User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 24

external links

why have you reverted to old external links in anesthesia?. the links needed to be categorised. some were patient related, others are for profesionals, and there are a lot of links devoted to history of anesthesia. as an anesthesiologist myself, i thought those headings seemed appropriate and useful.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.13.19 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 28 August 2005

There were a couple of reasons. First, some of the edits changed well-formatted to badly-formatted links (sometimes the problem was Wikipedia coding, sometimes spacing, or lack of it, sometimes spelling, etc.). Secondly, the "professional" sub-heading wasn't really necessary (I mean, The American Society of Anesthesiologists, "A medical student's guide" — these are pretty self-explanatory, and the reader doesn't need further guidance surely). Thirdly, you added a link that has already been discussed and rejected; see the Talk page (where your comments should really have been placed). Fourthly you removed a link without explanation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tags

Mel, I'll try to be careful with the cleanup tags for now on. However, you have also done something to that article that annoyed me. Instead of editing from my version directly, you completely reverted it and then made changes that were almost exactly same as mine. Although I'm happy with the result, I almost feel as if you are taking credit for my contribution to the article.

Solarusdude 00:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew resolved

1) Since Ril has been blocked, we have worked things out regarding Authentic Matthew.

2) A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. The Wikipedian who uses a sock puppet may be called a sock puppeteer. Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases; Jimbo Wales has said, "There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason."

This policy is far from clear. Would it not be wiser not to allow Sockpuppets?

3 Ril put this up before he was blocked:

Categories: Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of melissadolbeer

Is there any way this can be removed?

Every good wish and blessing,

Poorman 04:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

schiavo link -messge rec'd - shall make it next edit

message received - I shall make that my next edit - thank you, Mel. --GordonWattsDotCom 08:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link you identified, and noted such in the edit summary.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson / Child Catcher

Hi - I wondered what your reasons were for this edit? Your comment only says that the text was "vaguely negative" which isn't really a valid reason to remove content. Thanks - SP-KP 09:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply on this. My logic in adding that text was that the MJ/CC resemblence meme developed quite a bit of momentum at the time - references to it popped up all over the place. It doesn't yet appear to have gone away - and given its amusing nature it might not for a while (don't know if I should say this given your comments about Google on your user page, but see Google...). Hence encyclopaedic, or at least having the same kind of encyclopaedicness as topics like All Your Base Are Belong To Us, The size of Wales. I don't however feel it deserves an article in its own right. It would be interesting to document its origins and spread, although that feels like Original Research. You're semi-correct with your comment about irony - the resemblence, not the observation of it, is the ironic thing; slip of the keyboard; I'll reword that once we've agreed what should go back in. - SP-KP 10:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unalienable

Unfortunately the OED does not appear to have updated either word, but their most recent references for 'unalienable' are English: Henry John Stephen; New commentaries on the Common Law and Macaulay's History of England Macaulay reads like he may be paraphrasing Jefferson, but Stephen is not. Septentrionalis 16:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not on this evidence; the OED's references for 'inalienable' are equally old. My feeling that this is the natural usage, at least for an American editor rests on my own linguistic capacities. But frankly, unless you've seriously fixed unalienable rights, I don't care where it goes, it can be merged with a real article, possibly right, from either location. Septentrionalis 17:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

to mel

You said please stop spamming to your website. What do you mean? I do not have a website? Could you be more specific? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.191.56 (talk • contribs) 30 August 2005

Your Admin blocking powers & Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Your response at User talk:Ted Wilkes#Block to my statement posted at User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 23#To User:Mel Etitis: Your 3 hour block is not in accordance with Wikipedia:Policy for the role of Wikipedia:Administrators which states:

Administrators are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility.
users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information.

"Advice and information" does not include editing. Your edits at Natalie Wood were massive and extensive and were interconnected to the edits you made at Elvis Presley. You have misused your powers as Wikipedia:Administrator when you placed a temporary 3 hour block on my account. I repeat my request that you please refrain from any further such improper action. I would also ask that you refrain from making unfounded comments against me as you did in your aforementioned reply. You also left similar such comments at User talk:Ted Wilkes#Your message that are unwarranted and egregious conduct on your part. I would request that you remove this from my talk page and the matter will be dropped. If not, I will seek the appropriate redress on all these issues.

Thank you. Ted Wilkes 23:51, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I will. Ted Wilkes 21:23, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Micronations

Hello,

Noticed the mess on the Micronation page; thing is all but unreadable. Is there someway to clear this up? Like to see the information up and listed for those who care (plus, I was going to add links in "The Diamond Age" and "Snow Crash" to it, but there seems little point).

Cheers,

Draal draalranger@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.195.194.210 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 30 August 2005

Re: Shake It Off

I doesn't really matter to me if it's "fiftieth" or "number fifty" so you can change that back if you want. The only reason i reverted back is because of the tense. That sentence should be past tense (was) instead of present tense (is). --Musicpvm 19:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, removed from where?

Oh I See

I just put it down in the table with some chart data. Xinger 08:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mel, could you put in a good word in re Schiavo?

I recall your recent concern to fix some small typo on Terri's page, and I wonder if you could offer feedback (and support, if appropriate) for this Fac. Here's a post I sent to the big guy in the little box below --to put it into perspective:

Raw Links here:

Links regarding my recent court battles, in which I lost a "next friend" petition to save Terri's life by a 4-3 margin. I did better then the governor, who lost 7-0 both times he was permitted before the court: (Jeb's case) http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2004/10/04-925reh.pdf
Google'ing my court case: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%224-3%22+watts+schiavo
Yahoo speaks about me: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%224-3%22+watts+schiavo&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8
The Fla. Supreme Court's decision for my case: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2005/2/03-2420reh.pdf
My Press Release: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/2/prweb212613.htm
News Coverage about my case: http://www.rense.com/general63/shc.htm

Anyhow, I hate to bother the top brass, but the Schiavo article is a Featured Article Candidate, and, while some of the critics have good points about image copyright concerns, most of the other criticisms are unfounded (e.g., length of article must be long to "do justice," etc.), I think the article is stable and very well-written.

Slightly over half of the "votes" are against it being a "Featured Article," but I've whipped the article in shape -with help from many other editors, including Mark (aka →Raul654), the Fac editor. Please honor our combined hard work & team-effort, and use your "god-like" powers, just once more, before you give them up. Thank you.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, in advance, Mel.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

to mel

You wrote:

"You added links to a particular Website to a wide range of articles, and I assumed that it was yours (or one with which you have some connection); in any case, this sort of wholesale link-spam should be avoided, whosever Website it is. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)"

I asked politely that you be more specific. I think it is only polite of you if you are going to send me more than one message about an issue to respect my time and comply with any reasonable request I have in order to clear matters up. I still have no idea what you are talking about. Please tell me which website you are talking about that has a wide range of articles. That could describe many websites. I can think of several websites that are full of articles that I may have used as footnotes, etc. Please also show me that I "wholesale link" spam to it. I don't see me as doing this frankly. I am a reasonable person and I don't think my request is unreasonable here.

Rhythm and blues

Can you do me a favor and watch this page? I have a problem with User:OmegaWikipedia going around and spreading Mariah Carey/Jennifer Lopez fancruft across the Wikipedia, and he unloaded a bunch of it in this article, which I reverted. He has a bad tendency to revert pages the way that he wants them, reguardless of whether his edits are correct and factual or not. I just want to make sure that, after putting up an IDRIVE request and finally getting the R&B page fixed up, that it stays factual and accurate. Thanks. --FuriousFreddy 14:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...and there he goes. What can we do about getting a request for comment going on OmegaWikipedia. I mean...isn't there something that can (should) be done? --FuriousFreddy 20:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If anything else gets out of hand with him, that is what will have to be done. BTW, thank you for going and attempting to clean up that whole bunch of articles on the pop aritsts. I know that that was a serious pain. --FuriousFreddy 21:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness. Revert the article. Please. And lock it if you can. --FuriousFreddy 23:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mel I hope you don't lock the article just because of your mutual hatred for me. If you look at the edits, there is a dispute over content, and Freddy is unhappy because he asked someone ask to lock it, but the person refused. OmegaWikipedia 03:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophers category

Mel, I've just noticed that the philosophers category has been split into several subcategories, so that there are now almost no philosophers in philosophers. I'm therefore going to start adding it again to pages as and when I come across them. I've never understood categories, but it seems to me that the more subcategories they are, the less useful the whole thing becomes. I'd therefore like to see (as well as the subs) a main philosophers category listing all the philosophers. If you agree, would you mind adding it when you see a page without it? Don't go to any trouble, but if you could bear it in mind if you're on a philosopher's page for other reasons. (Though, of course, if you disagree, feel free to ignore, or even revert.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, amalgamation would do it, if you know how, though I would still prefer a simple philosophers one, but I haven't looked to see how many it would include: I have the sense we don't have that many philosophers' pages. The current situation is a bit silly: we have secular Jewish philosophers, whatever that means, given that people who weren't Jews (and perhaps weren't secular or philosophers either) are included, and LGBT philosophers (how unlike the home life of our own dear Queen). Yesterday, someone suggested creating Philosophers with facial moles as a WP:POINT. But yes, I'll go along with whatever you think best. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:27, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Indonesian philosophy

Hi Mel, I was editing the above article, and I removed the copyedit and wikify tags. I have not remove the "verify" tag, though. You have put back the copyedit and wikify tags. As a learning experience, may I know what is wrong with the edit? Is it my English grammar or my hyperlinks? I forgot to link the word, "Indonesia", and have done it since. PM Poon 16:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Punk'd

Thank you for helping me on the Punk'd page. I wasn't the one who started the list of non pranked celebs. Lil_Flip246 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lil Flip246 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 1 September 2005

Indonesian Philosophy

Hi Mel, you wrote: "...in the case of Indonesian philosophy you left in spelling mistakes (such as "indigenious")..."

Can you offer more examples of spelling mistakes in that edit? You seem to insinuate that there were plenty. If there are, I would be most glad to learn from you. And I certainly hope that you are not making a mountain out of a molehill.

Mel, have you read the original text of this article? If you think that the original is better than my edited version, please feel free to revert my edit. PM Poon 19:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, you did not answer my question. Would you like to read it again? You are supposed to provide the evidence to support your use of the phrase, "spelling mistakes". If there is only one, please use the phrase, "spelling mistake" instead!

Anyway, would you like to revert the said article? I am thoroughly sick!! PM Poon 20:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English

Mel, you wrote: "Why should I want to revert the article?"

My reply: "Simply because you said I was not qualified to do an edit." Evidence: You wrote this, didn't you? "I thought that you'd agreed that your English wasn't really up to copy-editing;..." -Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:49, 1 September 2005

Now, can I have my answer to a very pointed question: Show me some more spelling mistakes, or are you saying that you also made a "spelling mistake"? Be a gentleman, okay? PM Poon 20:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi Mel, YOUR SILENCE IS DEAFENING!!

What I mean is: "Your SILENCE speaks LOUDER than words!! The mark of a great man is his readiness to admit a mistake when he commits one. The converse, of course, is..... hmmmm, guess I ought to let you figure it out yourself!!! PM Poon 11:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MJ/CC

Mel - I would appreciate a reply on the message left above at some point. Thanks - SP-KP 21:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MIU

If you love that style so much, then perhaps YOU should change the other BB albums, since you keep stoking the flame. I've already brought this to User:Madchester's attention. BGC 22:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"why do you want to turn this into a petty matter of personalities?" ME??? You must be joking. I don't care what style it is. But it should be consistent. And Madchester is an administrator who would be familiar with the situation. Based on your inability to stop reverting the page to its inconsistent style, perhaps, as an outsider, he should get involved. Because I'm not backing down on this. BGC 22:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are really following whatever codes you feel you adibe by, then - for the upteenth time - modify the other BB album timings accordingly. I did not instigate this. At least finish what YOU started and don't criticize others for trying to keep a sense of continuity. BGC 22:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Determinism

"rm clairvoyance" LOL!! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:22, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thanks for making me waste a few hours of my time on all of those L'Arc~en~Ciel articles. Apparently being accurate and cleaning up articles is too much for an admin of your stature to handle. Matharvest 02:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio

There is an inherent flexibility to managing the site. Copyvios may not be defined under the speedy rules but a speedy delete was the most sensible solution to apply. There is no lack of certainty here about "time wasted". Placing a copy and paste from the ODNB through the procedure, which is designed to allow permissive copyright holders to explicitly state so, is a waste of time for something lifted from OUP's newest multi-million dollar publication. It's not just what my common sense "might think". My request for speedies still stand.lots of issues | leave me a message 10:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We maintain rules for order but should not unnecessarily bound ourselves at all times to create inefficiency. This is an obvious copyvio that needs no caution. Without matching text, any editor can pick out the professional reference tone of the article. And you are behind a proxy that gives you acccess to OUP products. lots of issues | leave me a message 22:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm and blues

The article as it stands is okay; my only concern, of course, is preventing OmegaWikipedia or any other user who doesn't actually know anything about R&B from going in and changing stuff up. I'm still not sold that "crunk & B" is an actual subgenre of R&B; it is simply a term a producer (Lil' Jon) uses to describe the records he produces for some of his artists; there's no "Timbaland subgenre" or "Darkchild subgenre", and the prescence of "crunk & B" as a subgenre in this article seems highly incorrect.

As far as copyedits, those are your specialty, and you're probably very much right. Go right ahead

And as for an RfC on O.W., I did an RfC on the page first, because I'm not trying to attack anyone or get anyone in trouble, and I'd like to settle things without things escalating. However, there is an RfC file with his name on it saved to my desktop and ready to go, if there are any future problems with his edits. --FuriousFreddy 12:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup / wikify

Hi Mel. Thanks for explaining. The Tammy (song) article already has a reduced song template ({{Template:Pop song 2}}. Use of the full song template is by no means a requisite for every single (especially as a lot of the info on the larger template is not obtainable, I just had a hunt for it). See the page for Singin' in the Rain to illustrate this. And good work keeping an eye on the ICP article, also :) Proto t c 12:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Break

I'll be away for a few days, with intermittent Internet access at best.--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Clinton Kelly

Thanks for merging her info with her son's. I was not sure if I should do this or not because she was kind of a celebrity in her own right during the first presidential campaign and his first term. Gmosaki 14:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian philosophy

Hi Mel, you seem to take objection when I took off the two wiki-tags on September 2, AFTER making changes to the two specific objections that you earlier pointed out: misspelling for "indigenous", and the use of the word, "contents".

Honestly, this so-called article (more appropriately called a "stub" after my edit; the original was lengthy and verbose, saying a lot and yet, telling very little) is not worth discussing. The only reason why I am harping on it is because I want to know where I had gone wrong, and to continuously improve on my editing skills, as was communicated to you on September 1. I reproduce here what I had said then to refresh your memory:

Hi Mel, I was editing the above article (referring to Indonesian Philosophy), and I removed the copyedit and wikify tags. I have not remove[d] the "verify" tag, though. You have put back the copyedit and wikify tags. As a learning experience, may I know what is wrong with the edit? Is it my English grammar or my hyperlinks? PM Poon 16:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I have therefore taken a particular interest on your copy-edit of the said article. You have made a number of changes to 5 sentences/clauses, none of which, in my humble opinion, seems grave enough to deserve a double tag: {wikify} and {copyedit}. As a basis for our discussion, it would be well to cite here what Wikipedia had intended to be the purpose for these two tags:

{wikify}

If the article needs reformatting to be more readable
If the article needs HTML changed into wikitext
If important words need to be linked to appropriate Wikipedia articles

{copyedit}

check for proper English spelling, grammar, usage, etc.

1st Amended Sentence
You had taken objection to the sentence:

'To qualify as "Indonesian philosophy", the philosopher must:'

and have proposed, instead:

'To qualify as an Indonesian philosopher, one must:'

My contention is that we are talking about 2 different things altogether. I was talking about "Indonesian philosophy", which is the subject of the article, and you were talking about "Indonesian philosopher". As my sentence was not grammatically incorrect, nor does it need reformatting, changing into wikitext, nor word-links, this sentence therefore does not warrant the placement of the two wiki-tags.

2nd Amended Sentence
You had objected to the use of a comma after the word, "region" in:

'be a native of the region, now known as Indonesia;'

I personally think that the comma makes the clause more readable. Grammatically, I believe that no one can justifiably say that it is wrong, unless you can prove otherwise. As such, this sentence, again, does not warrant any of the two wiki-tags.

3rd Amended Sentence
You had objected to the use of the word, his, any and alternatively, in:

'express his ideas in any one of the 587 ethnic dialects, or alternatively, in the unifying Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian language).'

No one can claim that the use of the word, his, is ungrammatical, although it is sexually bias (yet, conventionally, his always implies hers, when it is used in place of one). Whether one uses his or one’s is a matter of personal preference, and it seems that you are allowing your personal bias to impose on Wikipedians.

The use of the words, any and alternatively is not grammatically incorrect either, and is a matter of writing style. In the said sentence, I was writing on two alternatives; hence, the use of the word, alternatively. Again, therefore, the use of the two wiki-tags is unjustified.

4th Amended Sentence
You had taken objection to the word/phrase, must, of the world, and much lesser in:

'It is not a requirement that the content of Indonesian philosophy must be distinct and unique from other philosophical traditions of the world since its indigenous content is, admittedly, much lesser than its borrowed and adapted content.'

I do not think that the use of the word, must was misplaced. This is evident if we contract the content of Indonesian philosophy to it, such that it reads as follows: 'It is not a requirement that it must be distinct and unique...'

The use of the word, of the world is not grammatically incorrect either, and tells a different story from, say, It is not a requirement that the content of Indonesian philosophy must be distinct and unique from other philosophical traditions of South East Asia.

At the time of writing, I was toying with whether to use much lesser or much less, both of which are grammatically acceptable. I opted for the former as a matter of personal preference, as I was comparing two things: "indigenous content" and "borrowed content", and wanted to portray the fact that "borrowed content" was very much greater than "indigenous content".

In the Wikipedia article, "Chronicon Lethrense", written in September 2004, the use of much lesser was allowed: "In that sense it is not much different from the first part of Sven Aggesøn's Brevis Historia Regum Dacie or Saxo's Gesta Danorum, tho[ugh] much smaller and of much lesser quality." So why the double standard? (Did you notice the spelling mistake for though?)

5th Amended Sentence
You objected to the use of the plural form of 'philosophy' in the sentence:

'Indonesian philosophy borrows heavily from the philosophies of China, India, Arabia, Persia, and the West.'

My sentence was meant to mean the following: Indonesian philosophy borrows heavily from many philosophies, and these philosophies include those from China, India, Arabia, Persia, and the West. Is it therefore wrong to use philosophies?

Mel, your copy-edit seems to show that there has not been anything sufficiently fatal or critical to deserve a re-tag, much less an overkill in the form of a double re-tag, for which you would be HARD PUT to defend in the eyes of a fair and just man. The structure of my edit has remained intact in its entirety, after your copy-edit. I had thought that a major overhaul has been called for, when you gave it a double tag, but what I saw was just some cosmetic changes, and personal preference and bias. To be sure, there is nothing to stop anyone from editing any article to suit his personal preference, but to put a double wiki-tag arbitrarily (and in blatant disregard to the intended purpose of the tags) is a different kettle of fish altogether.

I visited the article on September 2, and was indeed surprised that the spelling for indigenous had not been corrected by you, even as you, a veteran Wikipedian with many Awards to boot, had discovered it earlier! And I read somewhere in Wikipedia that says something to this effect: "If there is a spelling mistake, it is because you, the user, has not bothered to correct it when you found it."

To date, I have done more than 1,000 edits, involving more than 100 distinct articles (some anonymously, because I had forgotten to log on my pseudoname), and I do not seem to encounter much problems, except for "The First English Civil War" where I made fatal mistakes on the word-links.

Mel, when you advised me not to edit, it does seem that your personal philosophy is at odds with Wikipedia, and I am inclined to think that maybe, Encyclopedia Britannica would be more in line with your aptitude, temperament, and attitude. As a matter of fact, the top portion of Wikipedia’s Main Page states: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

I believe that I am probably not the only Wikipedian to be subjected to your personal prejudice, and if this is true, you have therefore not only contravened the spirit and purpose of this portal, but have also committed a great injustice to Wikipedia and Wikipedians, behaving as if this portal belongs privately to you, or that of your grandfather, so to speak. PM Poon 16:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Like a Bird

You should have seen what it looked like before I worked on it! (Sorry about misspelling 'gospel' and yes, it should be 'two' not '2' because it is a number less than 10.) RJFJR 16:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

James Dean

Would you please have a look at the James Dean article. User:Wyss is ignoring the additional sources I am presenting which undoubtedly support my view. He has repeatedly reverted my version of the text without discussing the facts. Onefortyone 00:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest an RfC. Wyss 00:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why User:Wyss is constantly denigrating all independent sources (books, articles, etc.) which undoubtedly support my view. This user is biasedly suppressing facts. Onefortyone 00:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to clutter Mel's talk page any further than to say 141's sources have been extensively examined and discussed on the associated talk pages and have proven to be mostly fabricated one way or another, with one or two remaining items looking more like sloppy research based on the former. Wyss 00:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wyss, this is what you frequently claim, but it is not true. I have cited several independent sources supporting my view, among them Gavin Lambert's Wood biography and a recent Dean biography. You are unable to provide sources which prove that the facts in these books are wrong. Furthermore, look at the biased wording Wyss uses in the said paragraph. Onefortyone 00:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I don't know if you remembered any of the brief interactions we had, but it's good to know that you think my hands would have been a safe pair in which to shove a mop. Thanks! Rl 09:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Since my return from Europe, I have noticed a few changes on Wikipedia. When logged in, I cannot find the search box. Could you tell me where it is located? DrippingInk 14:37, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Robert H. Lounsberry

Mel, another little job, if you would. I found two identical biographical articles. I chose to "Move" one to Robert H. Lounsberry, but the other, Robert Lounsberry, should now be deleted. Thanks. WBardwin 20:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect? I guess I was worried about the potential for another Robert Lounsberry -- name sounds historically familiar to me. I suppose we can disambig when the time comes. Thanks anyway. WBardwin 23:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah carey

Hi Mel. Could you please take a look at Sales and charts achievements for Mariah Carey? An anonymous editor (24.215152.211) has edited it and he/she has flooded the article with what I believe to be superfluous information; all of these seem to negate the records, or provide some excuse for them. I reverted the changes, but the user is adamant in including the info — even though he has been warned that he is in danger of violating the 3RR. Please look in the history and youll see some of the edits (thats if he/she hasnt already reverted my edis). The anon editor has provided a 'rationale' on the talk page. Thanks in advance.

^{Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}}

Article on inserting photo

Dear Mel

σε ευχαριστώ για τις προσπάθειες που ανάλωσες.

I have successfully put a photo into our wiki. We have a non-profit organisation with its own wiki. I would like to put an article into wikipedia to explain one specific editing activity and that is "How to put one of your own photos into wikipedia and format it into position". Now, how that gets translated into a brief useful heading is my problem, but I can do it (and would appreciate suggestions). I will indicate this is for photos which are taken by the person editing and they are prepared to place them in the public domain.

I would like to save other people the time and effort I spent in being able to perform this task.

Maybe it gets to be called

How to insert your photo into a wiki article.

With a list of search terms to introduce the article.

Search Terms: Insert photo insert graphic edit help upload graphic upload photo for dummies

First of all reduce the size of your photo. This is sometimes called optimisation......

I hope you might help me edit this article or lead me on to someone who is best able to make the article brief, accurate and clear. I believe it to be an important activity, and I believe most people would not find it easy. I had the time to persevere but nearly gave up. The tutorials and helps are so verbose and complicated that it is nearly impenetrable.

Dash and damn

Sorry Mel. How do I get to see the last message you sent me? It has now disappeared before I thought of copying and saving it. It is links to stuff on photos and editing.

Regards

Garry

(Roo)

eliminate an entry ~ Lebkemba

Dear Mel,

I would like to remove the article called Lebkemba. This is not a term used by people who live in Lakemba, in fact not a term in common use at all. I have lived in Lakemba for one year and have NEVER heard the term being used. I am not Lebanese and have no axe to grind. It is a wonderfully cosmopolitan place and does have a significant minority of Lebanese people.

I would like to initiate whatever process there is to eliminate an article.

Garry

(Roo)

Thanks

Hi Mel,

Thanks for making contact in my Talk. I have worked out who you are, but your secret is safe with me ;-)

I have only recently started dabbling in Wikipedia and have not doubt made some blunders. I have added our common interest to a few appropriate articles and done some other bits and pieces. I don't think there's any danger of me doing too much, although I can't help thinking "What else can I get involved in here"? The temptation's there, but I'm resisting it.

Please continue to be in touch through the conventional channels.

--SMeeds 11:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I'd like to ask you (since you appear to be rather disliked in some editing) about the Kelly Clarkson song sections. What is with these ongoing disputes about retiring "Behind These Hazel Eyes" and changing the Canadian and several other positions? Due to this I cannot add some useful information. And the song titles are incorrectly spelled. "With" should be capital, not small-cased.

--I hope to receive a reply. Thank you for your time. Winnermario 15:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Spice (album).jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Spice (album).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Issue at List of born-again Christian laypeople

A little while back, I decided to try to improve the evidentiary standard of List of born-again Christian laypeople. Basically, almost none of the listed names had any footnoted support about their religious status, and a substantial minority (maybe even a majority) of the corresponding WP articles also lacked any support for this.

My edits were a combination of locating footnotes to add and removing (but storing on talk page) any names that were not yet supported. I only made a start at this, then suffered lots of reversions and rather rude comments and threats from some long-time editors who, IMO, pretty much wanted the names listed out of proselytic goals rather than accuracy concerns. Probably the principle such reverter was User:Davidcannon, who also recruited a couple others editors via user talk pages.

As part of that, I placed a {{disputed}} tag on the page to help clarify the fact that the list really is of rather low standard currently, in a purely factual/evidentiary sense. My feeling is that inclusion in a politically-laden list like this should not be strictly a matter of "I heard it through the grapevine that so-and-so is born-again".

A bit of a truce was reached with Davidcannon; but today I noticed that he took of the disputed tag and added back some names with no germane evidence. I wrote on his talk page:

There has not been anything on the discussion page to indicate that the factual accuracy is no longer disputed. In point of fact, I continue to believe that a large percentage of the listed names are factually incorrect. This includes some that continue to contain prima facie negative evidence on the talk page, as well as the bulk of the names in other categories, where I have not had a chance to attempt either positive or negative validation. Removing a disputed tag without consensus is a clear policy violation; if continued, I'll probably first attempt to get the page locked pending provision of evidence, but other action might be appropriate too. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:52, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

I'm hoping for a friendly admin to keep a little bit of an eye on this. I think that a page lock might be appropriate if the editors are not willing to conform with WP:V on that page. I don't want that just yet necessarily, but maybe in the future. What do you think? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:08, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

No original research

See No original research! Am I in more trouble?

Yup, you're in a lot of trouble, Poorman. I'd run for the hills if I were you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I am in southern Thailand, so there are swamps but no hills. Looks like I can ril, but I can't hide! (not another pun) --Poorman 06:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Statement...?

I know you're probably pretty busy but I was just wondering how you were on reading & criticising personal statements...? Tell me to get lost if you can't be bothered/are too busy- I really wouldn't be in the slightest offended... - sars 19:27, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

No original research: Annie Hall

Hello. When you have a second, I wonder if you could take a look at Annie Hall - you'll soon spot the section I mean. Communication with the new editor can be found on my talk page. The JPS 21:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VMI peer review

You welcomed me to Wikipedia. I have posted the article Virginia Military Institute at Wikipedia:Peer review/Virginia Military Institute/archive1 and would appreciate your comments. Rillian 14:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HI and Bye Again

Hi Mel: The July crises lingered on so that August too vanished except for a small clump of 'accidental edits' of the drive by variety. Don't know when I'll be back to Wiki, or if I can give any help with Mr Tan as I intended as now I'm trying to go down under FEMA sponsership and help with the disaster recovery in New Orleans. If nothing else, I'm going to pay my own way down to a campground and see if I can relieve some of the 'First Responders' from bagging so many bodies now that the water is receding. A few weeks or months... Don't know which as so much is up in the air. See the note I left on Talk:Timeline of the Russo-Japanese War and the note left on my talk that lead to that, and speedy delete if your judgement says so. In the meantime, take care, and enjoy the new school year! Like a bad penny, I'll eventually turn up again! ttfn Frank Fra nkB 01:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back again.

You mentioned how that Wayne Shorter album is in all capitals because it's a publisher's style and all, but reading through the Naming Conventions, I couldn't find the exact point where it says that naming the article THE SIXTH DAY 〜SINGLE COLLECTION〜 is a Wikino-no. It seems to say that it's okay because it's a unique name (seeing it's kinda legally in caps anyway, why not?) Perhaps you could bring clairty to this situation before I become any more disheartened about these kind of things. xoxo --Matharvest 06:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian terrorism and militancy

fixed it. Not sure what happened, but it got deleted in the process. I simply restored the deleted pages. Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 09:47, September 9, 2005 (UTC)