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 11 Archive 10 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 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30	Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41
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 30,000th edit: 29 x 05 20,000th edit on an article: 16 i 06 35,000th edit: 18 ii 06 25,000th edit on an article: 10 iv 06 40,000th edit: 11 iv 06
Admin-related actions
blocks (last twelve blocks) page protections & unprotections

Useful links

Pages I often cite

Rudeness

If you want to continue editing here, you should learn to care about Wikipedia (not my) style.
If you had changed the mistake rather merely mass-reverting everything, I might have known what you were talking about. Calm explanations are generally more informative and productive than tantrums.
You may disagree, but should be civil; you may not, however, insist on reverting good-faith edits that bring articles into line with the Wikipedia MoS. That is disruptive. Conformity with policies and guidelines isn't a matter for consensus.
I'm not threatening but warning. The pattern of your behaviour is familiar: aggressive bluster, refusal to reflect on your position, open contempt for community standards, etc. There are two ways it always goes: either you'll realise that your approach is counterproductive, change your ways, and become a productive member of the editing community, or you'll settle into a stubborn rut of reverting, waving your arms about, and making juvenile attacks on other editors — in which case you'll eventually find yourself facing a series of blocks and other sanctions. I'd rather that you went the former route, but it's your choice. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but there's no need to be so abrubt and rude about it
I can say the same about you! You mass reverted me a number of times. It was me that finally gave in and edited your editing mistakes.
I don't disagree, I merely disagree with rude editors. e.g. the case of people setting my images for deletion even though I specified where they came from and therefore left an avenue for the author to be reached. You can't expect every (new) editor to read and understand 100% of wikipedia style and the politics behind them before making any small edit - if you did then wikipedia would be a much smaller and poorer resource. As a user with experience I would hope you'd help newer members out, not threaten people with bans for good faith edits.
Warning/Threatening it's just semantics. The general idea is you were just plain unfriendly and showed a complete lack of respect for the tidiness of the page. Like I said even after you made your last edit, in which you finally corrected your typo, you still deleted some of the information from the page which I had to go back and fill back in.

You sir are the one being rude and doing all the name calling here ("juvenile" etc.). I am merely standing up for myself in the face of rude editors. I admit that sometimes the (wikipedia) law is not on my side, but that doesn't excuse your behaviour. So are you going to apologise or what? aLii 00:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you shopuld consider the possibility that your confrontational response to my edits coloured my response to you? Your violent outbursts to other editors seem to have the same effect. My previous comments stand. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and perhaps you should apologise for your inconsiderate editing of pages that I've put a lot of work into? Your edit changed what I thought was a good format. Yes I know about overlinking, but whether something is truely overlinked or not is reasonably subjective. You didn't leave any kind of decent explanation for me until after we'd both reverted each other's edits a number of times.

My edit had 3 links in close proximity. I had left them in the infobox for consistency of style, i.e. dates in black, teams in blue. There was nothing overly offensive about it. The article itself had no such overlinking.
Your edit had a careless typo and some information removed. I saw it as careless, unnecessary and rude, and so I reverted you. You reverted me without correcting your mistakes, and so I simply reverted you again as you were being continually rude.

I may have come across as confrontational, but your continual "No, I am correct" revisions came across to me as confrontational. You started this. You are still being rude with your refusal to take any blame. As I read through your talk pages I see a lot of this arrogant "I know best" behaviour. Sure you contribute a lot, and probably do know the correct style better than the average contributor, but can you not accept that your behaviour in this case was far from ideal? I can accept that mine was, but as I have pointed out a number of times already you started this and I felt the need to defend my position. aLii 10:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing useful links to bellydance pages(updated)

I'm not sure what you mean by "There are exceptions, but it's not clear to me why bellydance is one of those." Are you saying that the sites you deleted are not really realavant to bellydance? Because they are! Middle Eastern Dance offers numerous neutral views on various subjects in Middle Eastern Dance(commonly called bellydance) and Amulya's site offer's many links to video clips of dancers which would allow people to see the art in action. I'm not suggesting that every dancer out there add their own personal promotion site but, there are some really great sites out there that offer that offer quality information on the subject which you continue to remove. Wikipedia may not be a link resource but, it is supposed to be a tool for people to use to discover more about various subjects. I have read the policy on external linking and I think maybe you should review it. As it states in the wikipedia external links guide: "What should be linked to: 5. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article." and "6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews." both middle eastern dance and amulya's site offer neutral and accurate information that is not already in the article and could not possibly fit in the article (Middle Eastern Dance has over 200 pages of information!). It says Ideally they should be worked into the site... keyword ideally but that does not mean they absolutely have to be. In regards to #6, Middle Eastern Dance offers a lot of meaningful, realavant content that is not neccessarily suitable for inclusion in the article such as how-to's on dance movements, music, costuming, and more. It also contains reviews of various bellydance products available such as books, movies, and performance/instructional video's. Neither site seems to fall under the what links to avoid section of the guide. If you had checked them out you could have verified this. I don't think it's civil of you to remove sites that could potentially provide quality information on the topic without even finding out what they are about. As far as the tone of my message perhaps you are reading it wrong. I'm simply stating that you are not in my mind qualified to determine that these sites are less appropriate than the one's listed there already since you do not appear to belong to the bellydance community or have the best interest of the bellydance community at heart. All of the sites offer different but complementary information which is highly realavent to the topic of bellydance. If you think the sites should not be listed why not provide a detailed response as to why they should not be included. I have certainly provided plenty as to why they should. As a bellydancer for over a decade I believe these sites are both helpful and realavent on the subject and provide the uneducated reader/viewer with accurate information. Also, I asked you to please stop removing helpful sites... how is that uncivil? Cassandra581

It is a matter of relevance or it would not be listed as part of #6 in the guidelines. I have seen nothing that limits articles to having only 5 links and see no reson why it must replace another instead of haveing 6 links or seven links. As far as editing editors because they don't have enough experience with content I do think it's acceptable when the editior are continuosly removing things that are beneficial to the article and won't listen to reason. This link clearly falls withing the wikipedia guidelines if the experience and knowledge of people who are bellydancers and know what's good content and what's not carries little weight then what's the point of even creating the articles? Every part of the article is presented in as much of "POV" language as the link I added it's not POV it's my contribution to try and help make the article better by providing viewers with even better resources. So that tons of half-baked ideas can be presented with no basis in truth? The point of wikipedia is allow people who do have knowledge about a subjuect to share it and for others who have more knowledge to expand on it. What's the point of even allowing any external links if you can't list the ones that are realavant and helpful like it says in the guide?

As far as the FACT about Islam(verifiable not only by asking any Muslim but also by reading passages from the qu'ran and hadith), I will be glad to provide proof but perhaps you would like to tell me exactly what kind of citation you want and how many sura's and hadith are acceptable so I don't go over your limits.

Smile!

E va ^db has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

MoS re date separators

Hello,

Regarding your rv in the Pierce Article: As a rule I do not check the Wiki Manual of Style each day - I assumed this was something that was not tampered with unless a crucial error is found to exist. It was you who made the date/dash change on April 29. If it is the concensus of all that such a change is valid, so be it. However, I will check the discussion and determine if this is so.

Michael David 12:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: If you look closely you will see that I do use the endash.

Michael David

Hello again,

Here is how it came down:

In my original edit I used the ndash (option-dash). It appears this way (11 September 1933 – 23 July 2002); you reverted it to look this way: (11 September 1933–23 July 2002. We are both using ndashes. I believe the problem lies in the fact that I place a space before and after the endash. I feel this looks better.

I really don’t think we’re that far apart in out usage & our thinking.

Be healthy,

Michael David 22:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Perfect 10 models

Mel, you had nominated this article for deletion and it was unsuccessful due to a lack of consensus. We've received an email at OTRS from one of the women listed on the page--and I can only think that this will become more and more prevalent as time goes on should this list stay here. This young woman is non-notable, doesn't wish to be notable, and apparently her picture was published without her permission. Note: the models are generally not from English speaking countries and do not enjoy the same protections that the western world offers.

As a member of OTRS, I'm not sure if it would be appropriate for me to resubmit this for deletion debate. However, in light of the circumstances, I am inclined to loudly support a new deletion request. Bastique▼^parlervoir 16:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Laws

Hi there Mel. I'm surprised the postgrad/undergrad distinction hasn't yet been clarified in the UK. How are things like data collection, student representation, fees and privileges divided? Are the students in such programs afforded the same privileges as students in postgrad programs? I'd also like to apologise for being a bit snippy re: the whole 'graduate entry' thing - we were talking about the same type of program, just with different names. Cheers Natgoo 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El kondor pada

Hey man, why did you add {{copyedit}} to this page, it reads fine to me (actually I copyedited it after the original tag was added). If you don't think its fine, can you outline some specifics on the talk page so I know what to look for. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 22:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Wikipedia on LKY

Hi,

I am doing some research and am wondering if you happen to know the name of the doctor that delivered LKY ?

Thanks, Steve (stevelim@iposeu.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.50.72.247 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I have no idea what you're referring to. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gingerfield rocks and User:Puckman765

I am highly suspicious that Puckman765 is a sockpuppet of Gingerfield. Gingerfield was self-depecrating sometimes in his attitude towards himself, which could have led to the creation of User:Gingerfield sucks which in turn became User:Puckman765. Their edits are highly similar, although Puckman's have been more beneficial thus far. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 14:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

belly dance

There seems to be a lot going on here, so I'll try to break it out.

I appointed myself mediator, because that's what one is supposed to do when a case is brought before the Mediation Cabal. I saw a case I thought I could tackle, so I assigned myself mediator. That's how it works.

1. I will admit right off the bat that MedCab has absolutely no authority, so if you don't feel like listening, you don't have to. However, if the parties involved are not willing to stay cool and avoid attacking people, then the informal mediation is not going to be sufficient, and things will have to escalate to a more formal mediation process.
2. I am not required to post on your talk page about the goings-on of the mediation. I place my comments in the case page itself or on the talk page of the article. I thought that way, it would be more centralized than spreading things out over many people's personal talk pages.

Regarding the links in general, I have quoted below one of the points of WP:EL that is listed under "What should be linked to." I believe all of the links that are posted in the External Links section follow this guideline, and should therefore not be removed.

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.

Regarding the one particular site that is purported to be owned by Cassandra, I would concede that it shouldn't be listed until it can be verified that she does not own the site. (WP:EL quote below, under "Links normally to avoid")

A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.

Regarding your comment that 'articles are not link-resources,' I don't really see that anywhere. WP:EL does suggest (quote below) that articles should not only be links, but I would say that Belly dance is plenty long enough and a large number of links would be appropriate.

Wikipedia is not a web directory; no page should consist solely of a collection of external links. Wikipedia always prefers internal links over external links. However, adding a certain number of relevant external links is of valuable service to our readers.

I believe I have answered all your questions. There is no rule that says there can only be 5 links in any given article. They are useful sites that could not be reasonably be integrated into an already long-enough article. The questionable link should remain off, but the others should stay. Please refrain from arbitrarily removing links. If you continue to have a dispute, I recommend you bring something up with the Mediation Committee, as I have already closed the Mediation Cabal case. Have a great day and happy editing. Amalas =^_^= 14:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my interventions

Please don't bite the newcomers. I decided I wanted to get more involved in WP, so I found something I thought I could tackle. I can see now that I'm not well cut-out for mediation, so I will probably not get involved in any more cases. The only way I can get better is to receive constructive advice from more experienced editors rather than being attacked.

I believe the Mediation Cabal can be useful if both parties involved are willing to take a step back and work through the problem. MedCab, third opinion, request for comment, etc are good ways to try to resolve the dispute early on instead of going straight to a formal process. In fact, it's recommended to go through the informal channels first. Amalas =^_^= 14:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it dropped. Amalas =^_^= 15:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NoZe Brotherhood

First, I apologize for reverting the "unique" phrasing. My lack of preference either way combined with my exasperation with your continued reverts and a lack of care in editing on my part resulted in removing "unique". I'll be more careful in the future. Second, the presence of the link in the opening sentence is not "undiscussed". You'll see from my very first post on the talk page that I suggested changing the disputed text, not adding new text to the second paragraph; in my second post I specifically said that both aspects need to be addressed in the opening sentence. I apologize if you thought adding the text elsewhere would satisfy concerns. What concerns me most about this is that you seem to be the only editor who supports your preferred phrasing. Consensus appears to be against it, to me. Why do you continue to revert to your preferred version? Powers 16:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the situation was not handled ideally by certain elements. You are by most accounts a fine editor and admin, if occassionally controversial. =) May I suggest that we leave the article as it is for now, say a week, and come back to it then? Powers 16:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

30 Seconds to Mars

I created the page, so me removing a section that I created that no longer had any use would not classify as vandalism, would it? Secondly, you should have looked at what I removed before you added it back -- I removed them because they were already mentioned twice (then) thanks to the addition of the band-stub. Hence my removal for the band members.

My edits were genuinely minor. How were they not? That's your own personal perception, as the article you're citing even states at the very beginning. It could be classified as any of the following, as stated in the article: "formatting and presentational changes and rearranging of text without changing any content." The area was already replaced in the band box, therefore it was rearranged.

Thank you for your concern and trying to keep the page vandal-free, however. Enfestid 18:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was never claiming I owned it, I was making a point that I wasn't vandalizing my own material. I know I don't "own" the article. There is no confusion about this. I understand this concept completely, so please stop patronizing me.

It included instruments, but that is also in the biography that I wrote. I felt the need to remove it because the band members were already mentioned, and the instruments were also already mentioned previously in the article.

Removing a section that is no longer needed is a minor edit in my personal perception. This is not a stretch of imagination in any way, shape, or form. Again, please stop patronizing me in this regard.

Enfestid 17:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain your reverts

Please take the time to explain your reverts on the discussions page of an article if it isn't obvious - and especially if you are re-reverting! Take, for example, the A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada entry. You revert all day long, yet there's nothing on the discussions page from you. -- Raga 13:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honeysuckle Weeks

It wasn't clear because I intended to make the changes, but the browser crashed. EvocativeIntrigue 13:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Yeah, sorry- I fill in the edit summaries first so I actually include them, otherwise I forget! Damn Opera crashing!

EvocativeIntrigue has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

EvocativeIntrigue 16:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ptolemaida

I have no idea, as explained exp to you user:3210 before, what the issue behind Ptolemaida. However the set of articles you are adding the link Ptolemaida has nothing todo with the oguz tribe who initiated Ottoman Empire in 1922. These pages explains activities before [[1922]. It is gonna take nearly a century for ottoman to move that region and even than its correct label is OTTOMAN, not kayi tribe. I hope this will satisfy your question, being in second time. Thanks.--OttomanReference 14:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on May 20 2006 (UTC) to Chinese classic texts

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 19:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your mail; and posted a comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard William M. Connolley 20:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcomes

Hey, what template have you been using to welcome users? I usually just use {{welcome}} or {{welcomeip}} but that's kinda boring, and it looks really plain. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 21:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good honours?

Hello. Referring to the article on Graduate School, I find the term "good honours" quite ambiguous. What is actually equivalent to a good honours? A second-upper and above or a seconf-lower and above. Thanks.