User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wang Chung

Noted that you are primary editor so far on page, hope you will look at some of the recent edits. I may, if I have time, add some excerpts from his work. Stirling Newberry 19:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Definitely better. Something to put on the list for "deserves better", particularly his relationship to the Ban family (father, son and daughter). I'm looking for some good sources on the relationship between his work and their history writing. Stirling Newberry 22:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boksburg

Hi Mel, Yes I can see were "rand" can confuse. Well "rand" is an afrikaans word for ridge and Witwatersrand (Water Water Ridge) was the name given for a ridge that ran through Gauteng. The gold producing reef ran parallel with this ridge and the mining areas in east and west of Johannesburg became known as the East and West Rand. (The word rand was then also used as South Africa's currency)

When Boksburg was established in 1887 it was in the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek (South African Republic) or ZAR and not the Republic of South Africa (which came much later after the Union) as the article says I will change that now. Thanks. I hope this helps. --Jcw69 18:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:4 Wikipedia advertising

Hi, in the comment you made in this page, you said:

I tend to trust reference sites with no advertising much more than I do those without

I presume you didn't quite mean that... Cheers, Smoddy (t) (e) 14:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ahem... good point. Thanks for pointing that out. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship proposal

Something you might be interested to comment on: Jguk has suggested that all new admins should have taken an article through the Featured Article process. See User:Jguk/admin criterion and User talk:Jguk/admin criterion. SlimVirgin 18:08, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

LOL, yes. You probably feel the same after alerting me to Dembski only to have me turn up there declaring his ideas to be quite sophisticated and driving poor Felonious Monk to distraction. However, I believe you do have a thing about the small number of poorly controlled admins; making sure admins have made intelligent contributions might be a way to reduce that problem in future. SlimVirgin 18:33, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism

Just wanted to say thanks for helping out on the creationism article. When I came accross the article for the first time the other day, it was a totally uncritical POV piece in favour of creationist arguments. I added the 'criticism' section, and was worried that it would be constantly removed by militant creationists; luckily however, this isn't the case, and people such as yourself have helped expand upon it and to create a much healthier and more critical approach to the subject. I still think there is work to be done on it, but it seems the article is definately moving in the right direction. Thanks :) Aaarrrggh 19:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, and question

Hi- thanks for bringing the correct way of quoting to my attention. I had edited a number of pages incorrectly by putting punctuation inside the quotations, not realizing that the standard was in fact the other way.

I also encountered a problem in reverting a page on Korea that you may be able to fix. I reverted to a previous version without vandalization, but the map of Korea (on the top right) disappeared after reverting. I don't understand why. You can see that previous versions contained the map, but my reversion does not. I did not change anything else, as far as I know. Deadcorpse 20:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for clearing up the Copyright Violation

I appreciate you getting back to me about the Rhys Chatham article, and double-checking it! It was the first thing I wrote on Wikipedia, so I guess I hadn't gotten all the Wiki-ness down. --Cpomeara 04:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ROC and Taiwan

Hello Μελ Ετητης. The vote and discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Economy of Taiwan → Economy of the Republic of China is getting messy. Do you think there's anything that we could do? — Instantnood 12:45 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your words. You have been very helpful. — Instantnood 13:01 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arete

You know I created the Arete article and you didn't talk with me about anything you did. You messed it up something fierce. Arete is not virtue it is a part of paideia. What the heck are you doing? and then Aristotle's definition is deleted? Arete (paideia) is the first meaning of the word and you change it to (virtue) noway.WHEELER 19:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Hello there. I am recently being listed on RfC. Feel free to comment as you wish to. I regard it as a way out and to have the matter settled. Thanks. — Instantnood 12:26 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I was so forgetful to add the hyperlink to the RfC. :-D — Instantnood 09:18 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

[edit] African Philosophy

Great work. I'm afraid I can't really contribute much, I know naught about the subject. I basically found the article in a very sorry state, figured it wouldn't take much to bring it up to the standard that it might scrape past a VfD. But my specialities are things biological and ecological in nature. Well done, though, it looks great! Sabine's Sunbird 04:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nelli Kim

Thanks for more details on this. Not long ago I was angry with admins, because I could not find any info about copyvio lag times and about the system of dealing with them. But now I don't worry, because Uncle G gave a good link and I know the system. I deal with other topics now, but accidentally visited that article again to add a link to newly created cat today. Cmapm 16:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed! Many thanks for congratulations and for your constant support concerning this topic! In my turn, I'm always ready to help you in resolving any problems. If you have or will have any of them, please, feel free to contact me through my talk page. Best wishes! Cmapm 14:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Levellers

Is the paragraph of the Putney Debates in the Levellers clearer now? -- Philip Baird Shearer 20:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teachers, dictionaries, etc.

Enjoyed your remarks.

One of my more triumphant memories of high school concerns tenth grade English. I was a self-assured, know-it-all, argumentative little twerp. (As opposed to today, of course...) I frequently challenged my teacher on various things. I said some particular spelling of something was acceptable. He said it was wrong. He walked over to the classroom dictionary and looked it up. He scowled. He said, "Well, they have both spelling listed, but mine is listed first. That means it's the preferred spelling." I said, "No, it doesn't. That just means it's the most frequent spelling. Check the introduction at the front." He did. He glared at me, said nothing, and continued the class.

Incidentally, that was in the days when the authoritative dictonary in the U. S., known simply as "The Unabridged," was Merriam-Webster's Second International. I mention that because a year or so later they came out with the Third, which was quite notorious because it included many previously-supposed-nonstandard words and meanings. In particular, it included "ain't" (though with a note explaining that it wasn't considered correct in formal writing or something), putting the lie to generations of teachers who had told their students "'ain't ain't in the dictionary." It was a widely held misconception that the Third represented some sea-change from proscriptive to descriptive lexicography; in fact, the Second billed itself as descriptive, too. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We need to talk

[edit] Discussion

We need to talk about Arete; please see Talk:Arete (virtue). Thanks.WHEELER 14:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arete (excellence)

Yes, User White, and you Mel, and myself all agree on Arete (excellence) and I agree to change the links. Is this alright?WHEELER 14:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank You Thank you Thank you. Please do change the title and I will help with the links and that I am not a bad guy. I do know what I am talking about and I can work together. Thanks.WHEELER 15:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need Help

The article on Arete is now excellent and it is an improvement and a great addition to Wikipedia. Thanks for a job well-done.

Since Wikipedia is a democracy, I am forced to farm for votes. Two articles are up for deletion: one is specific for Classical studies, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Vanavsos and the other is Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Family/State_paradigm. Can I ask for you help in these matters. Thanks. WHEELER 16:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your input

Mell:

Appreciate your comments on the discussion page of the article I have been editing "Self-relatioship" All the comments were made by me. At this point there do not seem to be others active in the editing process. I look forward to others joining me and truly enjoy working collaboratively. You said something to the effect that the title of the article can be changed. I think this needs to happen but shouldn't it be done collaboratively by the people who are working activelly on that article? I suggest waiting until others show up in the process. I appreciate your patience. I have just begun this process. There is a lot to learn re. how to do it. Perhaps you have forgotten. Robert RosselRobert Rossel 21:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the feedback

Dear Mel:

Thanks for some sage advise about how to do the Wikipedia dance. I am a pretty quick learner and very excited to do the work. I will cool my jets a bit while i attempt to learn the ropes. I think it would be a good idea to revert the whole article back to the form before I began editing (and hopefully remove it from the Clean Up category). I will resume my part in editing the article when there are others in the conversation with whom I can dialogue. One little irony in the ways you do thing at Wikipedia. We are encouraged to "be bold" and then when our boldness makes a little mess, we get slapped with censure. Now if this were a model of childrearing, what would you call it -- Schizophrenogenic? Think about it. Also could you relay it on to the person who decided to put the article on Clean Up? I forget his name and can't seem to access it. He is the person I would really like to talk to.

Thanks,

RobRobert Rossel 23:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] O.K. I'll look back through history

Mell:

 Thanks for the clarification.  Will do.

Rob Robert RosselRobert Rossel 23:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Self-relations

Yesh, although 10 occurrences of "Self-relations" and none of Self Relationships rather gave the game away. --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] Mediation re. Sam Spade

Mel,

I received your note of 1 March — forgive my tardiness in replying. I wonder, have you been involved in any of the same page disputes (or been working on the same subjects in general when encountering problems) as El_C with Sam? If so, and if you're interested, I would be fine sounding out all parties to an entrance on your part into the mediation to perhaps gain resolution for your issues. Kind of killing two birds with one stone, if you like.

Apart from that, thank you for your note and your help. Rest assured it will be of concrete and constructive use to me in bringing this problem to an acceptable conclusion.

Yours,

Wally 18:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Multi-license into Public Domain

Dear Mell:

Since you seem to have taken an interest in the Self-relations article, I have a few questions. I am starting this process, so am still quite ignorant re. many of these issues. 1. What is mult-license into Public domain? Should I or other contributers to the article explore this? what are implications this for things we add in the editing process? 2. What is involved in the process -- "Wickify" (sp). All these are new terms to me. where I can most efficiently educate myself self one these things (I have limited time)? 3. I have put out a call to other people who have worked with Steve Gilligan to participate in the process of editing--so it is done more collaboratively. Hopefully you will see their contributions soon. What advise would you give them in most productively and helpfully entering the process (I can relay this information to them on a Listserv. to which we all belong) 4. What is the most direct and effective way of getting off the "Cleanup" note? Again I don't have a huge amount of time to search endlessly through documents to educate myself. I am not trying to cut corners--I am trying to make it more possible for me to participate effectively in the process given time constraints. Enough questions for now.

Thanks for your interest and participation,

Warmly Rob Robert RosselRobert Rossel 19:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

The sharing at RfC seems to be over. I have made a response there. Please take a look. I do hope that with everyone's effort Wikipedia will soon be the best encyclopedia ever. :-D — Instantnood 21:11 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Following up from our earlier debate, which I think (hope) ended amicably, I wonder if you would like to have a look at some photos I took in Greece recently. User:Smoddy/Greece gallery. Hope you like! Smoddy (t) (e) 20:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, these were on film. Ah the pleasures of modern technology – picture cds... And, actually, I'm vegetarian too. But the goat wasn't mine, just a good photograph! Glad you like them. Smoddy (t) (e) 23:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remove from clean up

Mel: I know what you mean by "tears" re a bunch of people working to write something together (I've been in some of those "commitee write" exercises before!) I would like to invite one or two of my colleagues (one of whom is a wonderful writer) to join in the process, just to make sure I am not distorting anything.

Thanks for removing the article from "Cleanup." I don't know why that bugged me so much. I guess it left me feeling like a kid who had made a mess in his room. Hummm.

Since nobody has stepped forward to identify the source and author of the quoted material, I think I will make a stab at rewriting the whole section in my own words with a general source attribution to one or two key references for more information. I will trust you to wikify what I write (with a promise to learn more about what is involved as I go along).

Thanks again, Rob Robert RosselRobert Rossel 01:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conscious evolution

Thanks for letting me know. I blanked the redirect, but SS kept redirecting even after an admin deleted the page again, so AndyL has recreated it, but blanked and protected. Have you noticed that User:4.250.138.88 seems knowledgeable about Marx? [1] Another who may be Dnagit is User: 24.46.117.202 (posting since Feb 18) [2], also posting as User:MeanMrMustard (since March 5) [3], whose first edit was to upload a photograph of a turd for the Feces page. [4]

I'm pretty sure Dnagod is also User:Dariodario [5] and User:Tchardin [6]. See here for a spelling-mistake analysis of their posts. [7]. Also connected to Dnagod's website (he has more or less admitted this), but too articulate to be Dnagod, is User:Harkenbane (posted once on the Jewish ethnocentrism vote, then not again until March 3) [8]. And finally, there's the less articulate User:Scandum (posting since March 5) [9], and responsible for this delightful insight [10]. SlimVirgin 05:29, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Process and content

Mel, something that might interest you: a proposal has been put forward on the mailing list that Wikipedia set up an alternative arbitration committee to respond to complaints regarding content, rather than complaints about process and behavior, which is what the current arbitration committee judges. This committee would consist of editors with PhDs, MAs, or professional expertise, who are prepared to give up their anonymity, and who would be the enforcers of the NPOV and no-original-research policies. These are currently not enforced, whereas 3RR is, which is arguably ridiculous as we're meant to be writing an encyclopedia. The proposer is 172, a long-time editor and historian, who has just stopped editing because he says he's fed up with the focus on process over content. It's not an entirely new proposal, as he's suggested it before elsewhere, and I have no idea whether the list will respond positively or otherwise. If you're interested, you can read his post here [11] and subscribe here [12] No worries, of course, if you're not interested. Best, SlimVirgin 09:01, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)