User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 48

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


What Records[edit]

But there was nothing to reference/source. If that's the case, then pretty much every article would need that tag. Lugnuts 12:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your purpose for disrupting the work here?[edit]

You are damaging links that I now have to fix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Given your contributions, I assume that you're talking about the Webster University article, the majority of which was a copyright violation, and which contained many other formatting and tone problems. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

Hi - I saw your overzealous editing on the RfC page. I was wondering - I have an overzealous editor who seems to have taken an issue with a photograph I took at a fashion show a few years back (I'm not a photographer) and then flagged a bunch of unrelated images (of Anna Wintour, Andre Leon Talley, Sequins, etc.) as well. The editor didn't create any Talk pages for the deletions, and made no attempt to contact me or raise the issues on the talk pages, but then reported it as a RfC. Can you please weigh in with your thoughts? Overzealous editing is a problem on here. The issue is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Self_promotion --DavidShankBone 15:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your spending the time to review the issue. I'm at a loss. My only guess is that this editor takes issue with one photograph. I've attended two fashion show my entire life, but now I "appear to be a fashion photographer" - lol - if that was the case, I would go hungry. --DavidShankBone 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the Barnstar!!! --DavidShankBone 16:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I seconded your barnstar, Mel. Be bold, David, even if folks sometimes disagree with you, you've added quite a bit. to Wikipedia with your images. KP Botany 18:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi, sorry, I thought it was OK to add people I thought were interested. But, seeing as there have been no issues with my proposal, can I start it? I've never started a new WikiProject before. Can you tell me what to do next? JFBurton 20:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

re: emoticons[edit]

Earlier today, you removed two of the emoticons i added to the wikipedia article emoticons: ^_^* and -_-*, saying that i did not include sources to verify that these are actually emoticons in use. I definitely know that they are in use, but I think it's alright to leave them out. There are too many emoticons already so I think we should delete even more, because the article is not supposed to be a list of all possible variants of emoticons anyways. However, could you please tell me how I could add sources to verify they are actually in use?!

Außerdem habe ich noch eine Frage: könnte ich auch Theoretisch mit meinem Benutzerprofil der englischen Wikipedia Artikel der deutschen Wikipedia schreiben/ändern?

Please excuse my sudden switching of languages there, just making sure your german stays in practise ;D :P

--vilem 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, yeah, you understood my question quite correctly. Okay, it doesnt matter too much that i can't edit german wikipedia articles, coz I have several accounts! >_< I think you're right, i should have just added an edit summary; it shows you actually meant what you wrote seriously (most of the time). I hope i'm not buggin u too much ;D, but i have another question and i couldn't find anything about it in the help section: how can I add colourful text to an article?

--vilem 23:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Argghhh please excuse me! I forgot something I was going to ask! -_- There appears to be contradiction between the two articles about googols and googolplex, which I already voiced in the googol talk page today. (or yesterday actually ;D) please tell me what to do!

vilem 23:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


I certainly see your point; a transliteration would be useful. However, it concerns me that people are considering blocking those who don't provide them. While it certainly is reasonable to ask that people do this, and I will comply, the fact that requests might soon be done with the threat of a block saddens me, as it's very likely that good contributors will be blocked. I implore you to reconsider your position on the proposal. --Al-mustahlika 01:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Welcome. I often do the same thing. It leaves a ghostly imprint of part of the user page, as though the person's shadow briefly crossed across the page the template is mistyped on. Very odd. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert and hide article[edit]

Hi, you and I have butted heads a few times on editing the hide article. I admit to losing my head and becoming rather sarcastic, and for that I apologize. What I wanted to bring to your attention was the manner in which you handled mine, and other contributer's edits. It seemed to me that you spent more time reverting than actually editting, which goes against wikipedia protocol. In the revert article, it states (in bold) "Reverting is not a decision to be taken lightly" and more importantly to my point: "Improve the edit, rather than reverting it." I appreciate your dedication to quality on wikipedia, but your methods of maintaining it seem out of line with wikipedia standards. Thanks for your time. Vespertilio 16:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Thanks for the advice; must admit I was at a bit of a loss how to summarise that removal of one repeated and perhaps POV word. Is it preferable that the edit summary should state that the word was removed? Again, thanks for bringing it to my attention, and thanks also for the decision on notability Devious Viper 19:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had an email correcting me on this article, re the guitarist's name. His surname isn't used and he's requested that it not be used on the article. Just to give you a heads up when you see the next edit. Cheers Devious Viper 23:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wildboarclough And Macclesfield Forest[edit]

I dont understand. Why was it there? It just looked like a total mess. What was it there for? Why did it say the same thing twice? JFBurton 20:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry about the mix-up. Im trying to improve my image on wikipedia. So far I have come across as being a rather uncivil user. Im not. Im still learning new things. I have a lot to offer Wikipedia. Dont hesitate to tell me if Im doing anything wrong. JFBurton 20:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Upen Patel[edit]

Changed. Has a table now. Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 08:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


The reason for my skepticism about the date was that the change to 1920 came from an anon IP whose only other contribution was a bit of vandalism two weeks ago. I tried to find verification of this date but could only find the 1938 date. If I am mistaken, feel free to correct my mistake. - Big Brother 1984 14:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


No vandalism here. I was merely removing a dubious and unsourced contribution. Proud Tuskeegee Airmen 18:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 5 29 January 2007 About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


thanks for deleting List of Hikari no denstsue for me. I really appreciated. Do to some conversations I had with other wikipedians I decided to move all the information to that name since there is no official English language name for Hikari no dentsue. So please if you see it do not delete. Again thank you for the favor. Bye Bye.Angel,Isaac 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Minor[edit]

Hello Mel! My apologies if I've misquoted something improperly as minor. Would you please offer a specific example so that I can learn from my apparent mistake? Thanks.Pepto gecko 23:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Re: Minor[edit]

Hello again,

Question: Should I add edit summary's to my own user talk page? I hadn't thought it necessary since they were mostly for my enjoyment (such as copping your bordered blue background!).

Lists of musicians[edit]

Hi, you suggested on List of guitarists that only people with their own main article should be added to the list. Do you feel that this should be the standard for lists of musicians in general? Feel free to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Lists_of_musicians. Thank you. Shawnc 05:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism On My Page[edit]

Thanks a lot for blocking that idiot. That was pretty extreme vandalism.JFBurton 08:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edit summaries[edit]


I am sorry if I have disrespected you, I didn't know by not replying I would disrespect you. Anyways, I did get your point about Edit summaries and I haven't ignored it, though I cannot leave edit summaries for every minor edit.

- Marmoulak 05:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is Vandalising-you or me[edit]

Hi, You haven't even check the article,but simply decide that I am Vandalising.It is you who behave too rude and keep vandalising teh page.The old page was revamped.I would like to advise you to once again check for yourself both the articles.And simply do not keep posting threats,and try beigh a little polite. --Viki3000 10:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Another revert[edit]

Hi, You have also reverted the article Rajshree Pathy.You had earlier posted that you wanted additional information.Hence I undertook a revamp on that page and you reverted that too,like the Naidu page.I understand your concern,but it looks that you have an attitude to just keep reverting the pages I have improved.Yes the article on Rajshree Pathy wll only improve slowly,and a few grammer mistakes will be corrected by me.Same with the Naidu page.Now could you please be specific on the mistakes commited on both the sites,and may I kindy request you to explain "about your authority" on wiki policies.And you have to understand that here (this part of the world) English is not a first lauguage,but rather second or third language and if you expect all content provider to be an expert in the grammer,than you might be wrong.

I agree with you that the best way is to work on the PC and load it into wiki pages.But if you keep insisting on your self-made policies than some pages might not get revamped or improved,but rather stay as it is.Viki3000 11:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Being in violation of two of our Fair Use criteria (#1 and #10), and certain to be deleted, there is not point leaving such an image on the page. There is no official procedure which requires this, nor is it necessary in this case. ed g2stalk 14:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, there is no process which requires images be left on page the 7 days with a notification. There is, however a policy that non-compliant fair use images be deleted 48 hours after notifying the uploader, and that copyright violations should be removed from pages immediately. This image is about to be deleted and you stubbornly and misguidedly restoring it to the page is helping no-one. ed g2stalk 13:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

At Last[edit]

Hi Mel. I remember you intervening in several other music related incidents, so I thought you could help here. User:Max24, apparently a fan of Celine Dion, has tacked on an eyesore of an infobox and skimpy paragraph about that singer's non-notable cover of the song. I already spoke with him about it, and he's adamant that it stays. If it doesn't, it would be detrimental to his grand Celine Dion discography project. I've reverted him twice over the last few days, but I don't want to start edit war over something this silly. Thanks. EDIT: This is not the only article he's butchered. See The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face and talk page, where he went against consensus. There are probably many more, as well. Volatile 18:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Mel. Cheers! Volatile 19:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Mel, now that Etta James version is there, can we bring back infobox for Dion? Max24 13:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Max has added the infobox back to At Last. I'm not sure if you can do anything, since Max is insistent that Celine Dion get her own infobox. There is a fair consensus on the talk page, but Max has ignored it. Volatile 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Orane (talkcont.) says you ain't right. And it's not the first time. You made out of I Drove All Night three speparate articles. It seems you don't know that articles are about songs, not singles. All versions were combined later, fixing your mistakes. Max24 13:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli Apartheid[edit]

Hi Mel, are you still planning to look over this article and/or informally mediate? I hope you didn't feel you were coolly received...I know there are people on both "sides" who place a lot of trust in your judgment. All best,--G-Dett 18:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Just a quick note to say I'm sorry for the nomination of User:Konstable to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, it was meant to be a good faith proposal but as I am now aware, he is an established user (I was only going off the comment he left on his user page) and after going through Rfa, he shouldn't have been nominated. Once again, sorry if you thought I was being provocative RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Al Haig Trio.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Al Haig Trio.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken[edit]

I have archived (rather than deleted) my talkback page. And will take your advice and make a fresh start. (Forgive my new user enthusiasm.) I have taken the liberty of contacting the author/poster of the photo and we will see in time what he has to say for himself. Regards. Mattjs 08:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Webb[edit]

Hi Mel, I wonder whether you would take a look at my comment on Talk:Steve Webb. As I have pointed out there, I don't know the etiquette in these matters, but you probably will. SMeeds 09:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the article. Steve is my MP, and I have met him a couple of times. A very nice chap. SMeeds 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Publicity photo for Mark Oliver[edit]

I'm having trouble uploading this photo of Mark Oliver that was found on the Internet Movie Database, which is kind of frustrating because someone was able to upload one of Matthew Erickson, also found at I was wondering if maybe you could give me a few hints on how to go about to doing that. Shaneymike 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Spice World (DVD).jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Spice World (DVD).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, delete it. I up-loaded it for another User, and I'm still embarrassed by its existence. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Ed g2s / Template:Rfu[edit]

Hey. I haven't read most of the discussion on AN/I, but I thought it would be worth mentioning that it's true that we've been encouraged to adopt a very liberal interpretation of "replaceable" when it comes to pictures of living people; meaning, more or less, that if a fair use photo could theoretically be replaced by a free one, we don't make the fair use claim. The reasoning behind this has to do with a handful of things, some practical (everything on the web was being uploaded as a "promotional" photo and we wound up with a heck of a mess, it got more difficult to ask for freely-licensed content when we were accepted unfree material without reservation, people weren't uploading their amateur photography because other editors would complain about the professional material being replaced), and others theoretical (we may be pretty sure we can use this material on a noncommercial website in the US, but it really isn't clear that we can sell it on CDs, republish it elsewhere in the world, etc.). I'm not sure that the above really addresses the issue you're having, but we are definitely in the process of getting rid of images like the one in question. Jkelly 18:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's a big, more or less seperate issue. In theory, anybody, anywhere can reuse Wikipedia for whatever they want, as long as they follow the GFDL. I'm pretty sure you knew that already, though. I suppose that I'd be irked if I found out that someone had bundled a bunch of articles into a magazine, printed along with the complete GFDL and properly attributed, etc., and was selling it at their retail store without giving anything back. But I suppose that I just accept the potential of that as part of what we mean by giving away a free encyclopedia. Jkelly 19:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Olivierd[edit]

I blocked following a checkuser by Essjay. That checkuser was requested as a result of sock- and/or meatpuppetry in a editing dispute on foie gras. I've tried to get further details from Essjay and Fred Bauer but neither responded to me. I just checked and apparently both accounts edited on the same date at the same time. Whether these are socks or not, the meatpuppetry should definitely stop. Make sure you check the Mediation Cabal case on that article. If that doesn't put you off, and if whoever is behind those accounts agrees not to use one account to back up the other in an editing dispute or vote, feel free to unblock, but definitely leave a note on RFCU and ANI (and let me know if you do). - Mgm|(talk) 20:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Mediation case is linked in the checkuser request. - Mgm|(talk) 09:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

copy-edited version[edit]

Please, what do you mean when you revert citing "copy-edited version". Thanks,Barefact 20:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Turko-Persian tradition (cur) (last) 14:08, 2 February 2007 Mel Etitis (Talk | contribs) (rv to wikified and copy-edited version) Barefact 20:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Appreciate your response, though from what you listed, the meaning of the term "copy-edited version" is still obscure for me, but that's OK for now. What is "MoSed" in ("8th c." to the MoSed "8th century"), and is there a dictionary of WP standard terms that I can use as a reference? For example, Berkley scholar used "Islamicate", not "Islamic", in that sentence, because they are not synonymous. Is there something like a WP synonym list that would suggest a preferred word to be used, from a cluster of similar, but not identical meanings? Barefact 10:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Hello again - hope you are well. I received the following e-mail from another wikiperson (someone I have not had contact with before), which slightly worried me. Here it is :-

Hi Derek, I removed the birth details for Bill Sharpe and Jill Saward, because Bill told me to. I emailed Bill straight away when I saw this, here is what his reply was: "not sure why someone is doing that but thanks for letting me know. i think it would be good to take mine and jill's birth dates off the site." I presume you never got permission from Bill or Jill to do this. Another Shakatak fan and myself having been trying to bring it up to date, because it needs doing. If you are doing this as well, its best to get in touch with Bill Sharpe, because he will tell you what he wants doing with it.

Ann Wise

I am neither precious about Shakatak, nor the birth details (which I must have obtained from a public domain source). However, surely individuals - however well meaning, or protective they may wish to be - have no right to specify what appears in Wikipedia (unless derogatory, libellous etc). I do not know what to do by way of a reply, and would appreciate your knowledgeable input. Many thanks,

Derek R Bullamore 21:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty[edit]

According to your previous warnings:

"If you don't stop edit-warring over Emperor Taizong of Tang and Tang Dynasty, making edits with no explanations, no sources, and no discussion at the Talk page, you may be blocked from editing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)"

I have made these edits with explanations as well as made this part of the discussion in the Talk page:

"Regarding the map of the Tang Dynasty, I reverted back to the original Tang_dynasty1.PNG picture. Gaogouli sent a tribute to Tang in 619 before the invasion of allied Tang-XinLuo (Silla) forces. United XinLuo after the demise of Goguryo effectively became a Tang vassal in 668. This should be addressed in the picture.

Tang also subdued the Western Turks for a while. The Map of Tang should address the greatest extent of Tang influence.

-The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keizhen"

User:Korea history has replaced the old Tang_dynasty1.PNG with his own edited TANG.PNG picture even with the description written in Korean Hangul.

I believe I have explained myself clearly, if there's anything else that I've done wrong, please let me know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keizhen (talkcontribs) 22:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Please see under talk:Tang_Dynasty under the "Image:Tang dynasty.PNG" section. I have raised my concerns there.

Keizhen 01:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics‎[edit]

I believe that as the closing admin I'm within my own right to wheel-war with myself. Besides, as one of the people that voiced their opinion in the AFD, that disqualifies you from deleting the page based on the AFD (COI). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Real Social Dynamics. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. If you want to see it that way, then I'll see you at DRV. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I'm going to re-restore the article now after the deletion review. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 17:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI, new discussion should happen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination), not an old archive. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Marco Rullo[edit]

Thanks for your vigilance in this. While I share your WP:V concerns, I'd prefer to assume that the person is telling the truth. It raises a biographies of living persons problem in both directions - without anything to cite either way, we have nothing to go on to "get it right." Both the inclusion and exclusion of the information here has the equal potential to be wrong. Indeed, with regards to the information about the teams, I'd say that without a citation, we should not include the information that he's complained about - with a biography of a living person, the burden is on the person adding the information to prove that he is, in fact, on those teams. To be honest, I have no evidence of that.

So I've taken the position that we should assume the person is who he says he is, and that if we're going to say anything in the article we should assume that his information is accurate. But I think a fact tag is appropriate. (And it's possible that we shouldn't say anything in the article - maybe in the absence of citations about the Ron Hudson issue we should instead delete or cut back that part of the article. That may be the better position under WP:BLP.) --TheOtherBob 23:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Turko-Persian tradition[edit]

Hi, I reverted, not cause of your edits but the references went to wrong place in your version. It takes 15 minutes to classify the references each time. If you check below, you'll see that the references are grouped according to the source name. Regards. E104421 08:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Anyways, don't bother. I already fixed the problem. Keep up good work. Cheers! E104421 08:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi - I've just removed the tag and then saw your message. The thinking behind the removal is that the tag is for indicating on articles where some editing is required. The tag is not intended for people to edit talk pages - what people say on talk pages is not for editing. Perhaps someone intended the tag to be on the article? I am just going through Category:Articles with weasel words and doing some tidying up - which includes removing the tag where it is incorrectly placed. Any more queries, please don't hesitate to get in touch. Regards. SilkTork 10:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

re Talk:Bamyan[edit]

Ok thanks. I almost always follow these guidelines, but sometimes forget. In this case all I did was move the template to the bottom and since this was a discussion page I didn't think I needed en edit summary. From now on I'll follow that etiquette even for Discussion pages. Thank you. Behnam 16:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the bottom because for the Discussion page at the very top should be the Talk Header that tells the user what this page is for, some guidelines, and how to start a new topic. So the Talk Header needs to be at the very top because its most important. The only thing that goes above the Talk Header would be a Featured Article sign. Besides, this being a part of this "Wiki Project Afghanistan" is not important at all. This was made just today and there is only 2 members of that project right now (I'm one of them). Behnam 16:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Adminship request[edit]

Hi Mel Etitis!

Please be informed that this editcout does not include the works I did before July 2006. I've already explained in the discussion page and also on my userpage. 10% of my edits were in wiki-spaces. Also I think edit summary is not much helpful as most of the articles I am working on have rarely been editted by others and mostly upon my invitation. Take care. Sangak 16:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

About Kiarostami's page. This is my current work and under construction. I aksed 5-6 users including one administrator to read it and comment on it so that I improve it. Up to now three users answered positively. In any case the article is under construction and I spent a long time and energy reading many articles. All admirations are quoted and they are not my words. Criticisms have been also included. Even in the first line I wrote that he is most controversial. Please also see the article before my revision and compare it to its current status.[1] 17:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Sangak

Thanks for your notes. I eliminated my nomination. However about Kiarostami page:

  • None of those words are mine.
  • The article is under my intensive works. I only made a draft and then I asked 6 users and one admin who is native speaker to read it and comment so that I can improve it. What else I could do? I am neither a native speaker nor an expert on cinema. I was also fully unfamiliar with kiarostami. I spent one month collecting articles and books and read about Kiarostami to be able to write an article. Thanks again for your comments. I am very happy that I nominated myself. I got a lot of inputs. Thank you all. Sangak 17:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I just checked that sentence. "During the 1980s and the 1990s, his films introduced a humane and artistic face." It was there before I started my work on the page. It is not my edit. I don't know what is the source for that. But my edits are all supported by sources. Thanks. Sangak 18:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved your comments on Kiarostami and some other comments from other users to the talk page of the article. Thanks for your helps. Sangak 18:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Please also see History of fundamentalist Islam in Iran if you have time in future. I will appreciate any comments on that as well. Sangak 18:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: capitalisation rules (belated reply)[edit]

Re this comment you left on my talk page, which I'd overlooked until today. As I linked to on my edit summary, I was folllowing the rules of the WP:MOS, specifically with regard to trademarks. At WP:MOSTM, Wikipedia's very first note on the subject specifies that editors should "[c]apitalize trademarks, as with proper names". Ten O'Clock Classics refers to itself with a capital "O", both in the full name and in the abbreviated "TOC" it commonly uses.[2] And in the most reliable source for our Ronen Segev article, The New York Times saw fit to do the same.[3] I'm not quite sure why you felt the need to point me towards the WP:MOS when I seem to have been following it more closely than you... --DeLarge 22:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Abbas Kiarostami[edit]

Hi Mel Etitis

I don't see why you reverted User: Ernst Stavro Blofeld edits! I asked him from Flim wikiproject to come and edit the article. No one reverted your previous edits. If there is nothing in the edit summary, you can still check what happened to the article. Or you can consult with those working on the article. I have to redo everything again. Sangak 09:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: I filled in edit summaries. Please be abit more positive on others and a bit more self critical!Sangak 09:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why you reverted my edits?! Sangak 09:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the incorrectly placed information? What is the incorrect links? No matter you may think you are experienced you have to consult with others as I do. What is the copy righted material? Let me know I will work on it. Sangak 09:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the part you are concerned with (diff):

The directorship of Abbas Kiarostami has won the praise and support of contemporary directors and film theorists such as Jean-Luc Godard, Nanni Moretti (who made a short film about opening one of Kiarostami’s films in his theater in Rome), Chris Marker, Ray Carney, and Akira Kurosawa. In 1999 he was unequivocally voted the most important film director of the 1990s by two international critics polls. [4] [5] [6] Kiarostami began his career as a film director in 1970 and had directed well over 40 films although he initally began predominantly a short film director in the 1970s. His films such Palme d'Or winner Taste of Cherry (1997) and Venice Silver Lion winner The Wind Will Carry Us in 1999 in particular brought him significant acclaim throughout Europe.

Born in Tehran, Kiarostami was interested in the arts from an early age. He won a painting competition at the age of eighteen, and left home to study at Tehran University. Kiarostami studied at the Tehran University's Faculty of Fine Arts whilst paying for his studies by working as a traffic policeman. He majored in painting and graphic design. As a painter, designer, and illustrator, Kiarostami worked throughout the 1960s in advertising, making commercials, designing posters, creating credit titles for films (including Gheysar by Masoud Kimiai), and illustrating children’s books. [7]

The directorship of Abbas Kiarostami has won the support of acclaimed directors and film theorists such as Jean-Luc Godard, Nanni Moretti (who made a short film about opening one of Kiarostami’s films in his theater in Rome), Chris Marker, Ray Carney, and Akira Kurosawa. , who said of Kiarostami's films: "Words cannot describe my feelings about them and I simply advise you to see his films... When Satyajit Ray passed on, I was very depressed. But after seeing Kiarostami’s films, I thanked God for giving us just the right person to take his place." [8] [9] [10]

I have already provided sources for all parts. You wrote on the talk page that this is a copy from here. I cannot see your point. Please make it more clear. Which part exactly? Sangak 09:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well this is the diff! I searched I cannot find any relation between the link you provided and the materials I added. Also when there is a quote of some one I have to put it exactly word by word here, not in my own words! Please explain the relation between the link you provided and the material I added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sangak (talkcontribs) 09:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
It is not the diff???!!! see here: [11] As long as I don't understand your logic here I won't go to any other section. Sangak 10:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes I personally invited him/her and tens of others from several countries to come and help. This is my tradition! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sangak (talkcontribs) 10:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
Well it seems you have no explanation for your above deletion. Now why did you delete this part???!!:

Kiarostami's cinema is not a place for propagating messages. Refering to this point he said: "An artist designs and creates a piece hoping to materialize some thoughts, concepts or feelings through his or her medium. The credibility of great Persian poets like Rumi and Hafiz comes from the very fact that they are composed in such a way that they are fresh and meaningful regardless of the time, place and conditions in which you read them—and this means reading them while doing divination or simply as literature. This is also true in the case of some of our contemporary poets like Forough Farrokhzad".[1] Moreover the boundary between fiction and non-fiction is disregarded in Kiarostami's cinema.[2]

There is absolutely no problem to quote Kiarostami in his article. What is the problem. Besides the quote there is no word by word copy. Explain please. If I did not work on this article before there was no article now for you to edit minor things!Sangak 10:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't read the comments on his talk page you will see that I informed him that the article in many places is very biased indeed and gave him some pointers saying you can't describe someone as a fantastic this and a beautiful this and that which is what I sugggested throughout the whole article to make it neutral I absolutely agree. I spent a lot of time sorting out the intro which nicely introduced the director without glorifying him and introduced his career saying he has directed 40 films etc. I don't want to get into any arguments but I have a high level of experience as an editor and don't appreciate my work to be reverted as if I am some fool. That intro was far more suiting than the one liner that now exists but I agree the bias can be toned down further even in that intro. I said I would work at it but you haven't given me or the editor who is trying hard to improve it a chance Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the above deletions were copyvio. This is the recent part Etilis deleted: [12] which consists of one quote and one sentences that I wrote in my own words. He deleted the whole thing while he could only delete at most a part of it. Sangak 10:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please allow time for the article to be cleaned up and written correctly from a neutral stand point. I am dubious to bother with it now if I beleive someone will revert my attempt to make it neutral and write it into a good article. It will need a lot of work but PLEASE wait Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

AH just caught your latest message. I started working on it yesterday but I am very busy with other work. I thought the intro was more informative beofre (my edit not before) putting the director in his context but I totally agree that the POV needs serious adressing as I said if you read his talk page youll see my advice which agrees strongly with you. I would prefer to restore that intro but tone it down even further. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any copyright? What direct copyright? That is a serious issue it will need copy editing immediately then. The info box looks better no I'll restore part of the intro at the top but remove some of the "quote" bias Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK I got it. I did not know about superiority policy in wikipedia. Good to know. Now I understand why he/she does not reply to my comments. Sangak 10:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The intro looks much better now. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The one thing I don't like about the writing in places is some of the short sentences which appear subjective and not written in an encyclopedic tone. THose short sentences are more what you would see in a magazine or interview rather than an encylopedia. Its gonna need a lot of restructuring, copy edeitin, sourcing etc but I really appreciate the effort to improve it Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the thanks, but unfortunately another massacre is underway. Mtevfrog 11:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What we have on our hands now is a frying pan and fire type scenario. And at least the frying pan was cooking something, even if not all the ingredients were 100% kosher. Mtevfrog 12:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just letting you know there has been some back-and-forth between SangaK and myself on our respective talk pages. Mtevfrog 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thought I'd let you know my feeling: it is true that SangaK is overly-sensitive about the possibility of seeing his work undone, but he has done substantial research, and I think he is genuinely happy to have competent contributors improve his contribution. I believe that, more than anything else, he is frustrated (by his own limitations in English as well as his overall difficulties in getting the entry in order), but I believe he would accept patient correction and improvement. I think the other editor is more of a problem, lacking insight. Mtevfrog 00:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I was overly harsh in relation to Blofeld. He has corrected quite a few of the errors he introduced due to his rapid working method, and it does seem to be improved. Mtevfrog 22:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Lucas[edit]

I am gathering evidence against Lucas, who is proving a 'difficult editor' for a number of us. I have started a page here. This includes most of his recent edits, but nothing on his articles that sadly ended up as cases for deletion. Anyone with suitable diffs, please put them there, or on my talk page. Let's clear up this town once and for all. Dbuckner 12:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - thanks for the message. Is the problem getting worse? As you know I've inhabited the nether regions of the philosophy page for some years. It was always difficult, but only the level of minor irritation. It does seem as though the onslaught is getting worse. I noticed the comments above about the other affair. Dbuckner 16:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. By 'clearing up the town' I meant just two editors (one of whom is of course in the town jail already). Can deal with the others. Mind you, the one in jail gets out on Tuesday... Dbuckner 16:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Note about Tang Taizong[edit]

Hello Mel Etitis, I'm the french "autor" of fr:Tang Taizong, I seen the edit war on the english article Emperor Taizong of Tang, and I notice you that User:Korea history was right. The map he putted on the article was more occurate, Taizong failled to submit Goguryo.

In this case, User:Korea history was right. Moreover, I notice you that Korea history have huge knoledge on the topic, even if he edit and revert a bit too fast. Yug (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Anyway, Face-wink.svg Thanks for all your contributions into this encyclopedic project

Blofeld's interjection[edit]

For God's sake have some patience. I certainly don't see how removing direct copywright and removing comments like "He is one of the most emphatic directors of all time, a stunning creator and all that" can be worse anyway. The career section part of the article is flowing a lot better now. And it is odd you attack my writing. I come from a family of professional writers, my aunt is a novelist and professional book critic and I have won awards for my creative writing - I don't see that the English is poor. It all needs improving this will take timeErnst Stavro Blofeld 18:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Look this is not an easy task. Writing a decent article compiling various sources removing bias and copywright takes time and i deserve some credit for trying to help. You disappoint me with your attitude to this Ernst Stavro Blofeld 19:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK I have tired of the page for the time being anyway- but it is very difficult to write anything about a successful person without many parts of it seeming too POV. Many of those comments on his work are factual quotations by important figures in the industry such as Scorcese -these are actual facts and the sources have been cited . You can't block out every sentence that illsutrates his achievement in film. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 19:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would hope the section on reception would provide a neutral argument equally covering criticism over his work. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As I read the article now I can see some sentences which appear POV but they can be corrected without a problem. I thought the main problem was direct copywright and those gushing sentences both of which have been removed. His career section is now more ordered than before so yuou can't say all of my work can been negative. Why don't you have a go at writing it? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 20:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Please see also Satyajit Ray. It might be helpful. Sangak 20:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
OK! I forget what happened up to now and I appologize if I insulted you. But I just want to know whether I am of any use here or not. If I can not be any helpful I will leave. I made a draft because I am not a native speaker. I have to copy first and change the words little by little. That's the only way I can work. If you see Satyajit Ray, you will see how much they praised the person.

Honestly I am not at all angry about my adminship request story. I am a scientist and working on wikipedia is what I do for fun. I don't do it to get recognition. I already have enough recognition in my carrier as a scientist.

If we can work with joy and fun witheachother, then I will stay. Otherwise I will leave. Sangak 20:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Bringing this article to a good status is my last dream as a wikipedian. If anyone including you do any constductive work on it, then I will very much welcome it. Otherwise deleting materials is very simple. I can bring the article back to the situation before all my works during this month in a second. What is difficult is rewriting the informations that are there in a way that it satisfies wiki policies. Right now no one is working on the article. So you are able to do some thing if you have any plans. Sangak 20:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
One thing I can assure you about my edits is that they are all supported by citations. I agree that there are some pov and I agree that there are still some copyvio, but I am sure that there is not a single word in the article that needs to be tagged for [citation needed]. So if you want to edit please see the citations at the end of each paragraph. Then you can for instance see which one of those sources support let's say the first sentence of the paragraph. Please don't delete right away. Citations are there. If it is copyvio still there is no need for deletion. you are native speaker and you can rewrite it right away. Therefore I don't see any reason why a chunck of material gets deleted. If there is pov, one can easily change the tone. That's how I think. It is not difficult to see why I get angry when I see some collaborator delete a useful paragraph that I found after hours of searching in the literature. Sangak 21:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Its very funny that you seem very aware of POV yet you gave this comment "In fact the article is now full of poor English and very PoV language. If anything, it's worse than it was before". IN whose view? In fact? Fact? This is an obvious opinion. THis is the perfect example of POV - one editors perception of something . You may think it is is very poor but other readers may think it is actually quite good. I see you have put in some significant contributions to wikipedia and respect you for this-but I am surprised you think the article looks worse. Copyright is a major issue which I beleived needed addressing right away. -this is why I was quick to try to help and sort it out by reediting. I will be very disappointed if you completely disregard my work today on it when I have worked very hard to remove obvious biased comments and direct copywright. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Seduction Community"[edit]

Have you considered taking Rouge action? This nonsense is horrible - it's an entire subculture using wikipedia as it's main advertising venue. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Rouge action is by it's very nature wrong. Secondly, this is not an "entire subculture". Of the top of my head I can only think of one active editor on wikipedia at the moment who frequently supports and edits these articles. And even he doesn't do it that much. Thirdly it is no more advertising than every other article on wikipedia that deals with a company, do you want to delete Feltex too for "advertising"?! And not only is the article not advertising, wikipedia is not being used for it either (but when I do notice it, I delete it out of the articles). Run a few google searches, see the google advertisements they use for advertising. And take a look around at other sites that are not wikipedia, and you will see banner advertising been used there for various companies. That is where their advertising is being done. Mathmo Talk 11:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sexual objectification[edit]

I submitted a photo to sexual objectification of women in panties heels and nothing else vacuuming; it's of a fashion show by Imitation of Christ, a well-known label. Several editors want NO images on the page, but I think this one is pretty clear: at a fashion show, these topless models vacuuming in heels shows women objectified sexually. Could you interject with your opinion please? Talk:Sexual_objectification#Request_for_Comment--DavidShankBone 04:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert to Stryker page[edit]

Hey Mel, I did put an explanation in the comments. -- Craigtalbert 11:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Blofeld's interjection[edit]

It is incredibly difficult indeed to write about a director's style and reception without producing POV. Every bit of info even if professional is a point of view on this and the arguments shown are of course one person's view. The problem is that a way of looking at a film may differ between different people and no one statement can really be seen as strictly true. The director has had highly praising comments and criticism which it would be best to show in equal measure. If it is a problem for you then those sections could be taken out as i feel any attempts to try to neutralaise it still have peoples opinions on it. But I feel they do provide information in understanding the concepts of his films. But what can be seen as fact? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you about the encyclopedia not being the place for no original research. Why not remove the pov sections and link to external sites where they are discussed by professional critics at the bottom of the page? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As most of the cinematic style paragrpah is mostly copywright anyway wouldn't it be easier to delete that section and build it from scratch trying to avoid pov. I would like your response on this. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that our iranian friend is trying to make it a good article though but you can't write a GA copying from other sites and without original professional sources using only opinions. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

All of that section is pov anyway. Why not have the cinematic style section at the bottom but featuring only external links to the sites that discuss it. This way the reader can make up their mind for themselves and not takes the encyclopedia's word that this is actually correct. Its best to stick to fact as much as possible on this I beleive Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

well I've done what I can on it now- I think I have removed most of the direct copywright and made more netural anyway. You can't see any comments like you is a fantastic film director anymore only where it is equally backed up with criticism. It will still need sorting in places particularly 1997 in his career which I haven't touched yet but the article looks a lot more focused now I think even if the english is not of the highest possible standard. Rememeber I only visited this page because I was asked to try to fix a problem Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

AFD "Re" (Greek slang)[edit]

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Re, similar case to Malakas. --Macrakis 16:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Re the Olivierd/Benio76/Zelig33 alleged "sockpupetry" case[edit]

Please see my answer on my talk page. David Olivier 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

New Antisemitism[edit]

Hi Mel, thanks for looking at this page. I look forward to your mediation, and I'm sure others do as well. To this end, I certainly don't want to challenge you on that page. I do want briefly to suggest looking more closely at the edit war I participated in in the diff you cited. [13] The debate was not about the phrases you highlighted; it was about whether the numbered items that followed were to be introduced as a "definition" or as "examples." If you look at the document in question, you'll find that it gives what it explicitly announces as a "working definition," and these numbered items aren't it. The numbered examples constitute the second of two subsections of examples of how antisemitism manifests itself. The edit war (and my edit summary you correctly described as "over emotional") resulted from a dispute about whether one of two subsections of examples of a phenomenon could be quoted by us as in itself the document's "definition" of that phenomenon, when the document we're quoting from explicitly gives a different and broader definition.

I don't expect a reply of any kind. Best, --G-Dett 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Mel. I didn't mind the criticism – I am deserving of it as anyone there. I only meant to steer you to one of the core debates. I don't envy you having to peel away all the layers of angry rhetoric and figure out what people are actually arguing about :)--G-Dett 23:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

hi - thanks[edit]

Hi thanks for the pointer, much apprieciated. Best regards--Sikh 1 23:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 6 5 February 2007 About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the info. You'll be pleased to note that I am contributing to wikipedia again, after a bit of a break. I remember you were one of the people who set me straight in the beginning. Cheers, THE KING 10:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Past paper[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Past paper, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 13:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

i am looking for someone who can help me with my only article[edit]

can you please take a look at this? thanks


Thanks for the tidying[edit]

Hi Mel. Thanks for the nice tidying of the Ashenafi Kebede article I wrote/am writing still. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Hi Mel. Yes, I will try to track down that specific German journal and make it clearer. Otherwise, I will delete the reference ? Best Wishes and Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 14:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Hi Mel. "Hrsg." means editor. Hrsg. = Herausgeber "editor", "edited by" ... Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Stryker (Disc Jockey)[edit]

I insist on putting them in there because the anger and disdain of the faithful Loveline listeners for Stryker's hostship is not detailed in the article. That comment was left up there for weeks if not months, and it needs to remain. Same goes for the other trivia. Those facts were posted by a CBS sockpuppet, so you can assume they're likely true, as CBS was omitting negative things about Stryker and added those "positives". Mientkiewicz5508 01:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Sorry? i have not been vandalizing, only editing to the best of my knowledge, vandalism is destruction, i have only been creating additions based on facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghettodaxx (talkcontribs) 09:08, 8 February 2007

Stryker (disc Jockey)[edit]

Okay fine...Stryker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mientkiewicz5508 (talkcontribs) 13:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Boston (disambiguation)[edit]

Hi Mel, I've just reverted some vandalism on Boston (disambiguation) by User talk: I saw that there were in fact a mess of vandal-type edits on the page by that "user", so I went to post on its talk page nd found there was already a final warning for editing that very page. I realise this is an anonymous user (apparently Rhode Island Network for Educ. Technology) and indeed I got that information from the standard header, which includes "In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts will be made to contact Rhode Island Network for Educ. Technology to report abuse.". What should happen next. Since all recent edits from that IP seem to have been vandalism, should it be blocked? Should they be informed first? Who should inform them? Would you want to/be able to block them? Thanks for the help and advice. SMeeds 17:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your behaviour[edit]

Mel, you wrote the following in your own page: " if you think that I've behaved wrongly, let me know — but politely; it's most likely to be inadvertent, as is most wrongdoing here. (If I have a fault ("if"!), it's that I tend to respond badly to rudeness and aggression.)" Does this mean than when someone is slightly rude to you, that you then escalate the situation and become even more rude back? I guess then that would make both of you in the wrong, would it not? That is what occurred in this circumstance, Mel.

As I have a standing advocacy request, you should participate in that if you have an opinion about this. I'm going to add you to the list of involved parties now that you are clearly taking a side and have admin powers, and are not an advocate.

My response to you regarding the substance of your comment is that you did not read all the cited pages where this went on thoroughly enough. I cannot respond in any more detail that that, because you did not go into any detail about your conclusions. "Your behavior" as a title in and of itself carries negative connotations, and is paternalistic, which is a position you are not entitled to take regardless of your admin status. As such I'm going to change the title to something appropriate, but I'm not going to delete it.

As for my edits of Rice's discussion page, my understanding is that a user can have anything on their own page, but the user discussion page is just that, a place for discussion in the same vein as any other wiki. Therefore one should not censor it, but edit it in the same ethical way as any other page. Aschoeff 17:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus again[edit]

See User_talk:FT2. It's incredible how long this has been allowed to go on. Do you have no powers to block him? Or are you conflicted because you are already in dispute with him. This cannot go on. Dbuckner 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Jehu Eyre[edit]

I am reposting the information about Jehu Eyre's ancestry as a legitimate piece of historical fact (not every guy walking down the street is descended from a royal dynasty of Britain). Please explain why this documented sentence is original research (on the talk page) or refrain from removing it. Thank you.

SwedishConqueror 20:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

The source is reliable; it comes from Volume XI of "Documents Relating to Colonial New Jersey." Moreover, the website on which the information is posted hasn't been updated since 1998--well before anyone would have thought to write a Wikipedia article about Jehu Eyre.

And even if he hadn't known that he was a relative of George III (highly unlikely given his illustrious and well-recorded family history), it is still at the very least quite interesting that one of the Colonies' most ardent patriots was himself of royal birth. That is the very definition of irony.

SwedishConqueror 02:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

I've copied these to Talk:Jehu Eyre#Genealogical micro-trivia and responded there.--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hail to the Thief[edit]

I understand, but my addition of catalogue numbers was based solely on my perception that such information was common on Wikipedia and standard for most articles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ErleGrey (talkcontribs) 22:11, 8 February 2007

As I said before, I agree, but the inclusion of catalog numbers is standard on Wikipedia articles, notwithstanding the lack of rules defining such additions. It seems that Hail to the Thief would be one of the only comprehensive, "non-stub" articles on albums without catalog numbers. ErleGrey 00:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I did, in fact, ask at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums and it seems that the general feeling on catalog numbers is ambivalent. However, they are regarded as a useful reference. I have seen catalog numbers in many pages, however, notwithstanding the fact that there are no rules governing their presence.

Incidentally, I would like to apologize for coming across as pestering or agressive during these discussions. ErleGrey 15:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Knee-jerk revert[edit]

Take a careful look at how I fixed a formatting glitch which breaks the list numbering because someone used a non-existent template [14]. --  Netsnipe  ►  01:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


As far as I'm concerned theres a line between vandalism and improper procedure GhettoDaxx

Sue Johnston[edit]

Thanks very much for consulting me on my talk page. I have changed the filmography on Sue Johnson's page to match what the guide lines are on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works), it depicts there that the filmography should have the dates in brackets. Also, the links in the dates were not just some random date, they were actually linke to 1997 in film or in television. Don't you think the page looked better with headings? Many thanks Eagle Owl 12:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and communication, but what do you mean by obscure? Eagle Owl 12:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It shows on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) that the correct way to do it is Title and then the year in brackets, until it states otherwise, I don't see why we should change it. Also, I don't really see anything at all messy with it, it simply shows the show and the year she appeared in. Also some of your work on the Anne Reid page goes for the same, with also some un-completed links and the wrong title of a show. I don't see anything depressing about any of it, I'm just doing what I've seen on many other Wikipedia pages, which the style of list in question seems to work. Eagle Owl 14:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcoming new users[edit]

Thanks for your note! I replied there. -- Ben 12:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Stillwater Area High School.[edit]

First off, I did remove the dates and times of the shows to make it a list of the plays put on by the drama department, and thus it is no longer a noticeboard. It's simply stating what the school's drama department is putting on this year.

Secondly, I'll give you Chelsey Jones, but how is a former NBA player non-notable? He may not have an article, but that certainly does not mean that he's non-notable. I don't have the time, nor the energy to create an article for him, but the fact that he played basketball at the highest level for several NBA teams makes him at least worth mentioning.

Now, let me know your response to both and I'll make adjustments as necessary.

EDIT: Oh and as a side note, you should probably put up on the talk page what parts of the article you think are disputed before sticking it on there.

Mientkiewicz5508 13:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna 2[edit]

Hello! Could you please explain why an RfA's broken formatting should "stay as part of the record"? Closed discussions (including RfAs) are frequently edited to correct such problems (which is why the pages usually aren't protected), and I'm curious as to why it would be desirable to leave them in place. Thanks! —David Levy 14:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My experience has been that any editing of an archive of this sort is severely frowned upon (to say the least). The first and only time that I did it (as here, simply for formatting purposes) I was reverted and then blocked. I was immediately unblocked by another admin, who saw that the block was an overreaction, but I was still warned that closed RfAs, etc., shouldn't be touched.
One reason is that they're records of exactly what happened, not what someone thinks should have happened. In this case, for example, if at any stage someone checked the archive, they might find that the count had been misleading because the misformatting had upset the numbering; they can't see that it someone's carefully tidied up the mess after the fact. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
1. Your experience was highly unusual, and Kim Bruning was dead wrong. I read Carbonite's message, and I see no such warning. In case you didn't realize, your corrections to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk were rightfully restored the following day.
Closed discussions shouldn't be modified in any substantive manner (to add or change comments, et cetera), but formatting/link fixes are routinely performed and aren't "frowned upon" by the community. Otherwise, why wouldn't the bureaucrat simply protect the RfA page immediately upon closing the discussion?
2. Huh? Why is it preferable to leave a "mess" behind because it happened to go unnoticed until after the discussion's closure? I don't understand your point.
Incidentally, in this particular instance, I believe that the formatting glitch arose after the fact because of a software change. (In other words, the corrected version actually is a more accurate representation of what the page looked like prior to the discussion's closure.) —David Levy 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Good grief, your Sherlock Holmes act is impressive. I'd forgotten who was involved, and had obviously misremembered the incident slightly; I'd thought that I was in the wrong, and that the block was an overreaction. OK, then I withdraw my objections and apologise for getting things wrong (my guilt for which is balanced by the discovery that my past isn't as shady as I'd thought). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem, Mel. Thanks for reconsidering the matter.  :-) —David Levy 15:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Anne Reid[edit]

Hi there. I have corrected the spelling on Anne Reid's page, but I still don't understand why a citation is needed for the facts on the page, and why have you deleted films and television shows that Anne Reid is going to appear in. I have seen the advertisements, furthermore it is actually on her imdb file. To your reference to myself being blocked from Wikipedia, I find upsetting as I have dedicated much time to Wikipedia. Many thanks Eagle Owl 17:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Eagle Owl

Also, with regards to the episode titles, I simply clicked on the link and found that the title was infact in italics, on the actual doctor who episode page, and the list of doctor who episode page. I assumed that this was the correct format. I'm still inclined to go with what it has on every other page. Eagle Owl 17:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have had a pretty good look. Even on a featured article, it has the episodes in italics, and anyway, Doctor Who is a very organized and structured family in Wikipedia, and would perhaps think they may have it correct. Eagle Owl 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I only put the two titles under one title as television, film and theatre are her career, should go under one roof? dinnerladies is actually spelt without a capital letter, that is actuall how it is spelt. You continuously revert back my edits, even though February is spelt wrong! I also find your tone offensive. I don't do anything for the hell of it, I simply do it to try and improve the article. Eagle Owl 17:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm now referring back to why you removed Anne's roles. They have it on the other pages that Anne is due to star in the shows. It is on Marple, and Doctor Who and Hot Fuzz. I see no reason to delete them. Doctor Who is very well resorced and I still see no reason to remove roles. Eagle Owl 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I added it because it states she is going ot star in it on the marple page. I think it ridiculous that you must remove it. I know we're not crystal balls but if you remove that off the Anne Reid page, then it makes sense for you to remove all of the names for the new series of Marple on the Marple page! It is most irrational. Eagle Owl 19:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you precisely why I didn't use the citations on the Marple article. Because they come from the IMDB (which I don't there's anything wrong with as most pages have the link at the bottom of the page), which you told me was not at all reliable, the grounds on which some of this editing disagreement is based on. If you tell me to use them, then we can put all of the films back onto the Anne Reid article, with only need to refer to the IMDB? Eagle Owl 20:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a citation for Marple to the Anne Reid article, and am now glad that we have sorted the page. Thanks for all of your efforts, and hope now that the article is much better after both our efforts. Regards Eagle Owl 20:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Real-Estate Gurus - justification[edit]

Well - I am not sure what the policy wonks say about what a category is but I have noticed a number of bios for self proclaimed or self evident Real-Estate Gurus so I figured it would be easier to index them in a category.

--PeterMarkSmith 17:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: your comments on the category - experimentation beat reading pages of policy!

--PeterMarkSmith 18:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My RFA[edit]

Thank You,
Mel Etitis/Archive 48 for your Support!
Thank you for your support in my RfA, which closed at 111 / 1 / 2. I am humbled and rather shocked to see such kind comments and for it to reach WP:100. Please feel free to leave a note if I have made a mistake or if you need anything, I will start out slow and tackle the harder work once I get accustomed to the tools. Thank you once more, I simply cannot express in words my gratitude. on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yogiji Maharaj[edit]

Sorry but I don't understand your past actions. I filed for a page move of the Jhinabhai Vasanji article to Yogiji Maharaj because the name was incorrect, and when I saw that it had been moved, I thought the page move was cleared.

Also, I don't understand why the page edits I made on the Yogiji Maharaj article were reverted. I added citations and made some stylistic edits.

Moksha88 00:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I made the same edits and added descriptions. I also opened a threat for a page move. Moksha88 00:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Turko-Persian_tradition => rv unexplained & unsourced edits[edit] Please see Turko-Persian_tradition Talk for explanations. Barefact 00:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, I guess I was following other editor's bad examples, and will try to always do it. Now, with my explanations, would you rv your revert, please? Barefact 09:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the help you are giving me. Here is a citation from Bernard Lewis, "The Middle East", 1995, p. 88. I think it uniquely describes what the Turkic people brought into the Turko-Persian symbiosis, to make it different and lasting:
"A distinguishing feature of Turkic Islam, from its very beginning is the completeness with which the Turks surrendered themselves to their new religion. Partly because of the simple intensity of the faith as they encountered it on the frontiers of Islam and heathendom, partly because their conversion to Islam at once involved them in Holy War against their own heathen kinsmen, the converted Turks sank their national identity in Islam as the Arabs and Persians had never done. There is no Turkic equivalent to Arab memories of the heroic days of pagan Arabia, to Persian pride in the bygone glories of ancient Iran save for a few fragments of folk poetry and of genealogical legend. The civilizations, states, religions, and literatures of the pre-Islamic Turkic past were blotted out and forgotten. Even the very name Turk came to be synonymous with Muslim, for Turks as well as for Westerners. In the earnestness and seriousness of their loyalty to Islam the Turks are equaled by no other people. It is therefore not surprising that in time a great Sunni revival began and spread under the aegis of Turkic dynasties."
In somewhat abbreviated form, this citation would grasp the difference between the Turko-Persian Islamicate culture, and the other Islamic societies of the period. I would appreciate your feedback. Barefact 02:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Williamsville, New York[edit]

...I couldn't see how a water mill could be set high up, given the way that it works... Is there a picture of it anywhere?

Heh, yes it does sound odd now that you mention it. The mill building was built on top of the cliff over which the creek falls and a flume brought water down the backside into the glen that is now the park. The mill has a big "foundation" inside of which the mill machinery was, even though the main building was above it. It's not operational anymore, at least not via water power. I don't know of public domain pictures that show it, but here are a few online that give the idea: [15] and [16] and [17] and a couple old ones showing it working: [18] and [19]. The front looks like [20]. So yea, the mill does seem to tower "over" the park, oddly enough. But "next to" seems fine, as its foundations go all the way down. Pfly 04:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Persianate society[edit]

The original article of Persianate is now being redirected to the above. However, this new term (Persianate society) in singular form is incorrect. The article should have remained under the original title, or the correct term of "Persianate Societies" (in plural) should have been applied here. Please see: Association for the Study of Persianate Societies (ASPS). I would appreciate if you could rectify the error. Thanks in advance. Surena 07:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The singular isn't an error, it's the Wikipedia manual-of-style naming convention. Please don't go against it. Also, the first reference in the article doesn't in fact back up anything that's said, being merely a link to a society's page which says nothing about the subject (at least, not that I could find). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe that Wikipedia policy is to misinform, as you are implying here. The Wikipedia manual-of-style naming convention is not applied here; and if what you are claiming here is correct, therefore you should change the following articles from plural form to singular: United States, Allies, Society Islands, etc. If you conduct a Google search for "Persianate society (in singular form), you would get only 10 results including the Wikipedia article; - however, if you change your search title to the "Persianate Societies (plural and correct term), 824 results -- Thus this shows the correct term. However, I don't believe that you are an expert in this field, and therefore, you should stop deleting, and if you are not happy with the entry, just add [citation needed] to the body of the text, to request further citation(s). Surena 12:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
See: Talk:Persianate society —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Surena (talkcontribs) 12:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
Can you explain why you are using admin rollback to revert contentious edits? Also, as an administrator you are expected to be a role-model for other users so that they learn to discuss on the talk page of the article rather than continuously revert-war. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

First, what I don't understand is that, no matter how many times this comes up, and how many times it's pointed out that there is no policy – not even a guidline – that limits the use of rollback, people still make this sort of challenge. When even anons can use popups, and editors are reverting using "undo", it's especially difficult to see why anyone should even think that there might be a problem in the first place.

Secondly, an editor suddenly reverted a lot of work copy-editing, wikifying, and MoSing, with a pointless and unrelated edit summary; I'm supposed to spend even more time than he's already wasted just because you and others are unaccountably squeamish about using rollback? I mean, you did look at what was involved, didn't you? I also explained to him, both at his Talk page and at the article page, why I'd done what I'd done.

Is there a reason for your getting involved on the side of those who want to return the poor English, the incorrect wikilinks, and the lead that goes against the MoS? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware about the dispute, I had the page on my watchlist since I saw another dispute on the Persianate. In any case, usage of rollback has been ill-considered by the Arbitration Committee in the past.

Well, first, I explained in full, as you would have seen if you'd checked properly; secondly, wagging your finger at one side in a dispute about which you know little aside from one isolated event is itself not a good example to set. And if you actually read the pages to which you link, you'll see that it's the use of rollback in cases of good-faith edits to content. Reverting someone's copy-edits, etc., doesn't fall under that description. Still, if you think that my action warranted taking me to ArbCom, feel free. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think you are over-reacting a bit? My intention is not to take you to ArbCom or whatever. It never resolves any problem except make them bigger. Please understand that there are reasons why these tools are not granted to regular users. We must be role-models for the Wikipedians, by guiding and showing them the right way to do things. Initiate discussion on the talk page, use dispute resolution. Things would be done peacefully then, and you would have a few more friends to add to your list. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 15:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi can someone explain the problem to me? thanks The article seems well sources. If it is poor English then the article should be improved upon. --alidoostzadeh 15:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Another of the people whom Surena (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has called by e-mail in order to revert my work. And yes, when I'm faced with a group of near vandals who are reverting blindly at the behest of another editor (as the irrelevance of their edit summaries shows) I do get a bit narked when the only intervention by a fellow admin is to wag his finger at me. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that you mean well by your edits. But please, stop referring to our fellow editors as vandals. It shows the lack of good faith on your part. I have done it before, and I regretted it soon afterwards. Also, the usage of automated rollback is not required. Please revert manually. Just my request. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
First, I said "near-vandals", and I stick by that (it is, in fact, a mild term in the circumstances). One of the people involved referred to my edits that merely introduced better English, correct wikilinks, etc., as vandalism; I do hope that you wagged your finger there too.
Secondly, if you want to change the guidelines or policy on rollback, go ahead and try (such changes have always been rejected in the past); until then, please stop pretending that your finger-wagging is backed up by anything but your own preferences.
Thirdly, this dispute has been over for some time; why do you want to stir it up again? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I see you are determined in your approach to the situation. If I see usage of rollback to revert contentious edits and personal remarks on other users as vandals, I will start an RfC on you. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay you are right and I reverted back to your version. I have that article on my watchlist and by mistake I thought the sources were deleted. I reverted it back to your improved version. --alidoostzadeh 15:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. When I looked at the diff I thought some sources were deleted whereas they seem to just have been moved around. Actually I am thankful that there are people who watch the grammer and syntax of Wikipedia articles and try to improve them. --alidoostzadeh 15:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Persianate Societies[edit]

Dear Mel, I think it is you who has misunderstood the article. The lead which you keep reverting to does not make any sense, and it is not what the article is based on. For more information, see my last response in the talk. I ask you to please let editors contribute and discuss your needs in the talk page rather than edit warring. Thank you --Rayis 16:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah another user just reworded the article and it makes sense while being per MoS I think. Hopefully all is good now, have a look --Rayis 16:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Correcting errors[edit]

Why, when I had corrected a typo in Brian Jones (poet), did you revert, restoring the typo? And why, when there is a clickable link to an article giving information about a book, is it necessary to regurgitate the info, causing unnecessary duplication? It wasn't to put the reference in standard form, as you omit the ISBN.--Poetlister 18:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You introduced a spurious [ in the reference, which I removed. Why was that not a typo? And no, it is neither bathetic nor leaden, but if you honestly prefer the other version, obviously I shall let it stand in your name.--Poetlister 20:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
And thanks very much for your note to JohnDoe0007.--Poetlister 20:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Jinabhai Vasanji[edit]

Why did you move this without checking with the editors involved? The move was extremely controversial, concerning a question of NPoV. You also failed to deal with double redirects. I've moved it back. If yo're going to move articles presented as uncontroversial, you need first to make sure that the editor is telling the truth; in this case, he wasn't. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved it as uncontroversial because based on my understanding of the manual of style it seemed like a reasonable suggestion, and there was nothing on the talk pages of either articles to suggest that there would be any opposition to the move. In addition, I point you to Guru Ram Das, Ananta Das Babaji, Osho, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) for examples and a rationale for why that naming format, and thus, my move, makes sense. Indeed, looking at the talk page, which now has a small conversation regarding the move, it doesn't appear that there is any consensus for your view. As such I feel that armed with the information that I had, considering the move as uncontroversial was entirely appropriate (noting again that when I made the move, there wasn't any such controversy apparent).
As for the double redirects, I've looked at Special:Whatlinkshere again to see where my error was, and to be honest, I didn't see that I did miss any — if so, that's an uncharacteristic error and I apologise for it, but in all fairness that seems like a small problem. Also, in response to your concerns about my not talking to the editors, that's standard for all RMs. If it's a move that's uncontroversial, then you wouldn't contact all of the editors for the obvious reason, and if it's anything else than there should be discussion on the talk page. Lastly, to be totally honest I'm not sure what you could be referring to when you say that the editor who requested the move (User:Moksha88) wasn't telling the truth — perhaps you meant that you disagree with his rationale? He appears to me to put forth perfectly cogent reasoning, and seems to be continuing to do so on the talk page.
Anyhow, I'm sorry that I moved a page that I thought was uncontroversial and seems to not have been. I hope that given what I've stated above that you can see how that was a reasonable mistake to have made under the circumstances. I'll try to avoid that in the future — if you have some suggestions I'd welcome them. Thanks for mentioning this to me. Kyle Barbour 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I came across too snappily. The editor in question (and others I think) had tried a number of times (without argument or explanation) to change the lead so that their preferred name came first. the "uncontroversial move" request (which wasn't mentioned at the Talk page) seemed to be a way of getting what they wanted without actually engaging in discussion. There's now a discussion.
The problem in general (and you're rigth that it applies to a large number of articles) is that names involving honorifics and other evaluations are being used as article titles in a way that's in tension with NPoV. When it's done in the context of the Abrahamic religions most editors are pretty vigilant, but religions such as Hinduism get away with it much too often. The article on Gandhi, for example, uses his religious honorific title instead of his name; that might be justifiable on grounds of familiarity, but the same is done on hundreds of other articles where the same reason doesn't apply.
Anyway, sorry to go on at such length. The name change is being discussed at the Talk page now. Thansk for your response. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
No worries :) The honorific issue can definitely be a problem , and I can't help but notice that it doesn't apply to Western clergy (see WP:NCWC). Funny, that...
Anyhow, hopefully it'll be worked out on the talk page. As for my part, in the future I'll direct such articles to the "controversial" section :) All the best, Kyle Barbour 21:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I responded on the talk page on the article in question. Moksha88 23:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Real Social Dynamics[edit]

:-) I worry that I'm taking pleasure in the wrong places, but still, pleasurable to see a good outcome. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I was happy till you pointed that out. Ah well, I've added (and restored, tsk!) a few db tags. And 'voted' in an AFD. It'll do for now. Keep me updated if there's more I can do. Thanks, Ben Aveling 00:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Satyajit Ray[edit]

Dear Mel Etitis Here is the source: [21]. Link to IMDb is already in the article. The award is a "life-long achievements award" and is offered annually. Here is the 2006 list: [22]. Sangak 12:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

More description here: [23]
  • Official Name: Akira Kurosawa Award for Lifetime Achievement in Film Directing
  • Criteria: The award is given each year to one of the masters of world cinema.

Sangak 12:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am bit afraid to edit the article as it is a featured article. I am not sure where is the best place for it. There is a link in the article to IMDb. So in principle it is there. It would be very good if you could help me with that if any further edit is needed. Thanks. Sangak 16:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am gradually improving Kiarostami but still needs a lot of copy editing. Can you honestly say that the article is worse than it was before? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian Style[edit]

I'm certainly learning it from you. And you're an impressively fast Wiki worker too! Are you still extremely annoyed with me? Or a bit mellowed out (I hope)? --Ludvikus 19:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi. Just wanted to say, that I'd welcome more of your influence at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). With Violetriga not participating heavily, we could really use an admin to take more control and move it forward (aka, I'm tired of running it, come help! :) If you're interested. --Quiddity 19:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Papist scum[edit]

Yeah, that's you, you fuck'n bastard! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Just to let you know, I've left an npa warning on the IP talkpage RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks — though it's more amusing than anything. I've no idea what they're frothing about though. As a fairly outspoken atheist and anti-cleric it's not often that I'm accused of being a Catholic.. Sweet. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: welcome message[edit]

Did you read the "welcome" message that was placed on my talk page? As it looks as though you posted after it was removed, if you did not (go back and) read the message originally left by PoetLister I don't believe you have any grounds on which to criticize my response.

And I don't believe my response was by any means "ungracious." Funny you should put it that way, as for one, I don't believe such a message as the one that was left for me warrants much (if any) graciousness...and even beside that fact regardless, if you actually read my response you'll see the first thing I do is thank PoetLister. You'll also find that I stated why I had not used the summary function before and that I would in the future (and you'll see that I have done this).

--JohnDoe0007 17:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. There is nowhere to add a summary for this comment.

??? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I find it interesting that you conveniently take only part of my response to suit your arguement and then say you "have no wish to continue this further."

--JohnDoe0007 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Periyar was an atheist fundamentalist, he did not tolerate anyone's theistic beliefs. He called people fools to believe in G-d. Fundamentalism is when you put a belief to an extreme point and that you are intolerant of everyone else's beliefs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chsbcgs (talkcontribs) 22:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

RE: Seamus Heaney[edit]

Hi Mel! Thanks for dropping by to participate in our discussion! You may have missed my comment on Talk:Seamus Heaney, as it was left just prior to you leaving this message, so I invite you to take a look there. Also, as I was just leaving a friendly reminder (which I left to the other party, as well), I think that your concern may be unwarranted. As I hope to initiate some amicable and productive mediation proceedings, I hope that you'll stop by and voice your opinion there, as well! Cheers! gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Boredsilly block[edit]

I wouldn't have any problem with the general idea of banning this user, but the technical reason I choose a block rather than a ban is that IP edits and account creation are blocked now. I think that with an indefblock there is nothing done to the IP or maybe only for 24 hours? -SCEhardT 00:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I just read Wikipedia:Autoblock and I was somewhat mistaken in how it works. I have no problem with an indef block for this user now or upon further vandalism. -SCEhardT 03:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User Evading Block permitted by Admin[edit]


I have just reported an abusive confirmed sockpuppet user Sarvagnya who has been let off the hook previously. He has also used both sockpuppet accounts Sarvagnya and Gnanapitiin a vote fraud here to ban a user who goes by Sarvabhaum. It looks like there is favoritism going on towards this user here. Note: This user started harassing me after ARYAN818 was blocked. It seems that the Hindu Wikipedia editors are trying to take revenge against me. If you could look into this I would appreciate it. Regards. Wiki Raja 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7 12 February 2007 About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning[edit]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Samul nori, albeit in good faith. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page, as you are now doing in Talk:Samul nori. Alternatively, you may implement the revision you want by edit warring. Thank you, and have a nice week. Wikipeditor 11:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Only two problems with this — I've come nowhere near a 3RR violation on this article, and I've explained my position in full on the Talk page (something that you didn't — not even giving the courtesy of an edit summary, and deceptively marking your edit as minor).
Placing unfounded warnings on other editors' Talk pages is disruptive, and can lead to blocking; I strongly sugegst that you refrain in future. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
As you've copied this to my talk page, I have replied there. Wikipeditor 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your behaviour[edit]

Replied here. Sarvagnya 16:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[24]. Sarvagnya 23:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Also replied here. Wiki Raja 07:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


In relation to the Robert Plot article, I should make a couple of points regarding your undeletion of the one section. Firstly, how can I source a deletion? I erased the text for the simple reason that it is not actually mentioned in Plot's book; if someone invented a ridiculous quote from a famous person, would we normally be required to prove the falsehood of every made-up comment? If so, how can we source the non-existence of a quote? At any rate, the book in question would be the obvious source to settle the issue - it is obvious this doesn't need to be sourced separately. Why can't people just read what he actually wrote?

Also, it is wise to check these "sources" that are sometimes given - in the instance of the undeleted section, the person gives a website link as a source; but the site merely repeats the made-up Plot quote, and so is a tertiary source of information, which is of no scholarly value.

I could append a section to the actual article, dealing with the issue of this alleged quote - but my experience of this site is very weak. Anyway, I hope I've cleared up those few issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:23, 14 February 2007

Could you please look into this?[edit]

Hi Mel, I have an issue that I would appreciate your views on. It seems that User:SSS108 is intent on making personal attacks on meand just generally being rude and aggressive as he has done so several times on Talk:Sathya Sai Baba; here are the relevant diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

The last two diffs are particularly disturbing in so far as they exhibit the same behaviour that contributed to his 48-hour block (suspended) by Thatcher131 (linking to sections that are essentially "defamatory" of me, see here and here). I think this also counts as aggressive behaviour in so far that SSS108 is actively defaming me to Kkrystian by referring to me as "most vicious defamer" etc. As you can see from SSS108's talk-page I have placed some WP:NPA template warnings to help him understand that he is violating NPA, but it seems that his behaviour is openly derisive and mocking of such warnings and he continues to make personal attacks. I also caught him trying to upload one of my images to Wikipedia apparently because of some "research" against me, where I have been trying to explain to him that he must follow Wikipedia policies in general relating to uploads. I would normally take this to WP:AN/I and ask for a preventative block but since you are one of the two people who are familiar with this issue (Thatcher is busy) I was hoping you could step in and help to resolve this situation. I am feeling extremely upset that I am being defamed like this. Kind regards, Ekantik talk 03:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Ekantik talk 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

X Japan reunion[edit]

Hi, please can you take a look to the X Japan article, Toshi announced a possible reunion in his official site, but an user is removing the links, thanks. Darkcat21 13:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Alert[edit]

"Jasper23" is now socking as "Jiffypopmetaltop". Same edits to same articles. Please look into this. Dazzling Urbanite 17:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A sock reporting a sock. Thats cute. Yes it is true. I am now rogue. Thanks to this sock and special thanks to you too mel. If you would rather attack me than the long standing cantstandya sock that has been stalking me for 6 months. I will really go rogue. We can talk. Whatever you decide mel. Oh, and as you know I stopped using the jasper23 account awhile ago. Its a dead account.Jiffypopmetaltop 18:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Rules are rules. Jasper thinks they shouldn't apply to him. Now he's threatening you. What a wonder. Palestine Peace 19:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didnt really mean that but was afraid to remove it. Jiffypopmetaltop 19:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sa'id al-Andalusi- Article missing[edit]

Mel, I thought you were the right person to ask. We don't have an article either on Sa'id or his important work Tabaqat al-Umam. Regards Neckrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neckrow (talkcontribs) 18:35, 14 February 2007

Hello Mel[edit]

I've been concerned about essjay's behaviour recently - particularly the facts coming to light that he seems to have a somewhat flexible relationship to the truth - I noticed a very polite conversation you and he had about a checkuser in the archives - you expressed yourself really clearly and you seem to carry some weight as a wiki editor, so i thought i'd ask you what you think.

Basically, essjay lied to us (bad) and The New Yorker (worse) about his academic record, and currently has some claims on his pages that seem a little suspicious given the previous deception. Personally, i'm worried about essjay having checkuser powers - let alone the 'oversight' powers - and I think this could do harm to wiki's reputation if somehow the community doesn't state clearly that its not ok - people are already jumping on me (probably my fault.) telling me that nothing bad has occurred and that i'm silly.

Take a little look [25] here and [26] here for what's happening.....

.....also, i notice you're a jazz fan like me - have you checked out Joe_Harriott? - i've loved his music for years, and the quality of the info on that page convinced me that wiki can work amazingly well..... thanks for listening Mel, cheerio for now... Purples 23:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Thankyou very much for the help. You're Awesome! --G. Campbell 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


If could specify your concerns abt the Satyajit Ray article, that might help improving it.--ppm 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus again[edit]

It's getting worse. No one appears to want to do anything. What is going on. Can't you just block the guy for another week? Dbuckner 07:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

wrong turn 2[edit]

stop editing the article.15:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)15:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:40, 15 February 2007.

User_talk: repeat vandalism after block[edit]

Hi, This anon. user is back vandalising Civil rights after a few weeks, and after having been blocked. I placed a new warning on their page. Is there anything else that can be done? Thanks, Bob  uriel8  (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Upen Patel[edit]

hi, I have been noticing that you removed my edits to the Upen Patel article. Can I ask why you removed the category Indian film actors from the article. Upen Patel may have been born in Britain but that does not mean he is a British film actor. He has acted in Bollywood films so he should be included in the Indian film actors category because Bollywood film actors are listed under that category. I also think that British Asian actors category also needs to be included as this category lists all British-born actors who are of Indian descent. If you agree or don't agree please reply on my talk page. Thanks. Shakirfan 17:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ray response[edit]

Even a few examples would help. The article is almost completely cited, and I am not sure what weasel words mean in a sentence with a clear citation. --ppm 20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dulicate AfD notifications[edit]

Hi, thank you for letting me know about the duplicate AfD notification. I've investigated and I know why my bot didn't detect your notification. I've now added a few more checks to prevent this from happening again. Cheers, Jayden54 19:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Emre Belözoğlu[edit]

Hey... to avoid a conflict, I thought I'd write you a message. Emre Belözoğlu is known only as "Emre" in England... see some of the citations for evidence. I'm among the first to edit an article to use surname consistently rather than forename, but it's not the correct thing to do for this article. In fact, moving the article to Emre (footballer) would perhaps be a better approach, but why disambiguate with profession, when you can just use surname?

You also reverted a number of improvements I made to the citations used, so I've just done a full revert of your reversion. robwingfield «TC» 19:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply... to address your points:
  1. I'd disagree that we don't name biographical articles for people known by their first name under just that first name. See Madonna (entertainer) (not Madonna Ritchie), Alesha (not Alesha Dixon), and for a football article, Ronaldinho (not Ronaldo de Assis Moreira).
  2. Fair enough about using &ndash;, but you've not applied it consistently through the article, which is why I didn't leave that one instance in place.
  3. I didn't remove the reference to his agent rejecting the charge. It's now in the article twice, once where you've added it, and once where I added it and included a citation. I'll remove your duplicate.
Happy to debate the first point further, but you've not convinced me so far. robwingfield «TC» 00:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mel, thanks for the advice. Please let me know how to leave edit summaries...are these simply blurbs on the talk page?

Naming conventions[edit]

hi, I notice you changed an album title that had some two letter and three letter words to have the two letter words lower case but you neglected to change the three letter word "the" to lowercase. Why? What are the naming conventions at Wikipedia? "In general, titles of books, films, and other works are also capitalized, except for articles (a, and, the) and prepositions and conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., to, from, and). Examples: A New Kind of Science, Ghost in the Shell, To Be or Not to Be."

At most places three letter words such as "the" and "and" are also lowercase except for proper names. I would have done it this way in the first place but I was going with the way the original person had capitalized the spelling of the original album (which had the "joujouka" spelling). This is re: Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Jajouka. I feel the "the" should be lowercase as well. I haven't looked in recently but am about to come in and finish up my corrections to the article. I am the one who added the footnote request tags at the top of the page, by the way. The only sentences that have citation tags are sentences composed by people prior to my improvements to the article. I will be looking over the article today and also several related and attempt to make some good footnote improvements and finish up. I don't want to be dealing with it after today. If you agree with me that "the" should be lowercase in the album title, I hope you will act accordingly since you were so easily able to change the name previously. However, you or someone else added year/month tags that did not belong, I noticed. Dates an article is retrieved are not supposed to be given that year and month tag, from what I recall, but you or someone else started adding them all over the place. But since you're an admin, I'll leave it to you to decide such things until I have time to consult with other admins later. I am more concerned about getting the facts and footnotes in order. When I have finished footnoting that I will remove the tags I had originally added at the top to try to get people to stop composing articles without any source citations. I see you added a "fact" note but keep in mind that sentence you put that on is one I did not compose. The sentence about it being widely regarded as the first World Music LP was written last year by the people who first started on this, and I recently added sentences that I footnoted in detail. I have seen the claim echoed in several articles and will footnote what I can later today. For now I am going to print out the articles I need to add footnotes to and I will write by hand my intended edits and try to get it all together for later this evening so I can move on to other things. I have a thick bunch of article printouts from different libraries to consult for my work today. I hope that everyone will take care to add footnotes in the future too in other articles. Emerman 21:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User Rosenkreuz[edit]

I told you he was a good guy. edward (buckner) 11:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Notification AN/I Discussion[edit]

Thank you for participating in this discussion. I feel that this discussion has helped me clarify and improve my practice in providing these notices. I have summarized these improvements on my talk page. Please feel free to comment. Thanks again. Edivorce 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your user page[edit]

Hi there. Sorry to bother you, but I noticed a couple of mistakes on your user page; the relevant wikitext is:

***''Al Haig Trio (Esoteric)|Al Haig Trio]]'' [Esoteric] (Al Haig album)
***''[[Bar Kokhba]]'' (John Zorn album)

The first line has no double opening square brackets, so it is not rendered as a link. The second link is not disambiguated, so it links to the disambiguation page rather than to Bar Kokhba (album), the desired target. I would have fixed it already, but your user page is protected. ;)

Oh, and sorry if these mistakes were intentional, for some reason. I just felt the need to notify you. ;) -- Daverocks (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8 19 February 2007 About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey dude![edit]

Just saw you posted on BirgitteSB's page, so I thought I'd wander over and say hi! If you've got an account over wikisource, a project of mine needs a kind word. See the big batch of templates 'Templates imported from wikipedia' or the like. That's all part of [[W::TSP]] which I be busting butt to get together enough to announce and recruit, etc. Be well! // FrankB 11:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Listen, I know for whatever reason I seem to have rubbed you the wrong way, but could you please refrain from going around and deleting/criticizing/reverting every little change I make to any page? As I was stating in the revision explanation, I had the article up on the Wikipedia Request for Feedback page, and none of the feedback reflected the view that it wasn't encyclopedic at all. I know because I was the original author of it, you feel the need to delete it, but please leave it. I'm tired of this constant bickering back and forth. That information has been on the page for MONTHS, and for you to come in and delete it after a great deal of people have already read & reviewed the page is unnecessary. Mientkiewicz5508 03:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There is basis for it, as you have gone and removed nearly the entire article that I spent the better part of 6 months working on. You are the ONLY person during this entire time to raise issue with the article. Under your logic, no College Football, Basketball, or any other sports seasons should be detailed on Wikipedia either. Stillwater is known for its sports programs, and other schools in the conference have similar pages. The information in those articles is well documented, well cited, and has, as I mentioned before, been reviewed by a great deal of people after I put it up on the Request for Feedback page.
I reviewed the page you suggested, and noted this...

Extracurricular activities — Mention the sports team(s) of the school and what is notable about them. Here is also a good place to mention specific traditions of school, like students' union/student council activities, a student newspaper, clubs, regular activities, etc. The heading may be changed accordingly in regard to the importance of sports, clubs, traditions, students' unions etc. For example, alternative headings could be Students' Union, Sports and Traditions or Students' Union Activities. Mention significant championships for the sports teams. Nowhere nowhere does it mention any length issues there, nor does it say that season by season sections are avoidable. The teams I have in there ARE notable because they are the ones that were the most successful, either making trips to the State Tournament or deep into the Section playoffs. I've left out the non-notable teams that have struggled or have nothing interesting to say.

Because nowhere in the guidelines does it say that a review of the season is too much or excessive. In a school known for its sports programs, giving a brief summary of the most successful seasons isn't unreasonable. Once this Spring Sports year is completed, the 2005/2006 seasons will be gone, I assure you of that. It will only feature the most recent sports seasons, as well as the most successful ones. Also, if you find them so "gushing", why don't you make an effort to IMPROVE the article rather than being brash and deleting the entire thing. I personally took a great deal of time to make the article as neutral as possible, so if you feel that parts aren't so neutral, why don't you add to the article rather than just deleting it.

Jehu Eyre tar pit[edit]

Given the three-ring circus that surrounded this and its related articles awhile back -- including much sockpuppetry -- I'd be cautious about dealing with this. Some links:

Frankly, I'm suspicious that it's the whole mess, rebooted, by the previous editor under a new name. User:Zoe seems to have dealt with this before. --Calton | Talk 05:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

comment on Urantia book[edit]

I noticed a comment on the Urantial Book talk page. I am working on simplifying the article, but proceeding slowly. Some dialogue from someone not familiar with the book would probably help move things forward. By the way: are you the Mel Etis from the philosophy article? If so, the environment there seems to have improved lately. Hope you didn't leave the philosophy section for good, as I think you belong. Richiar 05:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack[edit]

Hi since you were editing this article [27], can you tell the user barefact to stop his personal attacks. I asked him once and he still continued. --alidoostzadeh 09:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


OKAY. I'm sick and tired of this. You told me in order to keep Engler on the notable alumni page, all I had to do was make a page about him that was at the very least a stub. I detailed his College Career, and his NBA career. He was an NBA player. I stated the facts, I listed the teams, I rattled off his stats. How does that fail in terms of creating his page? Mientkiewicz5508 17:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wondering if you could help?[edit]

Hi, you're the only administrator I know so I thought I would ask you. There has been a page created called: Victoria Jenkins, who was a winner of UK reality television programme Ladette to Lady. I looked at the article that was made about Victoria and it really is very messy, many spelling mistakes and I don't think she is notable enough to have her own article. I don't know what the procedure is for deletion so I thought I could ask you. The article is really awful so could you please look into it, if you've not got time then no worries. Regards Eagle Owl 17:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali doostzadeh complaint about deceptive removal of contents[edit]

I find both of you right and myself wrong in regards to personal comments on this [28]. I would appreciate your advice on how to productively handle the situation in this and in similar cases, when deceptive tactics plays the system to the advantage of people who work full time to enforce their parochial and racist dogmas, not infrequently resorting to bad faith and covert editing practices. Personal attacks are not acceptable, and Ali doostzadeh rightfully brings frequent complains against editors who abchore his methods, and there should be an equally rightful way to defend from militant and deceitful methods without resorting to personal attacks. Barefact 17:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mel. I consider this a serious continuation of personal attack. I have self-control, but if the administrators do not respond with more than another warning it is seriously unfair.. Specially after the warning given to him by two admins and myself to desist from the personal attack. --alidoostzadeh 05:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for "following me to" Trincomalee. I did a fair amount at it, but I was aware there was bound to be more to be done. There's one thing I'm not sure about in your edits, and neither of us probably have the knowledge to be certain, but even in the WP article on Fort Fredric it is spelt with a "k" at the end. I haven't managed to find anything looking very authoritative, but I have found several different spellings. Maybe we should find a local to confirm the correct spelling and maybe even end up moving the Fort Fredric article. My only connection with "Trinco" is that my father was stationed there with the Royal Navy in the 1940s. Thanks again for taking a look. I hope my original observation amused you! SMeeds 18:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, and contributing. SMeeds 01:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

TGBBQ vandal[edit]

Hey, please stop saying Ronan McKenna has left TGBBQ, I am an avid fan and I doubt you know as much about it as I do, I know you are just trying to stop vandalism but thanks to you I will now include synopsis in all my edits :-) besides that - where is YOUR proof that he HAS left? Let's now get frisky about this little thing? eh? 02:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)