User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 26

My Real Name Stolen, Used for Harassment/Stupidity
Mel -

I am the real, legitimate John Henry DeJong. Apparently, one of the losers who was jerking around with Chad Bryant's entries here a while back decided to use my name - among many others - to do it. I notice that you have placed a lock on this username. I would like to register with Wiki and perhaps contribute across a wide range of subjects including MS Access programming, web design, graphic design, web development, and most facets of popular culture, and I think it'd be real cool if I could do so under my own name (also thereby eliminating the various google hits containing my name which turn up in a search, all of which are tied to the insipid nonsense with the anti-Chads).

You may feel free to contact me by telephone at (919) 691-5425 at your leisure, or via e-mail at any one of the following addresses to verify my identity: john at lowgenius dot com (this is the domain of my web design business; a quick look at www.lowgenius.com will show you the same phone number in the page footer) webdesign at lowgenius dot com domainregs at lowgenius dot com john at roadlesstraveledtheatre dot com lowgenius at gmail dot com johnhdejong at hotmail dot com lazaruslong.geo at yahoo dot com

You can also reach me via instant message: Yahoo! and MSN using the last two addresses above, AIM under the name 'jhdalg', or ICQ UIN 18076883.

Thank you for your time and consideration, 65.190.213.86 15:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC) John Henry DeJong Owner, Lead Designer LowGenius Web Design Information Director, The Road Less Traveled Theatre, Inc.


 * I'll need to check with other administrators to see what the correct course of action is. Watch this space. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've bookmarked the page. You may also see me from IPs in the 216.* range (my home ISP) - JHD


 * What you should do is contact a Wikipedia bureaucrat, from the list of bureaucrats. They have the technical ability to change the username of the vandal to something like John_Henry_DeJong_impostor and free up the username for you (as long as the current registrant of the username used it only for vandalism, I believe they would authorize this). -- Curps 17:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Curps. I'm new to the community - is anyone on this list known for being particularly helpful (or unhelpful), or should I just assume that whoever I contact would have the same response? - JHD

I've contacted a bureacrat (User:Rdsmith4), and asked him if he'd do this. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed it to User:John Henry DeJong (renamed); the real account now does not exist, and the real Mr DeJong is free to recreate it. &mdash; Dan | Talk 23:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your help, gentlemen. I hope that I can prove your effort worthwhile with my contributions.John Henry DeJong 03:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Watchlist tool


I'll put the source in my user space for now. I currently don't use the standard watchlist tool anymore, but it of course remains a necessity when not running Windows (for now at least). Shinobu 19:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

A source code (Visual Basic) version is available at User:Gerbrant/WikiCheck. For a binary build (which doesn't need compilation, and hence can be used without VB) I would need to use some kind of ASCII armor to put it on wiki. I haven't gotten around to do that, but I could mail it to you (7 kB).

Requirements for the binary I hope you'll get it running, since some feedback would be nice. Be aware though, that part of the UI is still in Dutch.
 * Win32
 * WebBrowser control
 * (shipped with IE, HtmlHelp and recent versions of Windows)
 * Some runtime libraries (available on the web, I suspect)
 * You'll probably only need "C:\Windows\System32\VB40032.dll", the rest should already be on your machine.
 * WinAce to decompress the file

Yours sincerely, Shinobu 22:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Numbers
Well, technically I should say "under 100, and round numbers over 100" (one thousand, one million, ten million, et cetera). But since one hundred is itself a round number, I've started saying "under 101". I've looked to see whether there is a suggested wikistyle on this...as far as I can tell, there isn't. Have I missed it? Regardless, I would strongly disagree with those who want everything over nine written in numerals. That may be okay for newspapers and magazines, but not an encyclopedia. Babajobu 13:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I made a plea for sanity on this score at the Village Pump policy page under "Wikipedia has a numbers problem" Village_pump_%28policy%29 Babajobu 00:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I had a knock-down, drag-out debate on the issue at the Village Pump. There was a great deal of resistance, much more than I anticipated. However, a good bit of that my be attributable to my lack of diplomatic skill. Anyway, glad you support the MOS change. We'll see if it sticks. Babajobu 22:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, saw that you reverted User:OmegaWikipedia at the MoS. I was going to do that myself but wasn't confident enough to throw my weight around in that way on a page as important to the community as MoS. I would really like to see this change become set and accepted. Is there another forum where this should be raised? As I said, I brought it up at the Village pump and had mixed results...is there somewhere more appropriate? Or is it just a matter of trying to protect the MoS page from reverts? Thanks. Babajobu 19:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Help - a Day in the Life
The capitalization mistake is my fault. I just was carrying out a request on WP:RM, and figured that no matter what, it should be moved out of the Help namespace, where it was. I don't plan to move it again. Ral 315  14:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

KPNZ entry
Mel: Please look at the entry for the TV station KPNZ and tell me what you think. I don;t want to get into a edit war, but I can't help but feel this article, as written, in incorrect and outside of Wiki policy regarding citing (or lack of) sources.

TruthCrusader

Um...
Mel, you are starting to take this songwriting thing a little bit too far. There is such thing as passing the limit, you know. I don't even know my professor's email address, anyway. I can ask him, if you really want me to. Winnermario 20:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Foolish nonsense. I have never had to do something that stretched to the point of communicating with friends of friends to people on the other side of the earth. It's quite pathetic, actually, and Calton is an inconsiderable, selfish beast.


 * I also find your presence on this website quite bewildering. Don't you have other people you can be picking on about English and all that nonsense? You certainly seem to like to have things your way, regardless if its right or just totally wrong. Winnermario 21:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Now, now, now, Winnermario, when you say: "Don't you have other people you can be picking on about English....", pushing the problem to other people ain't solving the problem!!! Look at it this way: You are actually dealing with an ex-grammar teacher, teaching some foreign students at Oxford how to write elementary English, so you may actually learn a thing or two, without having to pay tuition fees. So what if the price is just a little pain in the neck? Isn't that good? &mdash; PM Poon 21:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Zephraim Stark
A RfAr is being filed against him. One of the charges is his ranting about unalienable rights on the Declaration of Independence page. I thought you might wish to comment; I would, but I have one arbitration already.... Septentrionalis 22:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I may have to comment on another issue; he has put in a lengthy interpretation of the Declaration of Independence (United States) into that article; and is charging bad faith at alterations of it. Would you look in at Talk:Declaration of Independence (United States) and the edit history of the article, and tell me whether you think I am exaggerating? Septentrionalis 18:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleting tactics
User:Ted Wilkes has repeatedly deleted paragraphs from talk and article pages. See, , ,. He even falsely claimed to have moved content from another page to the Talk:Elvis Presley/Sexuality page, but the content has been totally deleted. See.

There are similar deleting tactics by User:Wyss. See, , , ,, ,.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.206.236 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 24 September 2005

Album tidying
Thanks for the album tidying. I wanted to let you know that the xx min yy s format is the one preferred by WP:ALBUM. Jkelly 17:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Going forward, I'll model any more album articles I create on your tidied versions rather than that of WP:ALBUM.  Jkelly 18:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, in that this particular template depends largely on a cut-and-paste, so it should be a snap to edit. I'll set up a sandbox for it sometime today and make sure it is as easy as we think it is.  Jkelly 18:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: Sandbox was pointless.  I left a message on the Talk page for the Template, to no response.  I'm failing to be bold out of a concern that other changes to the template have been seen as provocative, so I'm waiting for some kind of response or discussion.  Just FYI.  Jkelly 00:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Harassment from user
Mel - The user currently known as TruthCrusader (formerly ChadBryant) has been making a point to contest or disrupt any articles that I have contributed or edited. This user is now sending me harassing and obscene messages via remailers. His IP's are hidden by the anon services he chooses, but his mails coincide with the times that he is contributing comments and edits here at Wiki, and they serve as evidence for this user's intent and reason for being here. Unlike this user, I do not participate in Wikipedia in order to harass or defame the people who got the best of me in a wrestling newsgroup and forced me out years before. I can provide these messages if needed. Chadbryant 19:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I have edited the following articles that you have been involved with:

rec.sport.pro-wrestling Derek Duggan KPNZ Starrcade

You have contributed far far more than those items. The articles that I have re-edited or contested that you have worked on were due to what I felt, and what was agreed to be, a NPOV situation or lack of sources for a cite or contention you made in the article. The admins and other editors from Wikipedia agreed with me in those instances. I am sorry that you feel the need to make wild and false accusations regarding myself. I have even made it a point to ask other editors their opinions on what I edit so that there is NO question of my intentions. I have even alerted admins when others have defaced your talk/user page. I am sorry that you feel the need to lash out at me, or anyone for that matter, who corrects or re-edits your entries when they need to be. TruthCrusader

Why is Mr. Bryant now, in defiance of Wikipedia policy, moving professional wrestlers from their publically known names to their stage names? he is giving reasons such as: "wrestler cannot use this name due to trademark" or "wrestler has accomplished more as backstage booker than performer". The wrestlers in question: "brutus beefcake, lex luger, ole anderson" are ALL known to the public by those names, NOT their real ones. Wikipedia policy states, and Mel reaffirmed, that the wrestlers are to be listed under their better known STAGE names. Mr.Bryant is moving the entries in defiance of this policy.

TruthCrusader


 * Once again, research before editing, Mr. Signorelli:
 * -Edward Leslie has used a variety of ring names since leaving the WWF, and has not used the WWE-trademarked name "Brutus Beefcake" in well over a decade.
 * -Larry Pfohl played professional football before becoming the professional wrestler under the pseudonym "Lex Luger". Since he is listed in several categories for professional football teams, it makes logical sense to list him in Wikipedia under his real name, since the Green Bay Packers, Montreal Alouettes, and several other professional teams never had a player named "Lex Luger".
 * -Alan Rogowski had much more impact in modern pro wrestling under his real name than as "Ole Anderson". As Ole Anderson, he is the answer to a question regarding the original Four Horsemen lineup. Under his real name, he appeared in the credits of every WCW PPV that he worked on (usually as an executive producer). He was the creative force behind WCW for several years.
 * Mr. Signorelli neglects to mention that at the same time, I have moved the entry for Randy Poffo to Randy Savage, since Savage is well-known in the mainstream entertainment world under his wrestling name (including his appearances on The Weird Al Show and in Spiderman 2).
 * Once again, this is nothing more than harassment disguised as "responsible editing" Chadbryant 09:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, that is not my name. You need to stop making statements as such.

Lex Luger is more widely known under his wrestling stage name, regardless of the name he used to play a few seasons as a bench warmer in the NFL. Wikipedia policy states that the most widely recognized name be used, hence the name should be under 'Lex Luger'. Just because you and I are aware of his real name and career as a benchwarmer before his pro-wrestling career does NOT constitute 'wide recognition'.

With regards to Ole Anderson, regardless of his career BEHIND the scenes in WCW, he is widely known under his stage name of Ole Anderson. Even pro-wrestling publications, including the ones who break kayfabe, refer to him as 'Ole Anderson'. Again, just because you and I are aware of his behind the scenes work does NOT constitute 'wide recognition'.

I concede you have a point with Ed Leslie, however his greatest fame came under the 'Brutus Beefcake' name, not as "Zodiac, brother Bruti, The man with no name, Booty Man" and so forth. His entry does prove to be troublesome, and perhaps a redirect from his other name to Ed Leslie could be warrented.

I am not harassing you. It is the job of editors to review and correct any articles which need it. I have not edited any of your KISS articles, despite the questions I have with some of the info, because I am purposely trying to avoid having you run to an admin everytime I edit something. I have cited my sources in each edit I do. I am sorry there seems to be a lot of trolls who come here and DO deface your talk page, however your attitude towards me makes me now start to wonder WHY there seems to be such a backlash against you.

I wish to ask the admins to delete any reference Mr.Bryant makes to what he claims to be my 'real name.' I am sure that this individual is unaware you are doing this here, and out of fairness and respect for this person, this behavior should not be tolerated.

TruthCrusader

RfA
Just to say thanks for supporting my RfA (previous disagreements forgotton anyway). Please let me know if you see me screw up anytime. --Doc (?) 19:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: "African-American"
...so why can Michael Jackson not be labeled an African-American, while Robert Blake can be labeled an Italian-American, and Fat Joe can be labeled as being of Puerto Rican and Cuban heritage? Both of them are "American", just like Michael Jackson. However, Fat Joe's areticle would read sort of ridiculously if you didn't mention he was a Latino, just as Rosa Parks' did at the time that it did not mention she was African-American. --FuriousFreddy 19:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But I've not said anywhere that people's race or ethnic origins can't be mentioned. One editor has, however, been insisting on removing Jackson's nationality and replacing it with his ethnicity, and I've been replacing the nationality. When I'd done this a couple of times, the editor started deleting the nationality, replacing it with "popular" (which implies that it wasn't the addition of "African-American" that concerned him, but the removal of "American").
 * Biographical articles start by giving basic details of the person (birth date, death date where relevant, nationality, profession, and reason for notability. If ethnicity, etc., are relevant, they're generally mentioned later.  Some articles get this wrong, and you've mentioned a couple of them (both, but especially Fat Joe, are also full of other mistakes that go against the MoS).  It's never a good enough argument in these cases to point to one or two exceptions (that logic would lead us to edit this article so as to get its punctuation, Wikilinks, etc. wrong).
 * OmegaWikipedia played no part in any of this, but brought it to your attention (in typical style: "a certain editor", etc.) in the hope of enlisting you in his little vendetta. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I never called you a racist. If you're referring to the blurb at the top of my page, that's in reference to a bigger issue involving some misguided individuals who want to bury any mention of race or culture from biograpical articles here. The comment I made on OmegaWikipedia's talk page is in reference to the same issue, and other instances where editors would delete mentions of "African-American" or "black" from an article (Eddie Murphy, for example) and then go "I'll add a picture, so that you can see he's black"--a highly racist tactic indeed. I had no idea this involved you at all, and I sincerely apoligize for any confusion. --FuriousFreddy 22:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Anton Wilhelm Amo
Castle vs. palace: I'm suspecting that "castle" is a mistranslation from German "Schloss", which can mean both "castle" and "palace". Here are pictures of the building in question (i.e., the residence of the duke):. This may be a matter of opinion, but it looks more like a palace to me. --Chl 00:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

signing etc
hi ok, i think i'm getting the hang of this.

regarding Anthology, it is being released this month on Universal. It is a comprehensive collection of music with an in-depth article on BA by Dave Marsh. The book by Andrew Catlin was released on Opus books circa 1993. I will site more references as I go along. Cheers

MichelleMichelle1 06:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

MIU
Click on Fall and see what happens. It works. And I'll keep reverting the article, since you are being obstinate and impossible to collaborate with. You don't have a monopoly on it. BGC 17:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Fall = Autumn. That's why it was redirected. As for the banning, I will take steps against you as well if you continue. God knows I've got the proof. BGC 18:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Renaming
Sorry, I don't know how to rename articles. Xinger 18:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Innuendo disambig
Hi Mel, I noticed that you reverted my edits to the Innuendo disambig article for not conforming to the MoS. I took a look the disambig MoS (just found it a while ago) and edited the article further to follow it. Actually it didn't follow the MoS even before I edited it (for example Innuendo (band) is clearly preferred over Innuendo (Malaysia)), so I'm a bit puzzled why you decided to revert my edits instead of editing it? Regards, --Andylkl (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yea, I suppose there were some grounds for reverting (piped links and secondary links, my fault for not reading the manual), but I don't think em dashes are used in dab pages. Commas are more common. --Andylkl (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Suharto and totalitarianism
You are mistaken; failing to remove the category is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Jimbo Wales has reiterated repeatedly on the mailing list that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, which means that the content policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, cite your sources, and no original research) trump process rules in the individual articles. Categorizing Suharto's regime as totalitarian is a violation of all the said content policies because no credible scholar classifies it as such. In comparative politics, scholars using the typographical scheme of regime-types laid out by Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan (perhaps the closest to a standard in the field), never classify Indonesia as totalitarian but rather as authoritarian or personalistic, given that Suharto never came close to controlling or eliminating pre-existing pockets of civil society as in Stalinist Russia. Further, according to Kirkpatrick's framework, during the Reagan years the most influential in the U.S. policymaking community, Indonesia was never considered "totalitarian" but rather "authoritarian." It is also worth nothing that the notion of totalitarianism since the 1970s has come under considerable criticism in terms of its value for political scientists and historians; and even many Russian and Soviet specialists reject the usage of the concept to describe Stalinist Russia, the historical case that almost certainly comes closest to total control of state over society. If totalitarianism fails to be a description of Stalin's Russia expected by all experts in the field, certainly it fails in the case of Indonesia, where the state did not consolidate anywhere near the degree of control over society seen under Stalin. In short, the category must be removed because it is not only POV, but a POV at that that cannot be verified in any credible academic source, regardless of the CfD debate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning that its editors have the responsibility to ensure accurate and verifiable content. 172 | Talk 19:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Second response

 * 1) I have stated the above explanation repeatedly to different editors each time when asked about the removal of the categories. These explantions will be easy to find and follow for anyone interested in the CfD debate.
 * 2) The claim that Suharto's regime is "totalitarian" is not a self-evident fact. In fact, most political scientists who are experts on Indonesia reject this description. Perhaps they're wrong and you're right; but with that in mind, calling Suharto's regime totalitarian is a representation of a particular point of view, which cannot be enshried in a category given Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. 172 | Talk 15:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply again

 * By reverting my edit to the Suharto page and restoring the category, you imply that it is a self-evident fact that Suharto's regime was totalitarian, as it shows that you feel that opinion to the contrary is not worth consideration. Perhaps the best known perspective that Surharto's regime was authoritarian not totalitarian is based on the distinction publicized by Jeane Kirkpatrick. For a recent restatement of this distinction in the case of Indonesia, see the following article by Joshua Muravchik published by the AEI. 172 | Talk 23:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I cited Kirkpatrick not because she is my only source but because she is the best known contemporary writer on the totalitarian regime typology; when it comes to picking an author to cite, Kirkpatrick is simply the best bet for naming an author with whom people interested in following the debate on CfD will be familiar. Yes, she is a politician and a researcher for the AEI, a right-wing think-tank. Even so, citing a right-wing think-tank alone is sufficient for removing the category on the grounds of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The AEI article is an example of disagreement with lumping Suharto's regime under the category of totalitarianism, which must be considered if Wikipedia's use of categories on the subject is to be neutral... At any rate, Kirkpatrick is hardly the only one I have mentioned to explain the need to de-populate the category. In the past few days, I have been citing the most influential academic category scheme in comparative politics: Linz, Juan J., and Stepan, Alfred. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation and Linz, "Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism," 1975. Under Linz's scheme, Suharto's Indonesia falls outside the typology because of a lack of a unified utopian guiding ideology, the presence of some pluralism in civil society that existed under the old regime, the lack of intensive mobilization of society, and the presence of some predictable limits on the leaders power. If you do not trust my summary of the litetature, it will be quite easy for you to find copious scholarly articles grounded in Juan Linz's analysis in (say) Jtstor or Project Muse database in order to verify my statements on your own. By the way, if you have not been satisfied with some of my previous replies, I am sorry. As you're probably aware, I have been carrying on similar conversations with multiple people; so perhaps I have been confusing the conversations, assuming incorrectly at times that I explained to you certain points that I had instead explained to other people. 172 | Talk 01:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Reversion of Brittany Murphy
Your reversion of my changes to the Brittany Murphy article was really way out of line and inappropriate. If you had questions about the correctness of neutrality of my wording you should have addressed this to me in a private message, or you should have changed it, but a complete reversion of the article was vastly unacceptable. Reversions are correct for vandalistic changes or for drastically incorrect information. You seem like a very experienced wikipedia user, so I really think you should have known better. Pacian 20:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

V-J Day
It's generally right-wingers that use the term PC - so in my view it was perfectly accurate. PMA 23:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

User of IP number blanking its user and talk pages
Remember "Enviroknot", Mel?

"I'd started to forget. Why did you have to remind me?"

Sorry. Anyway, another IP number is busily trying to hide that which he doesn't want others to see: User:216.175.112.9. What you see there is probably going to be very innocuous, as hiding stuff appears to be his full-time job -- but check the history of both pages. Suggestions? -- Hoary 07:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Fast work -- well done! -- Hoary 08:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The Met
--Why did you delete the pic of the Metropolitan Museum of Art? There was a clear source given as:

Description: Front of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York Date: May 30th, 2004 Photographer: Majonaise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jleon (talk • contribs) 13:31, 26 September 2005

It was "image:MET NYC.jpg". --Jleon 19:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

-If you look at an earlier version (before last weekend) of the New York City Article, you'll see the picture there with the source given when you view it. It's a great pic and it has been there forever, so I'd like to restore it so long as there's no copyright issues surrounding it. --Jleon 12:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy
Hello - any ideas for improving the philosophy in W? I see you contributed some articles, but there is a long way to go. I just rewrote the Existence article from scratch, let me know what you think. I think it needs some sort of editorial board, and also needs more professional philosophers, how could these be attracted? user: dbuckner

University System of Maryland alumni lists
Regarding speedy rename, thanks. I should have done that, unfortunately, all USM institutions I did today got the capital alumni. -James Howard (talk/web) 00:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I have done and cleared out the remaining lists, as well as those for Miami University. Can you delete these categories: Category:University of Maryland, Baltimore Alumni; Category:University of Maryland, College Park Alumni; Category:University of Maryland, College Park Faculty; Category:Miami University Alumni; Category:Miami University Faculty? Thank you, -James Howard (talk/web) 13:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy
I appreciate your reasons for not contributing to philosophy! But I liked your article on Suarez. I am currently working on a translation of his 40th metaphysical disputation (section 5). Also the 17C page was good. My hobby is 16C philosophers (practically no competition in this area).

Do have a look at Existence. I agree that everyone has opinions, but that was why I deleted the existing article, in favour of one that merely summarised the three or four recognised positions in Anglo-American philosophy, with indications for further reading. I put in a slot for "European" philosophy, but I know practically "nothing" about it. I was a student of the late C.J.F. Williams, by the way.

> It isn't helped by the fact that philosophy is inherently ill-suited to encyclopædias (and > quiz shows), because it's primarily a process, not a product.

Surely not! Honderich's "Companion" is an excellent guide. The product is the arguments that philosophers over the ages have produced. Some of the great encyclopedias of history (e.g. Bayle) were primarily philosophical. In fact it's an incredible assertion. The first encyclopedia (book D of Aristotle's Metaphysics) was on philosophy. What about Voltaire's dictionaire philosophique? Also Baldwin's dictionary (now on the Internet). Omnem encyclopaediam sui temporis designavit.

> The Wikipedia approach (which has both advantages and disadvantages) is to discount > professional qualifications and experience in favour of the "everyone's equal, anyone > can edit anything" approach. On the whole I go along with that, but it can't be denied > that it works in some cases better than others.

No: there are good articles on physics, mathematical logic, mathematics, none of which could have been produced by non-experts. Don’t see why philosophy should be different, so long as it is restricted to what is verifiable. Typically: means roughly this. Aristotle said this, Aquinas said that, Locke/Berkeley/Hume said x, Heidegger/Sartre/Derrida said y, contemporary philosophers tend to think x, y, z. Plus a few quotes, suggestions for futher reading.

Biographies of philosophers are also verifiable (and can on the whole be produced by non-experts). user:dbuckner

List of museums and cultural institutions in New York City
Mel, you added a wikify tag to List of museums and cultural institutions in New York City, however, every museum on the list is linked and the article is in two categories. Also, the links don't appear to need disambiguating. Do you have something specific in mind? Thanks -- Kjkolb 06:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

WPLJ unboldening
In the WPLJ article you just unboldened the previous call letters the station has operated under. I believe they should be boldened because they are in effect alternate names for the article; indeed some stations (not WPLJ) are more famous under previous call letters than their current one. Furthermore there are sometimes redirects from the previous call letters to the current named article. And there are no separate articles for the old call letters, everything is subsumed into the current call letter article. What say you?

WPLJ unboldening
In the WPLJ article you just unboldened the previous call letters the station has operated under. I believe they should be boldened because they are in effect alternate names for the article; indeed some stations (not WPLJ) are more famous under previous call letters than their current one. Furthermore there are sometimes redirects from the previous call letters to the current named article. And there are no separate articles for the old call letters, everything is subsumed into the current call letter article. What say you? Wasted Time R 15:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Existence of God Reorg
We're having a discussion on how best to reorganize the Existence of God article. We currently have two competing plans. One version is being sandboxed here, and is being discussed here. The other plan (mine) is being discussed here. Since I remember you being interested in this article, I'm asking for your input. (This is being copy-and-pasted to several people.) Thanks! crazyeddie 19:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Cheers
Thanks Bro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.11.24 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 September 2005

adams musical history revision
hi mel i noticed you changed my revision back again, so i revised the other authors entry to the facts. there is no written source of this time other than BA himself, so i went to him for verification. thanks Michelle1 12:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

ps: i also noticed you were able to leave a tag after your change, how do i add one? in the box below the edit?

Hi Mel
This is LuMas, (Justin.) You left me a message regarding changes to the bachelor's degree page, and the Bachelor of Philosophy page. The reason that I changed B.Phil. page is because I found it very Oxford-centric. The degree has become famous, in America at least, as an undergraduate honors degree. To divide the article into two sections, both referring to Oxford, perhaps obscures the importance of the degee outside of Oxford. I agree with your changes, but would appreciate it if you worked, in some way, the text that I wrote in the 'Outside Oxford' section. I believe that it better sums up the B.Phil's importance as an undergraduate degree. Thanks. Take care, Mel, -Justin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuMas (talk • contribs) 22:30, 29 September 2005

Toxic (single)
I think the answer is obvious. The U.S. has the biggest music market on the planet, and in most music single articles, includes several chart peaks from that country alone. They should be seperated in different infoboxes to distinguish the many U.S. charts from the international ones. Triggy 22:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I just discovered two seperate articles on "The Star-Spangled Banner"
Someone wrote one for Whitney Houtson's version ("The Star Spangled Banner (Whitney Houston song)"), which I listed on AfD. We really need to get this under control; I think this is the point where, if we want this project to look like a respectable encyclopedia and not a free-hosted fansite, we need ot put our feet down and do something about it. --FuriousFreddy 02:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I see no need to get deletionist just to meet somebody's arbitrary standard of "respectability". *Dan T.* 04:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm no deletionist, but this fan-cruft is irritating; the Houston version is completely non-notable, and doesn't need a separate article. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

RE: Robert Crowley (CIA)
Could you further clarify your explanation please? When I go to the page you referred me to and scroll to the bottom, I see: External links. That's what I changed it to, how is External link correct--are you refering to the capitalization of link or the addition of s to links? Thank you, Srcrowl 04:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Theme from Mahogany (Do You Know Where You're Going To) (Diana Ross song) - redirect to -> [[Mahogany (1975 film)
I merged the song into the article on the movie (very easy ,as one was essentially a copy of the other, except for the song's catalogue information. But OmegaWikipedia keeps reverting (ostensibly to make a case for keeping his article on Mariah Carey's version, which I listed--as should have been done months ago--at AfD). I don't want to break the 3RR rule; what should be done? --FuriousFreddy 05:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Various bad behaviours from this IP.
Dear Mel Etitis,

Thank you for the work you've been doing to keep wikipedia coherant. As I've just discovered (as you have through various re-edits) this IP is the source of much trouble on Wikipedia. This is due to the IP 161.74.11.24 belonging to the master web proxy of the University of Westminster in London.

I entirely agree with the action that you and other moderators have taken and will take in the future, but keep in mind that with future violations this is not one user.

I for one will be sure to create an account before doing any work here.

Sincerely, Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.11.24 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 30 September 2005

Sabaragamuwa Province
Hi M.E. - i noice when you tidied Sabaragamuwa Province recently, you moved the stub templates, leaving SL-stub but removing asia-geo-stub. I've just put the asia-geo-stub back on. It's important that geographical places get some sort of geo-stub, so that WP:WSS knows when particular countries have enough stubs for a new geo-stub type to be made (in this case, SL-geo-stub). And we keep track of them by what's in the "grouped" geo=-stub categories like. Grutness...  wha?  02:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I figured it was just a one-off slip, but I didn't want to find out you'd made a habit of it :) Grutness...  wha?  09:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

bryan adams postnominal letters
I have to disagree with you. You said yourself that the wikipedia style guide has no specific instructions on this issue. So it seems to me that it is just a matter of your personal preference. I see the same list of postnominal initials in articles (none of which I have edited, by the way) like Wilfrid Laurier, Prince Phillip, Adrienne Clarkson, Michaëlle Jean, and many others. I'm not one to get into revert wars, but I think I'm right on this one. I refer you to this paragraph from the Order of the Garter article:

Knights and Ladies use the post-nominal letters "KG" and "LG," respectively. When an individual is entitled to use multiple post-nominal letters, KG or LG appears before all others, except "Bt" (Baronet), "VC" (Victoria Cross) and "GC" (George Cross).

the postnominal letters are part of the person's name. they have the privilege of adding these letters after their name to signify that they are members of an order, just like Bryan Adams is a member of the order of Canada and the order of British Columbia. --Alhutch 15:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks for keeping it civilized.--Alhutch 16:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR
I just wanted to let you know that I blocked User:BGC for violation of 3RR. At the same time I would like to take the chance to remind you not to bite the newbies and of the fact that it is innapropriate to use Rollback for content disputes and a friendly reminder that you are 1 revert away from breaking 3RR on M.I.U. Album, thanks. Jtkiefer T - 19:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Please explain reverts on User:168.209.98.35 and User talk:168.209.98.35
Please explain your reverts on User:168.209.98.35 and User talk:168.209.98.35. In both cases the complaints about the IP address were frivolous. You can reply on the  talk page, but kindly refrain from reverting the pages again without giving a reason. 168.209.98.35 22:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

"And Pilate washed his hands before the crowd"
...or however the verse goes.

I completely give up on trying to reign in the pop diva fans' work; I shouldn't be wasting all my time trying to discuss something with someone who isn't listening. For now, I'm just going to work on helping establish the notablility guidelines asa preventive tool This isn't about me wanting things "my way" (I think you understand that); it's about trying to make things consistent and keeping the music side of things as fre as possible of fangush (<--that article might need to be deleted or redirected. I found it when visiting Fancruft, but boy is it on-the-level). --FuriousFreddy 00:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * See WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. --FuriousFreddy 13:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Kind-of related, and not worth a new section to itself: I replied to your [Mel's] message on my own talk page. -- Hoary 13:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
Mel, I mentioned this on the M.I.U. Album talk page, however, I wanted to gently remind you that there is a clear distinction between vandalism and a dispute over an article. Please be cautious when using the term "vandalism", as this can upset users when they are making "good-faith" edits. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 02:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)