User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 7

Unsigned message from who knows who?
Please do not delete the updated information on Ed Valenti

101 Dalmatians II
What do you mean? It looks like it was Xezbeth or someone else. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=101_Dalmatians_II:_Patch%27s_London_Adventure&action=history Oh you meant the other one, that looked fake. King Dedede 18:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * update*

Thanks Again
Thanks for your words of wisdom and warning. And don't worry, I have been trained well, and use my power only for knowledge and defense.

Ayn Rand
Ah, I think this must have been a case of 2 reverts hapening at the same time, with mine comming in last. The change I wanted to revert (and wich was in the diff when I checked the anon's contribution) was this. But I see that the same anon adding the (clearly inappropriate change) reverted it again afterwards and included the first-name removal (making my revert getting through, since they now were different). So I didn't mean to go against wikipedia-policy. Thanks for noticing. Shanes 20:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry
I can see why you would think I was the anon - but I really am not - but will step away from there for a bit - I still think you treated me unfairly - but it seems reasonable to me once they explained how this works better. Symes 01:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zanskar
Ok..Ok... I know you now. But how do you exactly define insult? His grammar is bad, so do mine contain some mistakes. However, let me clarify woth you: I'm not insulting him at all. What I'm talking about him is the plain truth. Just look at the etymology section; does anybody ever write such "rubbish" in terms of sentence structure and gramatical error? I suppose not. His version, I suppose, does not seems to be pleasant to the reader. Either you revert to the mine most current version, and let me see how can I incoporate as much content as I could from the current version.

Also, from which project page you saw that ''the original article should be the basis of future editing. Mr Tan should, in a collaborative manner, edit what's there.''?

This is getting nowhere. I just cannot accept this messy state of Zanskar...Honestly I do not want to waste my breath, my projects are coming up... But the current version is just to far flung behind the standard of other articles. I understand all users may dislike other users editing one's article for he thinks that his the best...But the fact that it is not even at the 0.5 standard.

Mr Tan, 14:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, do you why I put up the " " prefix? I'm merely saying about his poor orientation! That word rubbish with the prefix does not necessarily means that I'm condemning about his work. How many times must I stress upon is not about his content, but about his composition, grammar, and vocabulary usuage, including refusing to update information? That is where I am not happy about it!

Also, you have not answered my question:''the original article should be the basis of future editing. Mr Tan should, in a collaborative manner, edit what's there.''

Give me a few days...Do not interfere about the Zanskar article and let me do a good job. Please correct my mistakes if you see any gramatical errors.. What I want is something like Sikkim in terms of article composition orientation...please!

Thanks.

Mr Tan, 21:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neither do I understand what you want.

All right. Come to an agreement. State the facts you want here first, in apoint formthen let me settle it slowly. I was just about to work on the article when you interrupt me.

Mr Tan, 21:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I will revert and reenhance everything. Just you give me a few days time and see please! I reverted because merely of your sudden message.

Mr Tan, 00:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * 00:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)??! Is this some sort of time warp? Messages from next week! -- ALoan (Talk) 19:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zanskar
Ah yes.. I see that you have blocked me on a 24 hour-probation period and have just lift off the ban. For this, I demand a full and comprehensive explanation on this act, in point form.

Also, you have reverted from my adapted (from the original) version, but I will bring Nichalp for his experience in working out on Sikkim. Go ahead and ask him but I see that you are going to the wrong side if you don't, as I see that you are the one who is still blur-blur about this case. The statements that Moumine are not official policy that I know of.

An small apology-I was dreaming at the time of typing my information, taking the date as 23 apr, not 16 apr.

Expect me to come back for in a few weeks time to bargain with you aboutr Zanskar..I have no time for battles at the moment. Go ahead and refer at Requests for comment

Mr Tan, 00:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, apology again... User:Wikizap is my satellite account for my account was briefly infected with virus immediately after mine release...for I still get that nonsencial block messages..could you now please explain about the blocking case in point form, clearly? And is there any official or semi-official policy stating that the adapted version could not be used? I followed User:Nichalp method of reformatting the article into a better oientation, which is not supposed to be not allowed!

Mr Tan, 11:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Viviparous lizard female 2004.jpg
Because exactly the same copy is in commons. Read the dicsussion please: Image:Viviparous lizard female 2004.jpg... --Pkuczynski 09:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hello, Re: deleting TYPE ZeR0
Sorry, wasn't quite sure of the policy.

Thanks Number 0 13:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are removing content
If you continue to abuse me and vandalize Wikipedia, I will be forced to take you to dispute resolution immediately. --Islamist 22:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocking
Looking at Islamist's contributions, I see no evidence of vandalism, let alone persistent vandalism. Creating a page Judeofascism - which had already been done before, by User:Ed Poor - may or may not be justified (the term gets some Google hits) but is clearly not vandalism; neither is redirecting Islamofascism to a singularly appropriate destination, as someone had already done with Judeofascism. Personal attacks are another matter, but he does not seem to have been warned about those yet. For these reasons, I am unblocking him/her. - Mustafaa 05:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lady Welby
Sorry if my description sounds 'pointed' or unspeakable, however true. I may be hypersensitive about paying due homage to the original idea. I remember some wiki articles admitting they are derived from something else. No trouble here at all. Otherwise there may be some, I fear. Though permission may be granted unconditionally, to pay due homage to the source would be not only beautiful but also useful for the user to know, say, who is the expert. And others may do the same 'pointed' as I did. --KYPark 10:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block of the LibDem person
It wasn't fair.--212.100.250.226 13:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Planting Fields Arboretum
I'm sorry - I am pretty new to this, and it took me quite a while to figure out how to write back to you.

Give me a minute, and I'll say what I'm up to.

You're quite right (of course) that I am basing the article on its web site. Here is what I think I'm doing - please tell me whether you think this is acceptable.

I have been copying and pasting parts of the web site into the Wiki page, and am then performing a number of editing passes over the text to transform it into a Wiki article. You are seeing me about half-way through this process. My intent has been to wind up with a neatly written article that contains the facts from the web page, but does not violate any copyrights.

What do you think?

Please be a bit patient with some of us, as we have not been doing Wiki things for long. So we may be doing things a bit wrong, and we certainly have trouble responding to your messages within a minute or two, as we don't know how to do such things! Cheers.

Glad to do what you suggest - it will just take me a while to figure out how to do all the things you are suggesting. Thanks for your patience. (By the way, the four tilde thing is not immediately obvious!)

66.30.207.207 14:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Concensus
Thunk you for finig my tyops. – ClockworkSoul 16:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflict on 200.30.222.170
I was just adding a stern warning when you beat me to it: it seems that nobody bothered to tell the guy that 3RR was wrong...


 * You have reverted Salvador Allende no fewer than 11 times in the last 24 hours in violation of Wikipedias Wikipedia:Three revert rule. In short, don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours. I recommend that you post your viewpoint onto the article's talk page, or you will be blocked.

Nobody had even bothered to warn him, or even ask him to stop on his talk page before he was blocked, can we expect him to come back as an honest contributor? – ClockworkSoul 21:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point. I was surprised that no-one had written to him on his Talk page (that's partly because he's an anon, I think), but just assumed that the 3RR had been mentioned to him at some point.  I'll unblock him, and explain why on his Talk page (if you haven't already done it). Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't, no: I didn't want to step on your toes. I've just recently become very aware that many of us administrators (including myself) have an unfortunate tendency to treat anon's rather poorly, and too often forget that at the other side of that IP is a human that may very well be a perfectly good editor-in-the-making who is simply ignorant of the best way to go about doing things. No big deal, I just feel bad for the little guys that make their first few fearful edits, and find themselves blocked without warning for breaking some rule they've never heard of. – ClockworkSoul 22:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've just unblocked him, explaining why, and left a note at Talk:Salvador Allende saying what had happened, and recommending that in future they warn Users before reporting them. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you. :) – ClockworkSoul 22:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You blocked me without justification, your edits are biased, and you are censoring history from your Talk page
I am returning the relevant history here. If you don't like what people write on your talk page, maybe you should stop abusing people on Wikipedia. You are expected to archive all Talk and not delete it. See Talk_page. You see, you are an administrator with the authority to block people so you should know the rules of Wikipedia and follow them. Deleting your Talk page means you have something to hide. "Archive rather than delete: When a talk page's content has become extremely large or the discussion of the issue in hand has simply died down and no one has a reasonable chance of adding to it, create a new page. (See Wikipedia:How to start a page and Wikipedia:How to archive a Talk page for details.) Place the page in a talk or Wikipedia talk namespace. Give it an explanatory name. Often people simply add "archive" to the original name. Explain on the archive page where the text you plan to archive will come from and provide a link. Cut the relevant content from the original page and paste it into the new page. Replace the text on the original page with a link to the archive. An alternative is to summarise the discussion and provide a link to the version with the full text. "

I am doing you a favor and returning the Talk page edits you deleted. You are welcome! --Islamist 00:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are nobody
Who said it was an experiment? I am editing like anyone else. If you don't like it, you can edit it too. That's the Wikipedia method. You are nobody to tell me what to do. --Islamist 22:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Your arrogant threats are absusive and hostile. You should consider psychological counseling or medication. --Islamist 22:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why do you insist on a page for islamofascism but delete the page on judeofascism?
What you are doing is vandalism and if you do not desist you will be blocked from editing. --Islamist 22:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are removing content
If you continue to abuse me and vandalize Wikipedia, I will be forced to take you to dispute resolution immediately. --Islamist 22:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocking
Looking at Islamist's contributions, I see no evidence of vandalism, let alone persistent vandalism. Creating a page Judeofascism - which had already been done before, by User:Ed Poor - may or may not be justified (the term gets some Google hits) but is clearly not vandalism; neither is redirecting Islamofascism to a singularly appropriate destination, as someone had already done with Judeofascism. Personal attacks are another matter, but he does not seem to have been warned about those yet. For these reasons, I am unblocking him/her. - Mustafaa 05:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To Mel Eititis -
 * I noted your hypocrisy in editing and reverting islamofascism and Judeofascism and said that it indicated you must be a Jew. Was I wrong? No, you are a Jew. I didn't say you were a hypocrite on the gounds of being a Jew or because you are a Jew. I said your edits were hypocritical and your bias indicates that you are a Jew. It is a true statement so don;t try to turn it into a personal attack. Are you ashamed to be a Jew? You shouldn't be. Are you ashamed to edit Wikipedia articles in a biased manner? You should be. I am not ashamed to be a Muslim but then I do not make biased edits to promote a bigoted belief system either so I have nothing to be ashamed of. --Islamist 01:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These comments are out of line, and appear designed "to promote a bigoted belief system" which has little to do with Islam. El_C 06:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Islamist keeps vandalising Islamofascism and put it on VfD.
You're a wiki expert. How do you put a temporary freeze on editing, at least till VfD is over? Ideally, the page should be reverted back to a prevandalsim state, then frozen.

BTW, thanks alot for the wikification of the article.

Klonimus 02:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article: Bihar
Hello Mel, I am quoting below the message sent to User:Sundar and User:Nichalp QuoteI find that the article Bihar has been edited by some one and changed to Bihar (India), and other articles with the same name has been also referred to there. I feel this is not a wise step. The matter requires assistance and discussions so that the article Bihar gets its former name. Please try to do something.--Bhadani 03:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS- I have posted the following on discussion page of article bihar: quoteThe edits of 17 April 2005 by Hottentot has been reverted by me as already there was a section in the article Bihar &#8211; Bihar (disambiguation) and as such there was no justifiable reason to change the main character by the name Bihar. The edits regarding Bihar by Hottentot are being placed in the section Bihar (disambiguation). Here, it is also pertinent to note that though wikipedia sets its own standard, but even in Enclopaedia Britannica Bihar has been separately dealt with, and in my humble opinion the case with wikipedia should not be different. The article Bihar represents a state of India and 100 million people reside in Bihar and Bihar has a recorded history of 2500 years. In any case, the position of Bihar as a separate article was already accepted by the community of wikipedians as the legend Bihar (disambiguation) was there along with the main article of Bihar.

I trust that the position has been clarified.Unquote

I find this article has again been reverted by Hottentot. Please try to do something. Thanks.Unquote Seek your assistance in resolving this issue. Thanks. --Bhadani 05:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article Bihar, fresh developments
Please also see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bihar), thanks, --Bhadani 08:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comparisons being odious
"I don't really follow this. It would probably help me if you could say how atheists act, and then I could judge whether or not Buddhists act like that." LOL! SlimVirgin (talk) 10:25, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Stub sorting
The use of stubs and substubs has not stopped. That being said, there is a WikiProject to sort stubs (and substubs) into appropriate categories to better allow subject matter experts to find stubs within their field of knowledge.

In general, if you know of a category specific stub type that fits an article you are tagging please use it. Otherwise using stub of substub works as well. --Allen3 talk 11:46, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Article Bihar : Issue since resolved, thanks
Dear User:Hottentot and User:Mel Etitis User:Tony Sidaway User:Sundar User:Nichalp - Article Bihar related issue since resolved. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bihar), section Bihar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bhadani) Thanks to you all. --Bhadani 14:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stop telling me what to do. You are nobody
Your arrogant accusations against me that I have made personal attacks are false. I have not called you or any other editor a bigot. Some of your edits are bigoted and I revert them. Describing your edits as bigoted is not a personal attack. It is a description of your edits not you. Stop your abusive behavior. --Islamist 14:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I laugh at your arrogant threats. You are nobody to threaten me. You are just another editor. What makes you think you have any authority to order me or anyone else around? I suggest you read Wikipedia policies and adhere to them. Your edits are abusive and your accusations against me amount to personal attacks. I welcome entering into dispute resolution process with you to help you stop your abusive editing practices. --Islamist 15:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hello. Just wanted to say thanks for deleting non-encyclopedic pages in Wikipedia! Specifically the page Michael lee. It has been created before in the past, and is difficult to remove because the the delete tag is often removed by the page creator once it's placed there. I was just experimenting with baby sitting Wikipedia and realized how useful it could be to track vandalism. HappyCamper 16:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A riddling proof or a proving riddle?
This is a well-formed argument; either God does not exist per definitio or our definition of God must be limited to avoid contradiction-forming infinities. Just wanted to run this past a logician/philosopher. My kudos for your contributions, by the way - I want to take some time to do a bulk-refactoring of our philosophy content when I have some free time. It's good to know there are some professionals in our midst. Yours in theory, nsh 16:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) God is Omnipotent
 * 2) Omnipotence is defined as infinite ability
 * 3) This must include the ability to create a logical contradiction
 * 4) Ex impossibile, quodlibet.
 * 5) Therefore: God does not exist.
 * Well, 'omnipotence' is defined as the ability to do anything. But the logically impossible isn't part of anything &mdash; it's just a certain way of producing syntactically well-formed string of words that make no sense.  Therefore omnipotence doesn't imply being able to do the logically impossible.  (It's the same problem as suffered by the hoary old supposed paradox of god's creating a weight that he can't lift; "a weight that an omnipotent being can't lift" is nonsensical &mdash; it doesn't express a concept.  Sorry.


 * Good luck with the philosophy articles, though. They're mostly pretty weak, but everybody thinks that she can have a say, and improving them can be a thankless task.  Let me know if you need any help. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, this mediative conclusion echoes mine. Any definition of omnipotence should preclude logical contradictions. Unfortunately however, it's my experience that most theists hold a concept of God's omnipotence that does not have this qualification, my father - a baptist minister - included. But I don't want to ruin an interesting philosophical discussion with the irrationality of religious people. The real question that arises is this: can the laws of definitory interaction (mathematics, logic) be said to be fixed in some way that nothing could exist without coherence to them? And does this mean there is some innate structure to the universe, akin to the Platonic forms? nsh 16:23, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Among the great (and middling) philosophers, only Descartes, so far as I know, held that omnipotence must involve being able to create the logically impossible (though it's not quite that simple with him). I don't think that the point about the logically impossible says anything about metaphysics, though. After all, it's not ruling anything out. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I doubt I'm alone in considering M. Descartes' religion to be anathematic to his philosophy. The jump from definatory logic to metaphysics requres further explanation: The problem (as most) can be best summarised in a choice between phrasings: is it better to say "We discover mathematics", or "We invent mathematics"? I lean towards the former, because the results of mathematics are a priori (discovered), while the methods to arrive at said results can be said to be a posteriori (~= invented) to a certain extent. I consider it impossible to imagine a universe where 1 is not equal to 1, and mathematics is generally (dis)proven by reduction to similarly unimpeachable axioms. If the defined universe is help to immutable laws, does this affect the physical universe, or merely our understanding and comprehension of it? Does mathematics limit the power of God? - to bring us full circle.

Impersonation of Jimbo Wales
Hello. Please check the user JIMBO WALES (all capitals). I think this user is starting to vandalize a lot of pages... HappyCamper 16:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A request, for when you have time
I'm one of the editors of the article on libertarianism, and am eager to get it to featured status. I've only been here a month, so I thought it would be good to get some experienced editors to look at it before I submit it. I already submitted it for peer review, where I got some good advice (which I implemented) and then nothing until it got closed as "inactive." I thought you would be able to help me because you've done good work on a whole bunch of pages and have some interest in politics, philosophy (including objectivsim).

If you could read through the article when you have time and tell me what you think, I'd love to hear from you. If you're too busy, I'll understand. Thanks in advance, Dave (talk) 21:37, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

User:Islamist
Ok, I know you dealt (and blocked) this user before. I just left a long notice on his talk page dealing with his POV and his personal attacks. The main page that I am having problems with him on is the Gallery of national flags. I know we have "states" like Taiwan and Western Saharah, but this user always keeps on trying to add the Palestine flag to the list, though it is not a nation yet. I reverted him once, so did another user. If you want to watch this page, that is fine with me, but I just hope I am not in the middle of an edit war. My poor Wikiheart might not last in this war. Zscout370 03:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I replied on your Talk page. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Or learn to edit in an NPOV manner. Palestine is a state, it is just occupied by bigots, alot like Wikipedia. --Islamist 03:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suleyman Ahmad
Mel Etitis: AlladinSE referred me to you (he's out of town. I need help on the Stephen_Schwartz_%28disambiguation%29 page. Stepehn Schwartz (historian) needs to be linked to his lesser known name as Suleyman Ahmad. Stephen Schwartz (author) should be Stephen Schwartz (composer).  If you can help let me know. Thx --nobs

taiwanese writers
dear mel etitis, this is shidailun. thank you for your messages. i started a category Taiwanese Writers, only to learn the wikipedia convention is Taiwanese writers (second word uncapitalized). i would like to switch all the writers in the category over to the new category to conform to convention, but am afraid of screwing up. thank you, shidailun.

Image:Arequipacathedral.jpg
I was referring to the second image I, dynamax, uploaded so it can be deleted, since I uploaded a highter quality one to use for the Arequipa article. Thanks.

No, I'm not the stuart. I am a friend of his, though. Why do you ask?

RfC
Hello, just to let you know, User:Islamist is on the RfC page. SeeRequests_for_comment/Islamist. Zscout370 14:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hudud
I don't think peer review on such a small article and on a subject with a very limitted amount of editors would work. I disagree, however, with removal of the NPOV tag because, they may disfigure but I would rather have my article look bad than convince someone that my conjecture was truth. I won't re-add it but that's just what I think. I think anything we do to increase the number of readers and interest in the article will help others to come and hopefully critique my work. I think the problem, as it stands is that the view agaisnt certain punishments needs to be covered in an extensive section about critiques of sharia. I have to think about this more (and get my book on it)... but most every source is biased... thanks for the interest though gren 14:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deletion Request
Hi My name is Renato. You placed the article on me for deletion, under vanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Renato_Bacelar_da_Silveira

Can you please tell me in 3 lines why it is so?

email: renatodasil@excite.com

Thank you

Renato Bacelar da Silveira.


 * (butting in here) Renato: wikipedia contains different namespaces for different types of content. The main namespace (where the articles are) contains biographies only for people who are well known.  Wikipedia contributors, such as your self, keep their own pages in the user: namespace.  That way they're not claiming to be important (and, incidentally, have much more control over the page).  What I suggest you do is register for a wikipedia account (for example, "Renato") and copy the page in question there.  The reason Mel has tagged it for deletion is that we run into an unfortunate number of people who try to pretend they're as important as kings and presidents and popes and such.  From a check of your page, it's clear you intend no such deception, and that you've just misunderstood our (rather complicated, I confess) rules for what goes where.  Mel:  "vanity" is a rather unfortunate term, perhaps "newbie namespace snafu" would be more delicate? -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 15:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I also sent this person a question an email, telling him the same thing that John is describing. Once the account is set up, I will vote userfy. Zscout370 15:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that 'vanity' is used very peculiarly (and sometimes hurtfully) on Wikipedia. I've tried to think of a snappy alternative, but have so far failed. Your idea would involve judging whether or not we have genuine vanity, Wikipedia-vanity, or new-user mistake, and that's often not easy. The wording of the template isn't actually that bad: "Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article may not be well-known enough to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. By starting an account or logging in, each user is entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects." it's just the template's name (and the way articles are referred to in discussions, especially VfDs) that's the problem. My apologies to Renato if I caused him offence. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pashtuns
Elitis, I was trying to resolve Pashtuns Tribes list disputes through in Talk:Pashtun, as some suggestions have been referred to me by my friends, you were the one among them, but now really sorry to say, someone has blocked me even from Talk:Pashtun. Is it fair ? -- Haider 18:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Free kick (rugby union)
It should read rugby union not rugby.

I believed that 'free kicks' are a union thing but I had to check that league rules did not also refer to free kicks. I've now checked and they don't.GordyB 21:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Union rules aren't easily picked up, try watching League or buy a book. I recommend Rugby: A player's guide to the laws - Derek Robinson easy to understand.GordyB 21:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please help me out here
Hi. It's part of an admins' job to talk with all kinds of people, preventing conflicts from flaring up before they happen, and ensuring that wikipedia is used for smooth editing. This includes a lot of talking with people who you (unproductively perhaps) label as "disruptive and POV-pushers".

Now as to the case of Rednblu, it is yet to be proven that he is or was ever one, and my own investigation so far did not turn up any problems with him. That's why I'm asking Bensaccount for elucidation.

I'd like to ask you to please not hinder me again while I'm trying to sort out wikipedia policy.

Kim Bruning 00:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Mel. If someone tried to nominate Ungtss, I would know they must be biased and not even bother, but since this was (duplicitous?) Rednblu I thought maybe Kim was being mislead. Bensaccount 00:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "I'm afraid that Kim Bruning (talk · contributions) is far from neutral in all this; he supports disruptive and PoV-pushing users like Sam Spade, Rednblu, Ungtss, et al. at every opportunity." I've supported Sam Spade many times, Netoholic, Lir... so I guess that makes two of us, right? ugen 64 00:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ugh...Lir. Don't remind me. Bensaccount 00:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Alright, Mel Etitis, you managed to convince Bensaccount that I'm a troll rather than an admin :-P I'd like to ask you to do the work instead then, please. :-) I need to be at an IRL wikipedia meeting tomorrow evening to try and help 2 key people improve wiktionary, and if I miss much more hours sleep now, I won't be able to make it.
 * Please talk with Bensaccount and figure out what his story is about, and tell me on my user talk. Thanks. Kim Bruning


 * I find it significant that Kim Bruning takes what I said and turns it into an attempt to show that he's a troll not an admin. That's the sort of twiisting of words that's so typical of SS, Rednblu, et al.. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If you think you can do better, ok, fine, no problem, I'm delegating this task to you. Show me what you can do! (Good luck :-) ).


 * Rednblu did fairly well up to around about december last year AFAICR. Please show any activities since then that might lead to the conclusion that he isn't suitable for admin. Since the cat is out of the bag, this is fairly high priority and needs to be done quickly. I had expected to be done with this by thursday at the outmost. Please inform me ASAP if you cannot achieve that deadline. Kim Bruning 11:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FYI, this will be of interest and assistance: User_talk:Rednblu/Archive2003_07_01To2004_10_30 FeloniousMonk 06:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) I haven't hindered anybody, much less while they were "sorting out Wikipedia policy" (something that I was unaware admins did solo, anyway). I merely explained to Bensaccount my view of the situation, because I thought (rightly, as it turned out) that he was unaware of the background.
 * 2) There is no deadline to be met. If you wanted to do whatever you wanted to do by Thursday, that's fine; I'm not bound by it.
 * 3) I have no obligation in this matter at all, in fact; indeed, it's not clear to me that there's really anything to do. If Rednblu were to be nominated for adminship, I suspect that the voting would be close, if not clearly against, but I might be wrong &mdash; I have no interest in trying to head off such a nomination, though. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry, but as you might have surmised I do not have time to address all your points at this moment in time. Can I please finally get a clear reply that either you will or that you will not be able to help me out on this? Kim Bruning 11:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You still haven't said what you're trying to do. All I've seen is Bensaccount trying to bring to your attention that Rednblu is a disruptive and duplicitous editor, a resulting spat between him and Rednblu, and your saying that you didn't intend to start a fight. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, last try :-) I also mailed you. I'm tracking down information pro and contra Rednblu for admin, because Bensaccounts words prompt me to doublecheck. Bensaccount has left 1 reply to me so far on his talk page, but putting that up against the light of policy leaves that clean, so maybe there's some missing clue. There's likely more information on Rednblus conduct (good or bad) to be found in that archive, and bouncing it off of Bensaccount and perhaps other editors who agree with him will give more insight into Rednblu's behaviour. This involves reading past discussions, and also asking particular users for elucidation, where nescesary. As a guideline: it's ok for people to make mistakes if they do, but how they deal with those and with those of others gives insight into their character and their suitability as admin. The time limit I'm under is due to your own actions, it gets rather harder to predict the exact consequences of what you've been saying past roughly thursday, like I said above. Nothing might happen, or a lot. Let's not take chances. :-)


 * Anyway, if you have time to do so, I'd ask you to please determine Rednblus suitability for admin nomination (the metric being: will he pass it. And I need to know rigorously which reasons will be supplied?), and see where there might be room for improvement. Thank you for your time. Kim Bruning 12:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, FeloniousMonk's link above gives a fair bit to go on &mdash; probably as much as you have time for. My own view is that he'd be an appalling choice; he's shown absolutely no interest in admin-chores of any kind, and has a pretty narrow range of editing interests, on which he edits from a clear PoV very much out of keeping with the claims about his views that he makes on Talk pages and his User page. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 12:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you! :) Feloniousmonk indeed points to a very interested facilitated discussion, and that discussion was concluded quite a while ago, so I was already aware of it. In fact I successfully nominated User:Hawstom based on his conduct in facilitating that discussion. While Rednblu and Feloniousmonk showed very good behaviour as well, I hadn't gotten around to nominating them yet.
 * I did try talking with FeloniousMonk, but for reasons known to both Feloniousmonk and myself I did not proceed to nominate him.
 * Currently I'm doing a further examination of Rednblu, due to concerns from you and Bensaccount.
 * So in conclusion I'm looking for information outside that discussion. Even so, thank you very much for making an effort so far! Kim Bruning 15:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know what this is about exactly (and Mel if you don't want this discussion on your talk page, feel free to delete my post), but there are no deadlines for nominating someone for adminship: it can be done anytime. For the record, I will oppose Rednblu and he is aware of the evidence regarding what I see as his unsuitability, so Kim, Rednblu is the best person to ask if you want that information. This is not to say that a person can't change &mdash; people can and should be allowed to &mdash; but it would require evidence of lots of good-faith editing. Anything further can be said on the nomination page if he's nominated. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:51, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah but I won't nominate him for 3 months yet, and I won't nominate if I know people are going to say he's unsuitable. A nominator is supposed to pay attention, and not nominate people who are unsuitable in the first place eh? :-)
 * The deadline in question that I set for myself is largely out of politeness. If you don't answer people for too long a time, they think you're ignoring them, and might not be pleased. :-)
 * Anyway, I'll go talk with Rednblu then. People are kind of vague as to what issues of wikipedia policy he might have violated. I don't even really see any, though I'll do a thorough sweep this weekend. Is it just that he's unpopular with some folks? Kim Bruning 10:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coquette
Just being consistent, as the majority of film articles have (movie) rather than (film). I'm not sure why (movie) is preferred though; i'd have though it would be the other way round. Xezbeth 07:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked from Pashtun talk page
Mel Etitis, Yes I mean it what I am saying, I have been blocked even I can't access to that page, I can move around where ever I like exept TALK e.g I sent you a message but I can't say anything in Pashtun Talk page, that is unreachable. Whenever I click Talk:Pashtun page, I find a blank page. That is a discussion page and every body has his right to reply and ask if someone is trying to prove something regarding Pashtuns through some logical references. Is it a suppression just for me ? Who did it ? Do anybody has the authority to do like this? Wouldn't it effect the beauty of Wikipedia? -- Haider 12:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Giovanni di Stefano
Hi there. Would you mind taking a look at Giovanni Di Stefano sometime, please. I seem to have got myself into an edit war with a new user who is deleting great chunks of the article - pretty much anything critical of Di Stefano. The information in question comes from articles in The Scotsman and BBC news, so I take them at face value. I've asked them on their talk page, and the article discussion page to explain their changes, but no joy. I'm assuming good faith, and not going to risk reverting them for the third time. Anilocra 12:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(edit) oh, they're taking the p*ss now! They just deleted the external links to critical articles...


 * Much appreciated. Thought I'd better check I wasn't being unreasonable before using my last revert. Best wishes. Anilocra 12:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My staff will delete all material that is defamatory on this site. If you have anything to post on the site have the courage to e mail me directly and provide your full details, name and address as I provide mine: Giovanni Di Stefano 3-5 Wardrobe Place London EC4V 5AH

ministry lists
These articles are simply lists of ministers. they don't need wikification or subheads or TOC boxes. all you are doing is creating useless and ugly clutter on the pages. why don't you go and do something useful instead of messing up articles which are perfectly ok as they are? Adam 13:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks and a Few Comments
Thanks for the welcome. So far it's been a fun ride. I've read your "Attitudes to Wikipedia," and some of the things you note I've already experienced, though not at an admin level. If you go to User Talk:Oberiko, you'll see a rather surreal exchange I had about some edits I made on the Attack on Pearl Harbor article. It's your classic case of someone's deleting content apparently without even looking at what it is he's deleting -- at least I think that's what he was doing.

Edit wars on either the user or admin level are becoming quite troubling, as the two-edged sword of publicity has caused an exponential increase in Wikipedia usage. Apace with this has been the proliferation of individuals with biases and/or axes to grind, who disregard or are simply unaware of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It's what I call the Rashômon Effect. They've bought into the facile notion that "everything is relative" and that their take on a subject is just as valid as anyone else's. Nor apparently do they know or care about the difference between collaborative and deliberative.

I bring this up because of the news that Encarta is going to make itself user-editable. BUT all edits will be passed on by editors and fact checkers for accuracy and bias. Obviously, Encarta perceives a weakness in Wikipedia and that, in typical Microsoft manner they've taken someone else's idea and "improved" on it. Of course, Microsoft doesn't always improve on what they rip off, but in any case case, they're seeming to validate the seriousness of the problem here.

So I guess the question is whether the powers that be, here, have the alacrity to respond quickly and decisively. I'm not very sanguine, so far. For example, Yahoo is supposed to have given Wikipedia a "gift" of more bandwidth, yet loading new pages is still much too slow, as slow as it was before the Yahoo contribution. Now, maybe the new bandwidth hasn't come online yet, but that in itself is a problem. The ability to turn on a dime has become indispensable in this cutthroat world which the spiders and snakes who have coöpted the Web have created, and the .org has to be quick and nimble to stay ahead of the .com pack nipping at its heels.

As you know, Google has also approached Wikipedia. That makes all three of the biggest Web portals on Internet having courted Wikipedia. This not only should have been flattering for Messrs. Cunningham and Wales, but kind of ominous, as well. Like being visited in your thriving new business by muscular gentlemen in Armani suits, who suggest it would be a good idea to go into business together. Obviously, the Wikipedia guys have said "Thanks, but No Thanks" to Google and haven't given up their virginity to Yahoo...yet; and God knows what importunes have come from Mr. Gates, who I'm sure wouldn't be caught dead in an Armani suit, but still...

"If you aren't with us, then you're against us, so we do what we gotta do." That seems to be what BillG is telling Wikipedia, with this new Encarta rollout. And who knows what Google has in store?

From your experience, do you think the leadership here is up to the challenge?
 * This is too cool a question for me not to field it, hope you don't mind! :-) I'll answer at User_talk:J_M_Rice. Kim Bruning 21:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Art -e-facts.
Sorry -- British vs American English again, huh. I registered it as a typo --- too many red inked archaeology papers!! Mea culpa. WBardwin 17:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question About Leadership
Thanks for the welcome. So far it's been a fun ride. I've read your "Attitudes to Wikipedia," and some of the things you note I've already experienced, though not at an admin level, of course. If you go to User Talk:Oberiko, you'll see a rather surreal exchange I had about some edits I made on the Attack on Pearl Harbor article. It's your classic case of someone's deleting content apparently without even looking at what it is he's deleting -- at least I think that's what he was doing.

Edit wars on either the user or admin level are becoming quite troubling, as the two-edged sword of publicity has caused an exponential increase in Wikipedia usage. Apace with this has been the proliferation of individuals with biases and/or axes to grind, who disregard or are simply unaware of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It's what I call the Rashômon Effect. They've bought into the facile notion that "everything is relative" and that their take on a subject is just as valid as anyone else's. Nor apparently do they know or care about the difference between collaborative and deliberative.

I bring this up because of the news that Encarta is going to make itself user-editable. BUT all edits will be passed on by editors and fact checkers for accuracy and bias. Obviously, Encarta perceives a weakness in Wikipedia and that, in typical Microsoft manner they've taken someone else's idea and "improved" on it. Of course, Microsoft doesn't always improve on what they rip off, but in any case case, they're seeming to validate the seriousness of the problem here.

So I guess the question is whether the powers that be, here, have the alacrity to respond quickly and decisively. I'm not very sanguine, so far. For example, Yahoo is supposed to have given Wikipedia a "gift" of more bandwidth, yet loading new pages is still much too slow, as slow as it was before the Yahoo contribution. Now, maybe the new bandwidth hasn't come online yet, but that in itself is a problem. The ability to turn on a dime has become indispensable in this cutthroat world which the spiders and snakes who have coöpted the Web have created, and the .org has to be quick and nimble to stay ahead of the .com pack nipping at its heels.

As you know, Google has also approached Wikipedia. That makes all three of the biggest Web portals on Internet having courted Wikipedia. This not only should have been flattering for Messrs. Cunningham and Wales, but kind of ominous, as well. Like being visited in your thriving new business by muscular gentlemen in Armani suits, who suggest it would be a good idea to go into business together. Obviously, the Wikipedia guys have said "Thanks, but No Thanks" to Google and haven't given up their virginity to Yahoo...yet; and God knows what importunes have come from Mr. Gates, who I'm sure wouldn't be caught dead in an Armani suit, but still...

"If you aren't with us, then you're against us, so we do what we gotta do." That seems to be what BillG is telling Wikipedia, with this new Encarta rollout. And who knows what Google has in store?

From your experience, do you think the leadership here is up to the challenge?

Something I differ a little with you about is, that while in principle, what's unnotable to some may be quite noteworthy to others, as a practical matter, I think being arbitrary is a necessary evil. After all, I'm sure there is an interest group for underwater bowling somewhere, but I don't think Wikipedia should feel obliged to include it, simply because because it has a constituency. I mean, post-modernism can become a bit precious. I was just doing this when I got your message: &mdash; J M Rice 17:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * &hellip; so I'll respond in a postscript. The aim Wikipedia is for the edification of a universal audience; it is not, I presume, for the mutual entertainment of pedants.  Aloofness is the surest way to quaint disuse or extinction.  Wikipedia had better pay attention to the competition, whether you call them that or not. &mdash; jmr

Controversy
LOL! Stick to terrorism and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Or if you're a glutton for punishment, try the MoS. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:00, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Nanjing Massacre and the UN
Mel - while you're on duty. The political situation with Japan and the UN seems to be heating up the rhetoric on this always controversial site. NPOV accusations and reverts flying everywhere. This article, like other historical sites, will always have a certain point of view, but this one is getting uglier. If the admins could select a person who hasn't weighed in on either the Turkish/Armenian genocide or the Holocaust to referee a little? Thanks. WBardwin 18:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks !
Mel Etitis, I can reach at Talk:pashtun page now, I don't know what brain was behind it but any way Thanks for worry and reply ! -- Haider 20:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unblock
Just to let you know, I had to remove the block on 80.3.0.42, it was affecting a regular contributor. Hopefully the vandal would have seen your message and gone away anyway... dontchya hate shared IPs? -- sannse (talk) 21:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleting pages
Hello there. Glad to see you're doing well as an admin :D have you become a lot more active since your promotion? Or is your watchlist just similar to mine? ;)

Just a friendly reminder to check the 'what links here' when deleting pages (and subst where necessary). You deleted User:Firebug/Not notable (that might not be the exact name), but Firebug had used the redirect on VfD pages, which means that you also 'deleted' firebug's votes on some VfD pages. No worries, none of them had ended yet :)

See you around!

-Frazzydee|&#9997; 21:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response. Just to clarify, the creator did ask for it to be deleted, but (s)he didn't subst it before doing so. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 23:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism
Sorry. The page said that it was going to be speedily deleted, so I assumed it was not on VfD and that it was safe to change. I'll put up the appropriate notice. LDan 23:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Allende suicide
I do have a problem with the fact that many people in the Salvador Allende biography keep deleting that he commited suicide. There is no discussion of this in Chile. I am chilean and people here on the left have recognized that. His own daughter Isabel Allende accepted this, two of allende's personal doctors and friends, who stayed with him during the bombing of La Moneda have affirmed this too. One, Dr. Oscar Soto wrote a book about it (http://www.antartica.cl/antartica/servlet/LibroServlet?action=fichaLibro&id_libro=15873) The other one, Dr. Guijon is seen in the documentary "The Last Stand of Salvador Allende" saying the exact same thing. (http://www.macumbainternational.com/english/2_8.html)

When the Pinochet regime was over they performed another autopsy on Allende which came to the same findings than the one done right after the coup: Suicide.

The official website of the presidency of Chile claims it was a suicide. The administration is headed by Socialist Ricardo Lagos, an Allende supporter back then who was named ambassador to the Soviet Union although the coup happened and he never exercised the post.

No one with any serious credentials disputes that Allende killed himself. Why he did it might be a matter of discussion but not the fact that he took his life with his own hand.

There are people who deny the Holocaust too, you don't think the Holocaust is under discussion either, do you?


 * I have no idea who this is,nor what they're talking about, as I haven't touched the Allende article, and certainly haven't deleted anything about him committing sicide. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 23:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why did you block me?
Why did you recently block me? I was inserting a relevant point of view that Wikipedia articles on personhood do not currently represent. It said you'd blocked me for "persistent" vandalism, but this is simply false. I vandalized one article one time. It is against the Wikipedia rules to block me for ONE instance of vandalism.


 * Answered on the shared-IP-address Talk page. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block
FYI, I've just blocked User:Mel Etitis Is A Jerk. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:06, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan
Go to the talk page of Tsushima Islands for my reply. As for Zanskar, I will take a breal and answer your comments later including User: Nichalp, but the Zanskar standard is not acceptable in comparison to Sikkim. Please, while I rest, cleanup the article, or I will step in and you condemn me for this and that. I'm sick and tired of your guys ridiculating comments,

Tan 20:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

E Clampus Vitus
You have reverted this article back to RickK's version after leaving a message to clean it up. Frustrating. That early version is sloppy, and is in desperate need of revision. I have been trying to edit and reformat the article several times. What, pray tell, was wrong with the way I had left it last?? Are you insisting on reverting that article because RickK is an admin? I'm confused.

Ecvjackass 16:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ECV
You left me the message"...The later version read as though we were taking all the nonsense seriously and at face value." There is no nonsense in the version as I've left it. As far as taking things at face value, please go to the discussion page for E Clampus Vitus and read my comments regarding the so called 'encyclopaedic' RickK version. I welcome your feedback...

Ecvjackass 16:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again...
I replied to your message to me, but decided to copy it here, as I'm not sure you would read it at my message site.

The fact of the matter is that the name IS secret and mysterious. As far as the "so on" comment, what else is it, specifically, that you object to? I do understand the points that you're attempting to make, but you're making them poorly. Its clear that you haven't read any of the article past that sentence, and made your decision based on that alone. Silly. I'm attempting to describe the history of E Clampus Vitus. Some of the history of the Order is nonsensical, however, much of it is very serious indeed.

Ecvjackass 16:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

198.20.32.254
Gosh! You are fast! --Theo (Talk) 17:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Carleton-Charlotte
M dashes are what we use for all districts, and this one fell out of line. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * By "we" I mean, the people at wiki who make articles on Canadian districts. This is what the federal government uses as well, you can see at if you don't believe me. It's because many of our districts are French, and there needs to be a difference between a short dash and a long one. Short dashes are used in French districts that are names, like Alfred-Pellan whereas long dashes are used to connect to regions, like Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 17:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Au contrare, the normal usage is the way I have described above. ALL Canadian districts use the above method. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 17:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ECV again
Mel

You stated that the earlier article was more NPOV (which it is not) and made use of encyclopaedic language(please see the Discussion section for why it is not), and that the version I put up was somehow nonsensical. It seems that you only got as far as the part about the meaning of E Clampus Vitus and made a judgement based on that.

As far as the 3 revert rule, I'm not simply changing back to an earlier version. Thats what you seem to be doing. Everytime I've changed the article, I've attempted to change anything that has been objected to. This is a violation of the policy?

Ecvjackass 18:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

huh?
You wrote: "I took it, not from the article, but from your replies to RickK on the Talk page."

Does this mean that you haven't read any of the rewrites as I've posted them? Perhaps you should. I believe that they have corrected the many and varied mistakes that are prevelant in RickK's article.

As far as RickK is concerned, it seems that one of his major complaints was a supposed 'copyvio' he had assumed wrongly I had performed. Here is what he wrote: "And I've rereverted, since jackass's addition was a copyvio from http://www.ecvgazette.com/lostdutchman/KenCastrosHistoryofECV.htm/"

It is clearly not a violation of anything. RickK made a rash judgment. If you were to look into that at all (which neither of you obviously did), you would have found this copyright notice on the title page of www.ecvgazette.com:

"This publication is a free service performed by the authors, and dedicated to the members of E Clampus Vitus. There are no copyright or infringement policies, and any or all content may be copied to any other medium."

I object to your repeated mentions of the 3RR policy. The implied message is that I am some crank who is vandalising this particular article. I am trying to edit it. It seems, however, that I have somehow stepped on some of the admins toes, and you are now trying to stop me from doing what Wikipedia is designed to do.

Ecvjackass 19:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Folds of the earth from close up.jpg et al.
I asked the up-loader to supply copyright info, and he didn't (and his notes in the article for which he up-loaded them suggest that they're copyrighted). I also informed him that they were up for deletion, and he still didn't supply the information. Is taking them off IfD and giving them an 'unverified' tag really the best option? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 20:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Please read the first two sentences at WP:IFD ;). I'm not comfortable deleting images that are used, since most IFD nominations don't get inspected by anyone else, and deletion can't be undone.


 * I hadn't noticed Manipulation of geological data. I can't check those links here at work, but if they're the sources of the images, you can just list the images at WP:CP.  If not, I think leaving them in Category:Images with unknown source is fine for now.


 * By the way, it doesn't appear from User talk:Dweeberkitty that you informed him the images had been listed for deletion. You did mention the lack of copyright tags, but he might not have seen it buried in point 3.5 of your note.  dbenbenn | talk 20:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greek pronunciation
OK, so you're not Greek, but can you help a poor editor who never studied the language in pronunciation? I'm helping with the WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia and am reading the article on Poetry. It contains three Greek words, poietis (the one who creates), poiesis (the act of creation), and poiema  (the thing created). I would guess I'd pronounce them something like "poy-eh'-sis" with the accent on the second syllable. Is that anywhere near correct? Two other words that look tricky are in this sentence, " For example, in Anglo-Saxon a poet is a scop (shaper or maker) and in Scots makar. I assume scop is pronounced as if in modern English, and makar would be "Mack-car". Any help is appreciated. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:51, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, in modern Greek, the three words all start with the sound 'pee'; there are different ways of pronouncing ancient Greek, but something like 'poy' is probably about right. As for the stress, again the modern Greek pronunciation of the ancient words is: pee-i-'TIS, 'PEE-i-sis, and 'PEE-i-ma.
 * I don't know about 'scop' (I'd guess that you're right), but the Scots is 'M&AElig;ker (the last syllable being schwa). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your help. My mangled pronunciations are in this 16-minute file: media:poetry.ogg. I spent longer trying to figure out how to pronounce a dozen words, and to re-record them, than the entire article took to read. And I'm still not sure I've gotten them right. Ah well, on Wikipedia we do the best we can. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:37, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

welcomes
Look dude, I'm sorry, but I think ur welcome message is kinda a bit too much "in ur face". I only stumbled across it during my stay as a sockpuppet when you welcomed me in. But it really is not good. there's far too much stuff u put down on it. --Wonderfool t(c)e) 22:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein
Mel, Goethean objects to the sentence: "Wittgenstein was widely regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century," and wants to qualify it with "in the English-speaking world" or with some reference to analytical philosophy. If you have a view, it would be appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:49, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

History merge
Good morning, Mel: Please could you wield your sysop powers and merge the histories of Grupe za pritisak and its talk page into those of Special interest? I would do it myself had I delete authority. At risk of teaching egg-sucking: the process is described in How to fix cut and paste moves. Grupe za pritisak and its talk page can be speedied once the histories are merged. Thanks, Theo (Talk) 07:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course I have confidence in your abilities&mdash;you have demonstrated your ability to read and follow instructions on several occasions! I had already recorded the source on the appropriate talk page so there is nothing more to be done until the bug is fixed. Thanks for your prompt assistance. --Theo (Talk) 14:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello back
LOL – well hello and thnx for the salutations. I have to say I really don’t know what to say right about now. You are the first person I have had ‘direct’ contact with as far as this amorphous creation goes. I kinda feel like I was in someone elses kitchen and a stranger walked in. I mean, I know I don’t really belong, but do they? Have I got caught doing something wrong? Etc.

I mean reading from your page it looks like you just browse around fixing things yourself and are not really an official part of this whole thing – if there is an offical staff. I mean this could just be an alien experiment to see what information we can and are willing to provide. . .   OK, sorry, I need some sleep.

I am curious though, did I do something that set off some flag to get your attention or did you just stumble across me? Do you have a more official capacity than your profile would lead someone to think?

I mean, I have tried to be careful, after I got the nerve to make submissions. So I am sure I haven’t gone too crazy. Well that and you didn’t quite yell at me – so – well yeah – lol did you even know you sent me a hello or was that automated as well? OK – sorry, this is so disjointed, I am just rambling. --Riluve 15:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima Islands
Please proceed to the talk page there.

Tan 23:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of "Tso Wung Wai"
Hi there.

This is the creator of a deleted article named "Tso Wung Wai". Perhaps I've made a mistake of not saying that '''the article was adopted and translated from the Chinese version. This is my fault. '''

Yet if you say that the article is a 'fake entry', well, I have to plea that the content WAS REFLECTING THE TRUTH FOR the 2004 LEGCO ELECTION in Hong Kong. Please consult Hong Kong users for validation. Nevertheless, the article has been deleted, and it appears as if I am nowhere trustworthy.

Very truly yours,

Soul 1337