User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] "Halicki Bandit"

Hey, Mel. Long time! That anon who posted all of those H.B Halicki cpoyvios was hitting the site with a slew of other similar copyvios yesterday. I left a friendly warning, but it doesn't seem to have done good. Can you "slap his wrist" with a brief block if he continues? He's also leaving one hellish mess with those malformed and mistitled movie articles of his, some of which look like at least partial copyvios. Just my famous $.02. See ya! - Lucky 6.9 29 June 2005 21:00 (UTC)

Yeah! WEIRD stuff happening with the servers. I keep getting logged off. I signed on to write an article called Los Angeles and Mount Washington Railway Company the other night and, sure as shooting, it credited the work to my ISP. It's happened a couple of times today. As for that Halicki guy, thanks for the heads-up. If he keeps up and I catch him before anyone else does, I'll run him up the ol' VIP flagpole for a salute. - Lucky 6.9 1 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)

[edit] Garden of Remembrance

The Garden of Remembrance had no links. It is not Wikipedia policy to disambigulate pages that have only one link to it. Nor is it Wikipedia policy to turn a real page to a redirect on the basis of non-existent other links. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 30 June 2005 00:12 (UTC)

[edit] Please don´t move without discussion!!

ah, WHAT on earth have you done?? you have moved ALL Korean monarchs without having a discussion first!! please don´t move them without posting a move discussion first, what a mess!! 213.7.94.25 30 June 2005 12:10 (UTC)

I moved them in line with Wikipedia naming policy, and in line with articles on other monarchs (as, for example, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom). I fixed all double redirects, and dealt with links in the main articles. What exactly is the mess that you claim to have uncovered? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 30 June 2005 21:23 (UTC)

[edit] Go, Mel!

Would you believe I've actually started rooting for you? And I don't mean looking for marshmallow roots. Don't let my support change your stance, though! If I didn't know that Valomars either explode, or melt, or both, upon shipping, I'd send you a box. That red reminds me, I'd better write the Valomar article. Treat yourself to a chocolate marshmallow sundae in the meantime. Regards. --Mothperson 1 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)

[edit] Explain

Please explain why you reverted my changes on the Branch Davidians article. "Admitted Government Lies" is quite in violation of NPOV, by its very title. Moreover, it lacked a source, and there were extraneous characters on the thing. DoomBringer 1 July 2005 06:48 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Adams

Could I possibly ask you to have a further look at the Talk:Nick Adams page? As a reply to administrator Willmcw's comment on this page, User:Wyss has written, "You clearly haven't read that link yourself. Why didn't you bother to check it? Maybe because you're so busy as a new Wikipedia:Admin?" This sounds very similar to flamings by User:Ted Wilkes. You may remember his reply to your comment on his talk page: "Yet again I have to request that you read facts and know what you are talking about before commenting. I suggest, since this matter is in the hands of Wikipedia:Mediator Ed Poor, that it might be best for you to refrain from further comments and not interfere in the process." You may also remember this user's attempts at silencing me by repeatedly accusing me of vandalsim and deleting my contributions. Why are users Wyss and Ted Wilkes so keenly interested to suppress every reference that Nick Adams was gay? See also Natalie Wood and Talk:Natalie Wood where information taken from a current biography has been deleted by user Wyss. On the Talk:Nick Adams page, this user now claims that he "found zero documented evidence to even thinly support any assertion under WP standards that Mr Adams was a homosexual" and that none of my edits "are supported by documented evidence cited in peer-reviewed, secondary sources". In my opinion, this seems to be a new strategy by user Ted Wilkes (using an alias) to suppress any reference that Adams was gay. What do you think? 80.141.195.79 1 July 2005 22:56 (UTC)

It looks very much as though you have a point. I'll look in myself, but in the meantime, if Ted Wilkes is under any kind of injunction or black in this area, place a (short) statement of the facts at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Otherwise, you might start by placing the pages on RfC. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 2 July 2005 10:22 (UTC)
Now I am quite sure that users Ted Wilkes and Wyss must be identical, as User:Wyss is all too familiar with David Bret's writings and uses similar arguments as Ted Wilkes presented some weeks ago to suppress my contributions to the articles on Nick Adams and Natalie Wood. He has again deleted these contributions. Significantly, the following sentence can be found on User:Wyss's page: "I think the Internet trolls inhabiting Wikipedia are its biggest weakness since they stir up unhelpful vandalism throughout helpful anarchy." On the Talk:Natalie Wood page user Wyss even accuses me of an alleged "standard tactic of trying to wear me down with repetition of mostly factual but slightly distorted material." This is remarkably similar to what Ted Wilkes says on the Talk:Nick Adams page: "This is the 'wear them down' tactic that they have successfully used over and over with others who objected to false and unfounded claims on the Presley page, doing it so many times that the other users eventually gave up." In addition, the "barnstar of diligence" is appearing on both of their pages. See User:Wyss#Sway_me and User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#Thanks_Ted_Wilkes.21. What do you mean by "placing the pages on RfC"? I hope you are able to help me. Thanks in anticipation. 80.141.248.253 2 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)
I think User:Wyss has now violated the three reverts rule, as he has again deleted my contribution to the Natalie Wood page. What is your opinion? 80.141.178.103 3 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)

No, he's only reverted three times; it's the fourth that's the violatiuon. I'll warn him not to revert again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 3 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

Ah, I see, the anon told you he thought I was User:Ted Wilkes. I'm not, and you didn't check into it sufficiently. Wyss 4 July 2005 09:04 (UTC)
And can you please tell me what User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#Thanks_Ted_Wilkes.21 has to do with me? I've certainly never edited the Edgar Ray Killen article. What does that have to do with the section called Sway me on my user page? What were you thinking when you equated any of that with my account and editing history...? Wyss 4 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)

As for Bret's writings, I'd never heard of him, but did some research over the past few days. I'm not so familiar with his writings, only with the widely negative reviews of their credibility. Besides, do you really think that only one WP user could possibly be familiar with a topic or an author? Wyss 4 July 2005 09:21 (UTC)

[edit] WP:TFD

Thanks for helping out with deleting templates. However, when you do, could you please check 'what links here' to see if any redirect templates exist and delete those as well. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 23:01 (UTC)

[edit] Currier House

Hey Mel, I was wondering why you deleted Currier House as copyvio. My original version in the history was original (another user may have put copyvio on the page, I don't know). Is it not possible to revert a page like that? Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 2 03:53 (UTC)

Thanks Mel! Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 2 16:13 (UTC)

[edit] Ang Mo Kio Secondary School Symphonic Band

Hi, thanks for your comments. Erm then when can i remove the copy edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelteo (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 July 2005

Thanks a lot. Sorry, i am new in this, dont really know how to use everything here. - Nigelteo

[edit] ==Warning==

I have not broken the 3R rule. The warning was uncalled for. Why don't you do something useful, like politely mediate or spend some time on vandalism patrol? Anyway, please back off and write an encyclopedia or something, ok? Wyss 3 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)

He never said you broke the rule, just that the revert-warring was getting you close to it. It sounds like you need to do a little "chilling out" yourself. *Dan* July 3, 2005 22:35 (UTC)


I'm familiar with WP policy. The warning was uncalled for, he threatened to block me when he should have been paying more attention to the anon's edit history, source citations and (PoV warrior) tactics. Then... he accused me of having another account, which I don't have. In truth, he should apologize. However if it was an honest mistake, for the sake of WP spirit I'm willing to let it pass. Nonetheless, it was a breach, a waste of time and another example of why so many helpful, cooperative and knowledgeable editors flee Wikipedia. Wyss 4 July 2005 08:59 (UTC)
  1. I used the standard Wikipedia template for use when warning editors that they risk violating 3RR. No threats, no claims that he had already violated the rule, just a courteous warning.
  2. I mentioned his second account (for which there's some evidence) only after he'd snapped and snarled at me.
  3. He may be knowledgeable; I suppose that one out of three isn't too bad. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 4 July 2005 10:54 (UTC)

I have no second account. You seem to be ignoring this reality, which you could easily confirm yourself. Wyss 4 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)

I don't think he has a second account. Wellmann 4 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)
You are right that this is not his second account. He seems to have many further accounts, for example, User:JillandJack, User:NightCrawler, or User:Karl Schalike, and also posted anonymously as User:66.61.69.65, User:24.165.212.202 or User:82.40.81.132, etc.

Other than briefly editing from an anon IP last year when I was new to WP, before someone helpfully suggested I get a user account, all of my edits have been from this single account. Mel Etitis is clearly feeling some sort of anger towards me because we have a disagreement about the appropriateness of using undocumented sources in identifying historical gays and may now realize I'm not a sock, but is too embarassed to say he was wrong. Combined, IMHO these issues seem to have overwhelmed his ability to behave as a responsible admin. Wyss 5 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)

Or maybe Mel was/is just a bit exhausted (e.g. by his considerable efforts at whack-a-mole elsewhere) and thus misread your removal of innuendo as removal of "information". I don't know; I don't claim to know. Back off a bit, Wyss: by all means explain your own edits and their motivation (and criticize others' edits), but talk of the causes and motivation of others' edits is seldom helpful. -- Hoary July 5, 2005 09:13 (UTC)
I can accept that, however, I do criticize the edits in which he accused me of being a sock. I think an admin should have investigated fully before rashly accepting the trollish tactic of an anon whose singular purpose seems to be the insertion of unverified, trivial tabloid content into a handful of articles. Wyss 5 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)

(By the bye, I got involved in this mess while editing Picnic (movie). When I wikified Adams' name (he had a supporting role) I rashly clicked on it and found the mess that was his article. Since then, I've done some homework and learned what the documented record has to say about Nick Adams, who died young, likely from an overdose of stress medication. Readers are invited to look at my contribution history if they want to waste time understanding the trajectories and origins of my edits). Wyss 5 July 2005 08:40 (UTC)

[edit] He in ayya vazhi

Ok. I didn't know you and SS were not getting along. I see that you are correct in stating that in other religious articles, "he" is used. I In the United States, they always capitilize He with respect to God. I was following the us convention. Perhaps in England, it's different.

If you are reverting to comply with wikipedia neutrality, which I think you are, I agree with you then. But if you are echoing an anti-Hindu view, then I disagree. But you don't as you clearly showed that all religious articles are consistent in the use of he.

Ok and thanks.

Raj2004 3 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of consistency of the use of "He" vs. "he" in religious articles

The Judaism article has the use of the word 'He". I do not want touch another religion's article for not offending others. But you can take a look.

see for example: "Although monotheism is fundamental to Rabbinic Judaism, according to many critical Bible scholars the Torah often implies that the early Israelites accepted the existence of other gods. However, they viewed their God as the Creator and the one that mankind was morally bound to worship alone. But by the Hellenic period most Jews had come to believe that their God was the only God (and thus, the God of everyone), and that the record of His revelation (the Torah) contained within it universal truths." Raj2004 3 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)

The use of "he" does not appear to be consistent. For example, in Christianity's article on Trinity," It is often opined that because God exists in three persons, God has always loved, and there has always existed perfectly harmonious communion between the three persons of the Trinity. One consequence of this teaching is that God could not have created Man in order to have someone to talk to or to love: God "already" enjoyed personal communion; being perfect, He did not create Man because of any lack or inadequacy He had." Also in the Allah article, it states: "Although commonly referred to as a "He", Allah is considered genderless, but there is no neuter gender to express this in the Arabic language."

So I think there is a lack of consistency. within the same articles, people use he/He throughout the article. I think it's harmless to put in "He" and is not intended necessarily to state that any deity is the God. It is merely written to show as a sign of respect and not necessarily to advocate a point of view. Wouldn't you agree? If you agree, please revert your changes to my version.

I was not advocating a point of view but merely used it as a sign of respect.

The University of Chicago, Chicago Manual of Style states that it is not necessarily wrong to capitalize. Their web site states: "Q. What is the proper pronoun form to use to refer to God? I was taught to capitalize the pronoun “He” when “God” was the antecedent. However, I checked a number of standard grammar handbooks and can’t find any information on this point. Have the rules changed?

A. Chicago lowercases such pronouns, but it’s not wrong to uppercase, especially if you are writing for a religious readership or anyone else who might take lowercasing as a sign of disrespect. In matters of style, in contrast to those of grammar, there are few right or wrong answers. Different houses follow different style guides in order to make their publications consistent." from web site: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.CapitalizationTitles.html


There appears to be anti-Hindu bias in wikipedia. They compare Vishnu to a Greek god, for example. That's why I want to clarify that by using "He" instead of 'he." Vishnu, in Vaishnavism and Smartism is considered to be God. The use of the word, "he" only helps fuel that bias. That's my opinion.


Thank you,


Raj2004 4 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)

well, are you going to revert the use of "He" in all religious articles? I see that some people may feel offended if the user deletes material from the talk page even if they have no intent to offend. Similarly, some people, Hindus included, would feel offended if you use "he" vs "He." Do you understand my point? You may feel offended if I delete material from my talk page even if I didn't intend to and have nothing to hide. The same goes with the use of the word he. You had no intent to offend but I feel that some would be offended if they see "He" in articles in Judaism and Islam, but not in Hinduism articles. That's why I recommend putting the He back in the ayyavazhi article. If you do agree, I will put it back.

As for Ayya Vazhi, the religion appears to be a small sect in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu. They, like Smartism is a monist, monotheistic religion and believe that Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu, are aspects of the same God. Additionally, unlike practically all Hindus, they believe in a Satan-like figure, Kroni who encourages the spread of evil in different ages. In order to put down this evil, they belive Vishnu incarnates as Rama, Krishna to destroy manifesttations of evil, Ravana, Duryodhna, etc. Their web sites are very helpful. Please take a look.

Additionally, they believe, that God who incaranates from time to time to destory evil, incarnated as Ayya Vaikundar in the nineteenth century. http://www.vaikunt.org/AyyaVaikuntar/index.htm

Ayya Vaikuntar's mission was to uplift the downtrowden low caste Hindus who were discriminated severely back then and to teach a simplified religion, based on love of God and not ritual.

see, http://www.vaikunt.org/AyyaVaikuntar/index.htm, http://www.vaikunt.org/AyyaVaikuntar/index.htm, http://www.vaikunt.org/AyyaVaikuntar/index.htm Hence, Ayya Vaikunt preached against elaborate rituals,such as the use of murti in worship. He said that God can never be defined so he used a simple symbol, an object to concentrate on God, a wooden jyothi or flame wrapped in cloth and a mirror in the back. This evokes monistic principles. God and you are essentially the same but due to ignorance or maya, you don't realize your own divine nature. The Lord resides in every soul like a flame. so in philosophy, they are closely related to Advaita.

Please take a look at their web sites:

It helped!

Raj2004 4 July 2005 11:00 (UTC)

[edit] ==Second Warning==

You are seriously mistaken. I have no other account. I'll let this pass as an honest mistake on your part, but if you continue harassing me I'll be happy to take this immediately to an RfC or any other appropriate, formal mediation. Wyss 4 July 2005 06:05 (UTC)

[edit] Feel free to remove lock on JTF

After seeing your last revert of my contribution to the temporary JTF article I have come to the conclusion that you have no interest in NPOV in this case and seeing how you are an admin I am wasting my time with any further edits. Over and out. Fishpaste 4 July 2005 11:12 (UTC) (aka: 168.209.98.35)


[edit] I know you're busy, but ...

Could you please take a look at the ongoing dispute at Sahaba? Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 4 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)

[edit] Browning School Edits

Hi --

I don't want to start an edit war with you, maybe we can come to a better way of listing notable alumni. I removed Robert Chambers recently, I see you put him back.

Expressly, I know for a fact that Chambers attended the Browning School for less than one semester. (I was a student there at the time). I prefer not to go into the reasons for his departure, but it is the time he was there that is of significance.

By the school's own rules as neither a graduate and having attended for less than 2 years he is not considered an alumnus.

Additionally -- right beneath Chamber's listing it is noted that Howard dean attended but did not graduate (true).

It does not reflect well on the school to list him as the #1 notable alumnus -- he attended very briefly and all of the incidents in his life that made him "notable" came after his time at the school.

Can we either remove him or list him as did not graduate, withdrawn in less than one year.


Thanks!

John Hutzler jhutzler@nowis.com

Thanks for your message. i reverted the edit because no reason was given; you should always provide at least an edit summary (more if the edit might be controversial). Anyway, I've gone back and deleted Chambers from the list. Kennedy was deleted at the same time; what was the reason for that one? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 5 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)

[edit] Nathaniel Eaton page

Why did you revert a (---[---]---) to a (---(---)---) for the Anne (Marbury) Hutchinson link? (---(---)---) don't look good. WB2 4 July 2005 23:16 (UTC)

[edit] Pasted from the "Talk:Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche" page

Talk:Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The neutrality of this article is disputed. The original writers of this page should recall that Vajrayana Buddhism is a nontheistic and nondual tradition, and as such, even hagiographic writings can be presented in such a way that the uninformed reader can find both objective facts and his or her own illumination through the text. (preceding unsigned comment by 67.172.41.37 07:11, 4 July 2005)

This is too obscure to constitute a reason for disfiguring the article with the NPOV template. Could you explain clearly what the lack of neutrality is supposed to consist in? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 4 July 2005 11:03 (UTC)


[copied from the SMR Talk page. I don't have your email address, so please excuse my contacting you here. I can be reached at [address removed].

Dear "Mel",

With the desire to engage in a less formal exchange, I ended up Googling your nom de plume (as I soon realized it is), and had a long series of thoughts I think I might have had earlier. First, I read your description of your work and ideas regarding Wikipedia (and editing same). I must confess to being new to Wikipedia, but I now realize it might have been best to find some other way to discuss this rather than jump to the route of the NPOV flag and attendant talk page.

In any event, I think that we both have the same desire to protect and promote public understanding of Shambhala, despite the perhaps oppositional way in which we met. So please accept this note as a gesture of good faith. I know now that I can reach you through your own talk page, so I will remove both the NPOV sign and talk page hyperlink from the SMR article and copy and paste this text to your page. I now surmise that you yourself posted the notice that the page needed to be Wikified, to append to what at that time was a draft that you had written.

Through this encounter, I am growing increasingly interested in the Wiki culture, and hope I can learn some things (also if you'll accept my apology and consent to teach me) and over time contribute something myself here.

Thanks for your time with this (for me, anyway!) interesting event. I have had quite an engaging ride of emotions and thoughts; it's been most instructive.

Sincerely,

[name withheld]

P.S. I noted that you teach philosophy at a college of Oxford. I also teach -- literature and writing for University of Hartford, and an online philosophy survey course for a modest but well-meaning college. I recently joined the International Association for Philosophy and Literature (IAPL) in an effort to connect more widely to others making interdisciplinary mischief like myself. In any event, I was curious if you knew Michael and Shenpen Hookham, students of the Vidyadhara who used to reside in Oxford, but now (I think) live in Wales? I met Shenpen at a short weekend retreat when I was staying at my grandmother's summer cottage in Old Woodstock fifteen years ago. I have lovely memories of both this weekend and my whole time in the Oxford area.

[Below follows the note I had posted to the SMR Talk page before I had googled you and revisited my perspective.]

Dear Mr. Etitis,

I regret my tone above to the degree it has offended you, as you are obviously a devoted student of Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche. Nonetheless, the sheer abundance of subjective positions regarding biographical data that are presented here as objective fact (e.g., "he is the second incarnation" rather than, say, "several Tibetan Buddhist leaders and the Sakyong's students consider him the second incarnation"; "living proof of the vitality of Buddhism" instead of another well-written and colorful, but less overtly adulatory, description; etc.) obviates the need for me to catalogue every instance. I am a student in both Chögyal Namkhai Norbu's and the Sakyongs' lineage, and I am also an experienced publicist. With all due respect, the current article reads more like a less-than-subtle press release than a careful account of the current Sakyong's life and accomplishments. As such, it runs more of a risk of steering thoughtful prospective students away from the Shambhala community than magnetizing them toward the lineage of Rigdens.

I will try to find time to edit the piece, and I certainly will remain open to your assistance there. However, I will continue to monitor the NPOV status to make sure it remains. This is not a case of disfiguring the article, but rather one of avoiding any appearance of impropriety in the form of what might be construed as cultish or similarly theistic worship. I think you will find that Carolyn Rose Gimian, for example, does an exemplary job of preserving a standard of objectivity while nonetheless capturing those qualities of the teacher(s) that generate such widespread respect. This is a delicate negotiation, but to me it seems consistent with the demands of prajña and the precision of Vajrayana tradition.

I appreciate your time hearing out the basis for my use of the designation.

Sincerely, [name withheld]

[edit] Cool (song)

Mel, I'm appalled to see that you deleted Cool (song) without even a VfD vote (which it would have almost certainly survived, if there had been one). This is completely unacceptable behavior and a misuse of sysop abilities. What do you have to say about this? Everyking 5 July 2005 13:31 (UTC)

Wikipedia can report facts. There was nothing in that article but facts. Everyking 5 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)
It was not speculation; it was nothing but fact. You want it gone, VfD it. We have a process. You can't just do whatever you feel like. I put the odds on it surviving VfD at 10 to 1, at least. Everyking 5 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)

[edit] Unsolicited but well-meant advice

Mel, may I suggest that as an admin it behooves you to set a higher standard? Please consider avoiding psychoanalyzing and sarcasm:

  • "the obsession is all in your head (in more ways than one, perhaps)" [1]
  • "I'm sure they'll be impressed by your claim" [2] Uncle Ed July 5, 2005 20:41 (UTC)
I challenge any editor, faced with Wyss's aggressive and persistent boorishness, to refrain from the occasional acid remark. Follow (if you care to) the "discussion", from my first, standard 3RR warning, and see if you don't feel like making the odd short remark of your own. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 5 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)


[edit] I apologize

I apologize, Mel Etitis, for anything I might have said that made you feel bad or unappreciated. I over-reacted and lost my cool, and it was wrong of me to do that. If all I can do is let time prove me out as sincere and truthful about the issues we discussed, that's ok, and thanks for listening. Wyss 5 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)

[edit] YTM

This is currently being discussed at the article's Talk page. Adam 6 July 2005 11:23 (UTC)