User talk:Mel Etitis

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archived talk
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8	Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16	Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24
Significant milestones
10,000th edit: 25 iv 05 15,000th edit: 12 vi 05 10,000th edit on an article: 17 vii 05 20,000th edit: 27 vii 05 25,000th edit: 31 viii 05
Admin-related actions
blocks (last twelve blocks) page protections & unprotections

Useful links

Break

I'll be away for a few days, with intermittent Internet access at best.--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Clinton Kelly

Thanks for merging her info with her son's. I was not sure if I should do this or not because she was kind of a celebrity in her own right during the first presidential campaign and his first term. Gmosaki 14:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian philosophy

Hi Mel, you seem to take objection when I took off the two wiki-tags on September 2, AFTER making changes to the two specific objections that you earlier pointed out: misspelling for "indigenous", and the use of the word, "contents".

Honestly, this so-called article (more appropriately called a "stub" after my edit; the original was lengthy and verbose, saying a lot and yet, telling very little) is not worth discussing. The only reason why I am harping on it is because I want to know where I had gone wrong, and to continuously improve on my editing skills, as was communicated to you on September 1. I reproduce here what I had said then to refresh your memory:

Hi Mel, I was editing the above article (referring to Indonesian Philosophy), and I removed the copyedit and wikify tags. I have not remove[d] the "verify" tag, though. You have put back the copyedit and wikify tags. As a learning experience, may I know what is wrong with the edit? Is it my English grammar or my hyperlinks? PM Poon 16:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I have therefore taken a particular interest on your copy-edit of the said article. You have made a number of changes to 5 sentences/clauses, none of which, in my humble opinion, seems grave enough to deserve a double tag: {wikify} and {copyedit}. As a basis for our discussion, it would be well to cite here what Wikipedia had intended to be the purpose for these two tags:

{wikify}

If the article needs reformatting to be more readable
If the article needs HTML changed into wikitext
If important words need to be linked to appropriate Wikipedia articles

{copyedit}

check for proper English spelling, grammar, usage, etc.

1st Amended Sentence
You had taken objection to the sentence:

'To qualify as "Indonesian philosophy", the philosopher must:'

and have proposed, instead:

'To qualify as an Indonesian philosopher, one must:'

My contention is that we are talking about 2 different things altogether. I was talking about "Indonesian philosophy", which is the subject of the article, and you were talking about "Indonesian philosopher". As my sentence was not grammatically incorrect, nor does it need reformatting, changing into wikitext, nor word-links, this sentence therefore does not warrant the placement of the two wiki-tags.

2nd Amended Sentence
You had objected to the use of a comma after the word, "region" in:

'be a native of the region, now known as Indonesia;'

I personally think that the comma makes the clause more readable. Grammatically, I believe that no one can justifiably say that it is wrong, unless you can prove otherwise. As such, this sentence, again, does not warrant any of the two wiki-tags.

3rd Amended Sentence
You had objected to the use of the word, his, any and alternatively, in:

'express his ideas in any one of the 587 ethnic dialects, or alternatively, in the unifying Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian language).'

No one can claim that the use of the word, his, is ungrammatical, although it is sexually bias (yet, conventionally, his always implies hers, when it is used in place of one). Whether one uses his or one’s is a matter of personal preference, and it seems that you are allowing your personal bias to impose on Wikipedians.

The use of the words, any and alternatively is not grammatically incorrect either, and is a matter of writing style. In the said sentence, I was writing on two alternatives; hence, the use of the word, alternatively. Again, therefore, the use of the two wiki-tags is unjustified.

4th Amended Sentence
You had taken objection to the word/phrase, must, of the world, and much lesser in:

'It is not a requirement that the content of Indonesian philosophy must be distinct and unique from other philosophical traditions of the world since its indigenous content is, admittedly, much lesser than its borrowed and adapted content.'

I do not think that the use of the word, must was misplaced. This is evident if we contract the content of Indonesian philosophy to it, such that it reads as follows: 'It is not a requirement that it must be distinct and unique...'

The use of the word, of the world is not grammatically incorrect either, and tells a different story from, say, It is not a requirement that the content of Indonesian philosophy must be distinct and unique from other philosophical traditions of South East Asia.

At the time of writing, I was toying with whether to use much lesser or much less, both of which are grammatically acceptable. I opted for the former as a matter of personal preference, as I was comparing two things: "indigenous content" and "borrowed content", and wanted to portray the fact that "borrowed content" was very much greater than "indigenous content".

In the Wikipedia article, "Chronicon Lethrense", written in September 2004, the use of much lesser was allowed: "In that sense it is not much different from the first part of Sven Aggesøn's Brevis Historia Regum Dacie or Saxo's Gesta Danorum, tho[ugh] much smaller and of much lesser quality." So why the double standard? (Did you notice the spelling mistake for though?)

5th Amended Sentence
You objected to the use of the plural form of 'philosophy' in the sentence:

'Indonesian philosophy borrows heavily from the philosophies of China, India, Arabia, Persia, and the West.'

My sentence was meant to mean the following: Indonesian philosophy borrows heavily from many philosophies, and these philosophies include those from China, India, Arabia, Persia, and the West. Is it therefore wrong to use philosophies?

Mel, your copy-edit seems to show that there has not been anything sufficiently fatal or critical to deserve a re-tag, much less an overkill in the form of a double re-tag, for which you would be HARD PUT to defend in the eyes of a fair and just man. The structure of my edit has remained intact in its entirety, after your copy-edit. I had thought that a major overhaul has been called for, when you gave it a double tag, but what I saw was just some cosmetic changes, and personal preference and bias. To be sure, there is nothing to stop anyone from editing any article to suit his personal preference, but to put a double wiki-tag arbitrarily (and in blatant disregard to the intended purpose of the tags) is a different kettle of fish altogether.

I visited the article on September 2, and was indeed surprised that the spelling for indigenous had not been corrected by you, even as you, a veteran Wikipedian with many Awards to boot, had discovered it earlier! And I read somewhere in Wikipedia that says something to this effect: "If there is a spelling mistake, it is because you, the user, has not bothered to correct it when you found it."

To date, I have done more than 1,000 edits, involving more than 100 distinct articles (some anonymously, because I had forgotten to log on my pseudoname), and I do not seem to encounter much problems, except for "The First English Civil War" where I made fatal mistakes on the word-links.

Mel, when you advised me not to edit, it does seem that your personal philosophy is at odds with Wikipedia, and I am inclined to think that maybe, Encyclopedia Britannica would be more in line with your aptitude, temperament, and attitude. As a matter of fact, the top portion of Wikipedia’s Main Page states: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

I believe that I am probably not the only Wikipedian to be subjected to your personal prejudice, and if this is true, you have therefore not only contravened the spirit and purpose of this portal, but have also committed a great injustice to Wikipedia and Wikipedians, behaving as if this portal belongs privately to you, or that of your grandfather, so to speak. PM Poon 16:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Like a Bird

You should have seen what it looked like before I worked on it! (Sorry about misspelling 'gospel' and yes, it should be 'two' not '2' because it is a number less than 10.) RJFJR 16:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

James Dean

Would you please have a look at the James Dean article. User:Wyss is ignoring the additional sources I am presenting which undoubtedly support my view. He has repeatedly reverted my version of the text without discussing the facts. Onefortyone 00:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest an RfC. Wyss 00:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why User:Wyss is constantly denigrating all independent sources (books, articles, etc.) which undoubtedly support my view. This user is biasedly suppressing facts. Onefortyone 00:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to clutter Mel's talk page any further than to say 141's sources have been extensively examined and discussed on the associated talk pages and have proven to be mostly fabricated one way or another, with one or two remaining items looking more like sloppy research based on the former. Wyss 00:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wyss, this is what you frequently claim, but it is not true. I have cited several independent sources supporting my view, among them Gavin Lambert's Wood biography and a recent Dean biography. You are unable to provide sources which prove that the facts in these books are wrong. Furthermore, look at the biased wording Wyss uses in the said paragraph. Onefortyone 00:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I don't know if you remembered any of the brief interactions we had, but it's good to know that you think my hands would have been a safe pair in which to shove a mop. Thanks! Rl 09:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Since my return from Europe, I have noticed a few changes on Wikipedia. When logged in, I cannot find the search box. Could you tell me where it is located? DrippingInk 14:37, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Robert H. Lounsberry

Mel, another little job, if you would. I found two identical biographical articles. I chose to "Move" one to Robert H. Lounsberry, but the other, Robert Lounsberry, should now be deleted. Thanks. WBardwin 20:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah carey

Hi Mel. Could you please take a look at Sales and charts achievements for Mariah Carey? An anonymous editor (24.215152.211) has edited it and he/she has flooded the article with what I believe to be superfluous information; all of these seem to negate the records, or provide some excuse for them. I reverted the changes, but the user is adamant in including the info — even though he has been warned that he is in danger of violating the 3RR. Please look in the history and youll see some of the edits (thats if he/she hasnt already reverted my edis). The anon editor has provided a 'rationale' on the talk page. Thanks in advance.

Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

Article on inserting photo

Dear Mel

σε ευχαριστώ για τις προσπάθειες που ανάλωσες.

I have successfully put a photo into our wiki. We have a non-profit organisation with its own wiki. I would like to put an article into wikipedia to explain one specific editing activity and that is "How to put one of your own photos into wikipedia and format it into position". Now, how that gets translated into a brief useful heading is my problem, but I can do it (and would appreciate suggestions). I will indicate this is for photos which are taken by the person editing and they are prepared to place them in the public domain.

I would like to save other people the time and effort I spent in being able to perform this task.

Maybe it gets to be called

How to insert your photo into a wiki article.

With a list of search terms to introduce the article.

Search Terms: Insert photo insert graphic edit help upload graphic upload photo for dummies

First of all reduce the size of your photo. This is sometimes called optimisation......

I hope you might help me edit this article or lead me on to someone who is best able to make the article brief, accurate and clear. I believe it to be an important activity, and I believe most people would not find it easy. I had the time to persevere but nearly gave up. The tutorials and helps are so verbose and complicated that it is nearly impenetrable.

Dash and damn

Sorry Mel. How do I get to see the last message you sent me? It has now disappeared before I thought of copying and saving it. It is links to stuff on photos and editing.

Regards

Garry

(Roo)

eliminate an entry ~ Lebkemba

Dear Mel,

I would like to remove the article called Lebkemba. This is not a term used by people who live in Lakemba, in fact not a term in common use at all. I have lived in Lakemba for one year and have NEVER heard the term being used. I am not Lebanese and have no axe to grind. It is a wonderfully cosmopolitan place and does have a significant minority of Lebanese people.

I would like to initiate whatever process there is to eliminate an article.

Garry

(Roo)

Thanks

Hi Mel,

Thanks for making contact in my Talk. I have worked out who you are, but your secret is safe with me ;-)

I have only recently started dabbling in Wikipedia and have not doubt made some blunders. I have added our common interest to a few appropriate articles and done some other bits and pieces. I don't think there's any danger of me doing too much, although I can't help thinking "What else can I get involved in here"? The temptation's there, but I'm resisting it.

Please continue to be in touch through the conventional channels.

--SMeeds 11:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I'd like to ask you (since you appear to be rather disliked in some editing) about the Kelly Clarkson song sections. What is with these ongoing disputes about retiring "Behind These Hazel Eyes" and changing the Canadian and several other positions? Due to this I cannot add some useful information. And the song titles are incorrectly spelled. "With" should be capital, not small-cased.

--I hope to receive a reply. Thank you for your time. Winnermario 15:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Spice (album).jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Spice (album).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Issue at List of born-again Christian laypeople

A little while back, I decided to try to improve the evidentiary standard of List of born-again Christian laypeople. Basically, almost none of the listed names had any footnoted support about their religious status, and a substantial minority (maybe even a majority) of the corresponding WP articles also lacked any support for this.

My edits were a combination of locating footnotes to add and removing (but storing on talk page) any names that were not yet supported. I only made a start at this, then suffered lots of reversions and rather rude comments and threats from some long-time editors who, IMO, pretty much wanted the names listed out of proselytic goals rather than accuracy concerns. Probably the principle such reverter was User:Davidcannon, who also recruited a couple others editors via user talk pages.

As part of that, I placed a {{disputed}} tag on the page to help clarify the fact that the list really is of rather low standard currently, in a purely factual/evidentiary sense. My feeling is that inclusion in a politically-laden list like this should not be strictly a matter of "I heard it through the grapevine that so-and-so is born-again".

A bit of a truce was reached with Davidcannon; but today I noticed that he took of the disputed tag and added back some names with no germane evidence. I wrote on his talk page:

There has not been anything on the discussion page to indicate that the factual accuracy is no longer disputed. In point of fact, I continue to believe that a large percentage of the listed names are factually incorrect. This includes some that continue to contain prima facie negative evidence on the talk page, as well as the bulk of the names in other categories, where I have not had a chance to attempt either positive or negative validation. Removing a disputed tag without consensus is a clear policy violation; if continued, I'll probably first attempt to get the page locked pending provision of evidence, but other action might be appropriate too. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:52, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

I'm hoping for a friendly admin to keep a little bit of an eye on this. I think that a page lock might be appropriate if the editors are not willing to conform with WP:V on that page. I don't want that just yet necessarily, but maybe in the future. What do you think? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:08, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

No original research

See No original research! Am I in more trouble?

Yup, you're in a lot of trouble, Poorman. I'd run for the hills if I were you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I am in southern Thailand, so there are swamps but no hills. Looks like I can ril, but I can't hide! (not another pun) --Poorman 06:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]