User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 18

Ahmadinejad

I understand. It's fine. By the way, that post on Jay's page wasn't specifically about your revert, but it's nice to know what really happened. Thanks, HKT 20:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Nick Adams, Natalie Wood, etc.

I have now cited further sources on the discussion pages, but User:Wyss and User:Ted Wilkes still continue to disparage all of them and delete what I have written. I don't know what else I can do. 80.141.194.108 23:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Wyss has claimed on the Talk:Nick Adams page, "So I can confirm that, over 35 years after his death, we have a passing reference in Lambert that Adams was gay, but the book's credibility has been questioned. Any other references to Adams as gay are even less credible, tabloid-type hearsay accounts which again, have emerged long after his death."

1. The credibility of Gavin Lambert's book which states that Natalie Wood dated gay actor Nick Adams has not been questioned. The reputed author (80) was a Wood friend for 16 years. He has had access both to official papers and to Natalie's own writings including her day book and has interviewed members of her family and her husband, Robert Wagner. Certainly the biography supplies an insider's look at Wood and chronicles everything concerning her life. Wagner gave Lambert full cooperation for the book, telling his friends to share their memories as well. Without that help, the book would not have been complete. Natasha Gregson Wagner, daughter of Natalie Wood, calls Lambert's book "a wonderful biography on my Mom ... that we are all involved with - everybody that knew my Mom and was close to her - and that will really be the one I hope everyone reads. It will be the definitive biography on my Mother." See also Talk:Natalie Wood.

2. In a book which was published in 1972 (certainly not an account which has emerged long after Adams's death), gay actor Sal Mineo, still alive at that time, undoubtedly confirms that there was a sexual relationship between Adams and James Dean. He says, "I didn't hear it from Jimmy, who was sort of awesome to me when we did Rebel. But Nick told me they had a big affair." 80.141.237.28 12:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Mel, please see the talk pages of both Nick Adams and Natalie Wood for my responses to this. I think we're developing a clear consensus on the Wood article to delete the disputed material. I'm patiently editing Nick Adams, where I also think we have an emerging consensus to remove the anon's material as both undocumented and not relevant. Wyss 12:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Significantly, Wyss has also deleted the following passage in the Sal Mineo article which was not written by me:

"While explicit mention of homosexuality was not permissible in Hollywood movies at the time, the reportedly bisexual James Dean dared Mineo to let his real-life desires for Dean shine through considerably in the scenes between them." See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sal_Mineo&diff=18122625&oldid=18085677

This certainly supports my suspicion that Wyss tries to suppress specific references to homosexuality in some articles on Hollywood's gays. This would also explain why this user is frequently reverting the articles on Nick Adams, Natalie Wood, etc. to the version he likes. I have cited several independent sources supporting my view on the discussion pages. I don't know what else I can do to convince this stubborn user. 80.141.252.165 14:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

That passage is an undocumented rumour, but an interesting story. Find some documentation for it. The only reference I could find is a dead-end reference to it at crimelibrary.com, which is not known for its accuracy (authors contribute for free in exchange for book plugs). Wyss 14:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I should add... while the anon makes accusations that I'm "suppressing" content globally, all I've been doing is tracking down his additions of undocumented gossip in four or five articles. A look at my contribution history will further show that his accusation isn't true. He does seem to be trying to insert the words homosexual and gay into these articles as often as syntaxically possible. Please see the Natalie Wood and Nick Adams talk pages for more information about this anon poster's edits. Wyss 15:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Wyss, as every unbiased reader can see, it is your intention to suppress any reference which supports the assertion that some popular male movie stars were gay, although there are several independent sources which prove the fact that they had homosexual leanings and affairs with other male stars. You personally wish that these stars should be seen as 100% straight, but the sources prove that you are wrong. Therefore, you and your alter ego Ted Wilkes frequently disparage the sources I have cited and repeatedly revert articles to the version you like. This is a clear offense against the Wikipedia guidelines. 80.141.228.125 16:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Truth be told, I've been sort of hoping I could find reasonable documentation Adams was gay so I could reference a secondary source for the article in a professional way (avoiding the anon's phrases like biggest piece in town, for example) and move along. I don't give a toss about Adams' bedroom choices. I care rather a lot about WP's credibility. Wyss 16:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Truth be told indeed. Lambert's book on Natalie Wood certainly is a reliable source. The author clearly says, Natalie Wood's "first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams." Further sources also say that Adams was gay and had sexual relationships with other male stars. Where are your sources which prove that Adams wasn't gay? 80.141.252.152 16:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Please note how the anon demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of how Wikipedia and the historical sciences work. Only the anon's assertion requires proof (or at least some sort of primary source documentation cited by a secondary source). As an editor I don't need to prove anything (never mind prove a negative). Wyss 18:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Fact is that I have cited different primary and secondary sources which support my view. 80.141.190.49 17:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mel, I have seen that you have reverted the Wood article to the version preferred by user Wyss. In my opinion, this is not the best version, as Wyss has repeatedly deleted additional material I have included in the article, also material which has nothing to do with the claims of homosexuality. I think the following facts, supported by Wood biographers such as Gavin Lambert (2004) and Suzanne Finstad (2001), should be added to the article:

• 1. Natalie Wood's mother controlled the young girl's career and personal life from her start in films at the age of five. Natalie's father is described as a passive alcoholic who went along with whatever his wife demanded.
• 2. At the age of 16 she celebrated her release from child-star status by sleeping with her director on Rebel Without a Cause, Nicholas Ray, and her co-star Dennis Hopper. This is indeed confirmed by the biographers.
• 3. Natalie Wood certainly was in close contact with many men in Hollywood circles who biographer Gavin Lambert emphasizes were gay, including director Nicholas Ray and actors Nick Adams, Raymond Burr, James Dean, Tab Hunter, Scott Marlowe and playwright Mart Crowley. All their names should be mentioned, as these men played an important role in her life. Her contacts with Raymond Burr and Tab Hunter, for instance, have not yet been mentioned in the article. Tab Hunter himself said he was a frequent companion of Natalie Wood at the request of Warner Brothers, which had both stars under contract. They would attend parties to promote films like The Burning Hills even though he was gay - not publicly at the time - and she was still in her teens. Suzanne Finstad, author of Natasha: The Biography of Natalie Wood (2001) who received the Frank Wardlaw Prize for literary excellence for her first book, says that Mart Crowley "worked for them for many years, many years. She also hired his boyfriend." Finstad also says that Raymond Burr enhanced Natalie’s life and that he loved Natalie. "When I was talking to Dennis Hopper about that, he was saying I just cant wrap my mind around that one. But you know, I saw them together. They were definitely a couple. Who knows what was going on there." That most of these men were gay, is a sigificant fact which should be mentioned in the article. Wood's fundamental sympathy for, and support of, gay people in Hollywood, at a time when many homosexual stars were forced to marry straight woman in order to provide a safe cover for their true sexual orientation, is a very important aspect of her life and demonstrates her social engagement for minorities.

What do you think?

Ted Wilkes has now deleted this link which I have added to the Natalie Wood page: http://www.arlindo-correia.com/141204.html I don't know why this relevant link was removed by this user, but there seems to be a frequent tendency to revert everything I have contributed. Significantly, Ted Wilkes's arguments on the discussion page are nearly the same as those repeatedly used by his alter ego, user Wyss, to disparage what I have written. 80.141.252.38 14:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Mel, you said on the Talk:Natalie Wood page that I have refused to compromise, but this is not true, as we have now found an acceptable version for the Nick Adams article, though I am not quite happy with this rather short paragraph on the assertion that Adams was gay. But I still think that gay people played an important part in Natalie Wood's life. This should be mentioned in the article. See also Talk:Natalie Wood.

Tsushima <sigh> again

I am a strict neutral on this; my only interest here is Wikipeace. Give me arguments (substantive, pleae; I can see the metarguments on proceedure myself) why Tsushima Island would be wrong; so wrong that we should not help make the apparent majority for it a consensus. I ask you privately to get away from all the screaming. Septentrionalis 02:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Your nick

Till I read the explanation in your user page, I had thought that your nick stood for some disease ! Tintin 05:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Srong-brtsan Sgam-po

I am finding your reverts rather irritating. The article I had first written cites the Tang Annals and the Old Tibetan Chroncile. It is well known among those of us who work on Tibetan history that Srong-brtsan Sgam-po (the second emperor of Tibet) did not marry a Nepalese Princess, and did not introduce Buddhism to Tibet. These stories are first mentioned in the Me-long and the Bka'-bum as I had mentioned in the article. (Incidentally, these are citations, just because you can't read Tibetan doesn't excuse pretending that citations of Tibetan sources are not citations). If you can find an earlier citation for these stories then I will retract my position that they are late medieval fantasies, but I doubt you will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.147.103 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 12 July 2005

1. Could you always 'sign' your comments (with four tildes: ~~~~)?
2. Your addition, aside from anything else, used a version of the subject's name that was completely different from the title of the article. I personally think that your version should be the article title, but as it isn't, your text was confusing.
3. Citations of Tibetan sources are useful, but they're not enough here; you need to give citations that allow other editors (and readers) to verify your claims (Wikipedia:No original research).

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

None of the information you have used is cited either!!! Also, you apparently have still not looked at the History Article. I have cited studies by Beckwith, Richardson, and Petech. The unfortunate truth is that the Legends about Thunmi and and Bhrkuti have been known to be false more or less since anyone cared to study them.

I would also contest that citing things in languages other than English constituts "Original Research". The exact birth year of Srong-rtsan-sgam-po is still controversial and that is why my contributions have included a "circa".

I decided a couple weeks ago to remove my account, because I am not planning to contribute much else, so no point in signing my contributions. But I did go once by the name Nathan Hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.147.103 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 July 2005

1. I didn't write the article, so I have no obligations concerning what's there now. I'll be happy to chase up the original authors.
2. I didn't say that citing foreign-language sources constituted original research.
3. Your account is still there for you to use. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandel

Hi ive already asked SqueakBox but just in case he is offline can you revert edits to Leeds United. Thanks Agent003

Hi, I dont know how to revert! i thought only Admin could. Can you please tell me how? Thanks Agent003

Authentic Matthew - Ril

81.156.177.21 (from May) and more recently Ril have attempted to redirect Authentic Matthew out of existence. However I think this may be part of a greater problem. An edit war or getting mean does not seem to be the answer. We could use some help. --Melissadolbeer 12:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC) PS

Ril is not only mean but he can't write.

Thanks--Melissadolbeer 09:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Rather than reverting my edits on sight without actually considering what is going on, it may interest you to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer. ~~~~ 21:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't revert them on sight; I looked at the edit histories, and made a judgement. I note that I'm not the only person to object to your behaviour (even setting aside your sock-puppet claims which, even if true, don't justify your actions). I also note that your RfC is so far purely personal, having attracted no other signatories, and with the section on attempts to resolve the dispute tellingly omitted. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

=)

Thanks for the welcome and the tip. - Christiant 14:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia sites

Hi, i see thier are lots of Wikimedia sites. Is there anywere were i can suggest another Wiki site? The Vary wikied Agent 003

Zoom edits

Thank you so much for your edits to my submission to the "ZOOM" children's show page. I'm afraid I ran into some difficulties maintaining proper tense explaining the show's current state, while allowing it to continue to make sense after completion of broadcast.

Keep up the good work!

-Scott Garrett

My pleasure; it's always easier to do these things when someone else has already done the hard work. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for cleaning up Bessie. It looks much better now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean Black (talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 July 2005

As for the previous comment, my pleasure... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hrrm

And I thought you were Peter J. King.

Back to the drawing board. Stirling Newberry 22:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Nikah Mut'ah

Could you please read the talk page?

Thanks!

Peace! --Striver 23:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Peter King

References to Prof. King's work on a page I editted that you had added indictated that you and he aren't the same person. It was my working theory that you were - though I have to admit I hadn't investigated it very much. Stirling Newberry 23:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

A quick question

I'm asking you this because we've run into each other copy-editing a few articles recently. When an article appears on the 'articles needing copy editing' page and has 'temp' in the title (for instance, Genghis Khan/temp is currently on it), what does the temp mean? Should that be copy-edited instead of the non-temp version? - Christiant 23:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I should have looked at the original page's discussion before asking; I've done that now and answered my own question. - Christiant 01:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Help us for Ril is way out of our league .

If Wiki-Admin do not step in agreat injustice will take place. I am not a sockpuppet QUESTION

Why was the following deleted:

WIKIPEDIA ABUSE Ril, 81.156.177.21 etc.etc.

Our "Angels" have been observing Ril, 81.156.177.21, Cheesedreames, Fishsupper, Lir, Doc. etc. for some time. His rude style and poor writing give him away. He has abused many articles been blocked many times but keeps reinventing himself.

RIL et al - M.O.

1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.

3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone

4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone

5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.

PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves.

and

WARNING: This article is being watched due to sock puppet and other abuses by Ril, 81.156.177.21 etc---Watcher1- 00:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Having just looked at the edit history, this is more important then the article itself.Indeed the edit history clears mellisa from what Ril has said. I would ask for a full WIKI INVESTIGATION INTO RIL AND 81.156.177.21.

--Poorman 07:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

More Ril Abuse

Don't edit whole page to distort truth. I am not a sock puppet but a new wikipedia user. What you are doing is wrong...scary. I need help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poorman (talk • contribs) 09:53, 14 July 2005

This seems to be directed against -Ril- (talk · contribs). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

GTA Trilogy

Hi again, can you please help me by redirecting Grand Theft Auto (series) to Grand Theft Auto Trilogy?

Thanks Agent003

I'm opposing this move, please see Talk:Grand Theft Auto Trilogy for rationale. Garrett^Talk 10:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• No need to Redirect now as problem has been solved. Thanks anyway Agent003

Transitive disambiguation

Hi,

I noticed that you'd reverted a change I made to the transitive page, where I had added a reference to Transitive Corporation. While I understand your reasons for removing the entry, I'm not sure I agree with them, so I just wanted to discuss the issue.

You mentioned that the link is currently in red, as there is currently no article for Transitive Corporation. However, there are existing references to the company on the wikipedia, for example on the QuickTransit page, so presumably at least someone deems the company worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. If the company is worthy of an entry (and some additional discussion on the Rosetta (software) page it seems reasonable that someone might search Wikipedia for the company, most likely using the more common shortened name Transitive. It seems therefore that this disambiguation page should link to the Transitive Corporation entry.

I agree that it's of limited use while there is no article for the company, but as I state on my own user page I am an employee of the company and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to create the article myself. What do you think?

Cheers, Batneil 10:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Flame War

Mel, the flamewar between Mr.Bryant and his "friends" has blown up again. They are both vandalising each others entries and talk pages. I think the entries for Derek Duggan, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, and Starrcade should be locked for a few days until they all settle down.

TruthCrusader

You're a liar, Stephen. I haven't vandalized anything. All I have done is correct that which is incorrect, and remove unwanted and harassing comments from my talk page. It would do you good to actually have a clue before you come tattling to Mel like he's a teacher on a playground. Chadbryant 20:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

This is so wrong

This is so wrong; I feel as though I have been violated by Wikipedia.To have Ril and his bullies succeed makes me feel sick.--Melissadolbeer 11:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

one more

Hi, could you add Elliott Abrams to your watchlist? Thanks -- Viajero | Talk 12:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Democrazy

Hi Mel,

Apparently, the Michael Legge/Lorna Nogueira movie, Democrazy was voted to be deleted before it was released back in October 2004 by a handful of people. I was unaware of this when I created the article about the film at the end of December 2004 which was quickly changed to a record album.

How can this be resolved now? The movie which I have nothing what-so-ever to do with apart from being a fan, has now been nominated for and even won an award. It is nationally distributed and yet because of a vote for deletion which listed that it was non-notable before it was even released or won an award the film can never be listed?

Whenever someone makes a comment about preserving the current article they seem to be labeled as a sockpuppet as if they are all one person and that only the creator of the film wants it listed as advertising which is just so unfair. The actions of Xezbeth, R.fiend and Calton could very easily be labeled as one giant sockpuppet too?

Anyway, my question is what happens when an article that was voted to be erased because the thing was judged non-notable becomes notable? Can it never be includedin Wikipedia because 5 or 6 people voted in Oct 2004 before the film was released that it was non-notable? Just wondering what I might be able to do. Plank 12:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Revisiting something that has already had a past VfD is always a tricky issue. There are some who keep reopening such things (both ones decided to keep and ones decided to delete) by restarting VfDs on kept articles over and over, or recreating deleted ones, and this produces a backlash from people who don't like endless edit wars; some feel that something akin to the "double jeopardy" provision of the U.S. Constitution should apply and prevent repeated "trials" of the same article. On the other hand, circumstances do change, so the result of one vote once shouldn't always be binding for all time. In this case, it does seem like the film in question has increased its notability since originally deleted, though whether it's now notable enough for inclusion here is still an open question. If the album of that name is also notable (also an open question), it should have a disambig link on the page if it settles down to being about the movie, and vice versa if the page is about the album, if both are suitable for mention here. It probably deserves a new vote to decide. *Dan*

I think that an article about a film that didn't yet exist was bound to be deleted; to count that as a vote against an article on the film after it has been released (and won an award) would be wrong. Incidentally, the album page under Democrazy was a stubby duplicate of a fuller article at Democrazy (album), so I've turned it into a disambiguation page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Mel, for helping out and so quickly too!! Plank 14:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Category/Stub placement

I noticed on this article (really, I have no idea how I ended up there...probably RC patrol) you swapped the order of the stub and the categories. One of the changes I had made was to swap them the order they were, because that is the order I've always seen. Stub is the next to the last thing and all the categories are last (excepting the interwiki links). I'd like to know if I've been doing it wrong all this time. I looked at the WP:MoS but didn't see it obviously addressed there. TIA. Wikibofh 15:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

User Chadbryant

Hi. A couple of days ago, you asked Chadbryant to not attack other users in the editing comments, as per Wikipedia policy. However, he is continuing to do so through the edits he makes to his talk page. I suggest you go take a look, and please remind him to not do so again. This is very frustrating; he has a history of going against authority, and you are apparantly no exception. Setting aside for the moment that he thinks I am someone that I am not, the fact still remains that he is in violation of Wikipedia policy and should be notified of the fact. I don't think he's going to CARE, but still, it should be done. Thanks! --Archived Chad 17:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I put a comment on Mr. Bryant's talk page reminding him that you have requested he not engage in personal attacks through editing, and yet he has done so once again. He continues to delete the remarks I leave, claim I am this "Dink" person he has some sort of paranoid vendetta against, and now is calling the whole thing "Dink nonsense". I suggest you remind him that attacking other users via editing comments and removing their remarks because you have some sort of warped view of who they may or may not be is not "nonsense". --Archived Chad 20:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Having seen what you've written on Talk pages, and taking into account your user name, I'm unprepared to give your views any credence. So far you've only engaged in personal attacks and abuse (and made no useful contributions to Wikiepdia at all); if you do anything more (or if you continue in the same vein), or if you touch another editor's User page without permission, I'll have confirmation that you're another in a tediously long line of accounts opened simply to attack User:Chadbryant, and permanently block you from editing. I hope that that's clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

punctuation write up

Just a quick question about one of your recent edits... For the article Romance & Cigarettes, you changed the & to & and the dashes were changed to a different notation as well. My question is simply, why? I don't see the difference. Thanks, Dismas 22:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandel on Bolton Wanderers

Hi, ive got a Vandal on Bolton Wanderers! I will warn him if i have to fix his vandalism again. Can i ask you to take action if he still persists? Agent003

Talk:Natalie Wood

YOU STATED: "Ted Wilkes' behaviour, however, has been as bad (actually, consiiderably worse) than that of the anon., in that he's been just as inflexible, but far more aggressive. The reasons that he's given for his deletions of the anon's edits have had nothing to do with Wikipedia policy and normal usage, and have sometimes been flatly against it."

Please take note that Wikipedia:No personal attacks is not acceptable and inexcusable even on the legal grounds of diminished capacity. The ANON has deliberately inserted fraudlently doctored text repeatedly. Now, beyond the several hundred quality articles I have created, exactly what is it that I have done that "has been as bad (actually, consiiderably worse) than that of the anon." If correcting fabricated insertions by people who come here with an agenda and who are willing to repeatedly falsify information, then I'm guilty of being inflexible. But, your support of the ANON's fraudent actions, as you have done, makes you equally as guilty as the ANON saboteur. Ted Wilkes 23:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

There is one important point I would like to make. I am not sure how many different users were actually discussing my contributions on the Talk:Natalie Wood page, as, to my mind, user Ted Wilkes seems to have several different Wikipedia accounts. See also User:NightCrawler and what has been said about user Elliot on the User:Elliot page: "Isn't it amazing how much Elliot's contributions mirror DW's and Ron Davis's. Same refusal to answer questions. Same insistence that he is always right. Same vicious rudeness to anyone who dares to question his judgment. Maybe we could call them the Blessed Trinity, or maybe 'The Popes', given they seem to believe in their own infallibility."

Ayyavazhi

You had redirected Vaikunda Avatharam to Ayya Vaikundar. I am here to suggest that though the two titles seems alike they were extremely different. While the topic Ayya Vaikundar tells the Incarnation of Vaikundar which follows the the life of Muthukutty, the title Vaikunda Avatharam narrates in a mythical way following the life of Sampooranathevan. According to Akilattirattu Sampooranathevan was one among the Devas, who takes birth in this world. Mind you Sampooranathevan was a mythical figure while Muthukutty was an ordinary man in the society who was also noted in the history. Also the name Muthukutty was not even mentioned once in Akilattirattu. So in brief the title Ayya Vaikundar views the incarnation in a historical point while the title Vaikunda Avatharam views it from a mythical point. So better the title not to redirect. If you still want to do please send me messages before and place the reason. - Vaikunda Raja