User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 27

Image
I searched, no definite source. I'd seen it on several different sites, but the url I retrieved it from was:  http://www.joerod.com/archives/liljohnhighschoolpic.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by D Major (talk • contribs) 04:44, 2 October 2005

Issue at James Stewart
Sorry for turning to you once again, but there's a minor dispute at the James Stewart (actor) page regarding the sourcing a non-notable book making "claims" that Stewart was a spy for the U.S. government. Not only does the claim itself sound absurd, but the book that the user who added the content (quoted below) cited sounds non-notable and obscure in itself. The author seems to not have published many other reputable books, does not have a strong Google presence, the book has only a few minor articles mostly in internet pages, and the publisher is not well known. Added to this is the fact that there are no user comments about the books on Amazon.com. I don't think the source is reputable, but not knowing the intricacies of WP policy I figured I'd ask you first before I put this up for comment. I've contacted the user who posted the "facts," but he's resorted to turning the argument against me personally, while not posing any logical (in my opinion) reason for the inclusion of the unsubstantiated information. Much of the discussion can be found at the page's talk and history (in description) pages. Volatile 17:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Reversions
First of all, I wanted to let you know that I've responded to your comments at vandalism talk. However, please refrain from reverting what you argue is "low-level" vandalism. Instead I urge you to follow the dispute resolution process. Also, I'd like to gently remind you that WP:3RR does not entitle you to three reverts a day. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mel, I probably wouldn't have made such a big deal out of this if this wasn't the first time that I've seen you claim this sort of thing to be vandalism. If you're willing to admit that this type of behavior does not constitute vandalism of any sort (publicly or privately), I'll forget the issue altogether. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorrying if I came off as affrontive, that wasn't my intention. I just meant that I wouldn't continue to discuss the matter; as you mentioned earlier you felt that you were being rebuked by three administrators.  I don't want you to admit to anything you don't believe, what I meant (or at least, my intention) was that if you're willing to not treat this sort of thing as vandalism in the future, then I wouldn't continue to pursue the matter.  However, this wasn't intended as a threat or an ultimatum. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I agree with you that Annitas's comments are irrelevant on the vandalism page: they really don't address the issue at all, he is using it as a soapbox. I actually mentioned something to him him about this at first, but then rescinded my comment after other editors started to pile on.  Also, his anti-mel lynchmob is uncivil, and does nothing to further the Wikipedia.
 * I had added a note about the vandalism discussion on the policy village pump, and it seems we're starting to get back to actual discussion. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Head over Feet
It's not that I believe that songs should be exempt from normal naming. I know the Manual Of Style specifies principal words such as prepositions should not be capitalized in the title of works, but, I don't think it delves into the specifics of the grammar rules: "Headline style calls for all principal words to be capitalized (also called caps & lc). Unfortunately authorities differ widely on what words are principal. Langley rules for headline style capitalization are based on the G.P.O. (1984) and are as follows: Do not capitalize the articles a, an, and the; the prepositions or adverbs at, by, for, of, in, up, on, and to; and the conjunctions and, as, but, if, or, and nor. In effect, this rule means that words of four or more letters are considered principal words and are capitalized" http://www.sti.nasa.gov/publish/sp7084.pdf (page 87) I won't revert it again, or any of the other song articles for that matter. It's something to take into consideration though. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 16:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Jopará
I don't agree with what you did on that article. I admit that it's far from being encyclopedia-writing-styled but i think it's better than nothing. That's why I put the WIKIFY tag. I expect to enlarge it as I collect more information. STUB tag.

So, now I'm reverting...

good luck —Preceding unsigned comment added by N0thingness (talk • contribs) 19:17, 3 October 2005

Notice

 * I understand this issue, so thank you for pointing it out. However, I would muchly appreciate it if you stopped stalking me around this site. For you to have realized I had an image like that on my user page clearly indicates you've been following me. I ask you kindly to halt your actions before crossing any barrier. Thank you. Winnermario 20:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Mysterious assumption
Please stop reverting my edits without even considering them. Boa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boa (talk • contribs) 21:16, 3 October 2005

RE: Bullshido/Martial Arts Fraud
Hi Mel.

When you get a chance can you look at the last comments on the McDojo talk page. I know you've locked the Bullshido article, but from a catagorical perspective, it's highly inaccurate to list the term as a sub-catagory of an aspect of what it's trying to communicate. I realize that the VfDs were judged to be what they were, but I'd really like you to address this point on the discussion page if you could. --Phrost 21:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate you left the comment you did. What was written on my talk page (and you can verify this by looking at the history) was done as a result of our last disagreement at the time it happened.  --Phrost 21:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Responded to your comments on my talk page. Please read the when you have the chance.  --Phrost 19:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:PAphoto
On the TfD listing for this template, you voted to "wait". I just wanted to let you know that all of the images tagged with this template have been deleted, so you may want to reconsider your vote. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 00:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sealand table
Hi Mel Etitis. You are an admin, and I noticed that you are editing right now so I thought I might ask you a favor. I just noticed that there is a user that keep vandalizing Template:Sealand table by blanking it, eventhough he has been warned to stop what he's doing. I really don't know what the conflict is about, and I haven't been involved, but blanking is of course not acceptable in any case. Maybe you could take a look at it? -- Karl Meier 09:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. Thank you for dealing with this issue. -- Karl Meier 09:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's gone again, to an anonymous user... presumably the same guy. --SMeeds 09:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And now he call himself "Uneum"... Apparently it doesn't work to ban him. Maybe that template should be protected from editing instead? -- Karl Meier 09:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Dash it, Mel
I've repeatedly encountered &amp;ndash; in the oddest places but never chased up their perpetrator user. Now, however, I see: ... the fuss made when I was &amp;ndash; wrongly &amp;ndash; interpreted as using that argument .... Er, every style guide I've seen says that &amp;mdash; is the tool for this job (and some others), while &amp;ndash; is limited to spans ("pages 20&amp;ndash;31") and a few other miscellaneous purposes ("Tallinn&amp;ndash;Helsinki traffic", "Los Angeles&amp;ndash;based", etc.). But I could be out of date: am I missing some innovation here?

If this merits a reply, please reply here rather than on my page as fragmented discussions hurt my neck. -- Hoary 15:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 59 (a) The en rule should be used to mark off a parenthesis which makes a notable break in the flow of the sentence:
 * We all – and I really mean all – are on his side.
 * It may also be used to avoid parentheses with parentheses:
 * The troops (who were – largely but by no means wholly – drawn from native stock) were loyal to a man.


 * [Then lots of stuff about other uses of en rules: joining numerals, joint authors, etc.]


 * 67 (b) The em rule is used to mark an interruption or a change of thought:
 * Why on earth have you &mdash; but there! what's the use of arguing?


 * [And, again, more stuff on other uses of the em rule: dramatic effect and use before final summarising phrase.]

(Herbert Rees Rules of Printed English)

The use of the em rule for almost everything except joining numbers is recent (at least on this side of the Atlantic), and (I think) the result of the decline in typesetting skills, and the need for a simplified set of rules. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll be dashed. I hadn't heard of Rees or his book, and if I were in a truculent mood would mutter darkly about how bookfinder.com implies that the latter is a 35-year-old work from an obscure publisher. But actually your excerpt from it is rather impressive. Still, I hadn't heard of such a distinction, which I do not think appears anywhere in the perhaps 20-year-old copy I possess (an hour's train-ride from where I now sit) of the unambiguously British and rather well-known work Hart's Rules. -- Hoary 02:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately my copy of Hart's is in a box at the botom of a pile of boxes, which is little better than being an hour's train-ride away; my memory was that it agreed with Rees, but I might well be wrong. Rees, incidentally, was an editor at Longman's, and chief editor at Bookprint. Darton, Longman & Todd is "The UK's leading independent publisher of spirituality and religion" (it says here); no, I've never heard of the, either, except for the Rees book. Sir Ernest Gowers' The Complete Plain Words (my copy's from 1964) uses en rules for parentheses (see the section on dashes, p.249) &mdash; but then he uses them for everything else too. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Notability deletions
I noticed that you nominated both Luxurious and Pucci Petwear for deletion on the grounds of notability. I point out that Deletion policy has nothing about notability, and that an attempt to add notability as a deletion criteria failed to generate consensus. Furthermore, I point out that the deletion policy specifically states that articles that are "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" should be merged, not deleted.

In light of this, I ask you to reconsider your practice of making nominations on these grounds - instead consider the verifiability, vanity, and dicdef policies, which I think can be used to delete about 90% of the crap that gets nominated for deletion. Snowspinner 15:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles voted to be deleted questions?
Hello Mel, Sorry to bother you but, I have a question for you since you started a new article on the indie film Democrazy after the original article about the film had been deleted after a vote. What is the procedure?

I had assumed after your creating a new article on the film and the ones who were so dead set against it, stopped their campaign to remove it, that if someone else starts an article up and the original reasons why something had been deleted were removed that an article on something such as Democrazy could eventually be made.

Another indie film which was originally deleted The Deserter because it was believed to be advertising was created again as The Deserter (2003) by a different user: Rms125a@hotmail.com or 70.19.29.244 and it was erased by one of the original delete voters who is now an administrator. The creator's IP address 70.19.29.244 is out of New York and it seemed obvious that it was not the same user who created it the first time.

So is this right? An article about a film or anything else that was deleted can never be written about again even if the reasons for deletion no longer apply? Anyway, I was just wondering whether you knew the answers to any of my questions. Thank you. Plank


 * The original article was: The Deserter it is now an article about a 1912 film. The original article was about a independent silent comedy by one of the actors in Democrazy. I thought it was an interesting article. When it was made by user:70.19.29.244 who I believe is the same as User:RMS125a@hotmail I added some info. Everything is now erased so there is nothing to see. I was just wondering how it worked. Thanks again. Plank


 * Thanks Mel for all your help. I'm probably theonly one interested in such films so maybe it's because it lacks notability. Thanks for your replys. :) Plank 02:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"omnibenevolence"
As this is an unncessary neologism, I've reverted to "benevolent" at Hindu answers to the problem of evil; I've also left a message at Talk:Omnibenevolence. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mel. I left some references on usage too.  Would you be willing to put in some sort of "qualifier" comment about usage?  I really don't have a strong opinion about it, but the term does seem to be gaining some "respectability." :-)    &mdash; RDF talk 16:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes.
I realize that I should use an edit summary, but have you considered how awful it'd be to write 700+ edit summaries in the span of 24 hours on one single task? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Stalker
You have been stalking Annittas, OmegaWikipedia, and myself. End of discussion.

Now I see your ignorance on Kelly Clarkson's music single pages continues to expand. A compromise was finally brought up (this being the "World" and "Billboard") to steer away from the previous confusion of the charts, however, you continuously revert them to your preference because that's what you want: things to be your way. This can also be shown through User:Extraordinary Machine. He wants to use his style of music single info box, and because some people are opposing, he is filing a complaint (from what I've heard, excuse me if this is inaccurate information). Six people agreed on this compromise, so I will be reverting all of Kelly Clarkson's single articles.

Oh, and please do not call these pages "pop music articles", since some of them (notably Green Day and Mariah Carey) do not play pop music. Clarkson's music is not even very "pop" anymore, as she has moved into more of a pop rock section. Winnermario 20:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverting
Hey. Sorry to bother you again. I've noticed in the album articles, and a few others, that there you are engaged in ongoing disputes. However, it seems that these are unresolved disputes. You and the other editors seem to have been reverting each other back and forth. I know you think the dispute resolution process is fruitless, but I recommend using it or finding another solution to the problem. Reverting ad infinitum does not solve anything. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Does it really hurt to have the article with the charts the other way for a little while, even if you disagree with it (while you try to settle this)? Actually, to be honest, I'm in agreement with you on the charts and some of the other disputes, but again, an edit war solves nothing.  I'm not sure if an RfC would help, but it's worth trying.  It is also a necessary step in the arbitration process, if it eventually comes to that.
 * I can understand why you disagree with them. I also know some of these editors you've dealt with.. are not the easiest to deal with.  However, reverting, rather than seeking compromise will only further tensions but you and them.  Also, perhaps you've become a little jaded or calloused or what have you, but to me it seems to have become a default reaction to material that you disagree with (For example: ).  I'm not exactly sure what avenue is the best to take, however, I strongly urge you to pursue one that does not further these edit wars.  -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 14:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur with bmicomp. Reversions are useless, please don't do it. :o --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 20:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sealand table
Thanks for your help on this, Mel. &mdash; Davenbelle 04:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2
You wrote



I suppose the ability to delete the AfDs had something to do with his admin powers? Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * He deleted 32 pages in all (see comment under your endorsement). I'm not especially interested in hounding Snowspinner as an individual, but I really feel that, coming so soon after the Ed Poor affair, his actions are a particularly blatant bit of point making. He strikes me as being too intelligent a person not to have understood exactly what he was doing and what the outcome was going to be, but clearly planned on turning the whole thing into a deletionist v. inclusionist debate. And his responses to criticism of his actions have been arrogant, to say the least. I suspect that David Gerard's interventions have also served to undermine confidence in the ArbCom to deal with this and similiar cases even-handedly, too. I just feel if this goes unactioned, people like me may as well give up and spend our time on more fruitful matters like the search for world peace! Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sam Manekshaw
Hi Mel, I meant to delete the sentence "He was also awarded the Padma Bhushan" as 3 paragraphs before, the fact is already mentioned saying that a grateful nation awarded him the Padma Bhushan in 1968 for his efforts in fighting Naga insurgency. Hence I'd be reverting your edit which re-included the sentence. Regards, Gurubrahma 15:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, it is perfectly okay. Gurubrahma 15:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy of science question
Hi Mel - haven't seen you around in a long time. How are you? Could you have a look at my comment at Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy - I am trying to answer philosophy of science questions based on "gut feeling" as much as anything, and I may be completely wrong on the last bit. Thanks. Guettarda 17:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Time Out (album)

 * 1) The line appears in many other articles; Wikipedia's a big place.
 * 2) Even if it were "abnormal", that's not a good ground for insisting on deleting it.
 * 3) I've discussed this with other editors at appropriate pages, and no-one objected. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you continue to revert this, and to ignore my message, I shall have to assume that you are editing in bad faith, and treat your edits as vandalism. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * (1) I've still not seen another one, which means it is still abnormal in my eyes.
 * (2) Wikipedia has many style policies to ensure a consistent look across articles; to say that something being abnormal is not grounds for altering it is ridiculous.
 * (3) I am not "other editors"
 * My revert comments clearly explain my reasoning, yours say "replace(d) line" - to consider it vandalism would be foolish.
 * To me, you are the one that is ignoring messages. &brvbar; Reisio 21:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * All I had was a peculiar edit summary, which you simply repeated, without acknowledging my message. As to your claim, I suspect that you simply haven't noticed the "hr"s &mdash; there are many of them used in this way.  I prefer not to give examples, as I don't want to see you remove them.  They serve to separate the (irrelevant) dablink section from the article.  You seem to be removing it as a matter of personal taste.  Consistency is not a good enough reason; aside from anything else, when two things are inconsistent, a decision has to be made as to which should be made consistent with which; your apparently arbitrary decision isn't good enough. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The point of notices at the top of articles are to help people find the articles they're searching for - they're far from irrelevant (and even if they were, they're already distinguished from the article in at least two ways). As I've said, I removed it because this is the only time I have seen it used.  If you find that arbitrary, I can only assume you either don't know what that word means, or have a poor concept of logic.
 * If you can produce no other examples of this hr usage, then all I can do is continue to view it as abnormal. If the only examples you can produce include rules added by you and not someone else, then it is still abnormal. &brvbar; Reisio 23:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well? Have you any examples?  I will be removing that rule if you don't. &brvbar; Reisio 19:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Mistake
Sorry I won't do it again; I was just curious to see if something I wrote could actually get onto the website. My apologies and I didn't know it was vandalism. Wikipedia's a great website :D

You Wrote: Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.139.184 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 6 October 2005

American Spellings
regarding the use of 'artifact' in the Sphere (novel) article, get back to me when people who use artefact live in a country with a higher GDP than America. love, Scapermoya 07:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Im not being unpleasent, this is ridiculous. The website you cited is partially in english, so I don't understand how that is any kind of evidence. I have grown up and been educated in America and artifact is the widely accepted spelling. Let me know is there is a country that sets a better cultural precedent in the english language (hint: the UK's motto is in French). I think the fact that wikipedia's article on atrefacts redirects to artifact, not the other way around, is precedent enough to make my edit valid. Not to mention (from the article) "Artifact as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is "anything made by human art and workmanship; an artificial product."" I am not going to play editing tennis with you. love, Scapermoya 23:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You Give Good Love

 * Mel,

I have expanded the article on this song significantly and provided sources. I would be grateful if you could have a look at the rewritten version. Capitalistroadster 10:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Vaslui
Thank you for catching my error regarding Suleiman Pasha. I'll be more careful in the future. Perhaps there should be a note in an HTML comment that it is not the same person as in the Suleiman Pasha article, since I'm probably not the first the make this mistake. Mike Dillon 15:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

the manilyn reynes page
hello, thank you for taking time looking at the manilyn reynes page. I would be very happy if you could help me out. I am not that familiar with the whole thing yet, but very willing to learn and stuff. I really appreciate your honest comments. Hope to hear from you more. By the way, sorry about the removal of the clean up sign. pebblewash

Question
Mel, are you knowledgable on the topic of South Asian history? Just asking because I may need your help to moderate in certain articles later in the future. Thanks as always, a.n.o.n.y.m   t 23:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC
You may want to see the RFC that has been filed against you: Requests_for_comment/Mel_Etitis -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 05:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Úbeda
Hello, sorry for the long message.

In March 2005, there was a WP:RM request and vote (which you took part in) to move Úbeda to Ubeda, with a 6-3 result, see Talk:Ubeda (or perhaps here if renamed).

However, beginning in April 2005 and lasting several months, there was a survey conducted at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), with dozens of participants voting and discussing over an extended period of time. The purpose of the survey was to try to gather feedback for what the policy should be globally. Proponents of diacritics were in the majority, and in general, use of diacritics is widespread in actual practice on Wikipedia today (particularly since the Mediawiki upgrade to Unicode).

However, for Úbeda/Ubeda, Philip Baird Shearer is stating that the WP:RM vote takes precedence over the survey results, and a new WP:RM vote would be required to move it to Úbeda. My position is that there should be a global policy rather than case-by-case voting -- that was the whole purpose of the survey. In discussion with him, I wrote:
 * Just as we wouldn't have case-by-case voting on, say, capitalization issues for articles (eg, prepositions in movie and book titles should be lowercase, globally), we shouldn't have case-by-case voting on diacritic issues.

See the discussion at Talk:Ubeda (or perhaps here if renamed).

As a possible alternative to calling a new WP:RM vote which might set a precedent for case-by-case voting across thousands of articles, I am polling all the participants of the original WP:RM vote to ask:
 * Regardless of how you voted in the WP:RM voting, which do you believe should take precedence: the earlier WP:RM vote on the specific article, or the subsequent survey?

Note, since Philip Baird Shearer was one of the participants in that vote, he will also be receiving this message and thus will have the opportunity to respond. -- Curps 05:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and for the information of all the voters in the March requested move vote, there's now a new requested move vote at Talk:Ubeda. -- Curps 01:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

freedom fighters
Name may be wrong ("Pakistan freedom fighters"), but fact remains, that there are many people who fought for indepedence of Pakistan. It is similar to India, where many people fought at different levels. May be some of them were not fighting with arms, but they were contributing. Evern if we delte this, there should be category which deals with people who took part in indepedence movement of Pakistan. Please suggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasage (talk • contribs) 09:20, 7 October 2005

Substituting templates...
When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:test&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Hehe. You left that unsubstituted Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 10:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Here. Maybe you wanted &#123;&#123;subst:test&#125;&#125; instead? Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 13:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Trouble with the two versions template
Hello. Could you advise what I should do to such situation: ? Briefly, it was resulted from the new section that I've added for Macao. User:Huaiwei insisted it should instead be spelt "Macau". Both spellings are used by the Macanese government in English, but "Macao" is preferred, and is the spelling used in the English name printed on the passports the government issues. In my opinion, no particular preference should be given to any of the two spellings, as colour vs. color. To avoid edit warring, I put on the twoversions tag, but Huaiwei keeps reverting back to the other version which he prefers. &mdash; Instantnood 14:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that there has been a long-standing dispute over how Macau should be spelt. Instantnood is more than aware of this, but throughout the past months, he has continued to create articles, categories, and numerous content all with his prefered spelling dispute not being able to come to any form of discussion with others. This addition is yet another manifestation of the above. He claims that there is no spelling dispute in, and continues to pretend no disputes took place in his refusal to discuss.


 * The two versions tag is not just to avoid edit warring. It is to encourage discussions, which Instantnood consistently fails to do unless compelled to, as is the case in the above page mentioned. He once tried to use the tag on his prefered version and resisted discussion, so when others started questioning his motives, he changed the displayed version to his "opponents'" version. Since discussions continue to be absent, or were unconclusive, he had, of late, suddenly decided to change all displayed versions to his prefered version, as has happened in, and .--Huaiwei 15:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

For your information, Mel Etitis, I've never changed the displayed version to my opponents' version just because of being questioned on my motives. My policy is to display a version according to what the certain article was like before the disputes. List of railways in China is an example. &mdash; Instantnood 15:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

As for Macao/Macau, I've never changed existing text from Macao to Macau, or the other way round (except that both appears in the same article, that standardised is necessary). It's unavoidable to choose one of the two spellings when adding new content, like creating new articles, or adding information about Macao/Macau to articles that previously have nothing about Macao/Macau. &mdash; Instantnood 15:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Edit histories will have a final say. When instantnood first starting playing the "two versions" game, all it did was create another round of hostility as he chose to use it on his prefered versions, backing down only after intense pressure from others. This has also happened with he tried to freeze edits by protecting them, as has happened in List of companies in the People's Republic of China and List of airports in the People's Republic of China (both of which he again created trouble as mentioned above).


 * Instantnood claims that he has never changed between the two versions, yet the edit warring in List of mobile network operators is precisely because of this. He claims that he will change versions so that all are spelt the same in one article. Yet I found myself changing Macaos to Macaus after he tried to add Macaos to articles which previously only had Macaus in it. It is more then clear, the Instantnood should be more than aware that there is a spelling dispute. Yet he continues to keep adding content using his prefered spellings before any resolution has taken place, seemingly with the intention of using the number of Macaos in wikipedia (and the effect it can have on google searches) as a bargaining chip in future when the issue is debated on again. I feel compelled to undo all of his actions for the past 10 months, and I may consider renaming all Macaos to Macaus if he persists in being uncoorperative.--Huaiwei 16:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation.
You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule on Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song). Please do not unblock yourself, and if you have any questions or comments about this block, leave them on this page; I've put it on my watchlist and will try to respond to you as quickly as possible. Ral 315   WS  15:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've unblocked Mel because it's clear he's dealing with two bullies and vandals. See the discussion WP:AN/I and WP:AN/I. Mel has been simply trying to tidy and conform articles to WP:MOS. For this he has been badgered and suffered many, many personal attacks from Anittas and Winnermario for over a week now. They've resisted him at every turn. He's rightly brought this to our attention at WP:AN/I, and others have intervened on his behalf to no avail. The two who oppose him are by any meaningful definition bullies and vandals. Mel should not be punished for resisting their abuse in good faith. I've unblocked him as I feel this block did not take into account the intentional abuse and goading that he's faced, and so is unjustified. FeloniousMonk 16:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this unblock, but will not get into a block war. However, Mel, watch your reverts, even in dealing with users you think might be acting in bad-faith.   Ral  315   WS  16:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In response to Mel's comment on my talk page: No, it's not just for cooling off.  While this is one of the reasons to use a 3RR block, it's not the only one; in fact, there's no discussion of the reasoning in making such a block posted at WP:3RR; just that an admin may block you for violation.  And I did so.   Ral  315   WS  16:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Endorsing your RFC
We've actually informally crossed paths, in a good way. You thanked me for merging Enrico Caruso recordings, and discussing the name of the Help album that was accidentally moved into the Help namespace. I couldn't find your edit about welcome messages, though perhaps it's been lost to time :)

I endorsed the summary that Phroziac and Bmicomp provided because I believe that revert wars are harmful, particularly when admins act on them. Never have I needed to use more than one revert a day, save for page blanking and other blatant vandalism. I expect all users to minimize revert wars, particularly admins (like it or not, admins do have a higher status in the Wikipedia community, and I therefore expect admins to act in a slightly more proper way than I would a normal user). I do agree that the edits you made helped the articles; however, repeatedly reverting is still reverting. Perhaps taking out an RFC on the users you had warred with would have been a better way to do so.

Finally, I want you to know that I don't have any hard feelings toward you; I respect you, and clearly the Wikipedia community respected you, as you were granted adminship, and have made numerous great edits that have improved Wikipedia. However, in this particular case, I choose to go against you- not because of some personal vendetta, or an attempt for revenge, but because I believe that the way you acted was wrong in this case. Please understand this. Best wishes... Ral 315   WS  05:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The Water is Wide
On The Water is Wide, why is the page title in quotes (" ")? I thought books were in italics and songs were in quotes. --Commander Keane 17:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Jellybabies
This newly created article is almost entirely incorrect, but should never have been created anyway, since the correct (and corretly named) Jelly baby already exists. Being relatively new around here I'm not sure of the correct procedure. --SMeeds 22:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I was too quick to report it. It has now been fixed by someone else. --SMeeds 23:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Pounder move
Mel, I noticed you moved CCH Pounder to C.C.H. Pounder. I know it's unusual punctuation, but I did the research when I was cleaning up the article a while back ('swhy it's on my watchlist). "CCH" is her professional name, as used on her official website, her SAG registration, IMDb, the Los Angeles Times, People magazine, and more. She hasn't used "C.C.H." since the very beginning of her acting career. There should definitely be a redirect, but I think it should go the other direction. What do you think?

Thanks for keeping up the janitorial work, by the way; it's the little folks with the brooms that keep the place so shiny.... &mdash; Catherine\talk 02:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I must admit, I had a bit of a giggle over 'Sinuation comedy' myself, before I fixed it.... :)  &mdash; Catherine\talk 17:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Your turn
Hi Mel, Willmcw started a tradition whereby whichever one of us had the RfC was sent the sunflower of sympathy and solidarity, and sadly I see it's your turn. I'm sorry you're having to put up with this, and I hope you're not letting it get to you. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The RfC involving you
Mel: Please let me start out by stating that I have no doubt that your reversion behavior is founded entirely in good faith; you think you're doing this for the good of Wikipedia. Let me also, then, add that I think your method is unacceptable. Low-speed edit wars do not help anyone. I realize that you're dealing with fractious users. I must wonder, however, if your "revert first and ask questions later if at all" approach is helping to make them more fractious and possibly even chasing them off. If so, then you are harming Wikipedia. In any case, your method is one which policy and the ArbCom both clearly disapprove of, and you really should stop it.

In addition, I must object to the following statement in your response to the RfC: "I don't know what their motivation is, but it seems clearly to be neither a sense of fairness nor a genuine concern for the quality of Wikipedia." This statement is a personal attack of two adminstrators in good standing; to accuse a fellow administrator of not having a sense of fairness, or of not having a concern for the quality of Wikipedia, is unacceptable. I strongly urge you to retract this statement as it will be used against you should this matter go before the ArbCom, which I am starting to suspect that it will (although I have urged against it).

I implore you to find a better way to deal with these issues. Persistent low-grade edit wars are not an option. Regards, Kelly Martin 07:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I still don't see the evidence that you brought the matter of these users' persistence to the attention of the community by opening an RfC. Perhaps if you could produce links to those edits, I might be slightly more sympathetic to your position -- although not much, as IMO there really isn't anything that justifies an edit war.  We have dispute resolution processes for a reason; you're not really entitled to "opt out" of them. Kelly Martin 15:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've had significant discussions with another editor who is going through your edit history; he's found even more examples of you doing the things you keep insisting that you don't do. I assume that if and when this matter goes to the ArbCom, his evidence will be presented.  The evidence he's finding is firmly in support of the claim that you have not done a very effective job of dealing with people who make stylistic errors on Wikipedia.  In some cases, it appears that what you've done is open a issue-based RfC, gotten a handful of supports from your clique, and then taken that as license to revert (you've even cited to the RfC to justify continued reverts, in at least one case) until the cows come home.  In others, you've had SlimVirgin attempt to "intercede" with a problematic user while you continue to revert them.  We've found no instances of you opening a user conduct RfC.  The summary that he gave me was "the issue is that Mel has tried to solve these disputes (although, they were somewhat half-assed attempts if you ask me), but his first response seems to be that he reverts, then he'll attempt to work things.  and then the if they don't he'll continue to revert."  The problem is the continuing to revert after you fail to work things out.  That's what I'm upset about.  In every case we've looked at, we've found continued reversions coming from you, without any attempt to escalate the dispute through Wikipedia's problem resolution system.  This has a number of negative affects on Wikipedia, and I'd really prefer that you stop.  I would like to note that I have noticed that you have stopped using one-click rollback to revert nonvandalism, and I appreciate that.     Kelly Martin 22:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

User:PM Poon
Sorry to trouble you, but I see that you're an admin, and that you've had dealings with this User, and have suffered the sort of thing that I'm suffering. After correcting some English on an article, and adding the "copyedit" template, PM Poon made some edits and removed the "copyedit" label. The article was no better (in some respects worse), and I replaced the label, explaining my action to PM Poon. Since then he's been harassing me on my Talk page, leaving long, insulting, and hostile messages. He's also started going through the list of articles that I've created looking for typing mistakes (that's OK, so long as they're genuine, though it's still a bit creepy). What should I do? I left a message at Village pump (assistance), but I haven't had a reply yet. --Phronima 15:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --Phronima 13:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The Water is Wide
You're right, but there's got to be a better way than "(1972) by Pat Conroy". How about "a 1972 book by Pat Conroy" or something of the sort? On an unrelated note, I've wikilinked Pat Conroy on the disambig page. Ral 315   WS  16:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What about doing it like JFK (disambiguation)? Note that all links have wikilinks in them, and JFK (movie) is linked as JFK.   Ral  315   WS  23:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Question About MoS Edits
Could you please, either on my talk page or on the RfC talk page (not the RfC article page) provide a few examples of the sort of MoS edits that you have been doing to the music articles that are constantly reverted? I am really a little unsure what the problem is, other than as to two editors on the RfC talk page who appear to be flame-trolls. Robert McClenon 19:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Question About MoS Edits
Could you please, either on my talk page or on the RfC talk page (not the RfC article page) provide a few examples of the sort of MoS edits that you have been doing to the music articles that are constantly reverted? I am really a little unsure what the problem is, other than as to two editors on the RfC talk page who appear to be flame-trolls. Robert McClenon 19:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

unneccessary speculation about what editors feel
Your edit summary said you were removing "unneccessary speculation about what editors feel". Here is the text you've revert to. I've bolded the text below that "speculates" about editors feelings:


 * Although not formally required before proceeding to arbitration, many arbitration cases begin as RfCs, and arbitration can bring punitive action against an editor. Remember that filing an RFC over a trivial matter is unlikely to receive much attention from the community, and may diminish other users' opinions of you. The RfC may even backfire on you and turn into an RfC against you. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste.

The only thing that isn't speculation about how editors might feel about a particular RfC is the first sentence that attempts to downplay the fact that an RfC isn't required for entering arbitration, and attempt to link a connection between filing an RfC and going to arbitration. The entire remaining paragraph is nothing but how an editor may feel about the RfC in question.

The difference being that the version you deleted/reverted, my version, at least was honest about what was the opinion of an editor and what is not. FuelWagon 00:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Mel Etitis
Hi, I'm taking this one-to-one because I don't like megaphone diplomacy. I have a question related to your inside view on the RfC brought about because you engaged in protracted edit warring. You say:


 * If those who are (often with expressions of regret) now condemning me had responded to my appeals for help over the last few months, things wouldn't have reached this state.

I've looked at all of your edits on WP:AN, WP:ANI and WP:AN3 for September and October. I suppose I could go further back, but before I do that, I thought I'd come to you with my findings.


 * On 2 Sep you gave someone some style advice when they asked for it on WP:AN.
 * On 9 Sep you asked on WP:AN for help with a page move that had gone wrong.

There was then a long gap.


 * On 21 Sep you made the following report on WP:AN:
 * User:Anittas
 * I wasn't going to bring this up here (or anywhere), but it might be worth forewarning people. I corrected some edits made by, and copy-edited an article that (it turned out) he though that he owned (Battle of Vaslui). He reacted extremely aggressively and insultingly , and reverted my edits wholesale. So far, so depressingly familiar. He's also gone on to try to enlist other editors and admins against my appalling behaviour in editing his articles (e.g., ),with little success, and then went in for a bit of stalking, leaving messages full of hysterical vitriol against me for editors with whom I was in disagreement (e.g., , etc. He's been trawling through edit histories, trying to find anyone with whom I've been in disagreement (mostly banned vandals such as and his sockpuppets), and leaving messages on their Talk pages trying to enlist their help against me. A number of editors have tried to reason with him, but to no avail. At the moment he's just a nuisance, even mildly amusing, but it might escalate, so I'm explaining here in advance. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * On 22 Sep and again here on WP:AN you reported and discussed an email you had received about a vandal impersonating someone called John Henry DeJong.
 * On 24 Sep you reported on WP:AN/I some instances of User:Ted Wilkes and User:Wyss removing text from articles and talk pages related to Elvis Presley.
 * On 1 Oct, you reported the following on WP:AN/I:
 * User:Winnermario
 * Could someone have a word with ? He's in danger of self combusting. Although in many respects he's a decent editor, he seems unable to cope with disagreements (as his Talk page hints at; the real problem lies scattered across article Talk pages. His User page contains the line: "I promise to try and contain myself over lashing out at people on this website", which suggests that he knows that he has a problem, though he clearly hasn't mastered it yet). He's one of a growing class of editors who treat edits they don't like as "vandalism" (see, for example, ), and is descending into more and more hysterical childish abuse (see, for example, . He's also started deleting other people's comments from Talk pages . I originally tried to reason with him and to calm him down, but he's reached the stage where he has tantrums at the mere sight of my name, so if another admin could step in and have a quite, calming word I'd be grateful (and it might defuse what could otherwise become an even more unpleasant situation). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Although no-one's responded to the above, I thought that I'd add another plea of the same kind (I'm editing popular-music articles, which seem to attract this sort of editor): is mass reverting my attempts to tidy albums-articles, calling the removal of excessive Wikilinking (multiple links to the same year in successive lines, linking to seasons and months) and the conversion of hyphens to dashes "vandalous". Again, I started by trying to explain the MoS, etc., but he's just become more and more belligerent. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * On 2 Oct, User:Everyking having counselled you that "an easy-going approach to these kinds of issues would work fine" in the case of User:Winnermario, you replied on [[WP:AN/I]:
 * The problem is that there are thousands of pop-music articles that are in need of attention &mdash; both in terms of Wikipedia style and in terms of content. Each of them seems to be "owned" by one or more devoted fans, who defend them vigorously from any outside change. I'm not altogether sure what an easy-going approach would be, but I'm pretty sure that it would mean that ordinary house-keeping edits of the sorts I'm trying to engage in would take up all my time, and that it would be years before the work was done.
 * Incidentally, my first encounter with BGC was when I found him blanking User:PetSounds. He ignored my requests for explanation, simply deleting them from his Talk page. Someone e-mailed me to tell me that PetSounds had been BGC's previous account, and that he'd behaved badly with it, generating ill-will (apparently using his odd notion of vandalism even then ), and felt that he needed a fresh start. Unfortunately he immediately began acting in the same belligerent way with the new account, so it didn't really get him anywhere. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * On 4 Oct you asked for help on WP:AN related to a suspected case of Original Research.
 * On 5 Oct, you replied to two responses on WP:AN on the Original Research case, both of which recommended a gentle approach, one of which said:
 * Mel, after reading your comments on the article talk page and User Talk:Dpknauss, it really appears that you are comming off hard on the guy. Had someone done this to me early in my expirence with Wikipedia there is a good chance I would have just said "screw you, I'm not going to help with your project anymore". It's clear that the user is trying to help, and it also seems clear that the user *is* able to help (i.e. they aren't some crackpot trying to add their own unsubstantiated pet theories). It would be more useful to get new participants to understand WP:NOR and why it exists and is important, rather than just bludgeon them about the head with it. --Gmaxwell 13:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * On 5 Oct you reported the following on WP:AN/I:
 * User:Anittas: personal attacks & stalking
 * I know that a number of admins and other editors have run up against this person, and have dicovered that he's not amenable to reason. After an instant flare up when I copy-edited an article on which he'd been working, he's been following me around. I've already explained his (admittedly futile) attempts to gather a group to do things to me, they know not what, but they shall be the terrors of the Earth &mdash; he approached anyone he could find with whom I'd been in less than friendly contact, including banned vandals and sock-puppets, people I'd blocked for 3RR violations, etc. He's also taken to following me around to articles in which he'd hitherto shown no interest, reverting my edits with personal-attack edit summaries (e.g., one of the milder, leaving childishly insulting messages on the Talk pages of people to whom I'm replying (e.g., here), voting "against me" at AfDs, TfDs, etc., and generally making an annoying idiot of himself. His Talk page gives a good idea of the intransigence. Even if I thought that an RfC would do any good, it'd take time, of which I already have too little. Could someone please try to get him to see sense? I know that that's not likely to be easy, but I can't think of anything else. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Later the same day, you responded on the same page to User:FeloniousMonk:
 * I'd love to think that Shauri's message will have the desired effect, and it's only fair to give it a chance. If it doesn't work, I'm beginning to think that yes, that's the only route; thank you. (Thanks to Katefan0 too.) --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC) FelonuousMonk had suggested a temporary blocking for disruptiveness should User:Anittas' attacks continue after all reasonable methods failed.
 * I'd love to think that Shauri's message will have the desired effect, and it's only fair to give it a chance. If it doesn't work, I'm beginning to think that yes, that's the only route; thank you. (Thanks to Katefan0 too.) --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC) FelonuousMonk had suggested a temporary blocking for disruptiveness should User:Anittas' attacks continue after all reasonable methods failed.

Now point one: the RfC evidence shows that you had been edit warring over various issues for quite some time, and that your primary purpose in doing so was to enforce the manual of style. At no time in any of the above do I see you explaining that you were engaged in edit wars, or that enforcement of the manual was your purpose, or appealing for help in doing so.

Point two: Several times I see administrators looking at what you were doing and telling you that you were being too heavy-handed, but you reacted to these warnings in a negative way. You brushed aside suggestions of using some of the tools of the dispute resolution process:  Even if I thought that an RfC would do any good, it'd take time, of which I already have too little. And yet you had had plenty of time to edit war only days before.

I may have missed something. It could be that you appealed for help in enforcing the Manual of Style some months ago but that your pleas fell on deaf ears and you felt that you had no choice but to soldier on alone. But it seems to me that have not been entirely honest in your defence. In your pleas you also misrepresented the situation by omission. An editor was "mass reverting" but you omitted to say that you were doing precisely the same thing yourself. By edit warring, you were exacerbating the situation even as you purported to be trying to calm it down.

Can you not then take some responsibility for this mess? Do you disagree with arbcom's adoption of the following principle? Edit warring is harmful to the purpose of Wikipedia and to the morale of its editors. Or do you think that the style manual is so important that it's all right to ignore that principle? --Tony Sidaway Talk 06:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Your message
One is (yes, all the way back to July). I've also asked for help at project pages and other Wikipedia pages (e.g., ).

Aside from anything else, though, including the dubious nature of the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute ", I had in fact stopped reverting before the RfC.

Your comments in reply to your previous interlocutor suggest that the lack of any real attempt to resolve the issues by those bringing the RfC is something that you take seriously (as have I when I've commented on RfCs against other editors).

(By the way, if you'd really like to discuss this one-to-one, I have my e-mail address enabled.) --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see that at 16:25, 27 July 2005 on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment, you wrote "I'm finding myself bogged down in ridiculous edit wars." So you did admit to the community at large that you were part of the problem.


 * If by "I had in fact stopped reverting before the RfC" you mean that you now undertake not to use edit warring to resolve disputes, I regard the matter as closed, and the RfC as having served its purpose in bringing this extremely serious problem to wider attention (mind in particular).


 * You had been edit warring for months.


 * I absolutely and totally refute your suggestion that the problem was caused by failure of the community to come to help you to impose the manual of style on Wikipedia articles. The introduction of the manual:


 * This Manual of Style has the simple purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format &mdash; it is a style guide. The following rules do not claim to be the last word.  One way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use, not to mention easier to write and edit. In this regard the following quote from The Chicago Manual of Style deserves notice:
 * Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.


 * Clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required.


 * Edit warring over differences of opinion on style should not be condoned--let alone be seen to be carried out by experienced, trusted editors. --Tony Sidaway Talk 21:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Tony, you've had more than your say on this point here and at Mel's RFC, where readers will note that not everyone agrees with your opinion that "Edit warring over differences of opinion on style should not be condoned". There isn't a clear majority that accepts that opinion there; a good number feel that Mel was justified. You've made your point, others have made theirs, and the purpose of the RFC is fulfilled... the community has spoken. Time to let it go. FeloniousMonk 21:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The editors in question were also reverting corrections to links (such as Platinum for record certification and links to redirects), to grammar and spelling, as well as to MoS and naming-convention issues. Also, it wasn't a choice between MoS and clear, informative, unbiased writing, as the writing was (and mostly remains in these articles) unclear, repetitive, and biased.
 * Do I take it that, with regard to the RfC, you're not interested in the correctness of process as long as it gets the result you think is correct? Doesn't that conflict with your attitude to reverting?
 * You may well reject the claim that the problem was caused by failure of the community to come to help me; as that's not a claim that I made, I'd be happy to reject it too. What I do think is that there's a tremendous amount of self-righteos hypocrisy, some of it with more than a tinge of vindictiveness unconnected to this affair, on the part of those who ignored my requests for help, but have been very quick to leap onto this RfC.  It's of course much easier to criticise than to be constructive, but it seems to me to be at least unseemly that some have made their choice so obvious. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the question of whether the RfC was correctly filed or not is a side issue. Since the RfC draws attention to an extremely serious problem, the function of drawing attention to that problem was fulfilled. I might wag my finger at those who filed it for not trying harder, but your statements since it was filed are actually in some ways much, much more worrying than your activities before.

You still think it's okay to edit war to enforce the manual of style.

You still haven't expressed one ounce of remorse, or recognised that you yourself contributed greatly to the problem.

Well fine. You're entitled to an opinion. Just don't try it any more. Ever.

You deny that you said the problem was "caused by failure of the community to come to help me". Well actually what I said, quoting you directly from your "inside view" on the RfC was that you said:
 * If those who are (often with expressions of regret) now condemning me had responded to my appeals for help over the last few months, things wouldn't have reached this state.

You did say this and this is what I say you said.

As I have shown, your requests for help were not ignored, but several times you dismissed suggestions that you adopt a softer approach and stop biting newbies. Your pleas for help on WP:AN and WP:ANI were, at least insofar as the September and October ones are concerned, dishonest, for you didn't say that you were involved in edit warring with these people. I think you knew that if you admitted this you'd have been told in no uncertain terms to stop making matters worse. --Tony Sidaway Talk 22:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As one who was at WP:ANI when Mel made his requests for assistance, I can speak to this. No one there ever suggested that Mel was dishonest in his requests. Your allegation that he was is entirely without foundation in reality and merit. As one who responded to Mel's call, I can say that the only participants I saw making matters worse were those who intentionally hampered Mel's work. You're making a serious allegation here, Tony. I hope you've got something more than a baseless assertion to back it up. You need to either present some evidence to support it, or you should withdraw it and apologize to Mel. FeloniousMonk 23:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

For evidence, see above. To elaborate: on 1 Oct at 15:49, Mel Etitis said: '' is mass reverting my attempts to tidy albums-articles, calling the removal of excessive Wikilinking (multiple links to the same year in successive lines, linking to seasons and months) and the conversion of hyphens to dashes "vandalous". Again, I started by trying to explain the MoS, etc., but he's just become more and more belligerent.''

What he omitted to say was that he in turn was engaging in "mass reverting". In the above, Mel Etitis cites an edit summary on M.I.U. Album. The history of that article show unequivocally that Mel Etitis was just as guilty, having just minutes before that report performed the third of three reverts in five hours on that article. Indeed, a further look at the history shows the massive extent of his engagement in edit warring. Fully nine out of his ten last edits on that article up to that point had been reverts. Mel Etitis is an edit warrior, and he enlisted help in dealing with people at precisely the same time he was making matters worse by continued engagement in a sterile edit war with them. This isn't acceptable behavior in an editor of his experience. --Tony Sidaway Talk 23:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Tony, I don't think it's appropriate for you to be giving Mel orders; if nothing else, it seems a breach of Civility. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. But he knows I'll be on his case if he resumes edit warring and biting newbies. --Tony Sidaway Talk 23:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) "Biting newbies"; the record shows that I didn't, and I've given so many diffs that demonstrate this that it's not worth discussing further.
 * 2) When an editor says "please come and look at what's happening at article x", the claim that he's trying to conceal his actions at article x is, well, bizarre. I suppose that if I'd said: "please censure BGC for his actions (but don't look at the articles &mdash; just take my word for it)" you might have had a point.  I didn't; you don't.
 * 3) But there, you're on record as saying that reverting is bad whatever the reasons or effects, but of refusing to criticise the poorly formed RfC brought for dubious reasons in a decidedly odd way, apparently because you approve of its effects. A real principle isn't so esily dropped and then picked up again.
 * 4) I'm on record as arguing that the persistent reverting of edits whose nature was unrelated to content, but which brought an article's style into line with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, is low-level vandalism (and disruption at the very least), and I've presented that view in a number of places. If I saw another person's edits being reverted in that way I'd warn the reverter, and block him if he persisted.  That was happening to me, and my requests for help were ignored by most people.  If they hadn't ignored me, had checked the articles and found that they disapproved of my actions, they could have said so then, and the moral high ground would have been theirs.  Instead they let the situation build and build, until it reached this stage.
 * 5) Does anyone know the story of the man who 'phoned the police and told them that he could see someone trying to break into his garage? They said that they didn't have any officers to send.  He 'phoned back five minutes later and said: "Don't worry about the earlier call about the burglar; I got my shotgun and shot him." Within minutes the house was surrounded by police cars and scores of officers.  The burglar was caught red-handed and arrested.  "I thought you said you'd shot him" said the police; "I thought you said you didn't have any officers to send" said the houseowner. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Your points in order.


 * 1) Hmmm, on biting newbies, we'll just have to agree to differ.  The evidence I have presented is fine with me, and if you want to claim to have dismissed it with "so many diffs" that seem unaccountably to have failed to materialize here, then I don't feel the need to take your refutation seriously.
 * If I'd seen any evidence for this, I'd understand your point. I've provided a huge number of diffs showing my long explanations of policy, style, etc. (not only to newbies), in some cases bending over backwards to praise new editors' other contributions, but explaining that on certain points they were mistaken.  Lots of evidence versus none.  But you've clearly made up your mind and aren't going to be moved by mere facts.
 * 1) You complained that someone was engaging in "mass reverts" of your material only minutes after you had been doing precisely the same thing in a tit-for-tat war.  I'm saying that this was a dishonest act.  Please address the point I make and not some straw man of your own construction.
 * I think that you need to look up "straw man". You accuse me of dishonesty, which I take to mean that you accuse me of trying to dissemble, to deceive.  I was clearly trying to do no such thing.
 * 1) It wouldn't matter even if the conditions of the RfC were bogus because those bring it had made no attempt to get you to stop, rather than a half-hearted attempt. I'd have gotten on to you about your long, long edit warring if someone had just brought it to my attention on a talk page.  An experienced editor, especially a long-time admin, should no better.
 * I've given my reasons for holding the actions of OmegAWikipedia, Winnermario, et al., to be vandalistic. You disagree; OK, we need to discuss this.  On my view my actions were justified, on yours they weren't.  In order to accept your view of my actions, I also have to accept your view of their actions.  I don't.
 * 1) You're right; you were given far too much trust on this. But you're an experienced editor.  It is assumed that you know how harmful edit warring can be.  You've gotten yourself into this hole and now you're desperately casting around on one hand to find someone else to blame, and on the other hand trying to minimise the harm that you've done.  Just stop it, it isn't pretty.
 * Glasshouses–stones&people. (Or is it pot–kettle?)
 * 1) For heaven's sake, stop being so melodramatic. Just take your medicine and don't do it again. --Tony Sidaway Talk  23:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) How I love being lectured by people who assume bad faith, make false accusations without evidence, and contradict themselves in order to win both ways. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Amazing. "Just take your medicine and don't do it again."? Please. Not only does Tony lack the moral authority to be giving Mel orders, he lacks the consensus of the community as well. He does not speak for the community in this matter. He's acting as if his opinion carried a majority in the RFC, when in fact, just the opposite is true, there's broad support for how Mel handled this situation,. Far more than for Tony's stated opinion.  Taking that with his bullying here and his personal attacks made yesterday, his behavior is significantly far more harmful to the project than anything Mel's been accused of. Talk about behavior unbecoming an admin. This is exactly why I chose the word "shameful" to describe Tony's actions on the RFC. Tony, you're actions here show you to be thoroughly unsuited for offering credible insight into the community's conventions at RFCs, but eminently suited to be the subject of one. FeloniousMonk 03:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Requests for Comments
I see that you tried to clean up the text about user conduct Requests for Comments. Unfortunately, reason will not work there. There is a long-running edit war between FuelWagon and SlimVirgin. They both have very hard feelings toward each other as a result of something else. (It reminds me of what you said about Anittas.) They got into a very heated edit war about the Terri Schiavo article in July, and have been at each other since then. FuelWagon filed a user conduct RfC against SlimVirgin, and discovered that user conduct RfCs are considered a step toward arbitration, rather than being (as their name would imply) only a request for comments. So now FuelWagon is trying to change the wording of the RfC language to clarify that it is really only a request for comments, which disregards history. SlimVirgin wants to ensure that there is a warning, so that other people do not fall into the trap that FuelWagon did, of innocently filing a user conduct RfC only to discover that it is loaded with recriminations. Unfortunately, SlimVirgin is also reverting all of FuelWagon's changes by labeling the reverts minor edits, which they are not.

I know that you are only trying to help, but it won't do any good at this point. Robert McClenon 12:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Robert, you keep inserting yourself into this issue with inaccurate observations, which serve only to stir things up. You said elsewhere that FuelWagon had asked you (in your words) to butt out, and I'm sorry, but I'm now asking you to do the same, which could mean you're the only thing FuelWagon and I actually agree on. Every single time you comment on it, you serve only to keep it going. Please let it go. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiLens
Thanks so much for your detailed comments about the page deletion! It looks to me like one of my users probably took some text from the WikiLens site description, which is definitely not worded as an encyclopedia would do.

I believe I could write a more encyclopedia-style article. However, the one objection I can't precisely respond to is "notability." Frankly, we are still a fairly small site (100 users). On the other hand, I've encountered several articles that are what I would consider "niche" articles for a small audience that I have nevertheless found useful.

Perhaps I will try rewriting the article. I must admit, I am uncomfortable with marketing but also would find a Wikipedia entry for WikiLens satisfying and helpful. If you have any thoughts about how notable something should be before being included in Wikipedia, I'd be happy to hear it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfrankow (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 October 2005

About your RfC


I'm sorry you've had an RfC filed about you. I've never had that happen to me, but I imagine it's not quite a pleasant walk in the park. Don't let it get to you, though: You're a good editor and, from what I've seen, a good admin. I understand where you're coming from about the popular music articles. People think they own them and they don't, then they get defensive when you try to do anything to the articles.

Here's some nice Esperanza blend coffee for you. Take a nice sip and don't stress too much. Above all else, don't get burned out and leave. We don't need any more decent editors leaving the project! Cheers, H e rmione1980 23:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC???
I highly and sincerely apoligize that this happened to you. However, I find it highly unlikely that they'll be any discipliary action towards you, other than a warning not to break the 3RR. Perhaps now other people will find out about this slowly brewing problem that's dragging the quality of the project down. --FuriousFreddy 02:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Buddha Loetla Nabhalai
Thanks for copyediting/working on the Buddha Loetla Nabhalai page. I have been very busy and haven't had the time to wikify as much. --speedoflight 03:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar


Having read the RFC, I could could see no other appropriate response than, "job well done". After reading Freddy's comments, I felt all the more comfortable with my conclusion - after all, he and TUF-KAT are music in Wikipedia. While I respect Tony's opinion in general, I think his call here was quite wrong. Guettarda 22:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring everything but what allows a snide comeback
"Rather than simply adding the images..."

Then take your own advice and STOP reverting it. You're only adding to the problem. BGC 21:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

New vote at Talk:Ubeda
Since you participated in the old one I thought it was right to give you a heads-up (even though you didn't vote the same way I did now). There's also an ongoing edit war between Kolokol and basically anyone else who tries to edit the article - I wouldn't recommend getting into that. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 07:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Voting
Γεια σου, Μελ! Τι κανεις: Just a small question; How experienced do you have to be for your vote to be counted in the deletion debates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokle (talk • contribs) 16:18, 14 October 2005

I am really sorry
Mel, I never meant for my silly side list to damage yours. I really regret starting it now. I can't do much now, but I will continue to object to the merge. I *am* sorry. Mothperson cocoon 17:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I know, I know, I know. Still. Damn it. But I liked the yoghurt instructions. Mothperson cocoon 03:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hunh. I just read the stuff above this. Having been a newbie that you bit, I am fascinated that not only did I survive, I have come to be quite fond of you. Go figure. Mothperson cocoon 03:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hee hee. I should probably not be reading Claudius the God right now.  But I am.  Gentle nibbling!  I am cackling, and I am still quite fond of you.  Hee hee.  Mothperson cocoon 16:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Warren Redlich Article
Warren Redlich - newly created article about an up and coming New York attorney and politico - appears to be a vanity article. At least, it was created by a user using a variant on the name. This is generally against Wiki practice, yes? I left the newbie (his first day) the note below. I hope that he will move the material to his talk page in the near future. But you might keep an eye out. Thanks for your attention, Mel, and your good work. I appreciate you. WBardwin 03:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, talking to someone on their first day is unusual for me. I'm happy to help with little editing chores and did a few things on your new articles to help them conform to common usage here.  However, I have asked an administrator about the article -- which by your user name -- you created about yourself.  These are usually considered "vanity articles" and are discouraged in the main encyclopedia.  Wiki suggests that this information go on your User Page, where people can read about you as a person.  The links to personal web sites are particularly appropriate on your User Page.  So you may get a note from User:Mel Etitis about that article.  I'll copy this note to his user page, so he will know we've been in touch.  Hope to work with you again -- I do a lot of stuff on 19th century biographies!  WBardwin 04:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Jeb Bush Article
In the Jeb Bush item, are you sure it's appropriate to have the reference to GW Bush link to "failure"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Froomkin (talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 October 2005

cat numbers and color
you know I'm tired of you edits. I creat pages in one style. but you take some of them and change some details your way.


 * about the catalog numbers. I do add them on all the albums. It's my point of view, that they're appropriate. I think this info is helpful for those who is interested to find that album or to check if they have this edition already.
 * color, you know I've studied colours and paintings. And you know sometimes it's very difficult to pick a right combination of colors. And who decided that it should orange? you know that screaming color is very hard to combine with another. It looks awfull. It hurts my professional eye.


 * the worst thing of all it that you do this change with a single page of albums. They all are made with one concept, but you take one and make it you way so that you destroy it, it falls apart. all the pages (e.g. madonna albums) are made as one and you make "music" with you style, it looks tasteless, vulgar. why? I cannot comprehend it!

But OK if it makes you happy...
 * the next thing is that these MOS is a law here or a proposal? you act like it's a law. I think it should a proposal. It is called a FREE encyclopedia!!! What you do is you take freedom away. No step aside, it's not creative at all. It's dismotivating.

Thank you very much for that. Beautifulstranger 21:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

RFC
The RFC against you is evidence that in recent months the level of aggressiveness of low quality editors has risen dramatically. The generally permissive atmosphere of wikipedia - combined with the substantial problems of bringing effective action - except in the case of the 3RR - is reaching a boiling point. It is easier to get someone blocked on three reverts than on lying on edit summaries, POV warring and so in.

Stirling Newberry 03:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Formatting style guidelines
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eliezer_Yudkowsky&curid=65858&diff=25638686&oldid=25595428. The one known as User:Adreaus has invoked your name in an apparently incipient style dispute. Please weigh in. --Maru (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Down in the Hole
Fixed it myself. Thanks for poitnig it out. -R. fiend 14:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon user 69.196.232.234
Could you block this user temporarily? He/she has been vandalizing the Glebe Collegiate Institute, and the Vandalism articles repeatedly, despite several warnings.bjelleklang 15:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Will keep an eye open for his future edits. bjelleklang 16:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)