User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 13
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Church of Reality
[edit]I added my reasoning on the vfd topic. Falphin 19:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why did you place an indefinite block against an IP with only a single contribution? A long but not indefinite block would accomplish the same goal but not run the risk of overblocking down the road when someone else has the IP. I've looked through the block log and don't seen any recent evidence of this editor using another IP, so it also seems that they were blocked after a single edit without warning. What am I missing? --Gmaxwell 20:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
copyvio
[edit]Gotcha... knew I was missing something... didn't the copyvio tag once remove the text in question? Lachatdelarue (talk) 22:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On visual associations
[edit]Hi, I'd be interested in your take on a certain matter. A certain user, Klonimus, is insisting on including a photo of Adolf Eichmann in our article on Ward Churchill, who rather imfamously mentioned Eichmann in an essay he wrote on 9/11. Klonimus has added a long caption to the photo and also a paragraph on Eichman to the article. I have just removed the photo and trimmed the reference to Eichmann to one line. [1]
From a stylistic point of view, I don't believe a photo of Eichmann belongs in an article on Ward Churchill; images should pertain to him, the subject of the article. Likewise, the added paragraph is an obvious digression from the narrative. In a more abstract sense, I believe the image subliminally suggests a strong assocation of Churchill with Nazism, which I think is vastly unfair (not that I necessarily agree with all Churchill's ideas). If you have a moment, I would appreciate your opinion. -- Viajero | Talk 01:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
your irrationalism
[edit]You are being very irrational about selling space. I think it would do wikipedia a lot of good if you just stepped out of it for a bit. THE KING 08:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I believe that you're referring to Extra-terrestrial real estate. I note that your most recent edit was removal of "{{wikify}}{{copyedit}}", an edit that you summarized as "rv vandalism by Mel". This in turn would imply that addition of these templates constitutes vandalism. That's an odd conception of vandalism; might you benefit from a little cooling off? That little matter aside, are the templates justified? That the second word in the article is "controvertial" (sic) suggests that yes, it does need copyediting. -- Hoary 08:29, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
- There's not much that I can add. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Signature help
[edit]A question about your signature - is the best way to get the formatting by typing it in an area like this one and then pasting into the box on the preferences page? And if so, was there a specific tool that you used to get the colours? I'm new to WP and so am not au fait with formatting tricks etc, which is something I'd like to learn.
Finally - when I post on my (humble) talk page to try it out, the bit of my sig that links to my talk page appears in bold, black text and isn't a link. I notice you have a link to your talk page on your talk page (as part of a sig) and I was wondering how this is done. Thanks! --High Hopes 09:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Incorrect reprimand
[edit]Please refrain from inserting your personal comments onto the Wikipedia:Requests for protection page in contravention of what is stated on the page as official Wikipedia policy : This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies. Also, as a Wikipedia:Administrators, you have an obligation to end personal attacks that this ANONYMOUS vandal repeatedly puts onto the Requests for protection page. Too, the comments you left on my talk page are false and it is obvious you never read the facts. When someone deliberately inserts knowingly falsified information into articles, they are a Vandal. Once a Vandal, they remain a Vandal. Changing tactics doesn't make you no longer a Vandal. When the Vandal then insert comments on the Requests for protection page in violation of Wikipedia policy, then an act done by a Vandal is in fact vandalism. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 19:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- User:Ted Wilkes has repeatedly deleted passages from articles and comments by other users on discussion pages. See, for instance, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, history page. In my opinion, he is identical with users NightCrawler and JillandJack who are, or repeatedly were, under a Wikipedia hard ban. See User:DW. His IP address should be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.216.197 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 5 Jun 2005
Attitudes on Wikipedia
[edit]"Simple Fairness" demands that you and your sockpuppet Yuber stop vandalizing my user page, Rogue Admin.Enviroknot 19:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My conduct
[edit]It seems that I'm likely to become involved in many disputes similar to the one at Islamist terrorism. I'd like some input regarding my conduct there: are my comments reasonably calm? did I revert anything I shouldn't have? did I correctly cite policy? I'd just like some input, so I know what areas I can do better on. Thanks, →Ingoolemo← talk 21:06, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Apologies
[edit]My judgement was indeed wrong in this instance, and I apologise earnestly. I could not find this evidence for IP linking on the ArbComm page. However, I do consider the sockpuppet template inherently a personal attack, unless proven otherwise by the ArbComm. Clearly you do not agree with this opinion, and I respect that. Once again, I apologise if I have offended you. Incidentally, I do think that much of what Enviroknot says is nonsense. His accusation against you of sockpuppetry is the most ridiculous I have ever heard. I still think it is important to assume good faith until there is conclusive evidence otherwise. I have not seen that evidence, so I am bound to assume good faith. I am very sorry that we have clashed again so soon. Best wishes, smoddy 22:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sure it also doesn't help that I have a GCSE tomorrow... *Gulp*. Cheers, smoddy 22:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It's not until two o'clock, and it's only biology. ;-). Off to bed now, though! smoddy 22:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
monobook.js
[edit]- Thanks for pointing it out. I had removed the <nowiki> & </nowiki> statements when debuging and I actually fell asleep at the computer when working on it! Thanks again. …Guy M… (soapbox) 22:51, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
re: Mr Tan
[edit]You might be right that your original comment was appropriate to the Admin Noticeboard. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of any way to preserve your comment without bringing the rest of the irrelevant content back. I could not convince myself that any more productive contributions were going to come from continued discussion on that page. I took the liberty of assuming that your point had been adequately made and that it was time to close down that particular discussion thread. Apologies if I overstepped. Rossami (talk) 01:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I must admit that I was skeptical - I thought the fight would continue regardless. But experience is proving you right. It was also a more elegant solution than my ham-handed approach. Your solution was better than mine. Rossami (talk) 13:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
They are at it again ACW-Utah
[edit]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACW-Utah
Ok, background, ACW is the wrestling organization that Chad Bryant works for. I dont know if this article is an advertisement or a way to start more flame war stuff. However, I feel this is a vanity entry as ACW is far far far too small and insignificant to warrent an entry. This would be like putting an entry up for my 2 dogs.
The thing is, the facts stated in the article ARE true and verifiable, so I dont know what to make of it. I think you are needed to make a call on the whole thing.
I think its just an attempt to carry the flame war to Wiki, in which case the article needs to be deleted.
- Hey TruthCrusader, how about you shut the hell up for once? YOUR opinion does not matter -- the article WAS valid, and the information WAS correct. The article is going back up; I will make some minor changes within the content but the article shall return, you hoser. --The Lone Stranger 12:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would have thought that since the page was speedied as vandalism, the image should be speedied along with it, but I've listed it on IFD now anyway. sjorford →•← 10:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
ACW-Utah
[edit]I have a REAL big problem with you deleting my created entry of ACW-Utah for "personal attacks". There WERE no personal attacks within the article -- if you had bothered to get your head out of your ass and actually peruse it, you would see that I did everything I could to make it as valid and as non-personal as possible.
If you believe there was a personal attack then you should have left a note on my talk page to discuss it. I am going to put the article back up and you can discuss it as much as you like on its talk page.
It may have seemed to you to be a personal attack due to the mention of a certain Wikipedia user on here who has been attacked multiple times on his talk and user page, but the facts concerning said user can be backed up through online and offline records, and you should have at least asked me to edit those particular sections or at the very least edited them out yourself.
Fuck you, you self-centered, elitist douchebag. I'm really getting tired of your nonsense with Wikipedia entries and how you apparantly feel that you are some sort of "Wikipedia police" free to remove what you want. I don't care if you are an admin or not -- this one was bullshit! --The Lone Stranger 12:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Annie nocenti, with the lower-case n.
[edit]Uh, sorry to bother you, but could I ask you why you wouldn't delete "Annie nocenti"? Seriously, it's not supposed to be there; Annie Nocenti is the only one that should exist. I mean, it doesn't even conform to the naming conventions that indicate fairly clearly that proper names of people should be capitalized). I mean, right now, anyone who types "annie nocenti" into the search bar gets a page titled "Annie Nocenti" (since that's what the mistitled "Annie nocenti" page redirects itself to after I moved the page to its proper place), which is empty besides a redirect to "Ann Nocenti", the main article -- but the user doesn't end up there because Wikipedia (quite properly) doesn't allow redirects that follow a redirect. (I realize that a workaround for this problem is to fix the redirect at "Annie nocenti" to point to "Ann Nocenti" instead of "Annie Nocenti", but that doesn't change the fact that "Annie nocenti" is a completely useless page that only exists because I made a mistake.)
Point is, I created the mistitled page by accident and would like it to be removed. I believe that this falls under the speedy deletion policy -- "Any page which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the page was edited only by its author". Seeing as I created the page by mistake, there was and never has been any actual content on the page, and it was edited only by me (well, until you removed the speedy deletion tag, anyway =)), I don't really understand what the problem here is...? -- Captain Disdain 13:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right; I was under the impression that someone typing "Annie nocenti" into the search bar would end up at "Annie Nocenti" anyway, but experimentation proved that it wasn't the case. (I couldn't tell you why I thought that. Let's not go there...) I was further confused by the fact that you left the page there but didn't fix the redirect... In any case, sorry to waste your time there. -- Captain Disdain 13:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Misleading food names
[edit]I am actually all in favor of the non-neutral-point-of-view version of sweetbreads, but I am terribly curious as to why you reverted to it just now. --Mothperson 14:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Um - as a semi-vegetarian, myself, let me tell you that the person who wrote "people who think it's all right to eat body parts" (I may not have the exact wording here) was not talking about health hazards of eating internal organs. --Mothperson 15:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Because it strongly implies these people are disgusting barbarians, which they are, made plain by the use of the word "acceptable." OMG. What am I doing??? I don't really want to convince you. Let it stay. By the by, I've just been reading about marshmallows, and I'm going to add them to the list, okay? No marshmallow in them for at least a century. --Mothperson 16:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Most marshmallows contain animal hooves and things. I don't suppose I can point that out? Never mind. --Mothperson 16:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Most people have no idea why marshmallows are called marshmallows. But I was forgetting one of my personal Wikipedia rules, which is not to question you. Anyway, I hate marshmallows. --Mothperson 16:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Real marshmallows - yeah. Anything for science, as long as they don't contain mammal by-products. There are recipes. We could make them ourselves if we had access to the marshmallow. And I think I do. Huh. --Mothperson 17:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The first recipe produces fudge or fondant, the second - meringues. How bad can they be? --Mothperson 17:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
sorry for the confusion. This ought to clear it up.
[edit]I guess I went off half-cocked. I'm too much off a softie. And there was a lot of lag problems. But I think the stir I've made is now un-stirred (if there's such a word). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:48, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Mel Etitis :)
[edit]Thank you for the welcome Mel Etitis Marknorth 17:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thanks for the welcome
[edit](belated) thanks for the welcome. Like most beginners, it seems, I assumed the message was automated. -- Jon Dowland 21:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Question
[edit]On what grounds did you revert my changes to "Faith-based"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.225.251 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 Jun 2005
Removal of ACW-Utah Page Is Unjustified and Wrong
[edit]How dare you delete the ACW-Utah page. Everything on that page was based in fact and you are doing the public a grave disservice by thwarting the dissemination of truth. I really don't understand your rationale for aborting the entry and you are apparently so arrogant that you don't even both to offer an explanation or justification for your actions.--Captain Spinkicker 23:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My RFA: Thanks
[edit]Thank you for your support on my RFA. Now that I have been promoted, I promise to be as hardworking and fair with the admin tools as I have been with the other areas here on Wikipedia. See you around and happy editing. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Could You Elaborate On Suharto "Overhaul"?
[edit]I just need a bit more guidance on the "overhaul" that you suggest for the Suharto entry?
Please understand that my first desire is to add a bit more depth to the entry before Suharto dies. My biggest fear is that when this happens (which could be any day now) is that there will be attempts by former patrons of the regime to whitewash its worst excesses, so I am looking to pre-empt that by thoroughly researching and posting as many of my findings now. On the other hand, I could see that the result of such an approach could be a haphazard organization of all the new information.
At any rate, my thanks for your candor.--Daniel 01:37, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Closing RFC
[edit]Did you ever figure out how to do this or should I ask another sysop? The discussion is quite dead, anyhow. Thanks for any help. Whig 06:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
change of username?
[edit]Hi,
I recently got the following advice about changing my username:
"Concerning your handle: if you want to change your actual username (rather than just masking it as it appears you have done), you contact an administrator and they'll migrate your edits, discussion, etc to the new username. See Wikipedia:List of administrators to find an admin -- User:Mel Etitis is a nice guy and could probably advise you. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)"
Do I need to put in some sort of formal request for a change in username, or am I doing so now?
Thanks ahead of time for the trouble,
prokaryote 20:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Me and GCSEs
[edit]Hi Mel. I would have put this up above, but the chances of your finding it are slim... How do you get so many more messages then me? How do you seem to end up in every dispute, always arguing exactly the way I would in terms of articles? You amaze me. Which leads me (somehow) to my biology exam, which was, well, less than difficult. There was, in fact, a digestive system-labelling question, but it involved putting a big X on a liver, so no troubles there. Maths today was also easy – GCSEs should really be in interesting subjects... Philosophy? I'd love that! Anyway, cheers, smoddy 21:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
another quick question
[edit]Sorry to bother you again, but I had one more thing to ask:
Can my old username simply be deleted off the site entirely from the places it is now listed? The reason I ask is that I didn't realize when I made the original username and password that it would show up all over the site every time I did something. The organization I work for tends to frown on that sort of thing.
I'm planning on making an entirely new username and password and starting there from scratch, but I just wanted to check first to see if I could get rid of my old one. Besides, I have to admit I hate being that "visible."
Thanks again,
prokaryote 23:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support
[edit]Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
why the rv on WPLJ?
[edit]Why the complete rv on my changes to WPLJ? The existing article had missed that it was originally WABC-FM, and had the old format wrong (it was freeform, then album rock; there's no such radio format as progressive rock). Please state what you found "not understandable" in my changes and I'll work to improve them. A full rv was unwarranted. Wasted Time R 16:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Now that the page has been locked, how do we go about getting other people (besides me and 24.193.128.76) go come and create a consensus on how the article should look? Right now it seems to be unattended. Also, if you have time be sure to listen to the latest "Take Back America" on the JTF website to hear what 24.193.128.76 refers to as a "civil rights organization" - it only takes about 10 minutes to get the idea of what they are about. 168.209.98.35 16:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. Rather than asking for it to be unprotected (which it's not ready for yet) I am asking if we can get other people to help mediate (if that is the correct choice of words) to help make it NPOV. If you leave it to me and 24.193.128 we would never come up with an agreement. 168.209.98.35 17:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rita Quintero
[edit]Sorry, I have no idea, I just edited the page to fix the link which went to the wrong Luis Enrique. --Dryazan 17:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your 3RR violation at Islamic Terrorism
[edit]- You have made 4 edits inside 11 hours on this page, but I notice you have accused the reporting user of vandalism. I am assuming good faith on your part, so please could you give your side of the story at WP:AN/3RR. Thryduulf 18:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Mel was clearly and openly revert warring. I don't normally do 3RR's, but when other administrators won't I guess I have to step in. Blocked for being an admin and letting us all down. As always email is welcome. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mel, may I suggest that you let off this user? While I now agree with you about his sockpuppetness (did you know I was officially Wikipedia's Socksmeller Pursuivant?), I think it is pointless to keep going on this crusade. If the ArbComm agrees with you, you will be vindicated and people who remove the notice will be vandals. If it doesn't, you may well end up with egg on your face. As I say, I think he is a sockpuppet, but I nevertheless think it would be better for the wiki-atmosphere if you were to let off for a while.
Best regards, smoddy 17:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Death Gargantuous
[edit]Another user had already added the speedy deletion tag, but it was removed by the person who had created the article. I merely restored it. (from user page by Jon Hart)
- Moved by smoddy 20:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Castor Oyl
[edit]Could you please undelete Castor Oyl, which you deleted, IMO inappropriately? This was the main character of a nationally syndicated comic strip, Thimble Theater, for years before the more famous Popeye, as explained in earlier legitimate edits (look at the 7 May 2005 version, for example). Thanks; if you disagree with undeletion please contact me on my talk page. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 20:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi. User:24.193.128.76 is still making personal attacks against me. I do not want him blocked but I do want him to stop and start discussing the article. Who do I report this to if he does it again? I think if someone of authority asks him to stop he will. 168.209.98.35 22:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In case you might be interested, the ArbCom is seeking input on handling content/NPOV disputes. I'd be particularly interested in any comments you have on my alternate solution (#13). Whig 22:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to request to move Spiceworld (album) over to Spiceworld. Since there is nothing else on Wikipedia that uses the name "Spiceworld", I do not see why "album" has to be included next to the name. DrippingInk 22:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Blether
[edit]I am unable to find any significant uses of the phrase "faith-based" from before its current proponents (as documented in the Faith-Based article) started using it. The Oxford Universal Dictionary includes only faith-cure, faith-healer, and faith healing, as combined terms (plus faithful, faithless, and faithworthy). Unless you can point out some significant earlier uses, it *is* a neologism.
There are no references for the bald statements about "human sacrifice", nor even about the "grey areas" about religions that the author suspects to be frauds! I have to admit that I thought the article was partly a hoax. Human sacrifice as part of the definition of "faith-based"? Of course I removed it, when there was no support for the notion.
Also, Wikipedia practice is *not* to REVERT other peoples' changes when you happen to disagree with them. It is to *revise* their changes to an appropriate neutral point of view. The original article is full of POV. Mine, I thought, was less so. Go back and see.
Do you think because you're Mr. Edited Lots of Pages you can just run roughshod over other contributors? You should know the etiquette better than I!
Edits to Wiki entry on Ayn Rand
[edit]You reverted some edits I made to the "Controversy" sections. I deleted the part that said the romantic relationships in her novels always required cheating. That is innacurate. Cheating was involved only in "Atlas Shrugged" and "We the Living." In "Anthem" and "The Fountainhead" the protagonists' romantic involvements did not involve any sort of infidelity.
Request for advice
[edit]Hi Mel,
You've mentioned that you've taught English as a foreign language at Oxford, and I thought I could seek your advice with regards to an article naming problem I've encountered at the article Departments of the Singapore Government.
It started off from Template:Politics of Singapore, where "Government departments" was linked to Government of Singapore. From what I understood of government (in the English/Singaporean context), it is synonymous with "cabinet". Therefore I took the liberty of re-directing Government of Singapore to Cabinet of Singapore.
This created some misunderstanding between me and Huaiwei, as shown in Talk:Government of Singapore and Talk:Departments of the Singapore Government. It seems to me the root of the problem was that both of us had a different understanding of the word "government".
I would like to seek your opinion as someone who speaks English as a first language and is (may be?) slightly proficient in politics. Did I have a wrong interpretation of the word "government"? Thanks in advance for your help! =Travisyoung= 16:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Mel,
- Thanks for your reply. Seems like I based my understanding of the word "government" on a definition that was too narrow (which I thought was more appropriate for an article on politics of Singapore). Thanks for your help, really appreciate it!
- =Travisyoung= 02:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Policy on Censorship
[edit]Keeping busy, I see! Is there a formal Wiki policy on censorship? Had a disturbing conflict with an otherwise responsible user who twice removed material from a talk page and cited several policies/practices as authorization to do so. When (s)he removed the material, (s)he made no edit summary and did not leave a note about his actions. The material was not vandalism, obscene, or even objectionable (to me, at least), but seemed too extreme in its content for the editor. To me, (s)he seemed to be protecting the talk page from potential controversy. This does not seem the Wiki way! (S)he apologized for "offending me," but asserted that (s)he did not regret the action and would do it again. I always stand strongly against censorship, and so I have drawn a line in the sand on this one. This must have been addressed many times here. Can you give me a reference? Thanks. WBardwin 16:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Mel. For future reference -- could you point me to that policy? 'preciate it. WBardwin 23:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One of us now
[edit]Good to see you back. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:38, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)