User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 40

NoZe Brotherhood
Dear Mr. Mel Etitis:

I seem to have violated some protocol, for which I apologize.

I was attempting to add a link to the Waco Tribune:

http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2006/03/31/03312006wacnosebros.html

This would provide a citation for two Notable Pranks: 'Cancelling' Homecoming and 'Killing' Herb Reynolds.

I also altered the information about GPA. It's not true that one has to have a 4.0 GPA. That's the disinformation that we NoZe Brothers used to spread to enhance our reputation.

I had also earlier altered the bit about the club's founding, based on my memory of what I was told back in the 1970s, but I'm not sure of the accuracy of what I was told, so never mind about that. I can say, however, that Shoaf didn't found the club; his friends did, and they elected him president against his will (though he eventually accepted the dubious honor).

I was a member of the NoZe Brotherhood from 1977 to 1979. You can see my blog's mention of the NoZe:

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2005/06/down-memory-lane-hey-this-is-dead-end.html

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2006/04/noble-noze-brotherhood-at-wikipedia.html

I felt that I should explain myself. I have little interest in editing the material again, for it's not very important to me.

Best Regards,

Jeffery Hodges (aka AgNoZetic) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferyhodges (talk • contribs) 14:06, 20 April 2006

Dembski
Curious why you deleted the link to Häggström ms. Guettarda 13:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto. You noted it was "(rv link-farming)", but I do not believe that to be the case. Having read the document, I believe it to be legitimate and quite in the context of the article.  Thanks.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  13:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 19?  OK, you're right -- I hadn't realized that it was that extreme.  I guess it needs to go in references.  Sorry to be a pain.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  13:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A question
I will like to find out what IPs in the range 61.95.147.0 to 61.95.147.255 have made contributions to Wikipedia. Is there some tool I can use/someone I can request to find out this information? Simply the list of IPs that have at least one contribution will suffice. Thank you. Loom91 18:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sima Qian
Please do not make another stupid nonsense again on Sima Qian, his date of birth is known from Hanshu, I don't know why you made a cleanup, I don't think is needed, Thank you. 04:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 21 April 2006

The Passions
Many thanks for your excellent clean-up work on my intial efforts. Just when I thought I had done half a good job, too ! 7 out of 10, eh - must try harder ! Regards, Derek R Bullamore 20:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Request Move of Arsenal of Democracy

 * Things seem to have wound down on the ad-hoc RFC. As such, I think this ought to be moved into a user subpage of the same title, preferably Sunday if you're working wiki, sooner or later if you aren't. That should give any late arrivals time, and based on the comments, it's going to take a lot of work and development going forward. Thanks. Fra nkB 06:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See reply at user talk:fabartus Fra nkB  14:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've asked TT, HC, and Valentinian as the other big contributors to the talk to give us their input on my talk linked by the above as well. I'm going to do some gardening and chores. Best! Fra nkB 17:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The consensus is with your judgement -- so goes no where. Shrug. (Maybe even a little grin) Fra nkB 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Billion
Mel - I've moved the discussion to Talk:Billion - apologies for not asking in advance - which I should have done. Best wishes, Ian Cairns 11:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Greek Zeybek
I'm afraid I can't take what you say on good faith Mel. Can you give me some sources to back up your claims? I fear it is the exact reason that you fear Greek nationalistic reprisal you have done this. I have myself have seen video footage of the Greek Zeybek dance in a taverna and a Turkish Aegean wedding and they seem very similar. And I haven't noted any Greek nationalistic agreesion towars you as you imply - I throuoghly checked your records. Seeing as it was my contributions to this page which made you give me (what I still think is) unnecessary advice.

Plus the difference between a policy and a guideline is more than minimal. The way you expressed it as though I had broken one of the 10 commandements. Deff6 18:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The Passions (part two)
You bastard !! I am "all thumbs these days". This coming from the minor wiki-hero who lambasted me for being a year older than he. Well, I am only 49, and placed the age of 51 in my user page purely to add gravitas ! ....only kidding.

I might, just might, try to 'blue link' all the UK, one-hit wonders before I die. Mind you, if I keep finding new ones to add to the current list, I will expire before I can achieve such a truly awful, and completely worthless and pointless outcome. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and might (maybe) like to see if I can solicit some like minded assistance in this goal. I do not know how to go about this, or if it is worthwhile. What do you advise ?! Regards.

Derek R Bullamore 21:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thelema
Mel,

Thanks for reverting to my previous revision. I hadn't noticed how Ashami had removed the qualifications from strictly Crowleyan beliefs and observances... -999 23:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

agnostic atheism
The article agnostic atheism was recently selected for deletion. Since you were formerly an extremely contributive editor of atheism, perhaps you'd like to provide your opinion at Articles for deletion/Agnostic atheism? As I wrote in the discussion, religion and philosophy are no longer areas that interest me. In fact, Wikipedia generally does not interest me. I only return now and then just to find links to more information on certain historical and corporate subjects. Respectfully, Adraeus 01:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing Robbie France page...
Hi, Mel! What do you want me to do regarding Robbie France's wiki page? I've done a pretty good job I think. Best. Karen Lesley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenlesley29 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 23 April 2006

Sarcasm, the lowest form of wit
Thanks for your commentary. I'm sure it will inform the remainder fo my contributions going forward!!!! (as you can tell I am excited by the encyclopedic nature of your revisions on my talk page!!!!!!1) Tomyumgoong 10:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Page Moves
sorry for screwing up careless loves' history, i haven't moved a page in about two years :P and i probably got a warning then too and just forgot. thanks for the info. SECProto 12:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

List of bass guitarists
uhh, what are you talking about? in never added anyone. i just fixed the link for Mark King because it went to a disambiguation page. -Xornok 15:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Greek Zeybek
I wish you would read what I write Mel. I am no longer insisting that I am right concerning edit summaries. In fact if you read previous accounts I thank you - as it got me actually reading the help documents. It was just that you made it sound like golden rule that must not ne broken - and when I found it was a just a guideline (and I see a larger difference in the two) I was surprised. How you can glean "insistence" from a last sentence at the end of larger paragraph about the Greek Zeybek dance is beyond me - but I am not here to argue about that. As my posts and the titles suggest - I am not contacting you about teh edit summaries any more - otherwise I'd write a heading "Edit Summaries".

I'm not here to argeu with you but to learn truly - I go at a thing until I understand it - if I am slightly dense forgive me. But you still haven't answered my REAL last question, which was please verify these differences by providing me with links on the web where I can read for myself these immense differences that have caused you to divide the two dances to two separate pages (still unnecessarily in my opinion). Just a site - where did you get your source of information from - what is your basis for these claims. That is my insistence - not the edit summaries.

And believe it or not I have trawled through your archives and the contribution history of the Greek Zeybek page and didN't find any Greek nationalistic atagonism you speak about DIRECTED to that page. Which is what I am talking about - not in general. I am not looking for any "conspiracies or hidden motives" - I am looking to understand why you don't just give me your basis for these claims. I re-iterate as a listener of fasil music (which is the forefather of rembetiko) and have seen the various dances performed - I feel that your divided the dances must have some other ground.

It is like having separate pages for diamond shaped and round baklava - which would be absurd. Both are still baklava. The only reason I can see is as one intimated - that because of the nationalistic fervour that quite obviously underpins rembetiko and the Greek zeybek dance - you have played to Greek sympathies.

Just give me your basis - a website - anything. Deff6 15:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Laozi
I don't understand why you tried to categorise "老子",laozi, as "Chinese name" in the article. Do Lǐ Ěr(李耳),Bó Yáng(伯陽), Dān (聃), Lao Dan (老聃),Laojun (老君), Li Laojun (李老君), Taishanglaojun (太上老君), Laozi Daojun (老子道君)etcs, NOT Chinese names? Even through the actual name of Laozi, Li Er, is NOT a Chinese name? So, are them English names? Indian names? Greek names?

The surname, given name, nick name, courtesy name, posthumus name etcs of ancient Chinese should not be categorized in the family of Chinese name? What they are? English name? Indian name? Greek name? I am not sure how much you have studied about Chinese culture and history. I am not sure which source you have referred to. Maybe the main purpose of editing was to English-style the article including English-styled a person name, a place name, etcs. However, what is Dān (聃)? Is it a Posthumuos name? Which source tells that?

On the other hand, what's wrong if I included the name of the place and name of the guard who asked Laozi to leave his philosophies in writing? Even if these two, name of a place and name of a person, have to be English-styled too? Where Hangu Custom (函谷关) have to be translated to "western-most gate of the Great Wall"? What is "Great Wall"? In link, it showed:


 * The Great Wall can refer to:


 * The cosmic structure, the Great Wall (astronomy)
 * The massive Chinese fortification, the Great Wall of China
 * A mural by the name of the Great Wall of Los Angeles
 * A song by the Dead Kennedys

Which "Great-Wall"s do you mean in the article? The Great Wall of China? Let's glance through the history of the Great Wall of China.


 * "A defensive wall on the northern border was built and maintained by several dynasties at different times in Chinese history. There have been five major walls:


 * 208 BC (Qin Dynasty)
 * 1st century BC (Han Dynasty)
 * 7th century CE (Sui Dynasty)
 * 1138 - 1198 (Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period)
 * 1368 - 1640 (from Hongwu Emperor until Wanli Emperor of the Ming Dynasty) "

When did Laozi exist? After 208BC? Or the Great Wall in the article means the Great Wall (astronomy)? The Great Wall of Los Angeles? Or a song by the Dead Kennedys? Which one?

In addition, you removed most of the Chinese characters that I added in the article but remained the previous added one. What is the purpose? To English-styled the article? If so, then remove ALL the Chinese characters but why still remain some?

The title of the article is "Laozi", but the picture named him as "Lao Tsu". Is it so-called English-styled? Does not sound funny?

What is English-styled??

Nerake 07:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikifying Robbie France.
Dear Mel. Thanks for helping me with Robbie's wikipage! Now I see what you mean. I'll try in future to look at this page and work accordingly, as I'm just coming to grips with the Wiki style. I am interested in doing more Wiki pages and your help has been invaluable. Thank you. Karen Lesley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenlesley29 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 24 April 2006

Re: Dembski and pseudoscience
Thanks for the personal note. I am not a supporter of Dembski, and I think what he is trying to accomplish is not science, and ultimately doomed to fail. However, pasting labels such as pseudoscience can be an attempt to cut off debate. For that reason I am hesitant to see it used as a category, even if the facts justify it. Regarding the use of the label pseudoscientist, my opinion is that it is better to reserve the category for those who have no academic qualifications. To extend it to scientists who have strayed in their application of the method, amounts a form of personal attack. I hope we can agree that science should be discussed on the merits. The ice that Dembski is on is plenty thin enough and I think that he will sink himself. Others should be careful not to be lured out there with him. (This last comment is certainly not meant to apply to you. I haven't read the entire page and am just stating my position.  I have been generally impressed with your own efforts to bring wit and wisdom to Wikipedia.) --Blainster 18:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you for your advise even through you did not understand what I said. I take your advise and hope the same thing would not happen again. Thank you! Nerake 06:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Evans-Pritchard
You seem to have in interest in anthropology. It would be appreciated if you could expand Evans-Pritchard's page, if you find the time. 212.219.239.100 11:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Lines
The line:


 * a) Looks ugly (a personal opinion obviously).
 * b) Is not used in other articles, which makes it inconsistent.

I removed it on both counts. Please give me a link to the debates where it's being discussed, which I haven't yet seen. I'm happy to express my opinion there. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 15:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Severed-ties
I don't think that you're understanding my point. My point is not to give every link possible, nor is it related to competition between the sites. I just don't see how one more link on the page is going to make that big of a difference. It has relevance to the topic and I've seen other pages with more links than just 5.

heres one with 5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_floyd

Thanks --MurphysLaw(20:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Greek Zeybek
I again reiterate I wish you read what I write Mel.

Check what I wrote again please. I didn't begin my last comment with the issue of edit summaries. They were the in last two sentences. As I said - the titles should suggest the main context of the query or subject. Plus all the relevant documents don't agree with you as to their importance if they are guidelines.
 * You say:
 * 1) If you're not concerned with or in disagreement about the edit summaries, then I suggest that you don't start your comments with them. That you keep insisting that I exaggerated their importance when I simply used the standard template text, and when all the relevant documents agree with me about their importance, is peculiar, but to keep disagreeing and to claim that you're not disagreeing is even odder.
 * I say:

This gave me the idea: when you write
 * You Say:
 * 1) I didn't say that I'd been accused of ant-Greek chauvinism regarding the Zeybek article; what gave you that idea?
 * I say:

"The two dances are different in various respects; while the music is very similar (though even there the two have diverged), the dances performed are different, and they have very different cultural rôles. The Greek dance's close association with the underground culture of rembetiko is perhaps the most important of these. I fail to understand your comment about the nature of my editing supporting the false and peculiar claim that I'm prejudiced against Turks and in favour of Greeks. As I've been attacked by Greek nationalists for exactly the opposite, however, I'll take it a sign that I'm getting things right."

What would any person get from what you wrote here? And as I said as no Greek nationalist HAS DISAGREED WITH YOUR EDIT then may I use your words and say YOU HAVEN'T GOT IT RIGHT for this article.

As for you 3rd and 4th points - as you can't give me any website or basis to justify your view - it remains simply that YOUR PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW and you are promoting to the state that you constantly revert other people's changes and have got BLOCKED for it, too.

This is the whole point of the argument. As I said - one sentence isn't enough - the Zeybek dance is the zeybek dance and the two different varitions should be separate categories on the same page. This makes more sense than having you argue that they are different enough to render tit necessary to have two different articles - which now is obviously your own personal point of view (which I suspect that Greek nationals must share) as you can't give me any independent source to verify your claims. Deff6 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mayo
Please stop vandalizing the Mayo article by reverting to an incorrect recipe.

If you'd like to satisfy yourself that capers are not an essential ingredient, perhaps reviewing the common recipes found on http://web.foodnetwork.com/food/web/searchResults?searchString=tartar%20sauce&site=FOOD&searchType=Recipe or any other search you like would be best.

Thanks. Tomyumgoong 21:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope the joint Mayonnaise and User:Tomyumgoong edit summary improvement initiative is to your liking. Please do not hesitate to give further input on my talk page. Tomyumgoong 21:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Notability deletion time limit
Is there any official or at least generally accepted lenght of time after which an article can not be deleted on grounds of non-notability. Like say if an article has been up for a month already, can it be deleted for nn? Loom91 08:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I was not talking about speedy, but AfD deletion. If someone digs up an old article and claims it to be nn, may it still be deleted? More specifically, are there an precedents on this point? Loom91 05:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My blocking
You seem to have blocked my IP for some reason. Thanks, but I am not the vandal type :D. These IPs are dynamically allocated by the proxy. I am not asking for an unblock as it may help the vandal when this IP gets allocated to him. This is just a formal declaration of innocence :). Regards, Sahir SahirShah 16:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Oneness university and the Kalki movement
There has been a defacing of your original article on Onenness university, clearly from cult a cult positive angle. I cut it short but it would be good if you original article was restored. Good one Btw Ill translate it into Swedish once i get the hang of how the wikipedia works.

/ NH

(NickHead 21:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

User:Evadb, a noted problem user--(self-promotional egotism)
This user believes that s/he reserves the right to unilaterally reform our community's standard formatting. This editor spams every heraldic article with the same external links, which are mere directories and have nothing specifically related to the heraldic article at hand. This presents a problem, because it forces our readers to go digging for the info, that should be provided by a mere direct link. Of course, we supply general links if they are meant to be wholly comprehensive. But the way this editor does it, confuses anybody not familiar with heraldry. I further doubt that s/he is in fact a "teacher", because all teachers make sure their audience follows the subject matter at hand. This rogue editor assumes that just because others than myself aren't making a fuss (and that I have not cleaned up the complete mess made), that there is no real problem and that I am merely "being difficult". I've waited a total of three strikes for some self-control; verily none is forthcoming. This editor's focus and self-concieved notions are almost symbiotic to the exclusion of working with others, that only her/his edits are worth considering. As a well-intentioned editor at this point, it would seem to me that what this editor is continually doing happens to be dangerous. I reference this article for you: User_talk:Evadb. Beware; s/he may try to gain your confidence and goodwill, but will then betray that sense of "mutual understanding" further down the line. I noticed that you are having simultaneous difficulties with this user; may this serve as a warning for what lies ahead and should be at present, already concluded. This editor likes to drag it on, editing from the IP address in order to subvert the 3RR--for example. We all know it means "gaming the system", which has a "no-tolerance" policy in the wiki-community. (See more here: User_talk:IP_Address/6_April_2006 and User_talk:IP_Address/6_April_2006) IP Address 10:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Mel, I hope that from our exchange, you can see that this is NOT true. I've been trying to reach a consensus with you and have hoped to understand the existing Wikipedia policy. From my experience, IP ADDRESS is a bit paranoid and thinks that I'm out to get him. I can assure you that I'm not, and will not be monitering this discussion or any replies by IP Address. I hope that my contributions and efforts here will speak for themselves. Have a blessed day.--Evadb 11:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As a quick addendum, there is only one user that has ever noted me as problem user...IP ADDRESS.--Evadb 11:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Hello Evadb, this is your conscience calling. I just thought I'd leave a note about your erratic behaviour.  It appears that you think you can avoid handling your problems, if you accuse others than yourself of paranoia.  It hasn't occurred to you that others can smell bullshit like that from a mile away.  Try harder to make excuses, but you'll only concoct an elaborate fantasy where you are the sole protagonist--with everybody out to get you.  As an addendum, recall that I deal with people all the time who declare from one face a kiss, the other a genocide.  It would be a mistake to take Mel Etitis for a fool." IP Address 11:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Signature...
Mel, on a topic complete unrelated to my grasp of American English, I was wondering how you make your signature appear the way it does. Is that automatic, or do you type it that way every time to include your talk page link?--Eva DB 12:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip. We'll see if it works right now...-- Eva_db   TALK  14:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Even better!-- Eva  db  14:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Greek Zeybek
You say:
 * 1) The whole first paragraph of your last message had been about edit summaries.
 * 2) That you misunderstand and read things into what I write says more about you than about me.
 * 3) You haven't responded to what I've said, you've merely reiterated your own position (together with increasing bad temper, and your suspicion that Greek nationalists share my view — which is both inadequate and irrelevant).
 * 4) Let's reduce it to its simplest level. There are two names for two dances with two different cultural roles in two countries; the onus is on you to show why they should in fact be treated in one article rather than two.


 * 1) You are wrong. You must be skipping what was my last reponse. It was the last two sentences. I reepeat the response I am talking about:

''I'm afraid I can't take what you say on good faith Mel. Can you give me some sources to back up your claims? I fear it is the exact reason that you fear Greek nationalistic reprisal you have done this. I have myself have seen video footage of the Greek Zeybek dance in a taverna and a Turkish Aegean wedding and they seem very similar. And I haven't noted any Greek nationalistic agreesion towars you as you imply - I throuoghly checked your records. Seeing as it was my contributions to this page which made you give me (what I still think is) unnecessary advice.''

''Plus the difference between a policy and a guideline is more than minimal. The way you expressed it as though I had broken one of the 10 commandements.'' Deff6 18:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

2. See one above.

3. I have responded to what you said, and I don't believe with bad temper. You haven't been able to respond to what I ASKED. This is your OPINION and you cannot verify it with independent sources. Greek nationalists share your view — this is no longer a suspicion of mine and it is adequate and relevant - remember NPOV ?

4 The onus is on YOU - you are putting forward an opinion that these two dances are so different that they need two different articles when in fact they don't. Of course when there are two different languages - the adoptive language will Greekicize the word. This doesn't mean they become two separate dances. Deff6 16:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jabir ibn Hayyan
Hi Mel Etitis!

Im sorry to bother you. But since you have been involved in many science related articles, your neutral stand is urgently needed in the Jabir ibn Hayyan article, regarding his ethnicity. Nearly all reliable sources say that he was an Arab. I listed all sources here:.

Thank you! jidan 01:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Spam to multiple users (13 of them)
Hi. From comments on Sam Spade's RfC, I got the impression that quite a few users, including you, were in favor of an RFAr on Sam, though no one liked, or perhaps had the time, to be the one to post it. If I were to start a request on the RFAr page, would you be interested in signing as an involved party, and/or write a short statement there? I'm asking because if people have lost interest, there's obviously not much point in my doing it; it would merely distress and aggravate Sam unproductively, which I've certainly no wish to do. I wouldn't supply any examples of my own, as I haven't edited any of "Sam's articles" for a long time (couldn't stand it, that's why I stopped), but would basically simply refer to the RfC. It seems to me that anybody who wanted to endorse such an RFAr could more or less do the same, as the RfC is so complete. It's full of evidence, and its talkpage gives a view of Sam's attitude. I believe that it's important for the encyclopedia and the community that the old dog should learn new tricks, but please don't think I want to put the least pressure on you or anybody else to take part in an RFAr if you'd rather not. Bishonen | talk 02:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

RE: Severed-ties
I'm gonna back down on this one because I'm probably not going to win the argument. But I'd just like to say that I don't agree with this at all. Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from in proposing this argument. Thanks. --MurphysLaw

Speedy to discussion
Were you asking about Category:American Dance Acts? This is listed in the April 28 section and it was moved based on the discussion on the proposed name. This is noted in that entry by my comment on why it was moved following the nomination and before the discusion. Vegaswikian 19:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Exogamy and Endogamy
This was deleted after an AfD the first time that you created it. As it's simply a miscapitalised conjunction of two terms it's difficult to see why we need it at all, especially as a disambiguation page (especially as it didn't in fact disambiguate anything). Please don't create it a third time --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Mel. You are right I have created that before! I have created so many redirects, disambigs etc that I forget when I've created them! I apologise that I didn't notice that this one has been created before and AfDed!
 * Let me explain why I created it. People typing in antonym pairs is a very common search method that Wikipedia should try to pick up. Hardly just "two terms". In particular, other encyclopedias use exactly that method to name their articles, so as part of WikiProject Missing encyclopedia topics we create these "disambiguation" pages to the pages where Wikipedia has the content.
 * Good point about the capitalisation. I was lazy there.
 * I also note with wry amusement that you note it doesn't "disambiguate anything". I absolutely agree with you, and created a new class of articles (that I termed "signpost articles" to cover this type of page. Unfortunately other process wonks didn't want this and insisted I re-use disambiguation pages for this purpose. I can't win, can I? :). If you absolutely insist, I won't re-create this page for a third time, but it is clear that it is a good addition to Wikipedia. Pcb21 Pete 16:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again. There was a category at Category:Signpost_articles that you could examine the history of. Also see Category_talk:Signpost_articles... which has a link to the CfD that I missed. Really annoyed about that... I am sure I could've altered the course of the CfD if only I'd seen it. But now that it has been deleted I don't know ... it is quite hard to come back from the dead. Pcb21 Pete 16:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Master of Divinity -- "commented out obscurity"
It means, my friend, that for Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, Orthdodox etc. ministers, the M.Div. is the degree they receive from their seminaries before being ordained, or ordered, or licensed, or appointed (depending on denominational terminology) as ministers or priests or pastors. These are all Christian denominations. For some reform/reconstructionist Jews, the M.Div. is also a typical degree for rabbinical ordination -- for other groups of Jewish rabbis, either no specific degree is offered or they receive an MA or an MHL (Master of Hebrew Letters). Unitarians, who are, for the most part, not classed as Christians, or at least as Christians in the classic sense, also receive an M.Div. in many cases from their schools. One also occasionally encounters ministers or congregational leaders of more obscure faiths, or of Eastern faiths, who have earned or who have adopted by anaology Divinity degrees.

This may not be the practice in the little world of Oxford, but it is the practice throughout North America and in many other places.

Hence, "In many Christian denominations and some others, this degree is the standard prerequisite for ordination to the priesthood or pastorship or other appointment, ordination or licensing to professional ministry."

I fail to see why this sentence is so upsetting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amherst5282 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 April 2006

Greek Zeybek 2
Read this article

Francesco Martinelli spends some time on the island of Hydrawhere the world gathered to review the history and share the music of Greece's historic rebel music.

It is only a review but it traces the history and developement of Remebitika and the Greek Zeybek dance and it does not back YOUR OPINION that they are so distinct as to be two separate dances (and so as to require two different pages).

Note: Always when the dance is commented in English it is called the Greek Zeybek - against your OWN PERSONAL argument that two different names point to two different dances.

Read this article:

Article MT080 - from Musical Traditions No 3, Summer 1984

Note: In 1922, following the failure of Greek territorial exploits in Turkey, there began a mass exodus of refugees from Asia Minor to the Greek mainland culminating in the burning of the port of Smyrna by Turkish troops. This displacement of one million people, Greek in name but entirely Turkish in existence, had a dramatic effect on Greece both economic and cultural.

Read this article:

The famous Cafe Aman

Note: If you have dome any research you'd realise what a famous club this is and even this calls rembetika and its ilk MUSIC FROM ASIA MINOR.

Read this article:

Leigh Cline

Note: Musician who labels the greek Zeybek dance as merely a Greek derivation of the Turkish Eagle Dance from the Aegean Coast of Asia Minor. Deff6 01:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (Replied at Talk:Zeibekiko. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirect problem of a much needed phrase
Hi! This is of national interest to you, so I'll pick on you about this vexation! Thanks, Best! Fra nkB 13:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * re: Here == #redirect Commonwealth_Realm which should navigate to   Here when used in (historical) articles calling for the distinction.
 * iirc, the section linked was 'Merged in' from a prior seperate article, which presents the problem of reaching such nations as a reference.
 * Unfortunately, every time (maybe 5-6) I've tried to use the titled (redirect) from within an article, I end up 'fixing the link' with the direct referenced link.
 * I guess this is 'proper' from the point of view of not including double redirects, but this doesn't quite 'qualify' in my mind as such, nor does it seem logically consistant with the merge into one article.
 * In other words, this is costing me 'productivity' by not working! (We all only have so much free time!)
 * Any ideas on how to fix it????? Or do I just have to suffer the necessary double edits. (At least the redirect serves as a repository for the correct link syntax!)


 * Thanks for the answer on the above, my response: user talk:fabartus Fra nkB 14:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Message
A) You're the one with your knickers in a twist. You have a high-handed and self-important way of expressing yourself, which is how this all started. Had you simply ASKED why a phrase was used, you would have gotten a discussion. Instead, you hand down dismissive pronouncements with belittling tones, and then get all miffed when people don't treat you as omniscient and omnisapient. You are collaborating with colleagues here, professor, not grading papers of slightly backward 14-year-olds.

B) My user page is my territory to patrol. Your decision that your "advice," which reads like a pontifical rescript of interdict, must remain forever as a sign that you have chosen to shame those who dare disagree with you is not necessarily my policy. As you may notice, I generally remove friendly and laudatory messages after a time as well -- if the person is leaving a message for me, then after I have read it, it has served its purpose. Why your epistles are so precious that they must forever remain on display is beyond me.

C) Since when am I required to stroke your sense of self-importance by replying to your every thought fired in my direction? If I choose to end the discussion by not replying, pat yourself on the back that you have the last word.

You reluctantly acknowledge on your homepage that you may be slightly imperfect, that you respond to "rudeness" badly. Well, imperious, laconic and dismissive language, and coming off like you're lecturing mentally retarded fourth-formers is rude and maddening as well. Don't like my tone? Perhaps it's inspired by your own.Amherst5282 22:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As you're unable even to pretend to half-decent manners, and you delete comments from your page as soon as they're placed there, I'll not bother replying to this latest rant. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 07:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Greek Zeybek
Mel you can't read and you're a lier how you are an admin I din't know but it doesn't bode well for Wikipedia if there ar epeople like you about. I only hope (from reading all th eother discussions) that eventually everyone's negative energy towards you will cosmically emerge and remove you as soon as possible. That youth thing you brag about, is that mental too?

The sources ARE NOT IRRELEVANT - they all treat the ZEYBEK as ONE DANCE with two variations. So it disproves your point.

I am going to complain about you and take this further. This is indicative of your nature as a whole - you can't write into Wikipedia your view of the world. Deff6 23:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)