User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 21

thanks[edit]

Hello, just saying thanks for tidying up my Hot 100 #1 artists list... that was the first list I've put together and I actually sat here for a few minutes trying to think of an appropriate title for the page :) I'm working on a similar list for #1 US Dance chart artists and I will follow the new title and text template you modified. Thanks again! Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericorbit (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 August 2005

Stella (film)[edit]

Hey, nice work on Stella (film). I really worked it until I didn't have anything left and really like the reorganization you did on it. I've only been doing this a week, and looking at your edits has gone a long way toward getting me educated. Thanks for the great example. Mitchell k dwyer 11:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ninjas in Pyjamas[edit]

It was listed in the log for the 27th by Dmcdevit in this diff: [1], and it was from that day's log that I closed it. See my contribs list: you'll see me closing other debates from the 27th, although in the vicinity of this one I also closed a couple others that were listed after they were nominated but were still 5 days from actual listing. I think I didn't read the date stamp on your 2nd August comment, and figured you had added it to the log, so didn't leave you a message. I'll not reclose the debate myself but, if you plan to let it run, you'll need to revert my changes to the article too. -Splash 16:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool, thanks. Yeah, don't know quite how it managed to last two weeks off the logs! -Splash 17:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies[edit]

My response was probably not worded as best I could have done. Sorry. However, I would say that AIV is intended for cut-and-dry vandalism. So anything put there by an admin is unlikely (although I concede possibility) to be suitable. From what I can garner, AN/I would be more appropriate. I think I agree with you, actually. Again, my apologies for my wording. [[smoddy]] 21:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point understood, but I still feel that AN/I would be a better forum. Perhaps if you made the specific suggestion that they be blocked? The other option is the IRC channel -- I know that I don't see you on there, so I presume you don't use it. Nevertheless, it can be highly instructive. Then again, it may be the reason that you have four times my edit count... :-) [[smoddy]] 22:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I only suggest it if you have plenty of time... It can become highly all-consuming (is that tautology?), but many important debates take place on there. Many unimportant ones too. [[smoddy]] 22:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help on Harry Potter Issue[edit]

I have strenously objected to the following comment that is in the Severus Snape article:

I tried kindness - I tried pointing out it wasn't in the spirt of the wiki - I tried rudness (comments 64.12.116.10) - I even tried to point out that other speculation existed in the article (I realize this was bad form re WP:POINT).

But I really don't have the time to really edit more than I have - I just don't know where to turn for help - The nature of Snape's relationship with Good and Evil is the most interesting thing in the book to me and his character is so rich - there is much material on what his motives are and different interpretations of his behavior. Since this is clearly outlined on many blogs, independent literary analysis of HP, etc. it is something that could be documented on Wikipedia without being original research. Am I way out of line here - or can you make some comments to help what I am guessing are "zealot kids" re Harry Potter that don't like seeing discussion that involves Harry being wrong :)

I prefer to edit anonymously so leave any comments for me here - TIA 64.12.116.66 02:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think both you and whoever wrote the original comments have points. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own speculation about the characters, however fascinating it may be. On the other hand, if there exist documented and notable writings (not just somebody's blog or message-board posting, but actual published articles or books) that speculate on such things as whether Snape is good or evil, some mention of this, with references, would be appropriate. *Dan* 02:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thx for the comments - quick question: are you seriously agreeing that only using information from an "official website" is in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia - I don't think you are and hope you are not - but instead are pointing out that original research is hard to distinguish on that page - I totally agree - but since any change to include some commentary - even when resourced is deleted in minutes by the "no speculation" gang - the article has no time to develop. 64.12.116.66 02:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't go so far as to say that only official websites can be quoted in any circumstances; the character theories proposed in unofficial sites might be valid topics here (if the sites and theories are suitably notable, not just your own idle speculation), but should be clearly labeled as such, to make it clear they are not official, and sources given. (This is just my own opinion here, not necessarily the policy established by those who actually maintain the Potter articles.) *Dan* 03:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

See my response - here 205.188.116.68 02:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising links[edit]

Hi,

I added the links on Clifton, West Yorkshire to the golf club and public house which you removed. There are lots of wiki topics which have links to commercial ventures so I am a little perturbed that these links from the Clifton topic are bad. This is even more surprising as Clifton only has 4 commercial operations - so they are a major part of the village.

(ps I added the links under my static IP address, rather than my username)

Rbirkby 08:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton[edit]

Actually, one of the external links was mentioned in the text at the time you deleted and a second was added (by someone other than me) just after you had deleted! I see your point that wikipedia isn't dmoz.org.

Nevertheless, I will only re-add the links if more historical information can be found which directly relates to the public house. The current historical information relates the pub to the ludites.

Rbirkby 12:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nunche Brandes; Michael Brandes[edit]

I came across both stubs today as part of a wikification patrol. I understand your putting them in the 'explain significance' category but wondered why you didn't go for a delete on grounds of non notable or indeed verifiable. This is not a challenge - I'm just a newby and want to learn. Thanks--Silver149 11:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Islam[edit]

what's going on Mel? You have just deleted a perfectly good article. Nobody had recreated anything. This article was Opposition to Islam, and no vfd on it would have stood a chance. Then, after we move it to Opposition to Islam, it suddenly becomes a speedy? That's ridiculous. Very well, so I moved it back to 'Opposition', but I take exception to this legalistic approach to things. dab (ᛏ) 18:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but for the sake of sanity, can you tell me who has 'recreated' anything here? I created Opposition to Islam. I used my admin privileges to make the protected 'deletedpage' of Criticism of Islam into a much more useful redirect. Then, it was suggested that the article is moved over there. I did not think that I would need to apply for consensus for a move as obvious as making that redirect. If that was wrong, my action should be reverted, i.e. Criticism of Islam should be reverted to a protected 'deletedpage' template, and the article should be moved back to Opposition to Islam. I see no justification for deleting the article, however. I am aware WP is swarming with islamophobes. I have created the article in question to give them something worthwile to do, so the more intelligent among them have somewhere to document their views, rather than trolling Islam articles all over the place. The article is without any doubt valid. There can be no denying that Christian theologists have been very condemning of Islam throughout the Middle Ages, and this article is the place to document that discourse. dab (ᛏ) 21:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Talk:Opposition_to_Islam, if you want to insist on deletion, make your case there please. dab (ᛏ) 21:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, I can see your best intentions, of course, but in cases as obvious as this, I argue that there is a reason we have admins, not shell scripts. policy has letter and spirit. spirit goes over letter. I know people can vote 'merge & redirect' on vfds, it's just that people just don't seem to grasp the concept, so that lots of articles are deleted clearly based on their content. This reality has to be kept in mind when dealing with vfd decisions. For example, it would have been a clear violation of the vfd to have the same or slightly modified text re-uploaded to 'Opposition to Islam', or any similar title. Analogously, it is not a violation of the vfd to have a completely unrelated article moved to 'Criticism of Islam'. If I had known this would cause such a stir (stirred up, I remind you, by an obvious troll), I would just have left the article at its less satisfactory original title. reagrds, dab (ᛏ) 21:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re your Crito comment, I wouldn't want to exchange Jimbo for Socrates; WP would turn into a madhouse. I also wouldn't agree to take hemlock if I found that Wikipedia policy obliges me to it :o) dab (ᛏ) 21:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Kindi[edit]

Yes , evidently the translator of the Apology in 1882 does say that it was another philosopher with the name ibn Ishāq al-Kindī , living at the same time in the same court of the Caliph AL Mamun. But earlier sourced text by Al-Buruni in 999 does describe someone that closely matches Al-Kindi's traits "This person was learned and virtuous, endowed with the gifts of culture and science, of pure and noble descent from the BENI KINDA." Granted the evidence is somewhat open to challenge and raises the question, was it the same person or someone else. If there were indeed two then is there any mention by either of these Kindies who have very similar characteristics pointing to the presence of the other in the same court at the same time interacting directly with the same person of the Caliph Mamum.--CltFn 08:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racialism[edit]

Mel, I forgot to mention: when I last reverted this, I forgot to change the number on the two-versions tag, and also forgot to put back the totally-disputed tag. Sam asked me to put these back even though it was protected, and there were no objections, so I did. [2] I hope that's all right. I won't make any other edits. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:13, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Supremacism[edit]

Hi Mel. There was a report made on WP:AN3 about your reverts on this article. I agree with the reporter that you fell foul of the rule. However, I am more than reluctant to block you for this, as you were clearly acting in good faith. On top of this, you recognised your reverts in the previous report. I am merely noting here for the record that you should probably be more careful with your reverting, especially using the rollback tool. Cheers, [[smoddy]] 18:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. You are one of our best NPOV editors, and I am very happy that you are not being blocked (I don't agree with 3RR blocking when it is not necessary). I'm afraid I'm a little too caught up in various real-life matters right now (including some very important cricket-watching), so I can't help. Keep up the good work! [[smoddy]] 22:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Supremacism. Have you been reverting Germen's edits en bloc, or is there some reason I am overlooking why Shiv Sena is not a supremacist organization? (I incline to agree that al-Qaeda, and its like, are not; but I would need to research thoroughly before involving myself.) Septentrionalis 19:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

== Wikipedia style & links ==[edit]

Why are you reverting my corrections to Wiki-links and Wikipedia style? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that there's a certain pattern about the chronology of Miss Spears' singles pages. There is a section for information about the song, video and then charts. I feel that it is easier to have these sections, rather than one unorganized article. I'm wasn't in any way trying to destroy your version; the prettytable is a great addition! Triggy 18:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US English[edit]

Am replying here to avoid getting caught up in the great debate on the Village Pump! You seemed to imply that US English had changed its spellings and British English had stayed the same: in fact, in most cases, it is the other way round! US English retains older forms (in grammar as well, such as the greater use of the subjunctive). That having been said, English spelling was not fixed on either side of the Atlantic in 1776... Hopes this goes some way to answering your query. Physchim62 21:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Giovanni di Stefano[edit]

Please see my response on my user page: User talk:DanMS — DanMS 23:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have it[edit]

I have reason to change it. It looks horrible to spell it like that. Not to mention that the word program itself (and other entries like television program) are at those locations spelled like that (not programme or television programme)OmegaWikipedia 05:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna[edit]

Hi Mel, I copyedited the above article on 6 August and removed the copyedit tag. Apparently, the effort has not good enough and you put the tag back. I would like to make another attempt. Can you offer me some guidelines? PM Poon 07:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it never ends[edit]

Sorry. I totally missed those changes. I don't know how. It must have been the giddiness about the English muffins. --Mothperson cocoon 13:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are people from Linconshire called yellowbellies? Crumpets - I remember crumpets. Just an excuse to eat lots of melted butter. But a pretty good excuse. --Mothperson cocoon 15:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the link[edit]

I put it to use. FuelWagon 21:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die FuelWagon 22:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

1. I'm well aware of it; no need for your attitude 2. I know about it 3. There's nothing there that says I'm forbidden to changing it. In the grand scheme of things, I think it makes more sense, espeically since the word program itself is the main entry on WP, not programme. OmegaWikipedia 01:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals[edit]

Hi Mel, I had a question ... what do you do (as an admin) when someone consistently vandalizes your user page? I've been facing a barrage of such vandalism from 212.138.47.* and also User:Antirajib (which you blocked). My question is, as an admin, can I block a vandal that vandalizes my user page? Or is that a conflict of interest and should be handled by some other admin? Let me know. Thanks. --Ragib 15:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Make It Happen[edit]

[3]

Look at that webpage. Next time before you criticise me for not making edit summaries and explaining why I removed your information, look again. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 16:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to that, please don't use the admin rollback function for anything other than vandalism. violet/riga (t) 16:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

How is that article written predominantly written in British English? One word does not make the article "British". If the article was mostly British, then I'd agree, but it's not. Not to mention that the word, program is spelled mostly as program on the wikipedia, not programme.

And don't you dare accuse me. I can't edit an article you worked on? I saw your articles, mainly because I visit your user page a lot mostly because of all the drama we've been having. Am I not allowed to read them? If I see an article I feel should be edited, I'll edit it. Just because you made them doesnt mean no one else can touch them. If it's anyone that's being petty, its you having a tantrum due to me changing one word. At least, I dont stalk people like you do (and dont every try to defend yourself from this, you know what articles Im talking about, articles that had nothing to do with the current debate; I edit them, suddently the next thing I know you're there editing after me.) OmegaWikipedia 18:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mel Etitis[edit]

Hello! .. you can block me anytime but you can't block the truth. That guy --Ragib is accusing others and he trying to make unwanted action and wrote a lot of untruthful history in rohingya page . You can't only blame one side . you should look at both and find out the truth . He is bengli and don't have much knowlege about Burmese people. so better think how ?? Thanks--212.138.47.21 19:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be fair to the anon (who seems to be keen on trashing my user/talk pages), here is the history of the page Rohingya, and here are some of the diffs of my edits : [4], [5], [6], [7],[8]. I'm quite amused by the tenacity of the vandals from 212.138.47.* (and socks Antirajib (talk · contribs)/Arakan (talk · contribs)), and the attempts at picking up fights over absolutely nothing. Only if such energy went to make the article better!!!! Anyway, thanks Mel, for watching over the vandalisms. --Ragib 06:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mel,

Thanks for blocking me but i finally realize that you are closing your eyes. Please look deeply what's happening ??? he is problem maker and he had started all this problem. I finally got suck .. what's the truth behind this allegation? he is again making us the problem please .. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rohingya&action=history look the this ! i hope you can understand who's problem maker in wiki. thanks --212.138.47.17 10:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:-Ril-/list[edit]

I assume you didn't know and only deleted the page in good faith as another subpage but I just wanted to take a sec and tell you what's been going on with Ril's userpage, the reason he listed that for delete was to clear the history after he moved it from User:-Ril- and you'll notice if you go to his userpage it'll be the exact same content that was on it before hand so he was just gaming the system purely to delete the history that he didn't like for his userpage. Just wanted to let you know what was up. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:17, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please do what needs doing[edit]

This inappropriate behavior needs your attention. If I had a clue to the right response, I would not be bothering you. WAS 4.250 20:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Thanks a lot for your support vote. It is appreciated. --Briangotts (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nablus[edit]

Can you please take a look at Guy Montag's 3RR violation [9]? He keeps violating it the same way and no-one is blocking him for it.Heraclius 05:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mel,

Before I logged in a saw that there was a message directed at my IP. Seemingly someone has been vandalising pages using the same IP that I use. That's not me. No one has ever used my account for vandalism, only my IP which has gotten my in so much trouble before. This is the 2nd time this happened to me here. I also got banned from slashdot.org for a few weeks because of this. Just wanted to clear this up. Thanks.

omegamogo 05:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

Once again I stress to you the importance of not using rollback in content disputes. Please use that privilege only against vandals, not established users. Everyking 10:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's well-established practice to use rollback against vandals only. Using it in content disputes gives you an advantage in revert warring and also invokes a kind of authority over the non-admin—it implies you are acting as an administrator and not just as an ordinary editor. Everyking 11:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er... hi Mel. Sorry for eavesdropping, but Everyking is in fact right that the rollback button is used for vandalism only. (Although I think it is acceptable to use it for self-reverts). Take a look here. The reason is that reverts should be explained in general, and the edit summary "reverted edits by A to last version by B" seems to imply that A did something terribley bad. The reason I think it is acceptable for self-reverts is that by using the rollback on self-reverts you are accusing nobody except yourself... Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, before I was an admin, I often did what most people do — marked a revert by something like "rv to last edit by so-and-so". If the revert needed an explanation, I might explain in the edit summary (as I still sometimes do), but more often I'd explain on the Talk page. The rollback automated message actually gives more information than that, and (as the link you give suggests) I can explain on the Talk page if needed.

Secondly, I use rollback in certain circumstances: vandalism, unexplained poor edits by anons (if the edit wasn't explained, why on Earth should the revert be?), and persistent reverts by others when the issue has been discussed on Talk pages (especially when these span many articles, as is happening at the moment with OmegaWikipedia (talk · contribs) and Ultimate Star Wars Freak (talk · contribs).

Thirdly, Everyking is just being his usual snarling self on this; he can't really quarrel with my reversions, because they're in line with the MoS, naming conventions, etc., but he desperately wants to — so he critices the use of rollback instead. When I'm faced with upwards of thirty articles, all reverted by the same people, all changine corrected Wikilinks, spelling, capitalisation, etc., back to their incorrect form (with either no edit summaries or "rv Mel's vandalism"), I'm damned if I'm going to manually revert each one.

So, fourthly, if Everyking thinks that I've used rollback inappropriately, he should take it to AN. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If people are destroying the correct wikilinks, turning the article away from the Manual of Style by disemboldening titles or adding punctuation at weird places, and so on, that will constitute vandalism and justify the use of the rollback-button. It is in edit-content disputes in particular where use of the rollback should be avoided. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In general I agree — though I think that even where content is involved, once the edit has been explained, if the other person reverts it without proper discussion or explanation, the reason doesn't have to be repeated every time. In fact, though, Everyking isn't referring to content disputes, but to a set of reverts involving a pair of problem editors. I've raised the problem in a variety of places, and a few other editors and admins are now beginning to get involved — but it's a big job, and without rollback it would be a nightmare. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User 172.154.221.179[edit]

There is an anonymous user 172.154.221.179 (and he keeps getting his IP changed but it always begins with 172) who is rather annoying. He obviously doesn't respect that other people that have different opinions and resorts to naming people and baiting people. [10] Not just myself, he vandalizes other pages such as [11], [12], and [13]. Of course, he hinds behind his anonymous account. I think this was the type of person Jimbo Wales was looking to restrict when he announced his recent editorial changes. Barneygumble 17:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barneygumble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

That's amusing and everything, now seeing as how I'm the only one on the face of the earth to ever use aol, it even makes sense that those are all random ips, I should probably find ever vandal/redneck on wiki and label them barneygumble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but I'm not that childish.. ..oh and I'm not writing all that out again - 172.154.221.179

So why don't you create a user id? You are the one vandalizing pages, changing Bush's picture to Hitlers, etc. Barneygumble 20:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no offense, but suggesting that I'm responssible for every single AOL edit is beyond silly, you're picking random 172.x.x.x edits and crediting them all to me, when I'm far more embarressed of the abundance of neo-conservatives who use AOL, and wind up making edits with the 172.x.x.x, yet I notice you didn't credit me with any of those--172.x.x.x 20:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one IP address (172.141.193.91) that did this [[14]] as well as commented on my page [15]. I wasn't born yesterday. Barneygumble

Very good, so you've traced me to all the edit histories I've linked to in my signature, very impressive, want a gold star--172.x.x.x 20:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]