User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 52

Pussycat Dolls
Sorry to bug you, but did you mean to do this edit? Acalamari 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine then. :) I did a similar thing not too long ago by accidentally reverting to the wrong version. Acalamari 17:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you make of the article Carmit? Does it seem like crystal-ballism to you? I did a Google search on Carmit Bachar's solo album, and the most I could find was the Wikipedia article. I left a message on the creator's talk page earlier, saying that they should find some decent sources soon. Acalamari 23:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All I can say is...thank you for handling that. Acalamari 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've given the creator the appropriate links regarding crystal-ballism and sources. I figured that was a good thing to do. Acalamari 23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

repertoire
Hi Mel,

Re your edit to Pussycat Dolls repertoire: "This seems fairly pointless; it presumably isn't exhaustive, and it's not included in comparable articles". Firstly, thank you for hiding the text rather than deleting it. (a) I think the point of the examples is to illustrate a relationship between their current repertoire and their burlesque roots. Their inclusion of so many '50s-'60s "jazzy" tunes with vamps shows this "root", AND is distinctive, given that they are a mainstream 21st century pop group. (b) This may be a reason such a list is not in "comparable articles" (please let me know which articles you mean). (c) The list of recorded cover versions is complete and up to date (tracks from PCD, b-sides & bonus tracks). While the list of live cover versions may not be exhaustive, it does not claim to be (it says "includes"). (d) Yes, cited refs. for all the live cover versions would be good.

I light of my statements above I'd suggest reinstating the edited paras and asking on the talk page for cited refs to be added. Cheers, --Design 11:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems with DarkSaber2k enthusiastically deleting pages
Hello Mel,

My name is Zeth, I noticed that you also have had issues with DarkSaber2k. Today, I started working on a new article and within two minutes of my first edit, he tagged it as speedy delete. Can you please look at the ShowMeDo article, and consider removing or replacing the speedy delete tag?

Thanks for reading, Zeth 17:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

New articles
Thanks for your suggestions. I shall expand the articles and take care of the grammar.Kumarrao 06:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Alex Kramer
I removed the 'citation needed' because I didn't feel like it was needed. I watched Alex Kramer appear on the 18th April as did probably many. I don't see why it needs a citation as it's happened. Adi39 11:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

TheOrangeJobber 21:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mel, Regarding the removal of Alex Kramer's bust size being 33" 'citation needed' I gave a source for the reference, on the episode of The Bull**** Detective on BBC3 shown on Thursday 26th April 2006 in the section of the show proving that hypnosis cannot enlarge your breasts, upon measuring one of the women's bust size, who was 33" Alex Kramer said "33" - the same as me". Can you please revert the Trivia section on the Alex Kramer page.

Thanks TheOrangeJobber

Mathew Knowles
The reason I listed Mathew Knowles' birthplace as Gadsden, Alabama is because he was born at Gadsden Regional Medical Center(formally Bapstist Hospital) in Gadsden, Alabama on 1007 Goodyear Ave. If you want to verify this then call the medical staff at (256)494-4000. He also attended and graduated from Gadsden High School.

Can you help re this user BKLisenbee deleting my comments on talk pages and check mine for comment re proving his POV on Jajouka and related issues
see  and my talk page Abelelkrim 01:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Police Complaint re this user for cyber harassment

This User User: BKLisenbee has been the subject of an Australian police complaint re. internet harassment

according to an Australian blog. Google search "Twenty Third & Seventh: What's New?" see entries for 23 Jan and 11 April.

I don't want to link as the pages links to a wiki page.

Perhaps block should be maintained or is this notable?

Abelelkrim 23:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

TGBBQ
Hi Mel, I was looking at your edits on TGBBQ and I can see that this page has caused a lot of problems. I did look at the schedules page and see that there are a number of presenters listed that don't appear on the "presenters" page i.e. Lee, Abby etc. They can be found at this page here I don'tknow whether this is sufficient proof for them to appear on a wikipedia page, however. It seems that TGBBQ are not very good at updating their website anyway. I also took a look at the articles about individual presenters on tgbbq and a couple of them really need a cleanup, especially the one about Carryl Varley. I had a go but to be honest I think I made it worse. Thanks for your opinions and help.Thetruthalltold 02:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ian Protheroe
Ok, I've included a source from one of Protheroe's books. That should satisfy your requirement for sourced changes regardless of your understanding of nationality.

Kungfufyr 10:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mel!
My apologies for the untitled message; a minor oversight. Also, I understand the sourcing requirements of Wikipedia, but nationality is not something that one can easily find sources for. Therefore, in spite of sourcing requirements, I think it is reasonable to assume nationality based on a definition used by the society to which an individual belongs. Isn't that a fair assumption? There is, of course, a difficulty when individuals are presented in international media and subject to various understandings of nationality. However, in the case of Protheroe, most people who will read about him are martial arts practitioners living in Australiasia. Therefore, it would seem rather misleading to present him as English.

All that aside, thanks for editing the article and teaching me a little about the culture of Wikipedia. Kungfufyr 11:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

DarkSaber2k needs to be brought under control.
He is addicted to deletion, I noticed you had had a run in with him on his talk page, there is following the letter of the law too closely...

Please do something because normal people can't keep with the likes of him in defending / improving articles.

Thanks.

Bjrobinson 15:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So lets just get this straight. You suggest I go and look at 80% of the Brower-based game list that are less notable than the game that is in an AfD so I do. I notice that you are indeed right and over 80% of them meet the WP:WEB speedy delete criteria. I mark them for deletion, thank you for bringing them to my attention, and somehow all this adds up a request for admin action? How? DarkSaber2k 15:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough some of them are pretty bad, but some of them are pretty popular and established, as well as being good articles. Your wiping out an entire category here... the Notability criteria are meant to be flexible and not applied blinkeredly across the board. Bjrobinson 16:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But it wasn't applied blikerdly! I read the articles, I read any discussions that were on talk pages, I even checked the histories to see if any assertions of notability had been recently removed. I agree the Notability criteria are flexible, but I've always been under the impression, and actually had this impression confirmed by deleting admins, that assertion of notability is not flexible. Articles are meant to assert their notability (even if it is flimsy) to take themselves out of speedy delete criteria, I thought. I'll repeat what I said on your talk page about my contributions here for the sake of the admin. The reason it's mainly deletion tags is because I do most of my editing when I'm meant to be working, but for some bizarre reason only Wikipedia is allowed through the filter (seriously, I can't even get pictures on wikipedia!). This means that I can only really do copyediting and tagging of articles. Recently I've been patroling new pages, so most of my tags have been speedy tags on vanity articles and spam. But I believe I did stick to appropriate methods. I put notices on appropriate talk pages, and in a few cases explained to someone who's asked how to get the article up to an acceptable standard. I wont deny that I do have deletionist habits, but I do resent any implication that I'm doing this to disrupt wikipedia, because this is simply not true. DarkSaber2k 16:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Bjrobsinsons talk page for my response. DarkSaber2k 16:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There needs to be some flexibility here to protect 'minority interests' such as Browser based games. You effectivly treid to wipe out an entire category, and wasted at least two hours of my life. The matter is not yet dropped. You managed to wipe out 25 Articles this afternoon, Ferion especially has a large user base and that article was a year old. I prefer to contribute than get bogged down in all this, i can't compete with those who whack on Speedy Delete tags, i dont have the time to go through and defend them all. 25!!! And the process for undeletion is near to impossible. These articles will now be speedy deleted if re-made under cat 2 (i think). So in effect they are gone forever. Bjrobinson 17:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for what it's worth, I had removed the speedy delete tag from Ferion when I answered on your talk page. DarkSaber2k 17:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well its 32 articles now. Good job! Althogh some of them were a bit rubbish, they didnt go through the proper procedure in some cases. Bjrobinson 17:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I removed the speedy tag from articles you had put a hangon tag on, but they still got deleted, so either an admin ignored it's removal, or someone replaced them beforehand. DarkSaber2k 17:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Immortal Technique article
User 87.186.29.115 keeps vandalizing the Immortal Technqiue article. He always comes back as User:87.186... and always messes up that article. You already blocked him. He insulted me again here. I already told him to stop vandalizing here. Just look at the history of the article. I do not think he will stop unless you block him for like two or three days at least. --- Efil4tselaer 16:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for blocking him, and thank you for protecting the article. That guy has been vandalizing the page for at least 2 weeks. I tried to be nice to him and I tried to tell him that he should stop, but he would never listen and he would either just call me "stupid as fuck", a "faggot" or just call my edits vandalism. Thank you. --- Efil4tselaer 20:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

List of T.I. awards and nominations (reply)
Clicking the minor edit option is just a bad habit and I will cite my sources. Georgia Peachez 16:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your poor manners
Mel, if you discover that a "you are blocked" message is missing on any given talk page, please sofixit, or make use of the block log. This is really all I have to say on the matter. If you would like to receive a broader range of input please refer it to the noticeboard or another channel for dialog. Thank you, Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 17:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Pussycat Dolls Discussion.
I thought I'd inform that I have had to start a discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pussycat_Dolls#Discussion_Over_The_Current_Edits. here] over the current edits to the article. I'd like JJH1992 to explain their reversions. Acalamari 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cory in the House
It wasn't intended to be snippy. I was correcting my mistake for not citing. The comment 'The new eps...' was referencing where I got it from, since you asked me to do that and I agreed you were totally right in doing so. However. There were other changes (such as a rewording of a ep summary) that were changed in your revert. All I was suggesting was the same as you did to me. And ... yeah I missed a spelling error (newtasks apparent doesn't trigger my spell check) though I did go back and delete my TBAs so ... six of one, half a dozen of the other. Wholesale reverts are (IMO) more prone to errors than going in and reading what was changed. I think we're having an agreement disagreement though. :) We both seemed to have goofed with a revert. *heh* Ah well. At least a Wiki is easily fixed! -- Ipstenu ( talk | contribs ) 20:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Suite Life Episodes
Please stop tagging List of the Suite Life of Zack & Cody Episodes with. It is written in the corrent "tone" for a list of episodes. Please visit WP:LOE if you do not believe me. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet?
I'm contacting you because an IP user you blocked for six months, 199.80.117.24, is editing again under the user name Boukenger. I've looked through the various IPs employed by this user, and it's pretty obviously the same person. All his messages have the same abusive tone, the same foul language, the same pages edited, the same reasons for blocks. I did file a sock case against the user in the hopes that there would be some action taken (when he's blocked he just moves to another IP and keeps going), but at the time he had gone inactive and nothing was done. Link here:

Since you've looked at this user's conduct before, and you seem to be an admin who has experience dealing with disruptive users, I was wondering if there was any sort of intervention that could be done. Boukenger hasn't caused trouble yet, and I'm steering clear of him and the pages he edits, but he is circumventing a block, and frankly, it's just a matter of time before he starts up again. Thanks for any help here. DanielEng 01:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Bother (sorry)
May I bother you a moment, and ask you if you recognize this 'person'? I saw you had participated in discussions on China naming. I see the discussion Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28Chinese%29 but haven't read it much. While I have affinity for Chinese-related topics, I have no such affinity for China-related headaches. ;-) Who would be a better person to draw their attention to this 'new' (cough) user? Who would know the current 'consensus'? Shenme 02:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse Club
Although the edit summary was, er, strongly worded, the edit you reverted on Mickey Mouse Club was more than likely the accurate version. As you can probably see from the article's Talk page, there's a longstanding problem with establishing when the 1990s version of the series ended its first run airings. Some people (usually anon IPs) tend to change dates to 1994 without comment, source or justification, and others (especially one or two, shall we say, excitable IP folks) angrily change it back. Apparently it was produced through 1994 and finished airing in 1996, but there are no reliable sources online any more to establish the correct dates, and Bill Cotter doesn't mention an end date for it in his Disney television book. Frankly I don't know what can be done to settle the ongoing issue, especially given the rudeness of some of the people involved. Any thoughts? -- Karen | Talk | contribs 10:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I didn't answer your reply right away because I'm honestly not sure what the answer is to this article's problems.  Basically there are two related issues. 1) there's a factual dispute about when first run episodes ended, and whether the actors should be listed through 1994 (end of production) or 1996 (end of the run).  Unfortunately there seems to be no citable source to settle that issue. 2) A lot of IP editors want to either "improve" the 1990s section or vandalize it, often by adding spurious cast members. Tonight there was a long series of vandal edits inserting nonsense about Michael Jackson. The ones who want the article to be right tend to be a little harsh in their comments and edit summaries, but their actual edits seem to be good ones.  I think on balance, semi-protection is a good thing, but it's important that we not semi-protect vandal info.  I'm not quite sure whether the current cast list is correct, but I suppose I can find out if I need to. Thanks!  -- Karen | Talk | contribs 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Get off"
I guess you are right. Sorry about that. Jogers (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't sound aggressive at all. Thanks for letting me know about my mistake. I'll be more careful about phrasal verbs in the future :-) Jogers (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Darod Page
Hi

Why did you revert the Darod page? The names that I have added are Somali subclan names of the Marehan tribe. They do not require "sources"

86.3.24.57 17:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)MarehanEmpire

194.80.32.8 block
So you know, that IP address is the web proxies (or maybe just one of the four) for Lancaster University, UK. These proxies are used by all students who live on campus, as well as by every machine in the university proper. That's probably something more than five thouand machines (I have no idea; probably not many less than that though). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J-Deeks (talk • contribs) 19:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC).


 * (Ooops, forgot to sign the last comment...) And yes, we have our share of idiots. I had the misfortune to live with some of them for part of my first year. J-Deeks 03:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wishingonastarbeyonceversion.jpg

 * Actually the song was used to advertise the scent so the vinyl cover looked like an add. it did have two songs on it though:
 * Wishing on a Star
 * Naive (Solange featuring Beyoncé & Da Brat)
 * If you want i can replace the image with one that doesnt have the watermark.

Ratizi1 21:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

warning
I didn't make vandalism. it was perfectly innocent...i didn't make revert wars...so why did you give me a warning? It is not vandalisms....i didn't even continue the revert war...random users vandalize articles and they don't get into trouble. (69.117.20.128 - talk)

Improving Forward Caste Article
I have observed that you have shown interest in removing unsourced statements and reverting vandalism from Forward caste article. This article is pending for cleanup and copy edit for the last few months. I wish to assist you in improving this article. --Indianstar 04:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving Sathyaneshan Nadar
Can you please look at this and comment? Rajamankkan 05:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

re user 69.117.20.128
I noticed the final vandalism warning on this users talk page. This user has just deleted messages from another user from my talk page, which has infuriated me as it is not the first time she has edited my comments. Is it possible to block them? Also their constant reverts to Special Education under various sock puppets are stagnating that page. --Brideshead 11:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please comment on your block of this user? If I could offer my humble read of the situation: Thanks. Part Deux 19:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) This user clearly committed vandalism here: in deleting comments from another user's talk page. This was wrong, but the user was not warned, and may not have even known it was bad procedure. Additionally, he/she was contributing positively elsewhere.
 * 2) This user was blocked for trying to give an opinion on several education articles and other non-vandalism additions. Why was an addition like reverted or treated as vandalism. This might be appropriate, were the user not using the talk page to make a valid point. You stated that the user's additions to student were "hard to see as anything but vandalism": but the only addition I see recently is, which appears quite valid to me.
 * 3) One reason for the block was the user removing warnings from his/her talk page. However, that is a completely legal procedure. Sometimes for obvious vandals, this is ignored, however, this user has a positive contribution history.

Thank You
For removing that stupid link on La Coka Nostra. Appreciate it. 70.248.144.180 19:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hate to bother you, but constructive grammar/wording edits are getting reverted by abusive admin on said page. Could you happen to watch for him/her to revert it again, then change it back? Coming from an established user such as yourself, I'm sure they'll get the picture. Once again, sorry to bother you. 70.232.141.155 05:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Saw your edits, and your locking of the article. Seems like the best idea. The article will be pretty much unchanged until an album is released, anyway. 76.213.175.124 22:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If I'm being the jerk, tell me?
Howdy!! Can you please keep your eyes on this guy? He added some extremely out-of-place and speculatory information to Pet Shop Boys discography and got very angry that I removed it. I don't think I was being too critical or mean, but I need an extra pair of eyes on it for some perspective (if I was overstepping, please tell me). There's some lovely correspondence on our talk pages, if you're bored and want something insane to read. He seems intent on putting this info on the page and it really doesn't look right to me. Thanks in advance. - eo 23:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Hopefully it will help soothe the situation.  Peace, love and edit summaries, maaaaaaan! - eo 11:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for assisting me with this situation. - eo 12:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Peterm1991
You posted test5, but you didn't block. Did you forget to block, or mistakenly posted test5? Thought you'd like to know. --Geniac 13:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Aqil
That's why the link was removed. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well beat me with the clue stick. I never thought to look at the redirect. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I had some spare lying around doing nothing. Here have a couple. "CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)"

Emoticons
How is :K a silly edit? It's an actual emoticon that me and my friends use all the time. This is supposed to be a complete list of all human knowledge, isn't it?

Drevil55 18:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Matt

user block 69.117.20.128
I would like to thank you for your co-operation in blocking IP User talk:69.117.20.128. I was wondering if it was possible to also block IP User talk:209.177.21.6 as it is a known sock puppet for this user; see here. --Brideshead 19:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not fair...why do you have to block me too? i'm just learning.. all wikipedians learn from mistakes. Why are you always against me in everything? You need to be more patient with newcomers.  We don't know that many things. (209.177.21.6 - talk)

209.177.21.6's Talk pages indicates that we're not dealing with a new, inexperienced, innocent editor. On the other hand, the removal of a unreferenced template from an article that was disfigured by more instances of it than I've ever seen, as well as a hysteria of fact templates, and the mis-use of a host of associated categories, wasn't exactly disruptive. I don't know why passions have been so violently aroused at Inclusive classroom, but the result was a dog's breakfast. I've started cleaning it up.

Incidentally, an IP address can't be a sock-puppet. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 19:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What's a dog's breakfast? (209.177.21.6 - talk)


 * A horrible mess. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 22:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Block of Peterm1991
You left a test5 notice on this user's talk page and he/she is requesting that the block be removed. The odd thing is that the user is requesting to be unblocked due to an autoblock. There isn't an entry in the user's block log for the April 22 block; I also don't see one in your log. Anyway, I can't figure it out...did you block directly or is this actually an autoblock? -  auburn pilot  talk  20:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, there are two autoblocks listed for this user . -  auburn pilot  talk  20:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

70.232.141.155
With all due respect, Burgz33 is editing under the IP 70.232.141.155 - among other IPs. Quickly review Burgz33 edit history before he was blocked, as well as the sockpuppets and IP addresses that have already been blocked by other administrators. You find common edits on Dreams (The Game song) and La Coka Nostra. Add the fact that the above IP comes from a St. Louis ISP and user Burgz33 has indicated he is from St. Louis, and you'll find that short of a RFCU, the evidence is more than enough to suspect a sock. And in this case it's being used to evade a block. Yankees76 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact an IP can't be a sockpuppet. You should really leave this up to admins. 76.213.175.124 22:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and hate to break it to you, but St. Louis has a population of over 2 Million, (including county and city), So I'm sure more than one edits Wikipedia. 76.213.175.124 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why the wording of the template says "suspected". Does everyone in St. Louis use SBC Internet Services, or is it just the ones who edit the articles above? I'm sure it wouldn't be hard at all to gather up enough evidence to prove you're a sockpuppet of Burgz33 - that's why so many IPs with nearly identical contributions to yours have been blocked already. All you're doing is avoiding a block by refreshing your IP address everytime you're blocked. Pretty basic and it isn't hard to connect the dots. You can start here Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive232 --Yankees76 02:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What I still don't understand is why people like yourselves are so concerned with it! If you didn't discuss me on talk pages, I'd only edit pages and discuss why I edited it, or what needs to be done with the page. It doesn't matter if Burgz33 is blocked, I'm still going to edit no matter what. Sorry if its against policy, but its just whats gonna happen. I respect admins, believe it or not, but I only respect the admins that show the same respect back, such as Mel Etitis. I've said this before, I'd be willing to create an account, start over, and see what happens. If I slip up, an admin can warn me, but I know I won't "slip up." Its getting old not having a watchlist to edit Wikipedia and keep my favourite pages up-to-date. Even KhoiKhoi said I wasn't vandalizing, just avoiding a block, so whats the big deal? You can't deny that the pages I like are improved since I have edited them, such as D.J. King, La Coka Nostra, Today (EP)(Which I created), Everlast (musician), House Of Pain, St. Louis Blues (Hockey), etc. I have NEVER vandalized an article by putting false information. Ever. 75.33.122.115 02:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again you can't back that statement up, you've vandalized the Chinese Democracy article just out to revert one of yankees76's edits. Wikipedia's vanadalism policy states that Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. That includes article talk pages, user pages, user talk pages and regular articles. You were blocked first for a short block (24 hours), which any legitimate editor who truly cared about improving Wikipedia would have simply taken. Instead you attacked the admin that blocked you and continue to be abusive and engage in trolling, personal attacks and user page vandalism until you wound up blocked for 6 months. See your block log . Respect for admins does not include extending a minor 24 hour block into a 6 month block - including numerous other blocks on the various IP addresses you've logged in under since then. -- Quar te t  04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I made personal attacks and vandalized Wikipedia while I was still blocked. Good one. And also, I didn't deserve the block in the first place, I didn't get numerous warnings like vandals, I just got blocked. Again, you're not an admin, so please, be quiet. Also, the Chinese Democracy album IS being released in 2007, so how is that vandalism? 75.33.122.115 04:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A casual glance through your edit history shows a number of attacks on the Talk:Jordin Tootoo page that were made before you were blocked, and even an attack on the admin who blocked you while requesting an unblock. See User talk:Burgz33. Also note that you were warned about personal attacks  on your talk page - which you removed shortly after, and you were warned during the actual discussion  where the attacks took place - so I can't see how you can complain you were never warned.
 * And as was pointed out above, you vandalized the Chinese Democracy page by reverting my edits (twice) in short succession without explanation. That's vandalism (and yet another case of you Wikistalking another editor - because before then you'd never edited that article or participated in the discussion on that issue on the Chinese Democracy talk page).
 * And this is a long-term issue - you were attacking other editors long before any of us had any interaction with you. Edits such as    and especially and this  were done back in January, February and early March and establish a long-term pattern of abuse. How can anyone after looking at the paragraph above argue that a block wasn't deserved?  --Yankees76 13:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've looked at all of those links you posted, and maybe 2 or 3 or bad, considering the situation. SooperDooper admins deleted La Coka Nostra because.. well.. they didn't have a reason. Just a personal bias. They must be Eminem fans, or something. and Radiant was the one that deleted it. Calling someone not funny who 'vandalized' a talk page is vandalism in itself? Interesting. I was warned TWICE, one time by an admin, and another time by a USER. I don't take any warnings a USER says seriously, because it doesn't concern them. "Long-Term Pattern Of Abuse" are you kidding me? A few slip ups, compared to over 100 constructive edits... I think one outweighs the other. You aren't an admin, this doesn't even concern you. Poor Nashville, couldn't even make it past round 1. 68.94.92.88 21:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

BKLisenbee believes Abelelkrim is Frank Rynne
Dear Mel Etitis:

I have been repeated stopped from editing and removing libelous references in unencyclopedia sources which attack Paul Bowles and accusing friends of being pedophiles, which keep cropping up in links inserted by a Abelekrim. This fits the same pattern of Frank Rynne who has editited Mohamed Hamri, Joujouka, Master Musicians of Joujouka, Bachir Attar, Jajouka and Master Musicians of Jajouka. Will you please see if the IP of Abelekrim is also Frank Rynne, who has also used a name OpiumJones something or other in these edits. FaysalF has also agreed that the blog entries for Brink.com are not good, yet this user has reverted everything. I don't want to accuse, but I feel you need to know what has been going on. The information about Bachir Attar (see his page) drinking vodka is stuff out of the National Inquirer and not necessary, nor is it the gist of the article.

Lastly, today I looked at an entry by Abelekrim and now he has inserted information about me (from someone who violated a copyright on use of a photograph, and he has maliciously attacked me on the Web on his Chelsea Hotel blog). I certainly did not "harrass" him, only wrote him one time to ask him to remove his negative and personal remarks directed against me. Wikipedia editor seems to believe that I actually was the subject of a complaint to the Australian police, when I was not. This is the kind of talk/discussion nonsense that I do not want about me on Wikipedia, and I ask you to inform Abeledrim to remove it, or please do it yourself. Also, I will be happy to send you the e-mail I received from Frank Rynne within the past week where he says he had seen this Chelsea Hotel blog entry and now he is using that against me. I feel that Abelelkrim and Frank Rynne are one and the same. He has also libeled and slandered friends of mine in his own Brink.com writings, which is why I feel they are not good sources, as well as on Outsideleft.com and thehandstand.org sites, etc.

Thank you for fixing Bachir Attar's page, if you can. These people have vandalized it. He certainly does live in Jajouka, and he never claimed to represent the Master Musicians of Joujouka, only his own group of musicians. Contrarily, it is Frank Rynne who claims that Jajouka and Joujouka are one and the same, including his band of Joujouka, and he has smeared Bachir Attar enough in his edits, along with those done by Abeledrim. Please revert to the old articles on Bachir Attar, Master Musicians of Jajouka, Jajouka. BKLisenbee

La Coka Nostra
I reverted because the IPs are being used by a block-evading user, Burgz33. According to Blocking policy, "Edits made by blocked users while blocked may be reverted." If you see Special:Contributions/70.232.141.155, you'll also notice that the anon is stalking his opponents, reverting their edits on sight. Khoikhoi 00:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "MAY be reverted." That doesn't mean you HAVE to revert clearly constructive edits and replace them with misspelled words and poor grammar. And, you're not even 100% sure the anon ip IS the blocked user. You're going off suspicion. And please, I don't edit stalk anybody. Its not worth my time to look at every edit, I just watch the pages I use. It just so happens they like to edit/revert my edits there. 75.33.122.115 02:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ, you've edit stalked me on a number of occasions. Some examples where you've followed me around Wikipedia on pages you've never heard of and users you've never contacted previously wikistalking and harrassing me include:
 * And you're Burgz33; the evidence is overwhelming.  Quar te t  03:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you not guilty of the same exact things you have just said? You wikistalk me like you have NOTHING else to do. 75.33.122.115 03:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a strawman argument. You're the one on here saying you've never stalked anyone, and I just showed that you indeed have. I came here through Khoikhoi's edits: since I have no way of knowing what IP you're going to show up under, how can I wikistalk you?-- Quar te t  03:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4 or 5 Edits is stalking? Look at your recent history. You're quick to tag any ip that begins with a 6 or a 7 as a sock puppet of me. And you managed to find this page. Stalker, much? 75.33.122.115 04:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again a strawman argument. I'm not the blocked user who is claiming I've never edit stalked anyone. I've pointed out to where you have. I'm sure User:CambridgeBayWeather or a number of other Wikipedia administrators who's edits you've reverted could verfiy and even show other instances. Also, tagging suspected sockpuppets of a block-evading user and reverting vandalism is not edit stalking. And, as I pointed out, I found this page through another user. I fail to see how it's possible could stalk a random IP address.  Quar te t  13:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Its like arguing with a remedial child. LOLZ STRAWMAN. LOLZ WP:CIVIL. LOLZZZZZ 68.94.92.88 21:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Quartet. I don't vandalize, even an admin told you that. Are you this slow? 68.94.92.88 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Mickey Marcus
I see that you keep a watchful eye on the Mickey Marcus article. But the edit I made should not be reverted. I served with many Machal soldiers and the Hebrew acronym is for Mitnadvei Hutz la'Aretz. When you have plural and a conjunction in Hebrew, you drop the conjunction and the 'mem' from the subject word. Like Yimei Hayeinu instead of Yamim shel Hayeinu. -NYC2TLV 02:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Ericorbit....
Thank you for taking the time to write to me, but I have a feeling that Ericorbit's bad behaviour is being defended rather than being scolded as I noticed your comment at the bottom of his Talk page. Although I don't presume to know everything about the Pet Shop Boys, I do not appreciate Ericorbit coming in a reverting what I have written back to the way it was originally, just simply because he believes what I have written is not accurate. He tries to tell me that what I have written is hearsay even though Hearsay already exists not only on the discography but Biography as well. He speaks to me as if I know nothing about the Pet Shop Boys. He lives in England and does not know everything about the chart fortunes of The Pet Shop Boys in the United States. If someone like Ericorbit continually goes in and removes items others have written simply because it doesn't fit in with his view of things, then what is the purpose of people being able to edit anything at Wikipedia. I found certain information to be missing from the Biography & Discography and I added it. Just because he is not aware of this information does not make it wrong. Nor does the fact that he may have been doing this for a while make his actions correct either. He has a bad attitude and it is obvious from his talk page that this is not the first time he has done this, nor the first time he has angered people. The arrogance with which he initially wrote to me and told me not to rearrange comments and not to write something he felt was hearsay, was out of line. Just because he is not aware of something, does not mean it isn't factual. He is an Englishman who doesn't know everything about the U.S. Pop Charts compiled and printed weekly by Billboard magazine. To talk down to me as he did was rude. If people are to continue to add and make edits to the sight, you need to make sure individuals such as Ericorbit are not being rude with other people who make edits here. Just because what I entered did not fit into his concept of what he knows about the Pet Shop Boys does not make it inaccurate. I am new to this and I am not going to say I can't make mistakes. I know I can. But when I have added information to a page that I know is correct and verifiable, and then have someone like Ericorbit come along and remove it and get rude with me, I question why I or anyone else should bother. If I had written something completely untrue or Defammatory I could understand it being removed. There is Hearsay within the Biography part of the Pet Shop Boys Page, but I have not edited it out or changed it. The little bits of information I added did not hurt the discography, nor take away from it. They were just additional bits of information I added like the ones already there and are verifiable. This simply comes down to an arrogant man who doesn't like someone adding information to a discography he probably has partially written. I am sorry but I am angry with this man and a letter should have been written to him and not me. Just because I am new here does not mean that he is automatically correct. The information I added was correct. Just because he is not aware of it as Englishman does not make it inaccurate. The Pet Shop Boys may be an English act, but that does not mean that all info about them is from or flows from the U.K. This is not the first time he has had trouble so I am not sure why a letter was written to me. Ericorbit should be scolded severely by Wikipedia for his actions. Unless he knows for certain something is incorrect, he should not be removing it from the pages here. I thank you for your time, but I added correct information to the site, only to have this arrogant man come along and delete it and then get rude with me about it. That is wrong and he is the one that should have had been talked to, not me. My future of making any edits here will probably depend on this whole situation and I may contact a moderator about this. This sort of behaviour is unecessary at Wikipedia.MoovieStarz 05:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Category Miracles
Hi, it is obvious that Of Miracles is not a miracle itself, so I think that there is no possibility of confusion. On the other sice, WP:CAT says "The topic may be associated with (...) a special interest topic (like Roman Empire or LGBT)." Two examples taken at random from featured articles: Max Weber has the category Theories of history although he was a person and not a theory; but he developed an influential theory of this type. Or 0.999... is in Proofs, although it is a number and not a proof - but there is a need to prove that this number equals one. Therefore Of Miracles can be in the category Miracles, because it is clearly connected with the special interest topic "miracles". Imagine a person who wish to make a research because she would like to write an article about miracles - she would surely like to know what has been written about the theme, so links to important theories about miracles should be in this category unless we have a sharper subcategory of it. (Now, I think that the category "Theory of miracles" would be too small - about four articles - and therefore I will not create it.) --Ioannes Pragensis 08:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Protheroe relationship
Thanks for asking, but no I have no "relationship" with Ian Protheroe. Well, if you include that we both practice the martial arts and I have seen him written up in some martial arts magazines, then perhaps that counts as a relationship. By the way, I would appreciate it if you actually read my contributions before launching into revert mode. Your work with Wikipedia is valuable and I understand that there is more to do than people willing to commit time to it, but reverts are hardly the answer. You reverted a couple of changes on the basis that I hadn't included sources. Then later, when I did include sources, you reverted them again (on the basis that there were no sources). Sorry, but that's plain stupid. Also, I made some minor changes to fix broken links and other things, and you reverted this too. Put brain in gear before acting (reverting). Please. I understand that I shouldn't have put my signature in the articles; a simpler way to address this in the future is to send me a message on my talk page. Explain the problem and I'll happily fix it. Then there will be two people helping out on Wikipedia and not one. Wouldn't that make life easier? Blottbott 10:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Every edit you make not only introduces material and other changes for which you offer no sources, but introduces formatting errors (for example, changing properly to improperly formatted citations). Why?

Also, what is your relationship to Ian Protheroe? --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 13:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks or that contribution, Mel. I'll keep it in mind. Please not my comments on your talk page. Blottbott 10:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The links that you gave (which didn't cover all the changes that you made) didn't, at least in the cases that I checked, support your edits.

For example, "Protheroe broke with Cheung in the early 1990s and has been pursuing the development of his own branch of Wing Chun which he calls Classical Wing Chun kung Fu" (leaving aside what I take to be miscapitalisation) isn't backed up by this or this; indeed, the sources contradict it, referring instead simply to "Classical Wing Chun" in their titles, and to "Chung Chi Wing Chun Kuen" in the text. He refers to a traditional/classical system at certain points. Nowhere does he suggest that this classical system is of his own devising (which, in any case, would be a most peculiar claim); he says, rather, that he calls his system "Chung Chi Wing Chun Kuen" (which makes sense, given that "Chung Chi" is his name). You go on to say that he "also sometimes" uses this name for his system", but this is at best misleading.

Your edits also involved other minor errors (such as "his long-timestudent"), but it was the failure of the sources to back up your edits that was why I reverted. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Mel, I quote from my source site:

"Upon further investigation and meetings with Aikido Sensei I realized that I had developed a circular and more internal method in my approach to Wing Chun based on energy flow and biomechanics rather than the copying of a specific style. This was quite a revelation for me and from that moment I looked at my "style" from a different perspective." from http://www.wingchun-kungfu.com.au/schools/chungchi.shtml

Protheroe's teacher taught (and teaches) Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu (his teacher was William Cheung). Protheroe, on the other hand, has developed his own style which he calls Classical Wing Chun Kung Fu.

I agree that the other source was a little light, but the solution is to send a message, or do what many others do and insert a citation needed tag. As I've said earlier, then I can fix it and we're both working together. For more info on this topic, check out delegation. That sounds nasty, but you obviously don't understand the concept, so you should read the Wiki on it. Blottbott 06:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: MMC
You know what I'm beginning to see why people are no longer using this site for references of ANY kind. You revert the edit because I called somebody an ass? So what does this have to do with the article in itself?

The cast members are already listed to the best of knowledge and there's no Chris Butler, Issac, etc because that messes up the total cast itself.Rocky —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boukenger (talk • contribs) 17:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

deleting regions section to five themes of geography
So is it just me or is it proper to challenge a un-sourced information first before deleting it? -Matt- 00:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting but I actually took your advise and reread the citation guidelines and guess what I found!?!?!

Tagging unsourced material

If an article has no or very few references, but you are unable to find them yourself, you can tag the article with the template undefined.

If a particular claim in an article lacks citation and is doubtful, consider placing undefined after the sentence or removing the claim. Consider the following in deciding which action to take:

1. If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the undefined tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. 2. If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense. Do not be inappropriately cautious about removing unsourced material; it is better for Wikipedia to say nothing on an issue than to present false or misleading material.

All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. It should not be tagged. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel.

seems like you should be the one to read this over again. was my info really "harmful" or "doubtful"? -Matt- 00:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you might also want to read WP:VERIFY which states the following:
 * Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
 * Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
 * The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.
 * Mel Etitis is perfectly in his rights to be removing that information if you're not providing a source. Sorry to butt in here, Metros232 00:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I know it is in his right to do it but what I am suggesting is that he do step 1 (which would be to request citation) first and if that doesn't happen then to delete it. You know, it's called being polite.-Matt- 00:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not bother adding to or editing any pages any longer
I will probably not bother editing or adding any new information. Not only did I get attacked my Mr Ericorbit with his comments, I then get accused of attacking him by you. I do not understand how things work here as the idea of Wikipedia is to add new information and make corrections. My point was that Ericorbit just arbitrarily removed something from The Pet Shop Boys Discography page that I had added simply because It doesn't fit into his definition of what he knows about them. Just because is unaware of information on them does not make it false. You suggested I made an attack on him, but he was the one that made the attack by telling me not to move things around or add certain comments. If he felt what I had written was wrong, there was a better way to write that then to tell me and I quote, "Please stop rearranging the comments in this article." I am sorry but I simply decided to add information that I know to be true and which can be verified. I did not expect to be treated so rudely by this man and then to have his actions defended. I will not bother to add any information again. I do not mind someone questioning something I have added, but I do mind someone getting rude with me about it. That is what Eric did. I did not attack him, he attacked me. I will continue to use Wikipedia for certain information, but I doubt at this time that i will add or edit any pages. I will take this to someone higher at Wikipedia. Ericorbit should not be allowed to continue to edit or add anything as He has made similar attacks on Eduemoni. I thank you for your time, but this was not the way to be introduced to Wikipedia. The idea is to share information you have with others. Based on his attitude it seems I am not allowed to add any information to any page.MoovieStarz 03:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting my account
Don't worry about waiting. Just go ahead and delete it. I wont be using it anymore after all this. Not that it matters, but my name is derived from the title of a song. Thank you for keeping Wikipedia safe from creeps like me -Matt- 15:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You aren't listening to me....
Sir, I simply don't understand how you simply don't listen to what I have to say, yet embrace Ericorbit as if he has not done anything wrong. I followed the guidelines that I read. Ericorbit just came in and treated what I had written as if it was false, without any investigation on his part. I would be wrong if I came in on any page and removed information, simply because It didn't jive with what I know of that subject. If he felt what I had written was incorrect he should have requested the source material (According to Wikipedia, that is what he is supposed to do). No what he did was just to remove what I added without any consideration that what I posted could be correct. He could have written me and asked me where my information came from and where is the source material. He didn't do that. He just arbitrarily removed what I had posted and then got rude with me about it. I read the rules also and he is not supposed to go back and continue to remove things that some one had added or edited. I will go back one more time and add the information I had posted to the page again. This time I will type in the source material. If it is removed again by him then I will have to contact a mediator on this subject. I thank you for your time, but I feel you were directed to this issue by him and that you simply are not listening to what I have to say. Your comment "Your notion of a personal attack is, I'm afraid, out of keeping both with normal usage and with Wikipedia policy." says nothing to me as an attack on someone is an attack on someone. I felt like I had been attacked. Ericorbit got rude with me about this subject. There were other ways for him to get what he had to say to me across rather than telling me not to edit or rearrange things. Something could have been said like "Hey MoovieStarz, thanks for trying to edit and add information to the Pet Shop Boys Discography, but you need to reference your source material and make sure the information you add is put in the correct place." Had that been said I would not have gotten upset. I have been a Manager at Retail for years. I Own & Moderate Yahoo Groups. In both of these cases you have to handle people and issues with respect when they arise. As a manager I could not talk to a customer anyway I wanted to. I have to handle the concerns with the respect and thought to which they are given. I have to LISTEN and resolve the issue. I am sorry but Ericorbit did not handle this correctly and was rude in the process of talking to me. I may have just started at this. That does not mean that his opinion or ideas should have more weight. My problem is with the way he handle this subject and the rudeness with which he handle it. It seems that because I am new, my side is being blown off. Plus the fact that he is being defended leads me to believe you may know him. I am sorry but if this happens again with Ericorbit, I will go higher about it. There is simply no reason for his behavior and his actions should not be defended. When an issue arises like this, both sides should be listened to. Unfortunately from what I am reading it seems that Listening to both sides is something that doesn't have much weight around here.MoovieStarz 05:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Brahmanism is a form of Supremacism in India. I am not sure why my changes are being rolled back in Supremacism. Can you please look into it. Thanks --m 06:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Discography note.
Look at all the other artists, they have this format and i have seen this VERY helpfull for information on them, no one is going to change all the information on the artists for all of them the way you have, it has been this way since the start and  it is much easier too. Also there is no section on recordings on wikipedia so discography is used in this way. All your doing is taking information on the artists that is related to the artists/article away, since there is no other sections to list what i have listed in such manner I have put it under discography like everyother artist has it.

I look at these artists all the time and the information you are taking away is not helpful for me as i use this site as a main source to get information on these artists..

I only listed as vandalism to edit as there was one written that way for me, but i wont do that anymore I guess.

Discography is the study and listing of sound recordings.

A listing of all recordings which a musician or singer features on can be called their "discography". Additionally, discographies may be compiled based on a particular musical genre or record label, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DiggyDoc (talk • contribs) 10:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Something worth noting?
Half the comments on your page are people complaining because you have deleted unsourced statements. That's fine- your job is to delete/edit/revert unsourced docs. Only problem is that a good percentage of people maintain that you have unjustly deleted something which is extremely difficult to source or for which thay had sources and you haven't read their changes. Perhaps it's time to rethink your approach a little? As I have suggested to you before, delegation is a solid concept that you should explore (see comments above). Yes, Wikipedia has rules, guidelines and requirements, but Wikipedia is for everyone. Almost everyone has something worthwhile to say. In fact, most people know a great deal about many things for which you are an amateur if not a total ignoramus. Also, as I've stated earlier, your work with Wikipedia is valuable, particularly from a quality control perspective. However, please lay off the revert button a little. Sure, get rid of the highly subjective stuff, but don't assume that being an academic makes you a better judge of the value of knowledge. There are many things which lie outside the standard academic fields for which not only are you ill-equipped, but also for which there does not exist a large body of academic work to source from. You can't apply the same criteria to this material as you can to established academic disciplines. It is knowledge, and many people are interested in it, but academic sources may not necessarily exist.Blottbott 12:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank You Blottbott for conveying so well what I have been trying to say for a few days now. The problem is that there is information that is unsourced that is 100% valid. This information may be out there but it may be difficult to find and/or to provide. My problem was with someone who removed what I added, simply because he thought it wasn't true. He then got rude with me and told me not to rearrange things or to add information to a discography. This was not only rude, but presumes that only certain individuals are allowed or qualified to make any additions or edits. When it was suggested that he was going to be reported, I was contacted by Mel etitis and basically told because I was new, that my concerns were not important and that this other contributor did nothing wrong. What I was adding was not life altering, it didn't threaten anyone. This individual did not request the source material I posted, he just deleted what I added. And then I am told he did nothing wrong even though the rules say that reverting is not proper and that source material should be requested. I simply think the problem is that we have a few individuals here that seem to think they know it all and that anything anyone else has to offer is unworthy. This speaks to an arrogance that is unnecessary at Wiki-pedia. The idea is to inform and educate by allowing people from various backgrounds to add information. If this is not going to be allowed to be done because of the arrogance of a few people, then Wiki-pedia should shut down. I have found a lot of useful information here. Information posted and edited by people who may or may not have more education than I. I do not care how educated any contributor is. We all have areas that we know a lot about, and other areas we know nothing about. Yes Mel, Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't necessarily mean they aren't listening. But it is a good indicator. It's important that some sign be given that shows that they understand your concerns and issues should be made. When they fail to do this people are left with the conclusion that no one is listening. That IS the way it works. Believe me, I am a manager and am required to work customer service daily. If I don't listen and make sure I understand what their concern are, and try to resolve the problem, major problems occur. People leave and they never come back and unfortunately spread bad word of mouth about the business. It is called Customer Service! Something sorely lacking here. Thank You for your input BlottBott. It proves that when I said no one is listening, I was correct as I see you aren't being listened to either. Thanks for your time.MoovieStarz 15:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Emoticons
¯\(°_o)/¯ had been listed as a "complex example" for months and was removed at some point without any justification I could find. Why do you oppose it so much? ¯\(°_o)/¯ -- claviola (talk to me)  17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling mistake...
Seeing as you have such a professional userpage, I thought I'd let you know a little spelling mistake appears to have invaded your paragraph about yourself...you're missing an 'i' in the word 'responsibility', where you talk about being an admin... Would have corrected it myself but I don't have the option - I imagine that's a nice little perk of being an admin! Libatius 23:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Tankobon
There is a Wikipedia article on Tankōbon, so all we really need to do is link to it. I explained myself on the talk page :) WhisperToMe 02:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Raghupathi Venkaiah Award
Hi - i had reverted the page to the earlier table format and it looks to me that you wish to have a 'standard' template. if you noticed, all the remaining Category:Nandi Awards pages are in the non-standard format. you can wish to standardize all to one form or revert the Ragupathi Venkaiah Award page to the table format

Also, the data that you reverted to is incorrect. Santha Kumari P and Santhakumari are the same person and she received the award for the year 1998. My latest version had other details that i am adding back and if there is any issue, please leave a message on talk page and i will revert back. Kalyan 05:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. i was just trying to maintain uniformity across all pages. I guess the other pages need to change. And point taken on PoV. Guess i am guilty as charged on that one. i will try and avoid making those mistakes again. Kalyan 07:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

50 Cent-Curtis SSK
Where'd you get more of the confirmed tracks??Eg:New York Ft. Jay-Z Please give me the URL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hurricaneshady (talk • contribs) 09:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Discography page..
Whats the deal now? why did you remove all the images..?? And why did you changed the format??! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DiggyDoc (talk • contribs) 12:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Suite life episodes
You really need to stop removing all the episodes and redirecting them to the list. There is no consensus for what you are doing. You can't just go and do this with out discussing it. I'm all for better wikipedia, but we can't do that if you go off on your own and do this. If you want it done, bring it up at the suite life page or list of eps page. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse Club - cast list fixed
Hi again. I think I've solved the cast list / years appeared problems on the MMC section of this article. The Bill Cotter book (which I cited) lists the cast by season rather than by year. I followed Cotter's list, removing fake cast members and changing the years to season numbers. This should help with the 1994 vs. 1996 revert wars, and make it easier to identify and fix vandal edits. Now that the cast list is correct, I'd appreciate it if you could semi-protect the article for a bit, to see whether it helps. Thanks! -- Karen | Talk | contribs 05:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Suite Life
Hi there, I think blanking the number of pages you are blanking with little explanation and no consensus is rather inappropriate...Whiskey in the Jar 10:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The warning was because you ignored my comments and continued deleting. It is not for me to judge the content, whether it be trivial or not, but I think it is rather innapropriate to delete so much content without a proper consensus, as Malevious has stated. You and Malevious seem to be engaged in an edit war, thus it would be better to get someone else to make the decision. Whiskey in the Jar 10:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I just think that this decision should be put to the popular vote (even if it aint always right!). I get the impression that there could be tensions brewing between you and Malevious, something to be avoided obviously, and that the manner in which this is being resolved, namely by changing things behind each others backs, is a really bad way to proceed. I'm not going to revert your edits, because I think it would be pointless and disrespectful, but I was hoping that the content might stay while you and Malevious discuss things properly. I think it would be in everyone's best interests to step back a little and make a communty decision. However, this is of course just my opinion, and if you think I'm wrong then I won't press the issue. Also, I found no mention of the discussion on the page you mentioned, but I'll take your word for it! Thanks for taking the time to think this all through at least! All the best, Whiskey in the Jar 11:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, the episode articles have been reverted by Malevious. I think they should stay until this is resolved, and either there needs to be a consensus on this issue or you guys need some outside intervention. Either way, you guys are dragging each other into an edit war.Whiskey in the Jar 15:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I reverted your edits once again. Please don't undo them, once this is solved if consensus is in your favor I will gladly redo them and help you with other pages. Until then please leave them be and let us work this out before we start an edit war. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of going to AfD for consensus, but may I suggest you take the Suite Life Goes Hollywood off the list? It is one of the few episodes that is notable on Disney Channel as being one of few 1hr episodes. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the DCOS' are 30min long, they rarely make hour long episodes, with in Disney it is notable. Just because you don't believe it is because it is a "kiddy show" doesn't mean it is not. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did, it is notable for being a rare thing for Disney. Disney seems to prefer 30min eps instead of 1hr but this (and a TSR episode) break away from that and are notable as being one of the few to defy Disney's normal standards. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Barney & Friends episodes
You may wish to take a stroll through that category. It might need pruning. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Who's going to complain? There are only two main editors Long term abuse and me. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Brahmanism in Supremacism
Hi, Can I add Brahmins in Supremacism if it is ok? --m 19:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Brahmin == Grima. Brahmins are 3% of Asian Indians and for the past 5000 years they have denied and deprived education to rest of the Indians.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen_people#Hinduism However, there are a few features of Hinduism that are reminiscent of a "chosen people" concept. The caste system of India confers a degree of birth-right on higher castes such as the Brahmins, which some claim is sanctioned by God or by the scriptures.]

I can cite more sources. --m 08:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not have time/energy to hate anyone. I love my fellow countrymen and trying fix sins/errors accumulated for 5000 years. Since you do not live in India, you may not understand the plights of 850 million Indians. The following sites maintained by western authors might help you. Peter Foster Joseph DSouza Anyway thanks for your consideration. --m 06:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review
Hey, even though we may not agree on everything I would appreciate it if an experienced editor like yourself would give me feedback at Editor review/Malevious2. I haven't gotten much feedback and I'd like to see what other editors think even if we don't agree on everything. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Monica discography
I don't see a reason for reverting Monica's discography. Everthing I changed is sourced ... - Noboyo
 * Yeah, this edit is the right one... I don't think there's any reason to revert cause, I mean, cause I just made minor changes in layout to make it more "neat" - and I also added her latest mixtape ... - Noboyo
 * There's no reason for sources, because I added missing information about a mixtape (check the link for more information)! I don't know where your problem is, I'm the original creator of this article and I'd never add bullish. - Noboyo
 * My English is not the best, so I don't understand everythinh you're tellin' but one thing's for sure: You are also removing information with your reverts. How about changing it into something better with two or three changes instead of reverting it again and again? - Noboyo

comment
Sorry about that Mel Etitis, it wasn't my intention. I somehow messed up something with undoes I guess. DenizTC 03:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Curtis,Re:Re:Juelz Santana?!?!
Lol :). Ok what I meant is Juelz Santana's group Dipset or The Diplomats is currently feuding with G-unit.SO hw is it that he's featured on Curtis?And What I mean is those cited links next to those list of artists who are going to be feautured,Juelz Santana is not found.Hurricaneshady 05:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film)
The film itself is the source of my recent edits. I have never heard that that is not a valid source and that only written sources are allowed.

I do not see any original research in my edits, I just report facts.

You can not own a page and are not allowed to obstruct editing, just because you are for some obscure reason in love with one particular version.--Patrick 08:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, WP:OR says:

Examples of primary sources include [] fictional works such as [] motion pictures [].

''Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.''

Patrick 09:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni di Stefano
Hi there, it's a long time since our paths crossed, but I remembered you once had an interest in the Giovanni di Stefano article. It was recently deleted, somewhat out of process, by Jimbo Wales, and there is now an ongoing deletion review. A new version has been created, but everyone is walking on eggshells to avoid a second deletion. I was wondering if you'd be interested in casting your eye over it again. Anilocra 10:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Eminem Presents the Re-Up.jpg
Should I make the picture lower resolution? IWM 12:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Inclusive classroom
Why did you revert my edit on inclusive classroom? Some IP address took off the image few weeks ago without discussing first. And I decided it to put it back on b/c it was a useful image. She's waving at us...so it sort of supports the article. All children with disabilities should be taught in mainstream schools. Then what kind of image can we put in the article, if we can't put her in? (69.117.20.128 - talk)

User:Hadafo and article Hawiye
You need to slow down a bit. All he did was add a single clan and removed the duplicated section. This is the version you reverted to, with the clan listing duplicated and here's the version Hadafo had with addition of the Isse clan. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome
Hi, Mel. You're welcome. I'm not really supposed to be around at the moment, as I'm quite busy in real life, but I refreshed my watchlist, and a few things drew my attention. I actually hesitated a bit before removing that message, as I know that some people don't actually want silly trolling removed from their talk pages, but I eventually decided that you probably would be happy to have it removed. Hope all is well with you. Musical Linguist 21:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. He (she?) didn't seem quite bad enough to block instantly, although, as you say, it looks as if the account was created for the purpose of leaving that silly message for you. I'll keep an eye on the contributions. Musical Linguist 21:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, the post above makes me feel nostalgic about certain past events. :) --Thus Spake Anittas 21:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, nostalgia! Those happy, happy days, when Anittas was posting "Down with the devil!" Musical Linguist 21:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he was mostly referred to as Al Capone of Wikipedia; but yeah, it was a fun time and he put on a good challenge. *Respect* --Thus Spake Anittas 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Her Name Is Nicole...
Could you please no erase sources and if you wish to add information on songs, please accompany them with sources and at the very least when you erase other peoples additions, state a proper reason. Cusulli 21:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Typo
Um, are you not worried that your edit summary here is in violation of No legal threats? Musical Linguist 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Student Room page
Hi, why are you insisting on reverting sensible, trivial, logical, justified, and verifiable comments on The Student Room page? You don't have to reference every single sentence or sentence change. On one of my changes I said "see discussion" but you still reverted my changes. You're welcome to justify it to me on the discussion which you have ignored. Thanks --Chrisjwowen 21:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Amerie..
Gotta Work is not the second single, first of all. You can search over the internet, and it won't give you any 100% accurate information that 'Gotta Work' is the second single. It might be on charts, that's why I'm changing the 'single' information, that you keep on giving, to 'song'. And the cover, there's no official cover. That cover it's fan-made. It's not official. That's why. The same way you question me, I'll ask you..

Which sources tells you that Gotta Work is the next single, and that the cover is official?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Becool666 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

You've got talk! (on Commons)
Please see this link as of 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC). — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

From USER BKLisenbee
Mr. Etitis:

I am not a "vandal" as Abelelkrim consistently says, nor am I biased. I am having my name smeared all over Wikipedia and on the Web by him on discussion pages,on blogs, taking things out of context and Rynne, Ambrose and Paul Hawkins have defamed Paul Bowles and his friends, by lying without any proof. That is why the brink.com links were removed. Other administrators have agreed that Brink.com is not a reliable source, as a conglomeration of blog articles, unverified. Anyone can post or write anything. I am not a subject of a police investigation in Australia. If anyone is vandalizing, it is them. Meanwhile, the unencyclopedic lins to these libelous self-promoting interviews for Rynne and Ambrose by Hawkins are not to be used as sources on Wikipedia according to Jim Wales. It is also totally wrong to put up slander and libel on Wikipedia, even in user talk or discussion pages. I am tired of being dragged through the mud by these people. They are clearly in the wrong on this, and I have reported this to the higher-ups at your headquarters in Florida. Thanks for your understanding. I am sure they will take appropriate action to prevent these things from occurring in the future. Should I not be able to remove libelous unencyclopedic links on Wikipedia? Will you look at the discussion pages on Bachir Attar, Master Musicians of Joujouka, and Paul Bowles and you'll see some examples of these smear tactics. User:BKLisenbee

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You block me for what you ******
Why did you block me ???????******** —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Delwyn96 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Looks like it was an auto-block, I'll explain things to him. --tjstrf talk 07:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought of that possibility as well, but since nobody in your "outgoing" block list matched his name and you've been giving out some really heavy (months-long) IP blocks I figured it would be best to just assume good faith here. --tjstrf talk 08:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, the new blocking features. I do faintly remember hearing about that possibility on AN a while back, but my non-admin self doesn't pay too much attention to the technical side of such things. I guess that probably settles him as a sock puppet then.
 * So it looks like I presumed a guilty man innocent. Slightly embarrassing, but certainly better than the inverse. (Though there would still be the faint possibility of him getting hit by an anon-only block, creating an account to avoid it, and then coming here to whine, right?) --tjstrf talk 08:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And thanks a bunch for the barnstar! I may need a sub-page for those soon. Though I must confess I find myself using the generic "reply", "comment", and "revert to the last guy that wasn't a 12 year old fanboy shouting about how much he likes imaginary ninjas using popups" summaries a bit more than I would like to. :) --tjstrf talk 08:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

H.S.S. Lawrence
H.S.S. Lawrence was Chairman of a High Level Committee on Vocational Education from 1993-94. When I change it, I wonder why you change it to 1993-93?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prithvin 88 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Eminem
Man why do you blindly revert "unexplained and unsourced edits", while a version which you revert to sucks compared to the last version before your revert? For example, take a look at your version, especially record companies list. It has 5 dates and 4 companies. What the hell does that mean? And also, look at discography section. Um, have you seen it? Ut lists Eminem Presents the Re-Up album as "The RE-UP", Infinite is named as "Infinate" and Curtain Call release date is listed as unknown. PLEASE, do always look at versions you are reverting to. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IWM (talk • contribs) 12:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Thought I'd post this again 'cause you're obviously not paying attention!
That much is clear according to all the comments on your talk page. Also fairly obvious when one looks at your edit history. No-one can can absorb information and make meaningful edits at the rate you sometimes move. Your little Wiki-madel things are great; just a pity they're based on quantitative and not qualitative edits. Slow down!Blottbott 12:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Something worth noting?
Half the comments on your page are people complaining because you have deleted unsourced statements. That's fine- your job is to delete/edit/revert unsourced docs. Only problem is that a good percentage of people maintain that you have unjustly deleted something which is extremely difficult to source or for which thay had sources and you haven't read their changes. Perhaps it's time to rethink your approach a little? As I have suggested to you before, delegation is a solid concept that you should explore (see comments above). Yes, Wikipedia has rules, guidelines and requirements, but Wikipedia is for everyone. Almost everyone has something worthwhile to say. In fact, most people know a great deal about many things for which you are an amateur if not a total ignoramus. Also, as I've stated earlier, your work with Wikipedia is valuable, particularly from a quality control perspective. However, please lay off the revert button a little. Sure, get rid of the highly subjective stuff, but don't assume that being an academic makes you a better judge of the value of knowledge. There are many things which lie outside the standard academic fields for which not only are you ill-equipped, but also for which there does not exist a large body of academic work to source from. You can't apply the same criteria to this material as you can to established academic disciplines. It is knowledge, and many people are interested in it, but academic sources may not necessarily exist.Blottbott 12:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC) and again Blottbott 12:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

D12's third studio album.
Granted the LP's title has not been released to the public yet; there are confirmed tracks, confirmed producers, and there is a tentative release date. I believe that it is surmise to say that the album/article is unimportant than it is meaningful.

However, you are an admin. Therefore, I am sure that you have the knowledge in knowing what you are doing. Maybe it is best that the article stays absent until more information is released.

Best regards,

Impala63 13:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Message, 2
Are you referring to College Hill? Those are the overviews, duh! Do I have to break everything down? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boukenger (talk • contribs) 17:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

are you sure, you want to block User Talk:218.186.8.12 for one year? Maybe you are not aware, that you are cutting of Singapore from editing anonymously by doing so. Andreask 17:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's Only Rock 'n Roll
I'm pretty sure that's the correct, official title of the album, with only one apostrophe as opposed to the more correct two. Stan weller 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Gramophone
Hi, Mel Ettis. I was going to edit the Gramophone dab again, to use to preserve the English variation info that is apparently important and to keep the link foremost, which I like to do when it's not a section link. But another question occurred to me. So:
 * Phonograph (U.S. English) or gramophone (Commonwealth English)
 * 1) Are there issues with the rewording above?
 * 2) Why don't we (rather, I) move the dab to Gramophone (disambiguation), redirect Gramophone to Phonograph, and add the appropriate hatnote to Phonograph?  It seems like a valid primary topic to me. -- JHunterJ 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Students for Organ Donation
Hey, wanted to stop by and thank you for cleaning up my editing. Sorry about that. Ikilled007 23:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ring of bells
Quoting from User talk:Doops:

''The "As of 1988" formation is clumsy, poor English, and best avoided — but in so far as its use is sanctioned on Wikipedia, it's only in certain circumstances: "Usually as of is used only in cases where an article is intended to provide current information. It should not be used for historical information that is not intended to be updated." (Wikipedia:As of#Usage guidelines) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mel Etitis! Regarding the tower data from Dove: surely this is intended to be updated as Dove is, right? I mean, we're not interested in providing for all time a snapshot of the April 2007 situation; rather we're interested in providing up-to-date tower info. I can imagine us updating those numbers (say) annually. No? Cheers, Doops | talk 23:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Pet Shop Boys discography.
Mel, you should know, images are copyrighted-tagged, so they do NOT violate any kind of copyright. As you can see that's the reason why I brought them back, and if you think they violate copyright, you should delete the other discographies' images. Isn't it? As long as an image has a well-defined copyright tag, it should not be deleted by any means. If you have any objection as to this, we can discuss it in the respective talk page, if it's OK with you...

But seeing your history of edition it seems you've been awarded a lot of times. I apoogise, I'm just new to Wiki.

And second, about the minor edit, that was a mistake from my part because of internet failure, for which I sincerely apologise.

Anyways, thanks for your message and I'm sorry for giving you any trouble...

Cristóbal 01:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Kanye West
Hey Mel. I've been editing musician pages by moving the detailed discography info from the artist's main page to the artist's relevant discography section. I tried moving the discography from the Kanye West page to Kanye West discography. But if you click on that page, it redirects to Kanye West production discography despite the redirect command being overwritten. The discography is very cluttered on Kanye West page so can you help out here? Spellcast 13:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cancel that. For some strange reason, the page is acting normal now. Spellcast 14:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Images copyright violation
Well, you would be surprised to know there are still many discographies which include those kind of images. Pretty much all of them.

Try using the Category:Discography tag to show up all artists' discographies and probably some other artists who have their information merged in main pages.

I could list you the examples I visit the most, such as:


 * Depeche Mode
 * R.E.M.
 * Incubus
 * Moby
 * Red Hot Chili Peppers
 * U2

...and far more out there.

Hope I could help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmarquezu (talk • contribs) 14:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Hi

Just dropping you a line to discuss your reversal of my edit Sean_Paul. Your reason for the reversal is link farming but this isn't the case. I added the external link because it's relevant to the page.

According to WP:EL it's OK to link to rich media as long as "explicit indication of the technology needed to access the content" is given.

Given that Wikipedia doesn't offer hosting of audio streams (unless I'm missing something), I'd like to re-insert those interviews as external links, following the cited format in WP:EL:


 * Interview (along with Lenny Kaye) November 11, 2005 on KEXP; 53 minutes, includes three songs. (Windows Media Player, RealPlayer).

Thanks,

1xtraonline 16:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sean Paul rich media edit
Hi

Just dropping you a line to discuss your reversal of my edit Sean_Paul. Your reason for the reversal is link farming but this isn't the case. I added the external link because it's relevant to the page.

According to WP:EL it's OK to link to rich media as long as "explicit indication of the technology needed to access the content" is given.

Given that Wikipedia doesn't offer hosting of audio streams (unless I'm missing something), I'd like to re-insert those interviews as external links, following the cited format in WP:EL:


 * Interview (along with Lenny Kaye) November 11, 2005 on KEXP; 53 minutes, includes three songs. (Windows Media Player, RealPlayer).

Thanks,

1xtraonline 16:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry about that
i had a hell of a time a few months back with Sticky Fingers and now i just go for the attention getting on the talk pages. it tends to get things done quicker. Stan weller 22:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Horizontal lines
This horizontal line you've reverted on Mad Hatter... is that a new decision? Where would the guideline be found? (And is someone out there changing thousands of pages right now that I should know about?) –Unint 23:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Email
I'm forwarding an email to you that I received about an article that you edited recently. I presume you have more familiarity with the subject than I do. JoshuaZ 02:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes an acceptable external link
Hi Mel

In response to your comments about external links on Sean_Paul, I read the guidelines at WE:PL and the rich media external link I added conforms to them. I take your point about avoiding collections of links, but of the 7 existing links at least 5 are to sites that essentially duplicate info already in Sean_Paul and could be brought into the article itself, thus making them unnecessary.

The CNN interview and the link I'm proposing are the only ones that cannot be incorporated into Sean_Paul and both offer extra and relevant content that adds to the article and fall within the 'What Should Be Linked' criteria at WE:PL.

1xtraonline 13:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Judy Ann Santos
Hi Mel.

I'm just wondering why you keep reverting to old versions of the article after I have updated it several times. I have cited sources, mentioning specific dates.

I am well-versed in topics relating to Philippine showbiz so I know what I write. I followed correct English grammar and vocabulary, and I've contributed safe, reliable, and legitimate information. It's just a pity I had to devote time, talent, and resources trying to enhance the article only to find out it had been reverted to older versions several times.

Please do not sacrifice valuable, credible, legitimate, and verifiable information just for the sake of editorial policy.

Thanks.

Miketedting 18:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Miketedting