User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] U.S. English

It's "storey"/"story" that gets changed, actually. Plus there's the whole thing about "Ground Floor" vs. "First Floor".... --JohnDBuell | Talk 6 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)

Just that (aside from metre/meter) I thought the only thing I corrected was 'storey' to 'story' in terms of levels of a building. If you really want confusing, the taller buildings (example: the Mathematics Department building) at the Purdue University main campus in West Lafayette, Indiana have their "first floor" ON the ground, the "Ground floor" is the level just BENEATH the ground, and the floor below THAT is the "Basement." --JohnDBuell | Talk 6 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster Online (my US English Dictionary of choice) gives storey as a "Variant" spelling. --JohnDBuell | Talk 6 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)

[edit] Fabartus

  • I just tried it again, and it looses the whole history trail (I'd killed some time editting). Now at least I can get in to make a change, so something is unstable — died again on Preview. I think I better cut the link off the top since it's redundant with the '+', and see what happens then. Cheers, and thanks for the assist! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 6 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'm running IE6 as well. I moved the fancy block stuff below the joke, and Preview still crashes. But we're junking up your page. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 6 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)
  • I guess you have enough Browsers. I'm surprised you didn't test with AOL. Just to confirm, you are doing FULL PAGE EDITS (sts) (I hate CAPS LOCK! It costs me more time,,, grrrrr) User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 6 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)
  • I thought it was someone I know as a socket puppet mode, but apparently not, too much history/contributions, so I posted back under a line that said 'Vandalize below the line' (User: Yo Mama 5000) — I haven't a clue as to why he posted above your tests. (My sig needs fixed again)|Fra||nkB 6 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)
  • I just reverted to JUST after the archieve, but before I refactored and cut some stuff back in. (After which things went to hell).

I don't need this crap. I can full edit on articles, and other peoples talks, but not on my own talk. The symptoms change, sometimes I can edit and it manifests at Preview, sometimes as soon as I try to edit, it goes back to my blank page default IE screen. Scratchin' me head I am! Thanks for the help.

  • I'll have to see if I can pin it down by adding back small sections of the difference between this version and the next one.
  • For a moment, I was thinking it was an IE6 update at fault, but then I remembered I rebooted when the problem manifested, not the other way around. I don't shut this machine down very often (even using it as a file server from one of the laptops), and MS-autoupdate wanted to add 10 security updates after a larger add where it needed to reboot.
  • But that puts the cart in front of the horsey. There's got to be some characters in sequence that are screwing up the browsers synchronization or html parsing. (Java?) I guess I should refer it to the SW gurus. It seems like I spend half my time getting a handle on new Wiki-procedures, and unless they are atypical, bug reporting is usually a pain in the ___!
FrankB 6 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)

I've tried Firefox, and found it very, very slow. I usually use Opera or Lynx, but I have Opera set up to reject all cookies and IE6 to accept them, so IE is what I use on Wikipedia. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 09:29 (UTC)

  • RU still around, and if so, do you have preferences set to 'Preview' when entering edit mode? I suspect that was part of my problem, which I've documented here: Problem
Have a good night either way, This blew my day! FrankB 6 July 2005 23:13 (UTC)

[edit] Serendipity?

Your repeated croppings-up on my watchlist this p.m.? I assume not. Thanks. –Hajor 6 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I didn't know you had done all that. But I'm not going back through and adding those section stubs back by hand, so if the baby goes out with the bathwater, I'm sorry. You knew that I was translating the Greek article, and the section stubs were obviously based on the Greek model. --Jpbrenna 7 July 2005 13:23 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I was in a hurry to get somewhere (had to take my car into the shop because of an unexpected brake problem) and I was annoyed about the section stubs. I'm not trying to start a revert war. I hadn't actually looked, and there were far fewer than I thought so it's not much trouble. I'll revert to your version and add my changes to that. --Jpbrenna 7 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

[edit] Calvinist Church, USA

The articles you are referring to were copied from a satire page. They are not about real entities; they lampoon their subject, through distortion for humorous effect. They mention membership in well-known organizations, in which obviously (being fictional) they are not listed. They are nonsense. We don't copy articles from the Onion, and let them stand, do we? Not just because they are copyrighted, but because they are satyrical nonsense. Mkmcconn (Talk) 7 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

[edit] Everyking's odd claim

Do not use rollback in content disputes. Only use it against vandalism. As an admin you should have known this from day one. Everyking 7 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)


[edit] Question about Cassandra Claire revert

Hi, I'm sorry if it looked like a bad-faith edit; I don't think I blanked the article, or if I did it was by accident. I did mark for speedy deletion, but that was because I thought it should be replaced with an article on the VSDs. I know Cassandra Claire and I also know that the material repeatedly posted by 68.0.214.59 is both factually inaccurate and defamatory, and that she will not stop posting- her lawyer, who has posted on the discussion page of the article, agrees and has contacted Wiki, but I would like to know what to do in the meantime. Is there any way to lock the page while I place the article on VfD and/or suggest a redirect on the Talk page? Cylion 7 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)Cylion

The information was not factually inaccurate. It was the other perspective. It just is generally... mmm... how do you best put it? In the interests of political correctness in fandom, it isn't brought up. There have been serious considerations in putting together a paper exploring the opposite perspective. It is about 50 pages. It contains the documentry evidence which supports those statements. You may not like that perspective but unless you're 1) A former member of FanFiction.Net staff, 2) The person who reported it, 3) Pamela Dean, 4) In contact with those people who are in points one to three, then you really don't know what you're talking about here to dispute the veracity of those claims other than your say so of "I know Cassandra Claire!" --PurplePopple 7 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

[edit] In response to message: Erm, no...

...just someone who is sharing an internet connection, and therefore an IP address, with Cylion. Why do you ask? Tromboneborges 7 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)TromboneBorges

(In response to next message) Heh. Well, she, but good point. I've been keeping an eye on the conversation, and I said, "Hey, you didn't sign it! Wait, I'll do it," and did it.

Of course, in my haste I did it incorrectly (I made the the user link directly instead of using the 4-tildes signature) but it's the thought that counts, no?

Sorry for the confusion. Tromboneborges 7 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)Tromboneborges

[edit]  :)

Thank you for your contribution :)

-user:Striver The current date and time is 12 June 2008 T 22:04 UTC.

[edit] User:Michael999

Could you supply proper diffs for your 3RR report? You've instead provided links to four versions of the article

Sorry about that, doing it now. Thanks. <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the heads up, rather than ignoring the malformed request. <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)

[edit] Jew York Times

Apologies are unnecessary. It was not at all obvious but the "nominator" never posted the page to the VfD list so it's never gotten the proper 5 days of community scrutiny. I only got suspicious because I've been keeping watch of the closure of the VfD/Old pages. An unclosed discussion would/should have been caught long before this and I wanted to try to figure out what failed in our process. As it turned out, nothing failed in the closure process. The failure point was in the nomination. Rossami (talk) 7 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

Hi again. As you can see from my Special:Contributions/Striver, im a extremly active user.

I have a problem: People want to delet my articles just because they dont get it.

I would be greatfull if you would care to take a look of what im doing and see if you agree with me that all articles are worth to have. Whel, not all, but the ones that are up for voting for delition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Abdullah_ibn_Harith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Qutaylah_bint_Abd_al-Uzza http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Events_with_Muhammad:_1

If you would agree with me that this things need time to grow, please expres it att the voting. If you dont agree, i would be happy if you asked me to motivate their existance for you

Thank you for your time, --Striver 7 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)

[edit] Tidy talk

By the way, you have a well-conceived layout on your talk page; evidence of an orderly mind. Very nice. Mkmcconn (Talk) 8 July 2005 07:44 (UTC)

I've left a brief answer on my (less tidy) talk. Thanks for the interaction. Mkmcconn (Talk) 8 July 2005 08:33 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Adams

Sorry for the whole trouble concerning the edit wars in the articles on Nick Adams, Natalie Wood, etc., but I don't want to give up because one editor is so keenly interested to suppress what I have written. I have wasted much time to find independent sources cited on the discussion pages to support my view. But this does not seem to be enough to convince user Wyss.

I think the following passage is O.K. and neutral enough to be included in the article on Nick Adams, as these remarks are based on several independent sources:

Adams and actor Natalie Wood were close friends. Author Gavin Lambert in his 2004 biography Natalie Wood: A Life writes, "Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams..." Some tabloid and other reports with similar characterizations were published decades after his death. According to these accounts, before his success as an actor Adams was a male prostitute catering to men. James Dean is also said to have claimed that he worked with his friend Adams as a street hustler when he first arrived in Hollywood <!—See http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/biod1/dean2.html -->. The book Elvis: The Hollywood Years (David Bret, 2002) even claims Elvis Presley was intimate with Adams. However, there are no court records, contemporary letters or statements attributed to Adams to support these rumours.

Significantly, my opponent Wyss has again deleted parts of this paragraph. His only argument is that my sources which I have cited according to the Wikipedia guidelines are not reliable enough and not peer-reviewed. This seems to be his personal opinion. On the other hand, he has included several other "facts" in the Trivia section and other parts of the article, which are also based on dubious internet sources which are not peer-reviewed. To my mind, he's applying double standards to accept findings which are in line with his personal view and suppresses those which are not. I don't know what I can do, as the edit war is going on. Why is this editor so stubborn concerning the inclusion of some details which can be found in independent sources? Administrator Ed Poor said on the discussion page, "just say that X wrote a book which claims Y is homosexual / bisexual / whatever. One or two lines ought to be enough." This is what I did, but user Wyss does not accept sources such as Hadleigh's Hollywood Gays.

It's true, I don't accept Hadleigh as a reliable source. Regardless, I would like to resolve this editing spat without locking the page or putting up a disputed tag again. Disclaimer: The anon has posted an identical message over on Uncle Ed's page, and I've asked Uncle Ed to make a suggestion. Any input's appreciated. I was hoping to wait for a consensus either way... (I did try to compromise by putting in the Lambert quote). Thanks! Wyss 8 July 2005 10:10 (UTC)

[edit] Tsushima Islands

Hi there! User:Fabertus asked me to interfere in a POV dispute regarding this page. However, from his descriptions I am really not sure what is going on - except for the fact that you are handling it. So I'd like to ask you what's up. I'd be happy to help if needed, I'd also be happy to leave it to you if you prefer. Off-hand the easiest solution seems to be to file an RFC. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 11:20 (UTC)

  • Actually, I asked for help with Tan. FrankB 8 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

[edit] Teach the Controversy

Yeah, it's one of those things that I know I shouldn't get sucked into, but I couldn't stop myself. The same way that I know I shouldn't spend so much time on wikipedia, and yet here I am. --Laura Scudder | Talk 8 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Intelligent_Design

Hey Mel, I just discovered that there is an orphaned talk page at Talk:Intelligent_Design. The "real" talk page is at Talk:Intelligent_design. Should I put this up for vfd, or what? --goethean ॐ 8 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

[edit] The Lady of Shallott

What is the source for the claim that the poem is based on the story of Elaine of Astolat? According to a note in my copy of Tennyson's Selected Poems, he supposedly based the poem on an Italian Novella called 'Donna di Scatolla', though he also apparently said "The Lady of Shalot is evidently the Elaine of the Morte d'Arthur, but I do not think that I had ever heard of the latter when I wrote the former". Clearly Tennyson must have read it by the time he wrote Idylls of the King; however what I am unsure of is whether he had before the 1842 revision. --Altair July 8, 2005 17:15 (UTC)

[edit] Sturmgrenadier

Never properly nominated? Probably true. Looking through the edit history of Sturmgrenadier, it seems the VFD notice was added here, possibly as a result of the then-ongoing revert war. On the VFD, User:Magen claims credit, and says to be a newbie, which would explain why he never made the VFD voting page (that was done by User:Habap who voted to keep) and why this was never put on any day's VFD page as far as I can tell, and the fact that none of the VFD regulars voted on this also points in that direction. It would be possible to blank the votes and restart discussion on today's page; the alternative would be to let the matter lie. Most votes on the VFD are to keep, anyway. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 17:11 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

I apologize for my obscure insult, but, if I may add, you called me a disturbed adolescent, which is a personal attack. You should look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks.Respond.--Anti-Anonymex2 8 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)

What do you mean by "undly generous"?--Anti-Anonymex2 8 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)

I just checked out the article, and I was not advertising, nor am I a disturbed adolescent.--Anti-Anonymex2 8 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

I would prefer it if you would stop insulting me. I am not worse than a disturbed adolescent. Please stop bothering me.--Anti-Anonymex2 8 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)

??? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 8 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle G rfa

Hi - Have you noticed Uncle G's explanation at WP:RFA for not more promptly accepting his nomination? Unless you have some other reason for opposing, you might want to reconsider. -- Rick Block (talk) July 9, 2005 16:53 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks

You have a history of making personal attacks against me in the past and a number of others, since. Now, referring to a fellow contributor's edits as "Absurd" in your Edit summary broadcast for all to see (Natalie Wood) is unwarranted and improper conduct at Wikipedia. Your cooperation in participating at Wikipedia in a the spirit of the community's positive goals is appreciated. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 23:25, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

I have still a problem with contributing to the articles on Nick Adams, Natalie Wood and Elvis Presley. My opponents User:Wyss and User:Ted Wilkes (whose opinions, significantly, are usually expressed in similar words), have provided little evidence for their view. They are only questioning the reliability of my sources without furnishing proof that these sources are really wrong. They have accused me of vandalism, being a troll, etc. for no reason at all. Not to mention that they seem to take turns in doing repeated reverts, presumably to escape violation of the three revert rule. Indeed, they are unable to cite relevant sources supporting their personal judgement. As everybody can see, Wyss and his "fellow combatant" Ted Wilkes have continually used commentaries on the discussion pages to discredit me and the sources which I have cited according to the Wikipedia guidelines. To my mind, all they have to offer is no more than a biased opinion. Wikipedia wants information based on independent sources. I have cited these sources (books, articles, reviews, web pages). Until they have something worthwhile to offer, i.e. solid sources that will really support their view or disprove my view, I think they should keep their personal remarks to themselves, for such remarks do not help matters at all. The whole edit war is boring as the parties concerned are wasting their time. I would encourage all readers to spend as much time as they see fit on reading from the beginning what is written on the related discussion pages, as the whole talk proves that I have provided a lot of evidence (based on independent sources) to support my assertions. I don't know why users Wyss and Ted Wilkes are constantly questioning the reliability of my sources and reverting the articles to their last edits. 80.141.224.58 14:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
The anon is distorting the history of this issue to the point of being misleading. First, WP isn't concerned with independent sources, but with secondary sources which means secondary sources drawn from primary sources in the documented historical record.
Are you sure? You should read what is written on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page:
"If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, whether or not you have a reliable source."
"... the idea that a certain person or group of people holds a certain opinion is a verifiable fact."
"A primary source provides direct evidence for a certain state of affairs. This may mean that the source observes a state of affairs directly, or that they observe indirect evidence of it. In other words, a primary source is a source very close to the original state of affairs you are writing about. An example of primary-source material would be a photograph of a car accident taken by an eye witness, or a report from that eye witness. A trial transcript is also primary-source material."
"A secondary source summarizes one or more primary sources."
"When reporting on objective facts, Wikipedia articles should cite primary and secondary sources whenever they exist."
Your information doesn't qualify as useful because it's mostly pulled from sources criticized for being made up. I don't see the word independent anywhere, by the way. Wyss 17:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
This is what you claim. There are positive reviews of the independent sources I have cited. The fact that these sources are independent certainly supports my view.
The anon's sources, with the possible exception of Lambert, are published books of undocumented gossip decades after these people died. There is no documented evidence Nick Adams was gay.
This is your personal opinion. There are several independent sources supporting the claim that Adams had homosexual leanings.
No, my statement is quantified fact. The sources you cite are for the most part not credible. There is no documented evidence Nick Adams was gay. Wyss 17:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
No, your statement isn't quantified fact. There is enough evidence that Adams was gay, as several independent sources prove.
You're arguing in circles. Please sign your posts. Wyss 20:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
To insert these assertions into a biographical article, even as rumour, completely distorts the permanent record. I care not a whit who was gay and who wasn't. I care much about using secondary sources drawn from the documented historical record. The anon's complaints about personal attacks and so on are not accurate in terms of chronology, motivation, context or substance. The anon has shown an obsession with only four articles (Nick Adams, Natalie Wood, Elvis Presley and James Dean) and with inserting the term homosexual or gay into these articles as frequently as is syntaxically possible with complete disregard to editorial balance, context or documented fact.
Sorry, this is not true. I have contributed to several other articles using my dynamic IP address, 80.141.xxx.xxx. One of my recent edits is the new page on TrustRank.
An article related to misleadingly seeding search engines does seem to fit with your interest in placing the word homosexual as many times as possible into the Elvis Presley article on Wikipedia, which is widely mirrored and has significant impact on Google searches. 17:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
The anon has refused to cooperate with Mel's latest compromise proposal on the Natalie Wood talk page.
This is also not true. On the talk page I have given a short information package that included arguments and supportive evidence that Natalie Wood's contacts with Hollywood's gays played a significant part in her life.
You have not accepted Mel's compromise. Wyss 17:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Mel says, "I'm happy with this if the anon. is." And I'm not happy with what Wyss calls a compromise, as relevant information is missing.
I didn't like it either but was willing to go along if it would resolve this. Please sign your posts. Wyss 20:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
The anon's language implies some sort of insidious conspiracy between myself and user:Ted Wilkes. Previously, the anon accused me of being a sockpuppet of that user (developers are strongly encourged to run an IP and sockpuppet test on my account if there are any doubts, I have ever edited only from this account).
You may know that it's easy to disguise your IP address by using an anonymizer. It's also possible to come in from different IP addresses and post something different at nearly the same time.
You seem to know a lot about that. Wyss 17:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I propose it's the anon who is wasting the valuable time of contributing editors. I personally had to take much time away from my work on the Haymarket riot (which I largely rewrote) and Monica Vitti (which I created) articles over the weekend to deal with this issue. I was unable to begin expanding the Michelangelo Antonioni article as I had hoped. These and all of Wikipedia are damaged by the insertion of not-credible, undocumented, agenda-ridden material like the anon's into its articles, and all content suffers an erosion of credibility thereby. I can say one positive thing about the anon, however. The research he has forced me to do on Nick Adams has allowed me to expand on the documented secondary source content of WP's article about him but I likely would have gotten around to that anyway, I clicked into this mess because he had a supporting role in Picnic (movie). So far as the anon's tactics go, I can only characterize them as badgering, circular and baiting along with Wikipedia:Gaming the system. If saying this is interpreted as a personal attack by some, they are mistaken. I refer to the anon's edits, not the anon personally. Wyss 14:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I would interpret this as a personal attack, similar to attacks against me by Ted Wilkes. 80.141.248.221 16:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
That's because you'd like to manipulate the system however you can in order to include the word homosexual as many times as possible in the Elvis Presley article. Your interest in writing an article on TrustRank suggests to me that your persistence here is motivated by an understanding of the Wikipedia mirror effect on search engines. Wyss 17:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Did you say, "I refer to the anon's edits, not the anon personally"? 80.141.248.14 20:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Wyss 20:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

In the future, please don't break up my posts. It makes following the thread much more difficult. Wyss 17:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem with USER: 80.141.etc.etc. is simple and perfectly clear. None of its edits have credibilty because it has fabricated information and inserted "fraudulently doctored text" into more than one article. That User:Mel Etitis has come to defend it several times makes me wonder. Ted Wilkes 20:13, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Mel has offered a compromise but the anon declined. Wyss 20:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Mel only says, "I'm happy with this if the anon. is." And I'm not happy with what you call a compromise, as relevant information is missing 80.141.242.217 20:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

See this small posting pattern by the anon: Special:Contributions/80.141.249.246 Wyss 20:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please leave Jewish Task Force alone

Mel, please don't edit this article. The ONLY thing we all agree with is that you are incompetent as a mediator in this dispute. If you can't do the job right, please don't attempt it at all. 168.209.98.35 16:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how you have any business telling somebody not to edit a particular article, especially when (as in this case) he seems to be the most neutral and nonpartisan of the people involved (which may be why all the rabid partisans, pro- and anti-JTF, hate him so much). *Dan* 17:21, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Given that the edits (which he reverted wholesale, in the process reverting another editor's disambiguation of a link) were merely tidying and wikifying (external links, punctuation, dashes, etc.), it's clear that this anon. is simply reacting to me rather than to the contents of the article. That fits well with the infantile squabbling that Talk:Jewish Task Force page has been full of for some time; when the main article was protected and a temp version supplied for editors to try to reach consensus, most of them continued their sniping and insults on the Talk page, and ignored the article altogether. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Uh, can you point out diffs to support your false claim?? If you would have bothered to look more closely you would have noticed that my "wholesale reverts" were not so. If you had spent a few seconds looking you would have noticed that 66.14.104.198 was the one who removed the unrelated external link, yet you give me credit for removing it (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Task_Force&diff=18533597&oldid=18522791). You also claim that my "wholesale reverts" also removed other users tidying efforts (punction, dashes, etc). Uh, can you please post a diff that shows this? I did remove one wikification link which wikified "Northern" in "Northan Samarian". Having the word "North" wikified and pointing to an article that says nothing about Northan Samarian is not useful. If we wikified every single word in the article that has a corresponding wiki page the article would be difficult to read.
Actually, if you look at the history of the temp page of the article you had on your on your user page (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mel_Etitis/JTF&action=history) You will notice that I was participating in it until you started your wholesale reverts to my changes (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mel_Etitis/JTF&diff=18123226&oldid=18110587). Once you started your wholesale reverts, with no explanatoin given, I knew that you were not neutral and nonpartisan in regards to this article and any other efforts on my part were wasted.
Mel, from the beginning of this debate until I gave up I have tried to get this resolved the right way. I put in a RfC and nothing happened. When I was being called every insult under the sun on the discussion page you did nothing. I left a message for you on your talk page asking you to ask them to stop calling me a racist, nazi, anti-semite, etc and you ignored my request and allowed the personal attacks against me to continue.
Then you started your wholesale reverts to my contributions and I then knew I was wasting my time. I stopped editing the JTF article and now you have, as I predicted, a JTF article that calls muslims Nazi Terrorists and a bunch of other POV terms. Seeing the condition that you have the article in right now I can clearly understand why schools refuse to allow students to source wikipedia in their work.
Again, if you aren't going to do the job right, don't do it at all. You are good at copyediting and such, but when it comes to your admin duties you have proven to be worthless on the issue of JTF. 168.209.98.35 01:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. The Talk page was nothing but insults traded between you and others; I did indeed try to calm things down, but you were all having too much fun.
  2. I made one rollback-revert of one of your edits, because it simply started to introduce exactly the PoV stuff that had caused the problem in the first place.
  3. It's true that your ludicrous edit summary misled me as to the nature of your edit; you in fact only reverted two other edits, both by other editors, in neither case for good reason.
  4. It's clear that your main reason for being here is the excitement and pleasure you get from posting long rants against other editors. From now on, I shall simply delete such rants from this page; get your jollies elsewhere. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Utada Hikaru page concerning singles

Just so you know, "Be My Last" is officially her forthcoming single, as announced on her official website (the link is to the English news page of her site). --Soulsteelgray 05:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Population transfer

In the Population transfer article an editor has replaced a paragraph describing anti-Greek ethnic cleansing with one attributing ethnic cleansing to the Greeks. Based on the editor's contributions, this editor appears to be presenting a Turkish POV. Could you comment? Jayjg (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human rights in the United States

I know you're busy, but could I ask you to take a look at my work here, and perhaps add this to your watchlist?

I am trying to rewrite the introduction to reflect events of the last four years, and was quickly reverted. BrandonYusufToropov 14:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Dick Witham" returns

Same joker, new screen name - User:Concerned Citizen. He's causing trouble on the talk page for StarrCade, simply because I removed references to a backyard wrestling promotion in an article about a World Championship Wrestling event. He messed up the first time and forgot to log in, exposing his IP as being an Alltel IP in rural Georgia - the same IP block used by "DickWitham" and related socks. Chadbryant 15:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Malta Labour Party

Hello! When you change the name for the subject of an article in the text, could you move the article too? Otherwise, as in this case, the title and the article don't match. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I was slowly leading up to that to see if I would get a response, first in the talk page, then in the article, and finally a page move. You shot my fox on the third, for which thanks. --Henrygb 16:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

After a good stiff drink, I think I understand. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You might get your chance to do the other revert anyway; User:Mansour seems determined to keep the word in. Jayjg (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)