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 Archive 25 Archive 26
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 15,000th edit on an article: 8 ix 05
Admin-related actions
blocks (last twelve blocks) page protections & unprotections

Useful links

Image

I searched, no definite source. I'd seen it on several different sites, but the url I retrieved it from was: http://www.joerod.com/archives/liljohnhighschoolpic.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Major (talk • contribs) 04:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Issue at James Stewart

Sorry for turning to you once again, but there's a minor dispute at the James Stewart (actor) page regarding the sourcing a non-notable book making "claims" that Stewart was a spy for the U.S. government. Not only does the claim itself sound absurd, but the book that the user who added the content (quoted below) cited sounds non-notable and obscure in itself. The author seems to not have published many other reputable books, does not have a strong Google presence, the book has only a few minor articles mostly in internet pages, and the publisher is not well known. Added to this is the fact that there are no user comments about the books on Amazon.com. I don't think the source is reputable, but not knowing the intricacies of WP policy I figured I'd ask you first before I put this up for comment. I've contacted the user who posted the "facts," but he's resorted to turning the argument against me personally, while not posing any logical (in my opinion) reason for the inclusion of the unsubstantiated information. Much of the discussion can be found at the page's talk and history (in description) pages. Volatile 17:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

First of all, I wanted to let you know that I've responded to your comments at vandalism talk. However, please refrain from reverting what you argue is "low-level" vandalism. Instead I urge you to follow the dispute resolution process. Also, I'd like to gently remind you that WP:3RR does not entitle you to three reverts a day. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, I probably wouldn't have made such a big deal out of this if this wasn't the first time that I've seen you claim this sort of thing to be vandalism. If you're willing to admit that this type of behavior does not constitute vandalism of any sort (publicly or privately), I'll forget the issue altogether. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorrying if I came off as affrontive, that wasn't my intention. I just meant that I wouldn't continue to discuss the matter; as you mentioned earlier you felt that you were being rebuked by three administrators. I don't want you to admit to anything you don't believe, what I meant (or at least, my intention) was that if you're willing to not treat this sort of thing as vandalism in the future, then I wouldn't continue to pursue the matter. However, this wasn't intended as a threat or an ultimatum. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I agree with you that Annitas's comments are irrelevant on the vandalism page: they really don't address the issue at all, he is using it as a soapbox. I actually mentioned something to him him about this at first [1], but then rescinded my comment after other editors started to pile on. Also, his anti-mel lynchmob is uncivil, and does nothing to further the Wikipedia.

I had added a note about the vandalism discussion on the policy village pump, and it seems we're starting to get back to actual discussion. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Head over Feet

It's not that I believe that songs should be exempt from normal naming. I know the Manual Of Style specifies principal words such as prepositions should not be capitalized in the title of works, but, I don't think it delves into the specifics of the grammar rules: "Headline style calls for all principal words to be capitalized (also called caps & lc). Unfortunately authorities differ widely on what words are principal. Langley rules for headline style capitalization are based on the G.P.O. (1984) and are as follows: Do not capitalize the articles a, an, and the; the prepositions or adverbs at, by, for, of, in, up, on, and to; and the conjunctions and, as, but, if, or, and nor. In effect, this rule means that words of four or more letters are considered principal words and are capitalized" http://www.sti.nasa.gov/publish/sp7084.pdf (page 87) I won't revert it again, or any of the other song articles for that matter. It's something to take into consideration though. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 16:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jopará

I don't agree with what you did on that article. I admit that it's far from being encyclopedia-writing-styled but i think it's better than nothing. That's why I put the WIKIFY tag. I expect to enlarge it as I collect more information. STUB tag.

So, now I'm reverting...

good luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0thingness (talk • contribs) 19:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

I understand this issue, so thank you for pointing it out. However, I would muchly appreciate it if you stopped stalking me around this site. For you to have realized I had an image like that on my user page clearly indicates you've been following me. I ask you kindly to halt your actions before crossing any barrier. Thank you. Winnermario 20:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious assumption

Please stop reverting my edits without even considering them. Boa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boa (talk • contribs) 21:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Bullshido/Martial Arts Fraud

Hi Mel.

When you get a chance can you look at the last comments on the McDojo talk page. I know you've locked the Bullshido article, but from a catagorical perspective, it's highly inaccurate to list the term as a sub-catagory of an aspect of what it's trying to communicate. I realize that the VfDs were judged to be what they were, but I'd really like you to address this point on the discussion page if you could. --Phrost 21:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate you left the comment you did. What was written on my talk page (and you can verify this by looking at the history) was done as a result of our last disagreement at the time it happened. --Phrost 21:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to your comments on my talk page. Please read the when you have the chance. --Phrost 19:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PAphoto

On the TfD listing for this template, you voted to "wait". I just wanted to let you know that all of the images tagged with this template have been deleted, so you may want to reconsider your vote. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 00:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sealand table

Hi Mel Etitis. You are an admin, and I noticed that you are editing right now so I thought I might ask you a favor. I just noticed that there is a user that keep vandalizing Template:Sealand table by blanking it, eventhough he has been warned to stop what he's doing. I really don't know what the conflict is about, and I haven't been involved, but blanking is of course not acceptable in any case. Maybe you could take a look at it? -- Karl Meier 09:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thank you for dealing with this issue. -- Karl Meier 09:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone again, to an anonymous user... presumably the same guy. --SMeeds 09:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now he call himself "Uneum"... Apparently it doesn't work to ban him. Maybe that template should be protected from editing instead? -- Karl Meier 09:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dash it, Mel

I've repeatedly encountered – in the oddest places but never chased up their ~~perpetrator~~ user. Now, however, I see: ... the fuss made when I was – wrongly – interpreted as using that argument .... Er, every style guide I've seen says that — is the tool for this job (and some others), while – is limited to spans ("pages 20–31") and a few other miscellaneous purposes ("Tallinn–Helsinki traffic", "Los Angeles–based", etc.). But I could be out of date: am I missing some innovation here?

If this merits a reply, please reply here rather than on my page as fragmented discussions hurt my neck. -- Hoary 15:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

59 (a) The en rule should be used to mark off a parenthesis which makes a notable break in the flow of the sentence:

We all – and I really mean all – are on his side.

It may also be used to avoid parentheses with parentheses:

The troops (who were – largely but by no means wholly – drawn from native stock) were loyal to a man.

[Then lots of stuff about other uses of en rules: joining numerals, joint authors, etc.]

67 (b) The em rule is used to mark an interruption or a change of thought:

Why on earth have you — but there! what's the use of arguing?

[And, again, more stuff on other uses of the em rule: dramatic effect and use before final summarising phrase.]

(Herbert Rees Rules of Printed English)

The use of the em rule for almost everything except joining numbers is recent (at least on this side of the Atlantic), and (I think) the result of the decline in typesetting skills, and the need for a simplified set of rules. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be dashed. I hadn't heard of Rees or his book, and if I were in a truculent mood would mutter darkly about how bookfinder.com implies that the latter is a 35-year-old work from an obscure publisher. But actually your excerpt from it is rather impressive. Still, I hadn't heard of such a distinction, which I do not think appears anywhere in the perhaps 20-year-old copy I possess (an hour's train-ride from where I now sit) of the unambiguously British and rather well-known work Hart's Rules. -- Hoary 02:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notability deletions

I noticed that you nominated both Luxurious and Pucci Petwear for deletion on the grounds of notability. I point out that Wikipedia:Deletion policy has nothing about notability, and that an attempt to add notability as a deletion criteria failed to generate consensus. Furthermore, I point out that the deletion policy specifically states that articles that are "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" should be merged, not deleted.

In light of this, I ask you to reconsider your practice of making nominations on these grounds - instead consider the verifiability, vanity, and dicdef policies, which I think can be used to delete about 90% of the crap that gets nominated for deletion. Snowspinner 15:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles voted to be deleted questions?

Hello Mel, Sorry to bother you but, I have a question for you since you started a new article on the indie film Democrazy after the original article about the film had been deleted after a vote. What is the procedure?

I had assumed after your creating a new article on the film and the ones who were so dead set against it, stopped their campaign to remove it, that if someone else starts an article up and the original reasons why something had been deleted were removed that an article on something such as Democrazy could eventually be made.

Another indie film which was originally deleted The Deserter because it was believed to be advertising was created again as The Deserter (2003) by a different user: Rms125a@hotmail.com or 70.19.29.244 and it was erased by one of the original delete voters who is now an administrator. The creator's IP address 70.19.29.244 is out of New York and it seemed obvious that it was not the same user who created it the first time.

So is this right? An article about a film or anything else that was deleted can never be written about again even if the reasons for deletion no longer apply? Anyway, I was just wondering whether you knew the answers to any of my questions. Thank you. Plank

The original article was: The Deserter it is now an article about a 1912 film. The original article was about a independent silent comedy by one of the actors in Democrazy. I thought it was an interesting article. When it was made by user:70.19.29.244 who I believe is the same as User:RMS125a@hotmail I added some info. Everything is now erased so there is nothing to see. I was just wondering how it worked. Thanks again. Plank

"omnibenevolence"

As this is an unncessary neologism, I've reverted to "benevolent" at Hindu answers to the problem of evil; I've also left a message at Talk:Omnibenevolence. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mel. I left some references on usage too. Would you be willing to put in some sort of "qualifier" comment about usage? I really don't have a strong opinion about it, but the term does seem to be gaining some "respectability." :-) — RDF ^talk 16:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, yes.

I realize that I should use an edit summary, but have you considered how awful it'd be to write 700+ edit summaries in the span of 24 hours on one single task? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker

You have been stalking Annittas, OmegaWikipedia, and myself. End of discussion.

Now I see your ignorance on Kelly Clarkson's music single pages continues to expand. A compromise was finally brought up (this being the "World" and "Billboard") to steer away from the previous confusion of the charts, however, you continuously revert them to your preference because that's what you want: things to be your way. This can also be shown through User:Extraordinary Machine. He wants to use his style of music single info box, and because some people are opposing, he is filing a complaint (from what I've heard, excuse me if this is inaccurate information). Six people agreed on this compromise, so I will be reverting all of Kelly Clarkson's single articles.

Oh, and please do not call these pages "pop music articles", since some of them (notably Green Day and Mariah Carey) do not play pop music. Clarkson's music is not even very "pop" anymore, as she has moved into more of a pop rock section. Winnermario 20:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Hey. Sorry to bother you again. I've noticed in the album articles, and a few others, that there you are engaged in ongoing disputes. However, it seems that these are unresolved disputes. You and the other editors seem to have been reverting each other back and forth. I know you think the dispute resolution process is fruitless, but I recommend using it or finding another solution to the problem. Reverting ad infinitum does not solve anything. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really hurt to have the article with the charts the other way for a little while, even if you disagree with it (while you try to settle this)? Actually, to be honest, I'm in agreement with you on the charts and some of the other disputes, but again, an edit war solves nothing. I'm not sure if an RfC would help, but it's worth trying. It is also a necessary step in the arbitration process, if it eventually comes to that.

I can understand why you disagree with them. I also know some of these editors you've dealt with.. are not the easiest to deal with. However, reverting, rather than seeking compromise will only further tensions but you and them. Also, perhaps you've become a little jaded or calloused or what have you, but to me it seems to have become a default reaction to material that you disagree with (For example: [2]). I'm not exactly sure what avenue is the best to take, however, I strongly urge you to pursue one that does not further these edit wars. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 14:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with bmicomp. Reversions are useless, please don't do it. :o --Phroziac^(talk)

20:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sealand table

Thanks for your help on this, Mel. — Davenbelle 04:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2

You wrote

:#{Context: I'd nominated two of the AfDs affected.) I don't want to make too much of this (though I hope he doesn't do it again), and the suggestion that he lose his adminship seems unnecessary to me (I may have missed something, but did his admin powers feature in any of this?) — but, aside from the initial mistaken behaviour, he might respond better when other editors try to discuss the issue with him. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the ability to delete the AfDs had something to do with his admin powers? Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He deleted 32 pages in all (see comment under your endorsement). I'm not especially interested in hounding Snowspinner as an individual, but I really feel that, coming so soon after the Ed Poor affair, his actions are a particularly blatant bit of point making. He strikes me as being too intelligent a person not to have understood exactly what he was doing and what the outcome was going to be, but clearly planned on turning the whole thing into a deletionist v. inclusionist debate. And his responses to criticism of his actions have been arrogant, to say the least. I suspect that David Gerard's interventions have also served to undermine confidence in the ArbCom to deal with this and similiar cases even-handedly, too. I just feel if this goes unactioned, people like me may as well give up and spend our time on more fruitful matters like the search for world peace! Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Manekshaw

Hi Mel, I meant to delete the sentence "He was also awarded the Padma Bhushan" as 3 paragraphs before, the fact is already mentioned saying that a grateful nation awarded him the Padma Bhushan in 1968 for his efforts in fighting Naga insurgency. Hence I'd be reverting your edit which re-included the sentence. Regards, Gurubrahma 15:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it is perfectly okay. Gurubrahma 15:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of science question

Hi Mel - haven't seen you around in a long time. How are you? Could you have a look at my comment at Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy#Theory_and_Law - I am trying to answer philosophy of science questions based on "gut feeling" as much as anything, and I may be completely wrong on the last bit. Thanks. Guettarda 17:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time Out (album)

The line appears in many other articles; Wikipedia's a big place.
Even if it were "abnormal", that's not a good ground for insisting on deleting it.
I've discussed this with other editors at appropriate pages, and no-one objected. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to revert this, and to ignore my message, I shall have to assume that you are editing in bad faith, and treat your edits as vandalism. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I've still not seen another one, which means it is still abnormal in my eyes.

(2) Wikipedia has many style policies to ensure a consistent look across articles; to say that something being abnormal is not grounds for altering it is ridiculous.

(3) I am not "other editors"

My revert comments clearly explain my reasoning, yours say "replace(d) line" - to consider it vandalism would be foolish.

To me, you are the one that is ignoring messages. ¦ Reisio 21:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All I had was a peculiar edit summary, which you simply repeated, without acknowledging my message. As to your claim, I suspect that you simply haven't noticed the "hr"s — there are many of them used in this way. I prefer not to give examples, as I don't want to see you remove them. They serve to separate the (irrelevant) dablink section from the article. You seem to be removing it as a matter of personal taste. Consistency is not a good enough reason; aside from anything else, when two things are inconsistent, a decision has to be made as to which should be made consistent with which; your apparently arbitrary decision isn't good enough. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point of notices at the top of articles are to help people find the articles they're searching for - they're far from irrelevant (and even if they were, they're already distinguished from the article in at least two ways). As I've said, I removed it because this is the only time I have seen it used. If you find that arbitrary, I can only assume you either don't know what that word means, or have a poor concept of logic.

If you can produce no other examples of this hr usage, then all I can do is continue to view it as abnormal. If the only examples you can produce include rules added by you and not someone else, then it is still abnormal. ¦ Reisio 23:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

Sorry I won't do it again; I was just curious to see if something I wrote could actually get onto the website. My apologies and I didn't know it was vandalism. Wikipedia's a great website :D

You Wrote: Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)