User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 14

Censorship info.

Thanks again -- "Refactoring" -- sometimes the most difficult thing about Wikipedia is determining what people have named things. Your expertise is appreciated. WBardwin 15:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clearing the air

I'm not sure exactly where we stand with each other, having disagreed on my actions on the Persia article, so I thought I'd just discuss the situation with you and try to clear the air. This was brought about after seeing your comment about me on User talk:SlimVirgin.

I really have no preference regarding the use of BC/AD or BCE/CE, but don't like the arguments for the enforcement of either one. My involvement in the article, as I've tried to explain, was merely about reverting the article to the choice of the original author and thus before the change that sparked the war. I see that as the best solution to an edit dispute – it existed in that state for a long time before someone changed it. I have no problem with it being changed, just that it was clearly an ongoing dispute and the article had to be protected. I was the one trying to help out, re-adding lost changes and trying to initiate talks. Obviously I can understand your view that I was editorially involved, but I don't see it that way – my presence was an attempt at mediation. You may still disagree, and that's fine by me, but I fear that it has discoloured your view of my actions elsewhere. The recent problem with Jtdirl being an example, and your comment to SlimVirgin being another.

Regarding that comment, I have very little to do with AN/3RR. Looking up the page I saw that you had blocked quite a few people and I didn't look any further than that. I assumed, therefore, that you'd done perhaps more than you have. Do please note that my comment wasn't intended as negative about you (in fact, quite the reverse as I didn't really want to see you blocked but saw no way out of it) and I apologise if you took it that way.

Basically, I'm hoping that further meetings between us won't be influenced by differing views on previous topics. violet/riga (t) 17:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Childishness

I have no gripe with you save for your petty attempts to harass other editors. Knock it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 10 Jun 2005

"Harass other editors" = ask them to provide copyright details for up-loaded images, and remove images from article when they refuse. An interesting definition. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About Pakistani Leaders

Well, I didn´t notice the mistake about their term in office, I will try to fix them in each of one of them Thanks for noticing this. BTW, I was going to ask your opinion about deleting (or mixing it with East Pakistan) the article about East Bengal (province) since the info is practically the same. Thanks Messhermit 20:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello once again. This time, I was going to ask your opinion about reorganizing the hole Pakistan article, since in the way that its now, it's realy confusing. I was going to expand the Pakistan article in the Spanish Wikipedia, but I found myself completely unable to understand it at various points. I would be really helpfully if we can work to clean it a little bit. Also, there are some articles related to pakistanis leaders (Presidents and Prime Ministers) that have a lot of POV in it. I would try to clean things around, but most likely some of those articles could be deleted. Anyways, thanks for the help with East Bengal. Messhermit 05:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Parenthetical Citation

On Suharto's entry, the bit you listed as "comment out obscurity" was a parenthetical citation of an article ("Tapol Troubles") in a 1999 edition of Inside Indonesia. Please see the "References" section of that page.--Daniel 03:54, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

User Ted Wilkes

User:Ted Wilkes is still accusing me of "vandalism" simply for inserting additional information in some Wikipedia articles, which seems to be not in line with this user's personal opinion. He is still accusing me of "deliberate misinformation", "unfounded statements and outright fabrication", "distortions" and even of a "disinformation campaign". See, for instance, Talk:Nick Adams. He also calls me a liar. See Talk:Elvis Presley. As everybody can see, all my additional contributions are verified and supported by several independent sources cited on the discussion pages. In my opinion, it his high time to put this user in his place and tell him that he should stop accusing me of "misinformation" and "outright fabrication" until such times as he actually shows that something I have written is wrong. – 80.141.xxx.xxx

I've contacted him. You have also called him a vandal, and the same strictures apply. Neither of you is vandalising Wikipedia, and it's not acceptable to makes such personal attacks in talk pages or edit summaries.

It is a great pity that, instead of presenting facts as I do, User:Ted Wilkes is still continuing to accuse me of "vandalism", "fabrication", "fraud", etc. See Talk:Nick Adams. He calls my contributions to this discussion page "nothing but ramblings and with zero defense of their vandalism and 'fraudulently doctored text'." This is not in order and I really think we must defend against this sort of user who totally, and repeatedly, refuses to follow the netiquette code of conduct and the Wikipedia guidelines on at least three discussion pages. Significantly, Ted Wilkes seems to be identical with users NightCrawler and JillandJack who are, or were, under a Wikipedia hard ban. See also User:DW.

When signing, by the way, you need to use four tildes, without the "nowiki" tags (those are used in explanations, so that the tildes show up rather than the writer's signature). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. 80.141.195.138 17:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are you constantly re-changing my edits?

Why are you contantly re-changing my edits? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be objective? I'm only attempting to increase this objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IlluSionS667 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 11 Jun 2005

Removing links to the Nazis, KKKK, etc., from Supremacism articles isn't adding objectivity, it's the usual white supremacist vandalism that we get here occasionally. I don't know who you are, though I expect we'll find out, but you should know that you won't be allowed to get away with it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The links I removed referred to "write nationalist" websites, while they were put in the "white supremacist" section. None applied to the definition of "white supermacist" as defined on WIKIPEDIA. This website makes a clear distinction between the two. How is this vandalism? How is this not adding objectivity? Perhaps rather than deleting the links, you should transfer them. Some of the links (such as Skadi) don't even technically belong in the "write nationalist" section, by the way, but that's acceptable as this applies to forums that do contain "white nationalist" members. IlluSionS667

I was told that wikipedia is a website where objectivity is treasured. If deleting links that do not apply to the subject those links are supposed to apply to, is regarded as "vandalism", than I seriously question that supposed premise of objectivity IlluSionS667

Thanks

Hallo. I'm watching the new page about Nowy Sacz, right now. I think about Wikipedia it's a brillant idea. Good job.

--Rysiekzklanu 19:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)Rysiekzklanu

With regards to the atheism article

Here is my justification on the discussion page of the correction I had made to the article, which you conveniently glossed over while reverting to an old, incorrect edit.

"An illiterate (or biased) contributor misquoted the Larson-Witham 1996 study (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html) as stating that 93% of all natural scientists rejected or disbelieved god, thus attempting to support his opinion that there had been a momentous decline of religious belief in the scientific community between 1914 and 1996. In fact, the linked study clearly states that among randomly selected natural scientists, that percentage has only marginally increased, from 58% to 60.7% in the past century. The 93% number refers to a completely unrelated sample of "leading scientists" of National Academy of Sciences surveyed members, who were questioned by mail in a different study in 1998, and among whom only 50% agreed to answer. Wikipedia's relevant entry in "the relationship between religion and science" article also makes a good point wrt this study by stating that "the phrasing of the question could be criticized as presenting an overly narrow definition of God. The survey among NAS scientists was conducted via mail and had a low and perhaps statistically biased return rate of 50%." In any case, regardless of the merits of the 1998 NAS survey, the statement regarding the 1914-1996 studies, as found in the previous version of this article, is clearly fraudulent and I am revising it to reflect the truth. Feel free to reincorporate the 1998 study as you see fit (WITHOUT disguising it as something it is not)."

In response to your reverting to the previous misrepresentation of the survey with nary a rebuttal, I got a bit angry and answered thus..

"MELETITIS, have you been reduced to vandalism? I made a correction to the fraudulent misrepresentation of the 1996 Larson-Witham study while referencing the relevant article, and you responded by reverting to the old fallacious misquote? Are you joking? The study clearly states that, when using the 1914 method of inquiry, the results of the survey were identical in 1996 to those of 1914 (58% vs 60.17%). This is why Wikipedia is useless for anything but the most non-controversial matter, in my humble opinion. Kids with too much spare time in their hands will systematically vandalize corrections "just because", without answering to the comments and concerns of those who made them in the first place."

I believe a simple proof-read of the survey in question justifies my corrections. If you want to distort facts in order to support your opinion, feel free to do so, as that seems to be the "beauty" of Wikipedia (the one with the most spare time wins?). I have to say, though, I've come to expect more from an editor, and I'd love to be proven wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.70.194.23 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 Jun 2005

Personal attacks

You posted (09:50, 12 Jun 2005) insulting comments on my Talk page that I have removed. Personal insults violate official' Wikipedia policy as specified in Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please refrain from inserting a personal attack. Thank you. Cheers. Ted Wilkes 14:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I asked User:Ted Wilkes to remove all his personal attacks against me from the discussion pages. As a reply, he has written on his Talk page, "I stand by my words that you are a vandal as defined by Wikipedia:Vandalism. I made no personal attack on you of any kind..." He even invites me "to immediately take this matter to the administration". I think it's high time to permanently ban this user from the Wikipedia community, as he repeatedly called me a liar, constantly accused me of "fraud", "deliberate misinformation", "unfounded statements and outright fabrication", "distortions", a "disinformation campaign" etc. and refuses to discuss the additional information I included on the discussion pages. 80.141.196.241 15:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May I ask you for comment on this page: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ted Wilkes. Thanks. 80.141.225.96 18:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nathaniel Eaton (quotations)

"Quotations There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.)."

I assume you're saying that Colonial American English words are "non-English" words per se.

Down a bit further ...

"Quotation marks With quotation marks [""], we split the difference between American and British usage. Though not a rigid rule, we use the "double quotes" for most quotations—they are easier to read on the screen—and use 'single quotes' for "quotations 'within' quotations[.]"

Also ...

You don't like schoolmaster? I think its necessary to understand that there's a difference between a "master" and a "schoolmaster"; some people on the open Internet have been trying to say that Nathaniel Eaton was some sort of "slave master" or something, which is far from true. "Schoolmaster" is just the title the English gave to such "professors".

WB2 06:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some unclosed VfD debates

Hi Mel!

I have found a couple of incomplete VfDs Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kornica and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cardak, both by the same user, and both arguing that they are non-notable villages. I could finish the process and list them, but my guess is that a real place will garner about 20 "keep all real villages" votes. There is absolutely no way I can see these being deleted and from WP:GVFD: "Incomplete nominations may be discarded or ignored." I considered putting {{delete}}-tags on the nominations, but what do you think? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lee Kuan Yew

I would be happy if you can give us a reply concerning the "Harry" in [1] soon, or at least schedule a dateline to affirm User:Huaiwei, User:Khaosworks and me concerning the "Harry" issue. Thanks.

Mr Tan 12:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you please see my message at Talk:Tsushima Islands first?

Mr Tan 12:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted because you reverted too fast; and everything is not ready yet. Please do not counter-revert. Sort out things first. I do not want confusions. Or you are creating trouble out of nothing.

Mr Tan 12:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan and Tsushima Strait

I see from Tans talk page that you have had some 'exasperating' clashes with the the gentleman. I wonder if you would be so kind (I'm new to Wikipolitics, only recently making substantial changes) to look in on my TALKS with him on Tsushima Strait and tender me some advice. Here are quick links My talk (Article 11) and His Talk (Article 85). Reverting will probably escallate the situation, so I left that for another. (I don't know how short of a Ctrl-A... Ctrl-V cut and paste, but this has cost (a lot of) time I could have been researching or writing.) Part of me wonders if I should show him a Polack is far more stubborn than an any Chinaman that ever lived, but THAT would be juvenile. He does seem to bring one's blood pressure up - like dealing with my teens! Specific input on: How to Revert, How to Cry Vandal, and How to Ask for intervention, et al would be appreciated. Private comments on email are fine.
- Just blot this out so it has a short shelf life: 'Glops'... Thanks Frank Fabartus 14:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see you intervened - Thanks, I just now filed a request for protection to go along with the matter I added to the RfC. Another admin suggested a graphic improvement, that can be explored once I get my teens out of bed... I'll sic him on that first thing. Where does one request map support - I need more for the military artys than this idiocy. Thanks again. Fabartus 17:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- Check out the Tsushima Strait article now... and the talk for desert! . At least I learned how to upload pictures... the days not a total waste! Fabartus 22:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, what is the big fuss? I only made two reverts, and explained that bad maps can be misleading. Now you have corrected them, Thanks. But what is the matter? I am satisfied, you are satisfied. Why spur the big fuss?

Mr Tan 13:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan wrote this morning and mentioned that he's only a kid - 14-15 y.o., so I wrote him back, made nice and think I'll suggest he work together on some stuff with my two boys. They both need practice writing. I'm going to offer to send him a CDROM I got a few years ago on Middle School Grammer, which of course my guys are too good to bother with. Could make for an interesting summer! Thanks fer holdin me hand, BUT Take the age thing under advisement! I know it's not fair having to raise someone else's kid, but at least it's out in the open and we can be good citizens of the world village. Should help your blood pressure when dealing with him, at least. Something I saw on JBell's talk (Would really be condescending otherwise) makes me think he knew or suspected the kids age. See the entry about reading this and that English classic. It's huge, you can't miss it. Thanks again - stay in touch. I'm amazed at how many edits I've made in arty-space in two weeks! Fabartus 21:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Almost forgot - what can I do on Tsushima Islands to help? I see the copyedit tag, but there are so many reverts I didn't look hard. How about I suggest my son Jon take a look. He's been a bilophile since about age five, and should be a decent copy editer for overt gaffs and awkward grammer and construction. (Jon's reluctantly agreeing - course YOU may end up arguing with BOTH of them. LOL) Fabartus 21:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't want to nag, but did you forget the above offer. I'm periphial here to the Island topic (standing in the strait, so to speak) except for the geographical terminology and facts, so I need a clue or two as to your concerns. I made a middlin' edit there historically speaking and tacked in a couple of references this morning, but soon after asked for a comment on Mr Tans change to the heading on that. See the Talk:Tsushima Islands (Para-26.5). I'm not the best person to be asking to do copyediting as my spelling generally sucks, but I didn't see anything that looked overtly out of place grammatically save the sudden blosuming of redlined references (added by a korean moving the arty forward.
Just took a look at talk - What a battleground! I see why you're about out of patience. What did I do to you to want to suck me into THAT quagmire? (Just kidding - sortof, people have done nicer things FOR ME!).
Drop me a note with a few hints as to the controversy (ies) and I'll see what I can do. btw - he's taken the offer to work with some with my son Jon, so maybe we can slow down the input and improve the english as he vets through that loop. Jon has indicated interest, but we're going to have to work out a lot of cooperative effort and protocols. Fabartus 21:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3RR/Albert Einstein

Hi - if you're around, could you please jot over to Albert Einstein and WP:AN/3RR? There is a highly disruptive user which has done about half a dozen reverts so far, is way out of line, and no administrators seem to have yet noticed my posts about it to AN. (I chose you because I know you to be a straight arrow fellow, and because it looks like you had done a few very recent edits and might be online) --Fastfission 19:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I was getting a little frustrated there; they had been warned, were clearly being purposely disruptive; etc. etc., but I couldn't seem to get anybody's attention (even though it was clear that some admins had been to the 3RR page after I put up that notion, after it was seconded by another editor). But such is how things are, sometimes! Thank you again. --Fastfission 01:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber

While your status as an Admin is noted, protecting known vandals and persecuting users is highly inappropriate. I and my friends have spent the better part of a day tracking down Yuber's vandalism and serial reversions. We hope this is resolved quickly.

This guy has a serious multi-personality disorder. It's obvious to everyone that he's using multiple proxies to connect and edit. I would recommend that all of his IP's are banned because he's not fooling anybody.Yuber^(talk) 22:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He's certainly not foolong me. If I see any more disruptive edits, personal attacks, and vandalism from this person, I'll block the IP addresses concerned. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal and Tsushima Islands

Noo...Sorry, I didn't mean it. It must be an edit conflict that I wasn't aware, looking at the time clash stated.

I need your co-operation--you reverted first, but I counter revert to tell you to tell you to make the mark and stop reverting, so that we can settle down to discuss. But you have an attitude of forcing people to make the mark every time, yet it is your doubts that you want to inquire. To me, that is rude and inappropriate for an admin.

Also, why ask for a revert if you have no questions or doubts on Talk:Tsushima Islands? You say to me that "Your attitude at the moment seems to be that you'll simply make the same wholesale edit repeatedly, changing parts of it once the rel;evant mistakes have been pointed out at least two or three times. That's not a productive, nor a collaborative approach.", but your attitude match the above description stated. All I want is attention, but how come simply cannot get the facts right into one's mind? If you object, say so directly. Don't blast it at other people in anyway you like.

Mr Tan 03:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He left the above gibberish on my talk too. I thought he might be responding to you! Found out he'd also remove that map from the Battle of Tsushima, which is the horse I rode in on back at the turn of the month. Now we'll do up a map for that too. At least I know how to generate and upload one now - I guess that's a gain for the day! Fabartus 04:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I generally only understand about a third of what he's saying, and even that third is often only because it's interminably repeated. This is the last week of term, and once it's out of the way I'm going to get the Request for Arbitration sorted out; I'm afraid that it's the only way forward. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll join! I'll join! JM Bell ° 12:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why didn't you tell me what you do not understand? And also, what is your intention for arbitration? I cannot understand your reverts in the first place--yet you do not want to tell me that where you do not understand. And I am not ready for arbitration---you must get everything right first.

I'm afraid you are making matters bad to worse---You must tell me, no matter how bad it may be, your doubts and grudges. I do not want any reservations concerning this field.

Mr Tan 12:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

why the copy edit on Tsushima Strait? Tan beat me to reversing the 's' removed by another - the geo refernces were part of what I suggest to him for research. 24.61.229.179 14:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot

I commented to Yuber that I find the revert war over Enviroknot's userpage to be pretty ridiculous. Sometimes I wish I could just unilaterally protect the page to stop this stupid war, but I know I shouldn't. I think the best course of action would be to definitively link Enviroknot with KaintheScion (I'm actually convinced that they're separate people), or to open a new ArbCom case against Enviroknot. Like I said, the revert war is getting ludicrous. Ingoolemo ^talk 06:19, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

My 2c is that they are probably friends, maybe schoolmates. Even so, fighting over the userpage doesn't actually resolve the problems we have with either. Grace Note 23:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islam pages

Mel, this is just to draw your attention to the request for help I've posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Trouble on Islam pages. Sockpuppetry, anon IPs, lots of personal attacks. The situation's getting out of hand. Any ideas would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:07, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Clive Stafford-Smith

Hi Mel - was just wondering, it seems that you deleted the article on Clive Stafford-Smith a few weeks ago. It looks like it had reasonable content, and I couldn't find any vfd or reason for deletion. Any problems if I restore him? Worldtraveller 12:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Screw that. What could possess anyone to delete that article? Undeleting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember deleting it, though it may have been because it was in this state [2], and I was in too much of a hurry to check the history. Sorry. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No hassle. I only noticed this on your talk page because he's in the news again and WorldTraveller's edit summary consisted of the man's name. Sorry about blowing up like that but this guy is seriously notable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Songtsen Gampo

Hello,

The reason why I moved the article is because of an agreement made with User:Nathan hill on Talk:Tibet. The debate was weather to use the more common method of transliterating Tibetan script to English or using Wylie transliteration. The agreement was that Wylie would not be the default. And since the Wylie spelling is Srong-brtsan sgam-po, that is why I moved the page.

Here is the text from that page:

I am against Nathan's system because he, in an effort to spread his method of spelling has been removing the most common way of transliterating Tibetan into English in various articles. He doesn't even bother to put the most common way in parenthesis. People aren't going to know what the hell he's trying to say because he acts like everyone uses his system of transliteration. I suggest we should use both methods, with the "normal" way as the default and have Wylie in parenthesis. It's not really a debate of which way is "right", it is a matter of using the more common method. As you have probably noticed, Wikipedia tends to go with the spelling of things that are more common. The "correct" way to spell Tchaikovsky should be Chaikovsky. We spell it "ch," as in Chekov the author, Chernobyl the nuclear site, Chomsky the linguist, etc. However, people will be confused with that if we change the Tchaikovsky page and start spelling it Chaikovsky. Dbus-gtsang has only 492 Google hits. U-Tsang has 6,280. To everyone: We should try to change as many of Nathan Hill's contributions as we can in which he replaced various spellings with the Wylie system and also the contributions of this IP, which is probably Hill's Please led me know what you all think so we can get started right away. ---User:Hottentot

Certainly the usual English term, where there is one, should be used. I don't have any objection to adding Wylie in parenthesis (though maybe not on all occasions). Mark ¹ 02:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I tell you what, henceforth when I write or change an article in Wikipedia I will not remove any transliteration that already appear there. However, in new content I will use Wylie because I have no way of knowing how else to spell things. I would like to agree with Xavier and suggest that the Tournadre system be the default 'easy' system when the term in question has not become common enough to have an accepted English transliteration, this would of course require however that others use the Tournadre system and not simply write Tibetan as the spirit moves them. --Nathan hill 15:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

p.s. I still feel a need to emphasize that the Wylie system is in no way 'my' system, and in fact it is used in all English language academic publications about Tibet. --Nathan hill 15:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree — and my orietalist colleague agrees with you too. I find the approach taken by Hottento to be difficult to understand. Shouldn't this be taken up more widely? Switching from Wylie like this will have the effect of downgrading Wikipedia in the eyes of those in the know. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot

Why is it useful, Mel? I can see the use if the two voted together but otherwise, I just think it gives people something to concentrate on rather than making an encylopaedia. It's the behaviour that is the problem, not whether one user is two, or two are one. I also think the principles of assuming good faith and allowing users to have their pages the way they want are much more important than facilitating a witchhunt, even when the witches are as unpleasant as Enviroknot and ElKabong. Grace Note 23:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He/she does not have to satisfy you that he/she is not a sockpuppet. What presumption! I don't recall your appointment as witchsmeller. It's thoroughly rude. Enviroknot is a very bad user, but I do not think his/her being so gives you licence to join him/her in acting badly. As far as I'm concerned, you are vandalising his/her userpage and I want you to stop. Listen to reason, Mel. You are hounding another user, showing a great deal of incivility. Even if they are all you suggest -- and I agree that there is some evidence of it, although personally I believe they have the same IP for obvious reasons, rather than the same identity -- you are still not justified in acting badly yourself. I'm not sure what policies you think permit you to attack another user and I'm not sure what purpose you think it serves to do so, but I think it's bang out of order. Other editors don't need informing on Enviroknot's userpage of your opinion that he/she is a sockpuppet. They can judge what he/she has to say without caring a less who else you think he/she is. Grace Note 00:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have seen the two emails Mel Etitis has sent me. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him. I've already seen the pathetic bad faith in which the admins on the wikien-l mailing list operate, too. He's not getting any emails from me.Enviroknot 04:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I sent two polite e-mails to two of the people with the same e-mail address, the same poor manners, and the same small vocabularies; I've received one typical little exercise in juvenile obscenity from Elkabong and this. By an odd coincidence, though I sent my e-mails two days ago, Elkabong's reply and this message were sent within an hour of each other.

I'm not sure why Grace Note is on his little crusade against normal Wikipedia practice, or whether he's following up all User pages with the sockpuppet template and attacking the editors who put them there — nor, frankly, do I care. He clearly has either not read or not understand Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, nor has he bothered to look at the situation very closely if he thinks that I'm alone in placing the sockpuppet template in this case, or even that I'm the prime mover. He should also read Wikipedia:Sock puppet in order to see that placing the template on user pages is Wikipedia policy when there's firm evidence such as matching IP addresses.

What Enviroknot thinks I have to do with the mailing list I have no idea, but as he seems to think that anyone who disagrees with his behaviour is an "Islamist"(!), I don't really trust his judgement, nor much care about his opinion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dashes and dates

Can I ask why you changed em-dashes into en-dashes throughout the Lockerbie article? It's normal to use em-dashes as sentence punctuation, and our style manual supports this. If there is a good reason for doing it, would you mind sharing it so that I can change them elsewhere. If not, can I ask you to change them back? Grace Note 23:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you've just posted one reference to one book, which is a manual for typesetting. I should point out that we are not setting type, Mel, and even if we were, it's not particularly common to use en-dashes pace Rees (Americans almost never do, tending to use instead an unspaced em-dash). I work in publishing and I'd say that it's sometimes used, sometimes not (of course, it will depend on the typeface as much as anything else). I gave you our own Manual of Style, which says to use em-dashes (as does our article on the dash). So "unanimous" is not quite right, is it? Grace Note 23:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After a quick jifty online, I found this. I don't keep CMS at home but I think it's clear from this that it doesn't endorse an en-dash as text-breaking punctuation -- it uses them for number ranges and adjectival phrases with open compounds. CMS is the American copyeditor's bible. There isn't really an English equivalent. Hart's Rules for this kind of thing, I suppose. I'll leave it to you to consult yours to see what it has to say. Grace Note 00:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

81.91.192.220 vandalism

The IP (81.91.192.220) is part of the TOR network, acting as an anonymous proxy. Check out http://tor.eff.org/ for more details. The IP I'm posting from is also part of that network. // anonymous :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.194.37 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 15 Jun 2005

Ayyavazhi mythology

Thanks for jumping in and fixing Ayyavazhi mythology, etc. (What a mess!) It was on my list of things to do. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Lee Kuan Yew

Please see its history for the revert, for it wasn't done by me. Concerning this issue, I'm sure that Lee is at least born with the name "Harry"--my edit (not the revert) is based on how the birth name of Kim Jong-il is written. I do not understand how closely related it is to the consensus, for it is aimed at putting up "Harry Lee Kuan Yew" at the very beginning of the page in bold. I apologise if any anger caused, but not the revert, for I have just found out that it is done by User:Mr. Tan, not User:Mr Tan. Thanks.

Mr Tan 13:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MLP_AG&diff=next&oldid=13975706

The long company name you seem to prefer for the title doesn't exist anymore, hence the articles should be swapped. --AndreasPraefcke 19:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't prefer anything; you placed a speedy delete tag on the article, and it's clearly not a candidate for speedying — so I removed the tag and returned the page to its REDIRECT status. If you want to move it, then you can list on the "moves requested" page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot, et al.

Given that Wikipedia policy is to place the sock-puppet template when there's firm evidence for it (such as matching IP addresses), wouldn't it be better to protect the page with the template in place? When it's a matter of differences over content in articles, etc., then I agree that protection should in general be neutral between the sides (though even then, it would be odd to protect an article in a vandalised state). Here, though, it's a matter of policy that the template be placed there. Would you object strongly if I (or another admin, perhaps you) edited the protected page in order to replace the template? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Protection is not an endorsement of the current version." I just got annoyed at seeing the page being reverted 5-6 times every day, and said so on the protection log and on the page history. The constant ping-pong between both versions was pointless and didn't go anywhere.

That said, I have no feelings one way or the other. I personally wouldn't object to an admin editing it, however editing a protected page is controversial, and could cause an admin revert war, which would be even more pointless and annoying (to the point of deserving to go to WP:LAME).

I believe you should ask about it on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard; if other admins agree to the notice being placed there, the risk of a controversy is lower.

--cesarb 12:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CesarB, your protection of User:Enviroknot was in clear violation of protection policy, which states that you should not protect a page that you are in dispute over. I would argue that your protecting of User:Enviroknot was controversial, if not a breach of official policy. As a show of good faith, perhaps you could edit the page to its obvious consensus version, and not the anonip/sockpuppet version. --Mrfixter 19:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why, of course, I should not protect a page I am in a dispute over. However, I am not in a dispute over that page. In fact, had you looked at the page history, you would see I only had touched it once before, to revert a troublesome anon — and that revert was to the version opposite the one I protected at. I just happened to have that page on my watchlist — like this one (else, how would I notice you doing such grave accusations about me in a place where I might not see them, instead of, like, the administrator's noticeboards or my talk page?), and protected it at the version it was in the moment I got annoyed enough at the petty revert war that was going on. (Sorry, Mel, for snapping here, but that message was pretty much uncalled for.) --cesarb 21:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[3]. Using rollback and then protecting the version you claim you didn't like is inconsistent and irrelevant. Your admitted annoyance should have been a trigger for you to got to AN/I or RFPP, not to protect. Also, who requested that this page be protected? ... OK I see that you are a newbie admin, there should be a don't bite the newbie admins. Bon chance and be careful out there. --Mrfixter 00:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's inconsistent only if you believe I am either on the place-sockpuppet-notice side or on the remove-sockpuppet-notice side. I'm on neither side.

About the reversion, I had noticed an anon (129.7.35.1 (talk · contribs)) had posted an abusive message here, and looked at his contributions. I noticed the anon reverting Mel on User:Enviroknot, and reverted him (it looked like the anon was following Mel around and reverting every revert he made — look at his contributions. That was the only unreverted one then, IIRC). Enviroknot complained, and I apologized.

About the protection, you may be right that protecting just because you believe revert wars are evil and rude might be wrong. I concede that point and apologize, since just now I noticed on Wikipedia:Protection policy the two words, "upon request". (Which I think is a bit bizarre... If you see a huge revert war going on, you need to wait for someone else to put a stop to it?)

Finally, about the version I protected at, it is simply how it was the moment I decided that was enough. It was by random chance that it was opposite to the version I had reverted to before.

What should I do now? Unprotecting would only lead to the same stalemated revert war. I guess I will ask on the noticeboard then.

--cesarb 01:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About ElKabong's User Page

Mel, is this appropriate? It is very much in the spirit of a personal attack. Just wondering about it. func (talk) 15:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima Islands

Despite the fact that I have put up a request to move Tsushima Island to Tsushima Islands at Wikipedia:Requested moves, despite the fact that User:Fabartus added on how Tsushima is blasted into two islands, User:Nanshu moved it back to Tsushima Island. I need your help now. Thanks.

Mr Tan 16:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

)50616 Frustration Rising

Darn good I suspended my copyediting — I'd only made 50 or 60 changes! – only to quit out to find you'd reverted while I was editing. What happens if I'm editing a version while you then revert to a past version? Anyhow, the singular-dual island nature of the thing is bugging me and I had to stop before going forward. Despite what MT says above, the 2 km channel was in his text, IIRC... I just rephrased it and added historical context based on my research. A) Japan was broke in 1904, B) The Triple Intervention C) Channels cost big money, lots of engineering resources. D) But Tan was the source, mine the inferences on that. E) Any other conclusion is out of context -- I also made some concatative arguement that makes sense and may confuse the issue with him, but I had no additonal facts. Seems to me whatever I turned up bolstered one of his claims, but damn if I remember what it was - that was close to ten hours back. (And I need to go to dinner or I'll be divorced next week!) whatever it was, it'll be on User_talk:Mr Tan, the first of two per history, IIRC. Nope - it kills his claim on the Korean claims on the Island- see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tsushima_Islands#Ypacarai.27s_objections
I looked at the first external link, referencing the Tokyo times, seeming a credible source, and they clearly refer to the island. Then there is the whole thing about a 2 km wide channel (Tan I think) originated. A canal is far easier to believe. But that's contraindicated by the account of the causeway. This thing reminds me of a ball of yarn that a kitten has gotten into. I probably should take the time to try to read the whole talk file, but it's all over the place as well and would need to pair comments with all those versions and reversions.
I'd got a simiar message from Mr Tan (MT), btw. Is this Nanshu perhaps someone who is a local? It seems to me that this thing is so bolluxed up that some process needs invoked to figure out what the real facts are. I asked MT about the names in one talk or another, and stubbed out a sentence with TBDL01, and TBDL02. He then filled in the names, leaving the TBDL's and creating a couple of others. See the history -- my removal of the TBDL's are marked plainly, whereas I'm not sure what you reverted to. Which leads to this question - how can I do an difference to a file in another space - say my user space? I saved my edits in a notepad file, so I can just overwrite, but it'd be better to do a compare and edit on the fly.
I just lifted this from another admin:

Hi Nichalp. Is Indian Railways still {{inuse}}? -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 12:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

No, I forgot to release it. =Nichalp (Talk)=

All those figures need a as of date reference Nick! Probably should cite according to as well. Fabartus 19:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I tend to add references, external links and images only after I finish the completion of my article. =Nichalp (Talk)= 06:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Any chance we can use this to stabilize this article?
- Anyway, that's my update, with concerns I've exported shakey facts to Tsushima Strait and Battle of Tsushima, to boot.

Let me know what you suggest. I'd a good copyedit going - probably more than half. I'm going to focus on expanding the Battle for the rest of the night - At least I have reference for that that even mostly agree! Fabartus 01:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Confusing reversion

Hello, Mel Etitis. I was going to copy edit Seijuu Sentai Gingman but am confused about the most recent edit, i.e. your reversion Reverted edits by 192.218.160.8 to last version by 68.200.81.62. It looks like the version from which you reverted was a significant copy-edit improvement, so I'd like to revert it back. Is there some reason not to do so? Respectfully, The Rod 17:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Μελ Ετητης. The Rod 16:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

You will block me for opposing you when you harass another user? Do you mind showing me the policy that empowers you to do so, or do you plan simply to abuse your powers? Do you not have better things to do with your time than attacking another user's page? Nothing positive to contribute?

Ultimately, the people who damage Wikipedia come in two flavours: trolls like Enviroknot, who spend their days trying to bias articles; and people who enjoy combatting them, like you, who spend their days harassing them, ensuring that they work up the trolls to fever pitch. If they weren't fed, they would die, but while users like you lavish attention on them, they feast. Grace Note 02:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oops

Aplogies for the edit crash, even the 1.4.x mediawiki's hacks to prevent it aren't failsafe I see --Kiand 11:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA, thanks

Hi Mel! Thanks for supporting my adminship!. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sweetbreads - humf

I told you so. But would you believe me? Noooooooooooo. Consider yourself pelted with virtual marshmallows. --Mothperson 13:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought by the summary you'd come to your senses. Never mind. But more marshmallows anyway. Mothperson 13:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Melanie Chisholm

Hi Mel, Thanks for keeping an eye on Melanie Chisholm and for all the tidying you have done there recently. I have replied to your concern raised at Talk:Melanie_Chisholm and will follow up as necessary. Fi9 05:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pakistan

Would you like to join the animated discussion on the Pakistan's talk page? The current issue is whether "Pakistan is famous for its support of Taliban and 9/11 terrorist" is a suitable sentence to start the article's first paragraph. Your contribution would be much appreciated, as the current discussion seems to be more of a dialog between Ragib and SamTr014 (talk • contribs). Thanks !--PrinceA 06:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Animal acts

There were 2 deletes, 1 merge or delete, and 1 merge. Nella-mair's vote wasn't counted because the vote was their third edit. I counted the merge or delete as a delete. Practically the same content is already at Circus (performing art), anyway. —Xezbeth 11:26, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

FAC

I was wondering if you think this is the appropriate time to nominate the Spice Girls for FAC? Our edits have been constant, and every time it adds a new look to the section. Now that I've also added that last much-required image, I think this is an excellent time. Now what about you? DrippingInk 13:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FAC for the article is well under way. I'm just curious to know why you removed "currently" from the first paragraph? "...Currently the best-selling girl group of all time". Don't you think the word should remain there since it is possible for another girl group to take their record away one day? (Though the chances are slim.) 64.231.118.193 19:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) (DrippingInk)

Before I Vote on 'Move Tsushima Islands' Issue

I would appreciate a rational explaination (after you read my Comments in the subject dispute Talk:Tsushima Islands), of the arguement or arguments you consider vital and germane to the discusion and vote. Frankly, MOST all of you are being silly over nothing of particular importance, since both names can be redirected into the one used. I have left a comment concerning my contribution to the article, which contribution — seems to have triggered the current edit and revision wars. For that I apologize, but see the Comments on the vote. I am also taking the liberty of putting the vote section AFTER the Comments about same.
Still, I have just spent over four hours of valuable spare time, and would welcome your thoughts after you read and understand the distinction I put forth between a governments termonology as a governing body and a geographical reference like an archepelego, which it certainly is.
More to the point, I'd like to see your defense regarding your favorite POV of what I had to say viz a viz the mergest attitude of the senior editors and administrators that frequent the Wikipedia:VfD discussions. To my recollection, I don't recollect any of you hotheads in this dispute ever spending anytime thereon, possibly excepting Mel Etitis, but rarely even then.
In any event, I'm neutral here, and have asked that the article be kept EDIT FREE for the next three days by placing The Inuse template into it — I'd copyedited over two and half hours before I suspended that effort the other night because this shameful fued was going on — proper English grammer does depend, unfortunately, on whether one uses the plural or the singular. I saved that on my hard drive, but I don't need to wade through yet another 70 edits to finish the job. As it is, this matter will probably double the time it takes for such a simple job.
If you are local to Japan, some history of the canals or Sea-channel is certainly germane to the ongoing discussion, moreover, any cogent arguement you condsider being particularly telling needs to be clearly repeated in the current on going comments if you want them counted on in the vote.
I will make sure this message goes to each contributor to the article the past month, so you are not being singled out. Now is the time to take a deep breath, for rational concise summaries, not all the arguing that is so wearisome in 66 printed pages - half a novelette, I'd guess! It's certainly a lot to ask your fellow editors to wade through on a minor issue.
I will also personally be making sure that at least a dozen other Administrators I'm acquainted with take a look at the debate after the time below. I will in fact ask for twenty commitments, so be clear and respectful of our time!!!
Thankyou for your time, attention, and good professional behaviour. I'll check the Talk state again no sooner than Monday around Noon (UTC), And ask the uninvolved others to do the same. PLEASE BE CONCISE. [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 23:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFC against MARMOT

An RFC against User:MARMOT has been created. As a party that attempted to communicate with this user, I would appreciate it if you would participate in this RFC. You may find it at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MARMOT. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:00, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Issue... a big issue

Slambo appears to have commented that the Spice Girls article "has too short of a lead section, needs to be cited, and does not give samples of their music since they are a music group. Is any of this even relevant? Sometimes sources can't be cited - sometimes you just know them! And how can we sample their music for heaven sake? We are not a music store, but merely an encyclopedia trying to better the lives of those seeking information. Do you care to help me on this case? The other objections are acceptable; they speak like normal humans, and don't act like computers. 64.231.118.203 01:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) (DrippingInk)

Yes, come on, Mel, it's time to defend your work. Spice Woman 10:02, 19 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great article! I mean, I hate their music, but... I hate their music! El_C 12:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wait a sec, wasn't there five of em? El_C 12:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Attractive though I find the idea of turning my Talk page into a Spice Girls fan board, I must regretfully decline. (By the way, are people having problems logging in? I've seen a rash of IP addresses leaving named editors' messages.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't try changing the subject, Mel. We just want to make sure you get full credit. Sarky Spice

I really don't think you have much choice, Mel! We fans are very, very persistent and insane individuals. I, for one, love the spice girls so much (though I hate their music!), almost as much as I love answers.com (almost!). Now gimmee some sugar! El_C 21:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grammar: this is an adverb, isn't it?

Excerpt from an article:

If it is possible to make at least a memory address sized variable thread local, it is in principle possible to make arbitrary sized memory blocks thread local

Shouldn't it read "arbitrarily"? Lots of thanks in advance for your opinion! Bye, Shinobu 12:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)|}

I can see why someone might have written "arbitrary" (assuming that it wasn't just a typo), but "arbitrarily" is more correct (and reads better). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Turns out I was the one who wrote that text… Thanks for your opinion! I've corrected it accordingly. Shinobu 13:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Green Ash / Red Ash

I moved it to Green Ash as that is the main name used by the US Forest Service (see e.g. the ext link I added to the page) - MPF 13:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; guess I should've added an 'inuse' tag or something, expanding the details took longer than I thought digging out the needed info - MPF 13:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good recent edit

Good recent edit to Human#Dualism, I appreciate it. Cheers, Sam Spade 15:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interleaved Reply to Your message

I disagree that it doesn't matter which form is used because there are redirects. That reasoning would allow us to have an article under the name "Nachral filsfy" (because "Natural philosophy" redirects to it). That's a BROADER or skewed interpretation of whatever voluminous piece of my trying to cool down (these two juveniles) text meant to say, when or whereever you are quoting me; OF COURSE it matters SOME — but should not to the extent of the 300 plus edits, roughly half by our friend Mr Tan since May 13th which have not grown the arty appreciably (from my quick peek at the early one) — or the novelette of the talk page, of which you seem to have archieved the first talk page which may have been a full novel. SUFFICE IT TO SAY I HAVE DONE NOTHING, in four Wiki-Days EXCEPT deal with Tan and this idiocy, he is central to, by volume of edits, if not by stubborness. I trust you will agree that the use of that term is warranted as when it is all boiled down, the key difference is whether or not one adds an 'S'. No matter how you dice it, it's an unconscienable waste of human resources — there are litterally thousands of other articles to compose from scratch, and I may have made some headway in diverting Tan to That, but... I just found out I forgot my own wedding anniversary over this — icing on the symbolic &%$^&$#^% cake, that is! At least half of my pontification is an attempt to KEEP the bit in his teeth — alas, seems to be failing now. So support me where you can — at least I'm another adult TRYING to help!
I'm a bit unsure about this seventy edits; there probably have been that many, but only a small fraction of them have concerned the pluralisation question. Well, how is one to find the TIME to go through the history to see when actual new material was added? It may only be 20% were reverts, but I'm sure no more than 60% were QUALITY edits — Most are Tan proofing himself as best I can see. I find it interesting that the reversions stopped for a while, then picked up speed again after I made that egregious blunder with Tans English — and no matter how fatigued I was — it was because I was pressing for output subsequent to spending many less fatigued hours trying to lead him into a better editor attitude. If he's gone on and continued to piss in this pond after the In Use was added, I just may have to reconsider my comments to the W:Rfc\Tan. I've invested a lot of time trying to divert him to more productive article creation — as he certainly does not yet have the skills to be splitting hairs over grammer! And I'm preaching to the choir, I know! If he focuses on immature articles he can make a tremendous contribution to Wikipedia with his energy and abundant spare time; but his involvement in one's which are nearing complete and polished forms is certainly contraindicated, just on the shear numbers of mini-changes polluting the history — even if maturing articles eventually double, I mean by that the article in question is sufficiently large that most any printed encyclopedia editor would be sharpening a knife to cut it by half. At this stage, precision of language use is important — so we need to guide him elsewhere so the article will settle and stabilize. It's that simple, and pretty much the case you presented it the RfC, n'est pas? In sum, Help me convince him to let this thing go and move onto something not yet written or even stubbed... I gave him half a page of links of Wikiprojects, and we need him to see the sheer scope of that challange as an attractant, pulling him off to plow new fields rather than weeding in maturing crops.
I didn't, to be honest, understand the reference to VfDs; what exactly did you mean? I meant simply that if the article were couched in the singular, and then someone came along and wrote an article on one of the smaller islands, someone would, in my opinion come along and decide that the short new article should be merged into the singularly titled article, and then it's name would be changed to plural. The Vfd is frequented by a lot of 'Mergest' wiki-sub-species. <G> I was merely trying to divert the thoughts off the issue-centric and onto how the Wiki-World-At-Large would view the bickering that is evidenced the talk and history record.
I'm afraid that the "inuse" template can't be used like that. As Mr Tan says above, he was prevented from using it in a similar way. Oh contrare — 'His August and Majestic Professaire-Administrator Extraordinaire' (look in a mirror, quick — did you get any taller? No? Damn — Shrug, well I tried!) 'Mel Etitis' asked me personally to copy edit the article several days ago, and it cannot be completed (I've an incomplete attempt on HDD -- yet another two wasted hours) in any logical manner until the case of plural vs singular is settled. Any way, It was a try to stop the madness. If it's ignored, then I have casus belli with the party ignoring it — of sorts, your Majesty! (I've gotten promotions like this too — a shiney new title and a better parking spot with concurrent worse hours at the same pay. Don't you love God's sense of humor?
As long as everyone remains calm, and thinks about the arguments rather than who's involved in them, this should be resolvable easily. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) If this isn't calm, I can't imagine what I could do to be more helpful! Being mindful of your likely end of term demands on time and feeling fatherly towards Tan is the only reasons I'm subjecting myself to that embarrasing display of juvenile testosterone, or whatever else you call it. Something has provoked the edit war, and I'm trying to pour oil on the troubled waters. If you think I'm aggravating it, by all means, say so bluntly. After all, I'd much rather research and write rather than baby-sit!!! My only reservation is that my gaff seems to have escalated the matter to the current vote — so HONOR requires I attempt to make ammends or resolve the contention. Except for losing a nice little geo-political-military paragraph, and the copy edit time, I could care less if the island(s) were called Xyerythughafugaweruinfugiishimnuqui. Aside from the fact that when I first went to find it, the texts I used called it 'Tsu Shima' or 'TsuShima' or 'Tsu-Shima', I would have hardly stopped in to visit the arty. I'm focused/was focused on the R-JW! Now I'm trying to guide Mr (or Ms, I'm not sure either way yet.) Tan as well — while staying out of the furrball itself. Color me 'Noble', your Majesty! fab

The majority of redirects you worry about are probably those very redirects I created with said alternate spellings. Call it 15 minutes of easy changes that a member of the mergist bent wouldn't even pause to think about fixing. The article is not my project, so I'm neutral on the emotional side, a fresh face that at least writes well and cites references — in any event I went browsing Japanese-centric materials last night and have hopes my messages to half-a-dozen persons will induce at least one native Japan citizen to lend us their input on the questions of fact (are the two Isles divided, or joined by canal — and so one), and how do the native Japanese themselves consider the name. THAT should settle things once and for all.

Hope it's enough to stabilize the text for copy editting! Now, how do we get M/m Tan to go elsewhere? Any further thoughts? I'd hate to ban him totally, as I do believe that energy can be lead into making fruitful contributions — especially in new artys of immature nature. If you see User_Talk:Mr Tan, you'll see I've left several novelettes of oil on troubled waters that he seems to be ingesting slowly.

That's all for now. I'm going to get some yard work done. The grass is getting awfully high as it's been chill and rained most all week. [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 17:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like my 'Signature' needs further adjustment! Don't understand where the bold is comming from. fab:13:27 local

- This is literal in the nickname box:

<! FrankB || TalktoMe ---> FrankB || TalktoMe That displayed as: ' FrankB || TalktoMe ' (See edit mode as comment too)

- JYolkowski said something about clicking another check box, so let me go try that in another window and then close this to see what happens.
OK, Here's the result with 'Raw signatures (without automatic link; please don't use templates for this)' Clicked On

  FrankB || TalktoMe 17:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't know if that's what I want either, but it's an improvement. We're trashing YOUR page, so I'll experment on my own. Thanks for the interest! fab

Dripping Ink

Petaholmes' page had an attack signed "64.231.161.245 16:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) (DrippingInk)" I assumed that the author was dripping ink because it was signed as such and because it was related to the Spice Girls FAC. I have apologized. Dave (talk) 20:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Buck Rogers copyedit notice

Hi. When you have a moment, could you please put a note on the Talk page of Buck Rogers describing which parts of the article you feel needs additional copyediting? Thanks. 23skidoo 11:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you communicate with others?

It's really heard to collaborate with those who ignore others' unfavorable comments. I asked him not to make whole reversion by criticizing a small portion of an edit. But you did not respond and did again. Isn't it real vandalism? --Nanshu 15:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFAr against MARMOT

The RFAr against User:MARMOT has been created. You may find it here. Please provide a response (500 words or less) in the appropriate area. Thanks! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

We still need a response from you concerning MARMOT. Would you be able to provide this? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 15:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 23:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now if only a bureaucrat will come along and make it official. It feels weird - the vote closed 9 hours ago, the margin is fine - but I have this feeling of being in limbo. Felt a tad presumptuous to go and thank people, but anyway... I do look at what your Talk page has turned into, and what SV's is like, and it's enough to make a sane person run screaming from the prospect of adminiship. But I never claimed sanity :) Guettarda 01:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poll

There is a poll in the talk page of the Macedonian Slavs article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll

Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonian without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people possibly from the other side of the story .I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies.

Enviroknot

Just thought I'd make you aware that there seems to be a serious controversy at User:Enviroknot. Although I am not involved, I just thought I'd make you aware as you are one of key admin there. See edit history for more information. --Anonymous editor 01:50, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Other?

I don't have personal antagonism towards you. I'm not fond of admins who throw their weight around, inventing policy on the fly to suit their personal disputes, but that's not personal. I think you're wasting your time hounding other users. It certainly isn't positive and it's not at all constructive. Your attitude to me is, I think, fuelled by my showing your pompous attitude over the dashes in PanAm 103 to be unsubstantiable -- in particular, because you tried to browbeat me with a bogus source and I showed you much more pertinent ones. Instead of dialogue -- you know, you talk, you try to convince me that you are right over User:Enviroknot -- you tried to bully me. Also, you've personally attacked me by suggesting I'm passive-aggressive and paranoid like that user! Very nice. Well, fair enough, I'll agree that I match him in that and you can agree that you've matched him in being an aggressive arsehole and we can shake hands and go back to our more productive business. Okay with you? Grace Note 02:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your support for my adminship. It is nice to be acknowledged by other admins. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:50, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Another rude message from you

Your source, Mel, which you rely on for making an edit that is contrary to the Manual of Style, was a reference work for typesetters. I gave you more reliable sources. You just can't be wrong, can you? Not in this, not in anything. Grace Note 09:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

spelt vs. spelled -- Tiruchirapalli

I have to admit I like to think I have a decent grasp on grammar, so when I saw your note it became somewhat of a mission to figure it out. On further research, I discovered that while 'spelt' is most certainly correct (which I didn't think it was), 'spelled' or even 'spelled as' is most definitely not incorrect. I changed it because it just didn't sound right and I didn't believe it to be grammatically correct - besides, when I think of the word spelt, I think of spelt wheat bread. However, now that I know that it is correct, I won't quibble about that -- although, for the record, what I had was not incorrect. Thanks for your concern. StopTheFiling 18:00, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think I get what you're saying - as far as I can tell I don't believe it makes too much difference grammatically whether or not "as" is used. To me, it sounded better in this instance to use it - I'm also perfectly willing to accept that it may not sound the same to a British ear as it might to an American ear (I'm not sure myself). My initial motivation behind changing "spelt" to "spelled" was because I genuinely thought "spelt" was wrong - of course, the fact that it makes me think of bread could be the whole UK/US thing coming into play here too (not to mention the word "spelt" itself). Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that if it were merely awkward to my ear but not wrong, I probably would not have changed it in the first place. StopTheFiling - about 20:00 UTC 21 June

Hmm... ;) "burnt" yes, "learnt" not so much, "leant" no, "smelt" makes me think of welding...you're right about me being surprised to an extent, as I never hear "leant" and rarely "learnt, and "smelt" is usually for something else unrelated to smelling. The only one of those words I use on a regular basis is "burnt." I guess for some reason I prefer to tack on 2 extra letters (in some cases 3) when one would do just fine. StopTheFiling 22:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I just read your user page a bit more, and although I maintain that it was correct, I'm not an English professor at Oxford either. You win. :) StopTheFiling 23:05, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor has been kind enough to nominate me for an adminship

Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Compromise by Septentrionalis — Parlimentary Tactics, Need Advice

I dropped this idea on Pmanderson/Septentrionalis a moment back as a follow on question to the proposed compromise. (CC to JBell)

...More on the above. The articles that are coterminal as you say, are all very brief, and should be merged into whatever main article title results, IMHO. Would it be 'Cricket' as a parlimentary tactic of ruthless daring to place mergeto templates within and nominate them concurrently on W:Vfd, to get some numbers to over come these overly testosterone equipped individuals to cease their little war once and for all? I say this occurs to me because a lower grade edit war is also going on in those articles, and none of them really have any significant length. So Tsushima is a county seat, in American Parlence — shurg, Hardly reason for a seperate article.
I think concurrently nominating the Tsushima Islands arty to mergeto Tsushima and Vfd would settle the matter down nicely since both proposals (i.e. the second being your proposed compromise) will be before a large number of more responsible editors — PLUS get the article stabilized by taking it out of these hotheads hands. I can't see they've stopped even as the vote sits waiting resolution. I wish I had such spare time!
I'm 99% sure the 'Vfd mergest elements', Plus noting that it will help ending the edit war would result in a Vfd vote of one monolythic article, and remove those childrens playgrounds in one fell swoop.

Thoughts on this bold action? [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 20:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)