User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Violating Wikipedia rules[edit]

May I ask you to have a look at the Talk:Elvis Presley page? To my mind, my opponents User:Ted Wilkes and User:Wyss are violating the rule that there should be no personal attacks against other Wikipedia users on discussion pages. Ted Wilkes has even deleted my recent contribution to the talk page. See Talk:Elvis Presley, history. I have only summed up some facts and presented an additional source which proves that the claims by Dee Presley have been discussed by Elvis fan groups. Significantly, when I stated that I was moving on some days ago, my opponents had nothing else to do than immediately hurry to the Nick Adams, Natalie Wood and James Dean pages in order to delete all contributions I have written. I think this is not fair play. Here is my contribution which has been deleted by Ted Wilkes: [1] He has also deleted other relevant passages from the Talk:Elvis Presley page, for instance, the excerpts from the critical article by Professor Dr Wall. See [2] Onefortyone 15:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, I'm the one who pointed out that User:Ted Wilkes was deleting 141's comments from the talk page, and I objected to it. Since IMO both of them have strayed far outside Wikipedia policy and have for the moment scotched any chance of consensus discussion, I'll defer for now to others less involved as to how the Elvis Presley article might be resolved. Wyss 15:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the page, and saw both the truth of what Onefortyone said about Ted Wilkes and what Wyss said about himself. I've warned Ted Wilkes. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: ----[edit]

There oughtn't be reasons for multiple instances of dablinks, there just needs to be one note. Therefore it could go into the template. For the sake of consistency it either ought to be on all or none. Dunc|☺ 16:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikialbums format[edit]

I believe that we should take this issue to a third party and let them decide on the matter. Both conventions have their merits for usage, and it would be best for more contributors to add their input into the issue. I don't believe that making edits on individual albums is a practical long-term plan for this issue. We should let editors (both music and non-music contributors) add their 2 cents to this matter. What's the best venue for doing so?

Cheers :-) --Madchester 17:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


Once again, it's not practical for you to be going on a MoS spree of edits while there's no resolution to this issue. If a change is proposed, then the album, singles, etc. articles can be edited accordingly. I'll be ready to jump on board to make the appropriate edits that are necessary! :-) Otherwise, trying to make all these changes to conform to MoS, while others are following the existing Wikiproject Albums, Wikiproject Ssongs, etc.... criteria set in place is not necessarily helpful, especially for music contributors.
For example, I noticed that a former user (PetSounds) had taken issue to your MoS edits as well. The fact that this is the 2nd time a similar issue has been brought up in recent weeks should have alerted you to propse some changes or suggestions to the Wikialbums project, rather than making chance edits now and then. This is the first time I've encountered the Wikiproject Albums vs. MoS issue, and I immediately brought it up for discussion to what is the appropriate action. If you really want to induce change (and overall clarity for this issue), we should be sharing possible solutions as per the discussion I created, rather than making a statement by making MoS edits that simply disregard the current Wikiproject Album conventions completely.

Also with the album ordinals, Wikiproject Albums act as a basic template of what each album article should contain. (Below is a basic guide to writing an article on a specific album of music; this is only a guide and you should feel free to personalize an article as you see fit, though others may change it to fit our standards.) However, editors are free to include other details that are relevant to the article. The ordinals are used in numerous discographies, including those for Radiohead (OK Computer, Kid A, etc.) and Oasis (Heathen Chemistry, Be Here Now), etc.). There's no need to delete them when they provide additional info for readers.

Cheers :-) --Madchester 17:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Burns[edit]

Mel, I made the Michael Burns article. The discussion pertained to an already deleted, totally irrelevant discussion. Uncivil? You're just looking for reasons to ban me, bud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tykell (talk • contribs) 18:24, 18 August 2005

On your topic about the validity of votes.[edit]

I think it is generally lacking that there is not a way you can see how many people are actually watching an article AND out of those have some kind of weighted value rating about their participation. For example, how long ago they editted, how many edits, etc ... This same rating could be used to see what votes are actually credible. Not to mention that you can't tell if there is an article that 100 people are watching; no point in being 101. Or articles that have been neglected by all editors. I know I should post this on the development mailing list. Maybe I will in due time.--Kim Nevelsteen 17:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your usertalk to me[edit]

We went throught this issue a long time ago....

We offer free inserts from the books we publish, which are translated from the German originals AND often used by prestigious universities around the world! Nobody has to BUY the WHOLE book unless they want to.

Lately these excerpt pages - which are used (linked to) by other outlets as well - have had more "sales spiel" added at the bottom of the page...if THAT is a PROBLEM - but NOT the excerpt itself (along with one single link to our primary site) - please advise, and we could easily create SEPARATE "de-commericialized") excerpt pages for our books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.102.25 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 August 2005

Eating crow[edit]

I said a while back, that it looked like the RfC on Ultramarine had sunk in. I take it back. He's so much worse, I had to file an RfAr against him.

So how are your vandal problems coming? Septentrionalis 18:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"no concern to anyone": Mathematics is good for that, and quiet. Genealogy, perhaps? User:Jtdirl has proposed a compromise for the Style War, so that may go away, Ghod willing. Septentrionalis 20:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Living philosophers[edit]

This category has been listed on CfD. Perhaps you may tell your opinion here. Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 04:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ril Group-New Violation-Authentic Matthew[edit]

Did I do the the right thing?

--Melissadolbeer 08:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic Matthew[edit]

Mel, if I'm out of order, I'm ready to apologise. But my action was hardly unilateral. The 'keep no consensus' debate had many keep voters who were suggesting 'merge' (and everything had been merged) or 'rename' - i.e. were unhappy with an article here by this name. Further, if you check the talk page, you will see a fairly extensive debate, in the wake of the vote (and -Ril-'s stupidity), and over a number of days, concerning the possibility of a redirect. A number of people contributed with different ideas - but all were in favour of redirection - and not one for keeping the article as it stood. My action was not unilateral, nor hasty - quite the reverse.

I might add, your protection is highly questionable. There is no revert war here. I redirected two weeks ago - and no-one challenged it. Now one editor, User:Melissadolbeer, has unilateraly reverted it - without any discussion or seeking any concensus - and you have protected her position. I noted her revert some hours ago - but I did not revert it. I was waiting to see what others might say.

I'm not going to enter into a unilateral slug-fest with User:Melissadolbeer - so unless you think others might, please reconsider your action. --Doc (?) 09:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mel. I realise now why we are disagreeing over the interpretation of the concensus - and why my action looked unilateral. The discussuion to which I was referring has been erased by User:Melissadolbeer - (I'll 'assume in good faith' by mistake?) look at my edits and the discusison in this version (towards the bottom - ss 'a compromise' and 'redirect and protect') [3]. Peace. --Doc (?) 10:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not impressed[edit]

I am still finding my feet after a long absence from Wikipedia but frankly I believe you are not in the position to be offering free advice to me about anything. I think you should take a very good look at the way you conduct yourself both as a contributor and administrator. Your conduct in orphaning an image in order to guarantee its deletion is I believe not consistent with propriety.

Further, I remind you that you are obliged not to be exercising your admin powers against those you are in conflict with. But you knew that already, right? So I will do my best to be the best that I can and that will necessarily not include following any advice or edicts from those guilty of the precise conduct of which you falsely accuse others. Physician, heal thyself. And as we say in the USA, step off. Coqsportif 12:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that both Coqsportif and Tykell are stalking you and trying to smear your reputation (especially with the nonsense around the VfD for Sturmgrenadier - the charge of bias is silly). Coqsportif, you're quite wrong in claiming he's using his admin powers against those he is in conflict with - the conflict is that he used his admin powers and you disagree. In that case, any admin who disagrees with you is suddenly in a conflict with you and should be recused from using their admin powers. If you disagree this heartily with the current admins, perhaps you should apply to become one yourself, to recitify the exisiting bias. --Habap 14:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was approached to be an admin in 2003 as I recall but it's not really for me, like others I doubt I have the temperament for it. My point is that Mel has behaved in a manner that I believe not consistent with appropriate standards, specifically orphaning images to ensure they are deleted. I invited him, very politely, to examine whether this was appropriate and he had no problem with it. I have a different view, that's all. I make no judgements. That said, when I see the same conduct replicated elsewhere, against others, that concerns me. I have expressed that concern and feel I was right to do so. In the end, this is all a bit of fun - or should be - Mel has observed multiple cases of what he might call stalking and some might think has engaged in it himself (again I make no accusations) and has not lifted a finger to end it. A partial exercise of power ought not be what Wikipedia is about, and I welcome the opportunity to remind Mel of that, whether it effects me or others isn't the point. I'll stand up for others far more enthusiastically than myself. Coqsportif 14:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I chuckle to think that someone who edits the pages you have is telling someone else what is "proper". You did, in fact, cast aspersions on Mel's role in Strumgrenadier. Similarly, your comments above are a classic attempt to libel while claiming not to - "some might think has engaged in it himself". That's like saying "some say he is evil, though I do not". Both of you have had disagreements with him and have followed him to at least that page to "express concern" over his "abuse of power". Pick a better target. He'd never heard of SG before the page went before VfD. Look at the votes and comments. There was no consensus. Also, if it is fit to VfD, at least do it properly.... --Habap 14:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Far from being interested in libel, I wish to draw attention to actions and let others judge their propriety. I'm not much of a judge anyway, so I'd rather get others' views, including your own. I urge all editors - including myself - to act sympathetically to newbies, to not act arrogantly or with sanctimony, to assume good faith rather than the converse and to use administrator powers only when no personal motive is involved or alleged. I believe the vast majority of admins do a great and selfless job and I salute them, for Wikipedia would be a fiasco without them rather than the great success it has been. So I don't have any complaint about the prevailing way of doing things, I would just like to ensure that everyone is held to that high standard of excellence and propriety. Coqsportif 15:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Coqsportif has no interest in the Sturmgrenadier issue; he's just stumbled across it in the course of his fingering through my contributions to find a way of getting at me. If he thinks that my behaviour was in any way unacceptable, he should take it to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. He won't though, because he knows full well that my actions were above reproach. This is simply his way of getting some petty revenge against me because I've opposed him on a couple of articles.
  2. Coqsportif is also being disingenuous about the business of the image. I removed it from an article because I though it inappropriate (it's a photo of a faked street sign), and I also put it up for deletion, as I thought it inappropriate more generally. Coqsportif, despite many explanations, is either unable to understand that simple fact, or unwilling to allow a clear and innocent explanation to interfere with his campaign. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mel, Coq keeps adding a tag to the Qibya massacre article and calling it an incident. When I reverted him, he said that you would ban me for such behavior.Heraclius 16:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

Mel, I meant what I said in apologising for accusing you of championing Melissadolbeer. Whatever the (dis)merits of the article in question, my words were out of order. Sorry. --Doc (?) 23:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Oops[edit]

Dear Mel Etitis,

I seem to be causing you more problems. I was not attempting to delete anything but rather archive (see earlier edit).

I also believed that Ril ,Doc, etc were simply trying an end run after their Vfd failed. As I am new to Wikipedia, I immediatly asked you if I was doing the right thing.

Question: If a Vfd fails can the article be simply removed by those who failed (by redirecting)?

--Melissadolbeer 03:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore article.[edit]

Please restore Authentic Matthew by Acjelen for VfD was keep

--Melissadolbeer 04:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beaten to a bloody pulp![edit]

Is it possible to find out if the following are Sock Puppets?

In any event they are beating me to a bloody pulp! (see Authentic Matthew)

I have never used a Sock Puppet and I feel I am being bullied by the Ril Group. The Ril group's VfD failed, but that does not stop them from removing the article. --Melissadolbeer 04:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New paragraph on the world-wide Elvis industry[edit]

My opponents have repeatedly deleted the new paragraph on the Elvis industry I have written. I think this is not O.K., as I have used a peer-reviewed source, the article by Professor David S. Wall, BA, MA, M.Phil, PhD, Head of University of Leeds Law School and Professor of Criminal Justice and Information Technology. Ted Wilkes has now also removed the Memphis Mafia paragraph from the "Relationships" section. Very interesting indeed. I wonder what is going on there. See Elvis Presley and Talk:Elvis Presley. Onefortyone 15:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you to have a look at the Gavin Lambert article. User:Ted Wilkes has repeatedly, and biasedly, included references in the article that Lambert's biography on Natalie Wood is a gossip book in order to denigrate this source which has lots of positive reviews. This seems to be this user's constant aim. See [4] He has also deleted the passage that there is a homosexual subtext in one of Lambert's films, although I have cited two sources on the discussion page which support my contribution that critics indeed saw this subtext. See [5] I do not understand the aggressive editing tactics of this user. May I ask you to revert his edits which are violating POV? Onefortyone 19:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have now restored the Gavin Lambert article and added the correct quote from the Guardian review, but I am sure Ted Wilkes will revert it again. Would you please have a look at the article. Thanks. Onefortyone 20:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now he has removed every critical remark from the Memphis Mafia article. Although the Memphis Mafia members themselves state on their website that they stayed with Elvis all day and night, Wilkes has deleted the passage. Onefortyone 20:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My opponents are frequently deleting the whole critical paragraph on the world-wide Elvis industry. See Elvis Presley. As far as I can see, there is no consensus to exclude the whole thing from the Elvis article, as has been claimed by Wyss. The paragraph may be rewritten. Somebody else may add more details. But I think it is important to have a critical voice in the article. Wikipedia is no fan site. There is enough gossip stuff on that page. Onefortyone 17:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not bias then why is Sunder deleted? --Tykell 16:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy[edit]

As you requested, I'm writing to let you know that I think you behaved wrongly in reverting my edit on the Philosophy page! I didn't think a real philosopher could possibly do such a thing! Zargulon 23:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation[edit]

I notice that you've edited a few philosophy articles. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about philosophy in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on philosophical topics. Banno 23:17, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to collectively tag multiple entries for VfD?[edit]

Hi there. I'm looking at the contributions from 68.23.149.212. They're all related and seem to be nothing more than spam for a web site with an Alexa rank of over 1.77 million. I don't think they obviously meet speedy delete criteria, but going through the VfD process for each one individually will take a while. --GraemeL (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No need to reply to this. I got an answer from another admin. sorry to waste your time. --GraemeL (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Mindanao languages[edit]

Another job for you ---------- Southern Mindanao languages is a false front for an apparent vanity article. the word Mindanao is used in the context of the theatre, but the article has no relation to linquistics. No history -- one editor. Thank for your help. WBardwin 23:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, hi, I noticed the above post and busybodied the problem by userifying the page and posting a message to 203.177.41.253. A rather nice message, considering the sneakiness that WBardwin rightly points to. The article was apparently created by clicking on a redlink in Philippine languages. Bad anon! Bishonen | talk 01:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I've got it straight...[edit]

Right? I was changing them all to the former when Omega Wikipedia came behind me and changed them all back (What do you guys have? Robots?). I just weant to make sure I've got this stright to avoid confusion. Thanks. BTW, would you be interested in helpin me cleanup List of number 1 R&B hits (USA) so that it matches List of number-one hits (United States)?--FuriousFreddy 00:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. I have the basic writeup alomst already done (but it's on a disc in my bag o' stuff--hopefully it's not scratched). And, no, I'm not sure if I'll (I assumed it'd be me, at least) be writing an article for "All I Need" anytime soon. There's not much I can say about it other than Frank Wilson produced it instead of regular Temptations producer Norman Whitfield. David Ruffin still sings lead, he's begging a girl not to leave him, it was a Top 20 hit, etc. I don't have plans to "Mariah" out my Temptations coverage -- once I've got articles for all the classic Motown era albums, I'm done. Those guys had too many records, and I have a job. --FuriousFreddy 22:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of doing that: redirecting the singles I don't write articles for to the album. Not a bad idea. --FuriousFreddy 10:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

Hey Mel, could you do me a favor? Head on over to Talk:Hiroshige, and check my and another user's discussions; as is, we think the page is an egregrious copyright violation. If you agree, I would appreciate the current article replaced with Hiroshige/temp. Very barebones article, but public domain. --Maru 04:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good Will Authentic Matthew[edit]

There seems to be some good will starting in Authentic Matthew, now that Ril is gone. Could you help us stay on the right track! --Melissadolbeer

Philosophy[edit]

Good work on Philosophy - and welcome to the Project. I envy your fluid prose. Are you intending to work on the remainder of the article? It suffers from having been written via a rather heated edit war, and could do with some improvement. Banno 09:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Concerning SC and IC[edit]

The validity of a particular theory should not be argued by you in an objective/encyclopedic article. If you wish to address concerns dealing with the validity of IC/SC, you should mention those sources that contest the validity and the grounds upon which they do so. Furthermore, from the literature that is out there, SC is not utterly dependant upon IC. Both arguments can stand on their own, though, as I said, the argument for ID seems a bit more convincing when both are implemented. Your statement is inaccurate in light of the material that is currently out there concerning both theories.

Again, according to the literature, SC can be used by itself to show that there may be an intelligent designer. It cannot be used to debunk evolution as a whole. It can only contest that evolution was by chance and not intelligence. When SC is added to IC, then evolution can be contested. If that is the point you're making, please make that clear and mention that it is in the current literature. Do not write it as if it is your own opinion, which is the way it was phrased the first time I read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noweek (talk • contribs) 16:07, 22 August 2005

inalienable[edit]

so, inalienable is the common accepted modern term to refer to what the founding fathers most likely seemed to have meant in the declaration of independence by 'unalienable'? is that roughly correct? I know I heard a philosophy teacher speak briefly about the confusion these two terms sometimes cause- I think I got them mixed up.

Yameen? 20:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categorical imperative[edit]

I'm looking for people to peer review this article, as I have recently rewritten it. Could you take a look at it? --Ryan Delaney talk 21:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Language[edit]

Should I be telling you here each time I address you on Talk:Language? I can't tell whether you reverted from my second definition of language without reading the talk page. Anyway, I've written even more on the talk page now.

In changing the current introduction to Language, I was following the injunction to be bold in editing; and I had already given some justification for my change on the talk page. If you think I should do something differently, please explain. David Pierce 08:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

aol[edit]

u might want to becareful with ip bans of aol, aol customers internet is run through aol proxies, and if i remember correctly, they are cycled from user to user depending on login, but dont take my word for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.68 (talk • contribs) 23 August 2005

Trouble Man (song) --> Trouble Man[edit]

Can you do this move (Trouble Man has history)? I'm going ot make a combined article on the movie, album, and single (no need for seperate articles). —Preceding unsigned comment added by FuriousFreddy (talk • contribs) 02:47, 24 August 2005

Criticism of Prem Rawat[edit]

Criticism of Prem Rawat Mel - I tried to make a minor edit to this page and found myself unable to draw up the bottom of the screen with the edit/preview buttons. Is that because of the extraordinary length of this article or because it is blocked from editing due to the controversial topic? Just curious -- no hurry about a response. Thanks. WBardwin 05:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language and reversions[edit]

From what you wrote to me, Mel, it sounds as if you revert major changes on principle. Your wish to prevent the stirring up of trouble is probably well founded. However, the current introduction to Language was introduced on 12 June, by an unregistered person, with no comment (except possibly an unsigned derogatory remark on the talk page) and no ensuing dispute. I have explained why I think that introduction is inadequate or wrong. My own replacement is inadequate as well, but it is better, in my opinion of course, for the reasons I have outlined. If you disagree, then it seems to me that the appropriate response is to explain your disagreement, rather than to revert from my changes with little indication that you take much interest in getting the article straightened out. I want to get the article straightened out, but mainly I want to understand what people think language is. David Pierce 09:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler[edit]

That would also make sense, from a pragmatic point of view. Depends on your logic. But from what I've seen, well, take a few random examples of prominent works of fiction (these should be pretty close to "featured"): Vertigo (film), Brave New World, King Lear--that's the way it's used in these, and in fact all articles I've seen, not that I paid particular attention to it before.

By the way, you have excellent taste in films ;)

Ajshm 16:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commas before final "and."[edit]

The Wiki Manual of Style accepts a comma, or no comma, before the final "and," referred to as serial or Oxford comma. Here in the colonies, we have moved to eliminate the final comma in an "and" or "or" string. You are, of course, welcome to do what you prefer; just trying to save you keystrokes. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grika (talk • contribs) 18:14, 24 August 2005

Naming policy on churches[edit]

Seems like I've got into a small problem with names on some churches in Norway. You fixed one of them, that the way I'm noticed.

On a small number of articles the names of stave churches are translated. At the same time the norwegian word for the stave church is used as a name for the building. So it would be like translating London Bridge to something else.

What is the correct way to do this? I thought it would be sufficient that the article mentioned what kind of church it was.

Agtfjott 17:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna (entertainer)[edit]

I just dislike separating one article into 7 or 8 like that. If you want to restore it to what it was, I won't object. --Woohookitty 00:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

14th nervous breakdown[edit]

Hi, Mel. For reasons that I cannot fathom, I've recently been spending time revising The Emancipation of Mimi, an album I've never heard and don't even want to hear. You've been changing "14th" to "fourteenth" (etc.). It's my understanding the most style guides tend to prefer the former (which saves bytes, always a help in this grotesquely bloated article) for 11th and above, and that WP's own guide implies that either is OK as long as you're consistent (with the usual exception for sentence starts). I've thus reverted your change, ho ho, and am using numerals throughout.

Tonight I've been listening to Gladys Knight and the Pips, yesterday Dinah Washington. More my style. -- Hoary 13:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention for Norwegian places names[edit]

Pleased to see you weigh in on the Norwegian pages. We need all the help we can get. There is a great deal of work still to be done. You're invited to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway if you have a strong interest.

Noted your message on stave churches. We do indeed have a naming convention for Norwegian places names in the English Wiki. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway which states: "For administrative units and geographical entities, the official Norwegian name [6] is used for the article, with redirects for English names when known. There is no reason to invent new English names."

You suggested, "it's unlikely that one could argue that the Norwegian form is the more common among English-speakers." Actually, one can make a rather compelling argument to that effect. If one checks guide books written in English these days, they use the Norwegian spellings (even the modern Baedeker's has moved to this convention although historically it Anglicized). Its only older English material that has Anglicized the names, and you can often find 3-4 variations of a particular place name in older English literature (One of my favorite examples is Vågå , which appears as Vaaga, Vaagaa, Vaage, Waaga, & Vaga in various older English books. ). So this provides a pretty good reason to stick with the Norwegian spelling unless there is a compelling English usage. Tusen takk for your interest - Williamborg 14:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

Artefact -> Artifact[edit]

Sorry about that mispelling, I'll note that in the future. Thank you. --Freyr 22:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Placing users in danger[edit]

Mel, FYI, Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Placing_users_in_danger. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:55, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Language[edit]

Would you please just tell me if you think I am wasting my time thinking about what the Language article should contain? You have reverted from my changes without responding to my justifications for them or to my repeated requests for a reference justifying the version you reverted to. I do not insist that I am right; I seem to agree with you that language should be defined as what people understand it to be; which citable authority defines language as a system of finite arbitrary symbols?

Now you are "tidying", when I think major work is needed even beyond the introduction. Even in the introduction, you seemed to acknowledge that the use of "finite" was ambiguous; why don't you clarify it? Beyond that, the Tolkaappiyam, 200 BCE, is called the oldest surviving grammar, while the work of Panini is said to be over two centuries older. That would seem to mean that the work of Panini has not survived. So how do we know about it? This should be explained. And why is no edition of the Tolkaappiyam listed in the references? I think about these things. Just tell me if I would be better off thinking about something else. David Pierce 07:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tykell[edit]

I have made two good-faith attempts to communicate on User talk:Tykell about the unsourced images he uploaded, and later added an unsourced, unrationaled {{fairuse}} tag to. You've warned him in the past about vandalism. Is this worth an RFC? Would you support that, or do you feel that he's disruptive enough to warrent summary blocking without the process? The edits in question are:

A new twist however, on this edit he claimed a source while reverting: [22]
I'll follow up on that.

Still, this is a long an varied history of treating Wikipedia as if he were the only editor. Several of his more abusive images are up for IFD by others: Image:Vaderno.jpg, Image:Kingjameson.jpg, Image:Jameson.gif. Can we stop this drain on WP resoures now? -Harmil 13:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small point to follow up to my message above and your reply on my talk page: I already got word back from the uboat.net admin, who said he'd never heard of this guy, and requested that we NOT use his images. So, that's:
  • Failing to cite image sources
  • Reverting {{nosource}} tags without providing a source
  • Failing to communicate in any way
  • Uploading copyrighted material without authorization
  • Explicitly lying about authorization
  • Uploading joke / hoax images
All things considered, he seems like a textbook troll to me. :-( -Harmil 18:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yallery Brown[edit]

Hello,

Thanks for the tips - I will follow them.

Yallery Brown. 13:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Eagle and Child[edit]

What's the most common, "Bird and Baby", "Bird and Babe", "Bird and the Baby"? - please comment on the talk page, thanks. Alf 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Μελ - I've edited to reflect that (and the line sounds better for it). αλ

Place names & M'bilia Bel[edit]

Yes, I believe the current version does stike a balance. M'bilia Bel, I'll have to check her out some time, I'm an Angélique Kidjo man myself. Cheers!. -JCarriker 19:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


YOUR COMMENTS SUPPORTING THE INSERTION OF INAPPROPRIATE OR FALSE ARTICLE HEADINGS[edit]

You continue to interfere with unfounded comments into situations which you know nothing about. Before asserting anything, you need to read and understand Wikipedia policy first. Also, please note User:Onefortyone has violated the 3revert rule at Gavin Lambert. Please use you Wikipedia:Administrator power and block this user for 24 hrs. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 23:22, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

List of number one R&B hits[edit]

Don't worry about the list that's already there. I'm trying to split apart the list into seperate years (like how the dance and Hot 100 charts are). --FuriousFreddy 11:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


To User:Mel Etitis: Your 3 hour block[edit]

You first engaged yourself in the interconnected Elvis Presley issue at Talk:Natalie Wood. You then engaged yourself directly in the issue at Elvis Presley through your edit to the article in support of User:Onefortyone as per his 15:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC) request at User talk:Mel Etitis#New paragraph on the world-wide Elvis industry:[reply]

  • 11:37, August 20, 2005 Mel Etitis (rv unexplained edits)


you then entered the issue again by reverting another user:

  • 17:46, August 20, 2005 Mel Etitis m (Reverted edits by 129.241.134.241 to last version by BRG) as seen


The Wikipedia:Blocking policy#When blocking may not be used states:

  • "users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict"

As such, having engaged in the issue, it appears you have misused your powers as Wikipedia:Administrator when you placed a temporary 3 hour block on my account. Please refrain from any further such improper action. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 16:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

En rules[edit]

Thank you for the note - I believe I simply read too narrowly. I agree that the article needs a lot of work of course! Schissel : bowl listen 20:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Can you fix the front page? its incorrect[edit]

It currently reads:

  1. Hurricane Katrina strengthens further to a Category 4 hurricane with winds of 233 km/h (145 mph) and begins moving towards New Orleans, Louisiana, after killing seven people in the U.S. state of Florida.

You should have it read:

  1. Hurricane Katrina strengthens further to a Category 4 hurricane with winds of 150 mph and begins moving towards New Orleans, Louisiana, after killing seven people in the state of Florida. Currently it is the second-most intense named storm in the United States since 1851. A mandatory evacuation of New Orleans has been issued for the first time in history and the city sits on average six feet below sea level.

That provides much more insight about the gravity of the situation. And here is the proof: The Most Intense Hurricanes in the United States 1851-2004 with [23]. "The pressure dropped to 915 mb at 6 am. " and the last storm with that level or lower was Hurricane Camille in 1969 at 909. Hurricane Katrina is now the second most intense named hurricane since 1851 in the United States. 71.32.199.15 09:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it impossible to move that page normally?[edit]

The Requested page moves is for pages that are likely to be heavily contested or require admin intervention. Seeing the extant discussion, it's atomic overkill to apply that here. Kim Bruning 11:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly following WP:HEC, I am always first BOLD in making an edit, but if I'm reverted I will stop and discuss instead.
Actually, AFAICT you only have one person giving reasoned opposition btw, and he can probably be placated with a redirect (which will be created automagically for you). Just go ahead and move the page already. Worst case you get reverted. :-) Kim Bruning 11:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mel_Etitis/Archive_23&oldid=1085971941"