Shiva. Raj2004 11:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

An appeal to an admin

There is currently an editing war that is turning ugly. Yes, people want to delete the Cyprus Dispute and The Turkish Invasion of Cyprus and Half of the wikipedians seem to be either Turks or Turkish sympathizers. There is also one nationalist Greek. It is turning so ugly that I fear that if they get their way they migh even succeed in deleting even the Rebublic of Cyprus entry. They are also threatening to delete Smyrna. I appeal to you and place the following wiki members under review for actions against the policy of NPOV: Expatkiwi, Feco, E.A (check out this guy's bias on his user talk page). ... added at 05:33, 2005 May 30 UNFanatic

Sockpuppet template (again)

Mel, Enviroknot is rather understandably unhappy about the way the sockpuppet template keeps popping up on his user page. On my talk page at least, he phrases this unhappiness politely. The charming little sock is accompanied by: "See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Enviroknot/User:129.7.35.1 for evidence." So I did. Not there. Supposing that it was in the archives, I looked there too. Perhaps I missed something, but the closest I could find was this, in which SlimVirgin and Yuber make the allegation but adduce no evidence. If you're sure there was a "User:Enviroknot/User:129.7.35.1", I'll look for it; if not, I think a better link is needed. -- Hoary 11:05, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

There's a better link now, but really, the "evidence" that's adduced there strikes me as pretty feeble. Is it really sufficient for posting a sockpuppet template? And even if it is, what's the merit of or motive in posting it? -- Hoary 10:16, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Mel, this is a bit silly. The template takes me to a page that says nothing about Enviroknot. I think that you instead mean RfA/KaintheScion et al.. But that's unconvincing too. We learn that Enviroknot seems to have political beliefs that are odd and compatible with those of one or two of the other parties, and that they're all in the Houston area. But as he/she points out, Houston has a large population. And though he/she certainly doesn't say this as well, Texas does produce large numbers of people who espouse a cluster of political and social beliefs that I and perhaps you would regard as strange (or paleoconservative or even insane): witness the rise of Dubya. Thus I'm not surprised by shared odd obsessions among editors from Houston. Meanwhile, his/her prose is usually measured and "literate", whereas that of the others is loutish. Of course, it's possible that one person may choose to fabricate two idiolects just to confuse, but all in all, rather unlikely.

Here's a suggestion. Just stay off his/her user page for a few days and see what happens. -- Hoary 09:30, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriot Genocide

Hi there,

in reply: I found it more productive to re-edit the article a bit. - Snchduer 16:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops

Oops. Sorry. Won't use that one anymore. -- ericl234 ^talk 22:39, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Does this apply in situations when a google search turns up no results, as well? Where is the line there (official or unofficial)? -- ericl234 ^talk 22:47, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Human

Could you do what needs doing on Human with regard to implementing the consensus on paragraph four? I'm unfamilar with both the mechanics and traditions associated with freezing and unfreezing articles. Thanks for your help. 4.250.198.168 14:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello, "Mel"

If you could kindly respond to the discussion in which you accused me of acting in "bad faith" I would appreciate it greatly.

With insincere polite regards (because we all know that it's the text, and not the thought that counts),

--Phrost 19:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello (and goodbye :))

Hi Mel, though my break is far from finished, I've thought up something and need someone to say whether my idea is sensible or not. It's here. I'm open to all kinds of criticism. If you've got questions, just ask me (though it might take me some time to reply as I'm not yet fully recovered). Cheers - JM*Bell° 20:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

81.156.177.21 Cheese Deams, Fish Supper etc

Sorry! But I really do think Wikipedia has a problem with them! (81.156.177.21 Cheese Deams, Fish Supper etc)

Bye forever,

Angel77

Islamofascism, Islamic fascism, and Christian fascism x 2

Hi, I think there is slightly more agreement than disagreement for the redirects to Neofascism and religion from Islamofascism, Islamic fascism, and Christian fascism, so if you agree, could you remove page protection, archive up those pages, and plop in the redirects? This is even more justified given the current controversies over some of the objectors. If you think you are the wrong Admin to do this given the level of hell you have been consigned to, can you suggest someone else? Just trying to get this done at some point. --Cberlet 02:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually I have redirected Islamic fascism and Christian fascism. I will archive them in a week if there is no explosion. Then maybe I can redirect Islamofascism. --Cberlet 13:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zanskar

If you are interested, you may look up [5]. (Sorry for the delay, for my computer was down)

Tan 15:30, 1 June 2005 (UTC)

I have already replied. If you still disagree, feel free to post your comments at [6]. Tan 21:31, 1 June 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

FYI: Votes to request a move do not happen on WP:RM any more, they take place on the talk page of the page requested to be moved. In this case I suspect it is a troll. Philip Baird Shearer 14:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Mel, thanks for your vote in support of my admin nomination. Paul August ☎ 17:03, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Hi Mel. I have been, at Dsquared's request (a red talk link showed up on my watchlist, and one thing led to another), looking at the talk discussion for Oliver North. While I understand that you have spent a long time editing that article, and have been fighting POV-pushers, I do think that you should be more ready to listen to Dsquared without labelling him a sockpuppet, unless there is direct evidence to the contrary. I think you are quite possibly being a little hasty – I understand your reasons, but I think you could be more diplomatic. Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers. I understand fully your point of view (indeed, I agree with your wording), but I think more diplomacy would not go amiss. Cheers, smoddy 23:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With all respect, Mel, I am not convinced. I am confused, but I am certainly not convinced that this user is not genuine. I'm still assuming good faith, until I see uncontrovertible evidence to the contrary. What, by the way, is that evidence? Cheers, smoddy 08:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not solely focusing on one point of issue. You notice that I do not argue with your other points because I think you are in the right with them. I am only saying that your accusations of sockpuppetry (for which I have seen no evidence) seem a little dangerous – it seems to me that Dsquared has gone about things in slightly the wrong way, but it may have been helped if there had been a little more assumption of good faith on your and Holdak's parts. Cheers, smoddy 09:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, for introducing "sockpuppet" into the conversation: guilty, m'lud. Secondly, I think including Ollieplatt's in the page was a pretty clear accusation of sockpuppetry. It seems to me that Dsquared is just the proveribial "clueless newbie", not really understanding Wikipedia custom. Until I see evidence to the contrary, that will be my position. I think I should probably leave this there. Cheers, smoddy 09:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gustavus Franklin Swift

I've restored the text additions you deleted without overwriting your previous copy edits; my pastes were done from an offline copy of the article. One thing I did fix was the location of the "hereford" image so that it no longer breaks into the section title. In the future, please do not delete content from articles without prior discussion; it took a fair amount of research to develop the original stub article into something of reasonable depth and factual accuracy, and to expand it meaningfully as well. We all have the same goal here.

--Lordkinbote 02:30, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

deleting images

Hi there, I see you're deleting images. Perhaps you could have a look at Image:CryptoDick2.jpg which was uploaded a few minutes ago. I wasn't sure if a {{db}} tag worked on images. Regards. Anilocra 12:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cumbo-5

A quick google seach would have shown you that this was speediable, I've listed it for vfd now. --nixie 15:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • In this case google would have told you that the band is bogus. --nixie 15:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zanskar

Mr Tan has asked I "judge" Zanskar; of course I said I could do no such thing, but offer to mediate informally -- as any Wikipedian might do -- if you and he have any willingness I do so.

My qualifications are two: I am absolutely impartial to the topic, so far as I know; I have no idea what Zanskar is, and have not so much as followed the link to the page. My command of my language is excellent; I understand there are issues of both content and form.

To the extent that it may develop I discover a bias of mine to affect the debate -- whatever that may be -- I promise to suppress it as far as possible, and failing that, to recuse myself. Whatever the subject may be, I trust it can be stabilized. — Xiong熊talk* 16:30, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Fragmented discussion merged to Usertalk :Xiong -- please avoid fragmented discussions. -- I had to post to your page to bring you into the discussion, but from here on out, I suggest I host the topic of my involvement in this article on my talk page. Feel free to delete above text. — Xiong熊talk* 00:20, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Ontological Argument

Apologies, I assume that you know better- the only reason I changed it is because I am studying Philosophy & on my syllabus it says "Gaunilo's analogy of the island in On Behalf of the Fool". I just assumed this was right and the link had a typo. Sorry. - sars 16:41, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

At the moment I'm just at AS Level, although I do hope to study Philosophy & Maths at uni - I notice you are a professor at Oxford- I'll certainly be applying at Oxbridge, though whether I'd get in with such competition is another matter! sars 21:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I was in contact with somebody, (I think her name was Ms Hood?) about going to the open day that was on May 7th but couldn't go in the end- but thanks a lot for letting me know about June 30th, I'll definitely go along. :) sars 21:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Power violence

What was wrong with my addition to the article on Power violence?

• OK. I used to have an account but stopped using it.

Protection?

I think the Gwen Stefani album page requires protection. The guy who keeps adding the New Order collaboration doesn't seem to understand that there isn't one. There isn't one. DrippingInk 21:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfA on Argyrosargyrou

I've started a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration on User:Argyrosargyrou. Please take a look and add any evidence you feel is relevant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Argyrosargyrou/Evidence. -- ChrisO 22:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zanskar:Cleanup or copyediting

Just to let you know, I feel that it would be more appropriate that the cleanup tag would be put up if mass article-restructuring is needed/to be done, see Joseon dynasty for comparison. Feel free to post your comments.

I hope that you will not interrupt in my re-structuring editing progress. I am already seriously spiritually and mentally disturbed at your tyrannical attitude towards me. I hope that settles the case. Thanks.

Tan 20:22, 2 June 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima Islands

Done. Sorry, I should have known better. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:04, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) ]

Go and see my reply.

Tan 23:13, 3 June 2005 (UTC)

Welcoming message

Well, I had just created a welcoming template for newcomers when I saw yours... WOW! Really nicely done. Do you mind if I borrow a few ideas from it? Sarg 14:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suspected vandalism

Why are you reverting my edits at

• Fukuoka
• Hirado, Nagasaki
• Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia
• Grand Duke George of Russia?

You stated that I should contribute to wikipedia, yet you are doing reverts. Can you explain why? I'm merely doing spelling corrections and adding facts.

Tan 00:36, 3 June 2005 (UTC)

Stop your explicit reverts without explanations now. I am tracking on you. Otherwise I ask an admin to block you.

Unless you elaborate on your reasons for the reverts [7], I do not welcome explicit reverts like this. I have counter-reverted all your reverts for you gave no proper explanations or providing proper information on your case. If you go on like this, I will have to ask a member of the arbitration committee to review your case, unless you change your attitude.

Tan 00:43, 3 June 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen, what is going on here? Why are we having an issue? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:00, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

See his [] contributions; most of reverts he did not give proper reasons; probably vandalism.

Tan 00:43, 3 June 2005 (UTC)

What's going on is that Mr Tan is flailing around, reverting edits of mine such as changing hyphens to n-dashes in dates, Wikifying headers, correcting Wikilinks, etc. I have no idea what he thinks he's doing, but if he continues I'm going to report him on "vandalism in progress". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cool down. I don't see where are your edits, but you deleted my contributions to the articles. Please stop reverting my contributions without reasons, and that is what you do. You may contribute on top from there, but that doesn't warrant you to revert and revert explicitely. I cannot see where did you add in in addition to my reverts, and I consider a revert + addins as a revert.

Tan 00:13, 3 June 2005 (UTC)

Sister Theresia Unno cleanup

When you cleaned the reference in the Sister Theresia Unno, I appreciate the removal of all caps, but I think removing the web page reference retrieval date and the footnote is improper.

Web sites are subject to change, and the only way to properly cite them as references is to cite the date as well. See WP:CITE. Her starting the FJANL organization is specific to the reference, so there should also be a footnote, to clarify the source when the article is expanded further.

Thanks for the edit. I've restored the footnote in fn/fnb form rather than manual footnoting by ^{superscript numbers}, and I've restored the retrieval date to the reference. --Unfocused 16:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: MoS. I'm not sure what's there, as I don't know if there even is a comprehensive Manual of Style here, but WP:CITE mentions that specific web page citations should have a retreival date. The page owner could blank the page, and without a date, it's pretty hard to find a specific version of someone else's page, even with the assistance of the Internet Wayback Machine, if it's even cataloged there.

Some prefer inline citations, directly in the text of the article, but there's no consensus for any given way of including references. I've always preferred footnotes (especially now that I've learned how to use "clickable link" footnotes) because they don't disturb the flow of the text that they're inserted into, and clicking the link left of the reference at the bottom of the page brings you back to where you left.

I sincerely appreciate your deferral on this article. I don't recall where I saw it, but I'm working under the influence of a quote from Jimbo Wales that basically said that we need to reference our content and cite our sources much better to be as credible as we should be, and that citations of widely accepted sources tends to help generate NPOV by their inclusion. Thanks again. --Unfocused 17:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arete question

Dear M, I have heard some speculation that the Greek "arete" is somehow derived from the Sanskrit "rta". I regret I don't have a source for this (of course), but it's popped up a number of times. This is sort of outside my philosophical education, so perhaps you could comment?

Yours, Mashford 66.82.9.63 20:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks

I created entries for Brenda Barrie (linked from personalities born in Winnipeg) and her novel The Binding, and I notice you were quick like a bunny to make some modifications.

Main difference between version you restored and my later one is that I looked for other items mentioned that had relevant pages and set them up as links, and italicized titles throughout (except when they are links).

This seems like fun. I'm about to create an account and join the community.

Thanks again,

Gray Matter gray-matter@bigbluepeople.net

User:Mr Tan

You may wish to respond to User:Mr Tan's comments on my user talk page. Or not. Up to you. Kelly Martin 05:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Grunion

Most of the work was just a cut-and-paste job, so there is no reason to be impressed. ;-)

Last week I had created my second m:red link to grunion since I had started editing on the Wikipedia, so I decided that it was about time that I create the missing article. Luckily the material from the California Fish and Game Dept. is in the public domain, and there was also an article on grunion this last week in the Los Angeles Times. I was working on creating a more polished article when the newly created article showed up on my Watchlist, so I figured that I should copy and paste what I already had (mostly from Cal. F&G), rather than the more polished article I am still planning on finishing. Right now I'm working on getting some good pictures to add to the article. I guess that the since the article is now "live", I should suggest it for "Did you know".

(I find it interesting that I was able to set up an article on my Watchlist that wasn't even created yet.) BlankVerse ∅ 10:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's really quite easy. You type the name of the missing article in the search field and hit "go". You get the page that says there is no article yada-yada. You then click on the link "create an article with this title". The new Edit page also has all the normal tabs that a regular article has, so you then click on the "Watch" tab to add that missing article's name to your Watchlist. [Someone needs to start a Wikipedia namespace article that keeps track of all the shortcuts and "undocumented features" like this that people have found.]

The only thing that I can't figure out is why my intuition said that would need to add grunion to my Watchlist in the first place. BlankVerse ∅ 11:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS I've now added Grunion to the "Did you know" suggestion list.

Although the technique is useful for a small number of articles that you think are important (in my case, an article that I was already working on offline), if you have a large number of articles that you want to keep track of, it is probably easier to create a Watchlist subpage and then check it regularly to see if any red-links have disappeared. BlankVerse ∅ 11:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re: Lee Kuan Yew

Mel, please behave constructively. Your "overhauling of new material" included your fifth removal of the bolded "Harry" at the beginning of that article in a day, that's why it was misleading. Mr. Tan claims that his British birth certificate lists his full name as "Harry Lee Kuan Yew". If that is true (and I haven't seen anyone on the talk page claim that it isn't), it's perfectly reasonable to start the article the way he wants to. Zocky 12:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I might have been looking at the old version of the talk page. I see that you have asked him for references for his claims, and that's good. Still, edit warring over it and removing the same change over and over again is not good. Zocky 12:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since I have no particual reasons to presume otherwise, I'll assume good faith and view your edit summary as not intentionally misleading. However, let me explain why it looks intentionally misleading:

• An editor repeatedly made a change to the article.
• You repeatedly removed it.
• After he inserted it this particular time, you removed it again as a part of an edit which also included other changes.
• Your edit summary specifically refered to those other changes and did not mention the fact that you removed the same change that you and him have been edit-warring over.
• Some people on Wikipedia use the same technique to try to circumvent the three-revert rule.

Thanks for listening. Zocky 13:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Lightmatter ireland.jpg

I tagged it for speedy deletion because the content is "lkjl;". Note that it is an image from Commons, so it won't disappear if you delete the page here. RexNL 13:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Before you start arbitration, I demand the rights of mine in the following:

• The right to speak up on my side of the case
• The right to speak up on my side of evidence of the case.
• Arbitration in the form of Mel Etitis vs Mr Tan.

Look here. I have my reasons to back against all your edits. And I'm not just going to sit down here and get arbitrated for nothing.

I encourage you to speak out on whatever resentements against me, provided if this is a fair arbitration. However, if your arbitration does not meet the above conditions, I will see to other methods to deal with your attitude. Thanks.

Tan 22:48, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

You did not invite me, in fact, you forced me in, for I'm a participant of the arbitration. See what you stated: Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. So, I am forced into under such circumstances to edit your page. Tan 23:41, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

As if you don't know? Then why did the articles that I edited coincide to a great extent with yours, all those stupid reverts? I'm not a fool, professor.

A co-incidence...I never refered to it properly, honestly.

Tan

You forced me into this stupid arbitration thing, and I do not want to have any reverts from you. This is unfair for you to do such a thing, unless you close everything altogether.

Tan

But why you say that Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. I am a participant of this case in the first place. It just so happens that I'm included by you, and yet you are prohibiting me to edit the page. Thus, what I mean is spiritually forced, and it is not fair at all for you to do such a thing.

Tan 00:10, 5 June 2005 (UTC)

Colby Donaldson

I wrote the short stub on Colby Donaldson which replaced the redirect. In general, I feel that an article on the subject, even a stub, is preferable to a redirect to another article. MK2 17:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chad Bryant

I know you arent going ot believe I'm trying to help the guy, but here goes. A number of individuals from that usenet group he lives in have set up a nasty Wiki entry for Chad. You should delete it or something. Its pretty bad.

TruthCrusader