User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 36

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Fricka & LibriVox

(copied from mackinaw) I don't know who Fricka is, but there's a message on LibriVox telling everyone to hold off wikipedia for the moment till this gets sorted, so it's not anything "official" ... we do have about a thousand volunteers; and 10,000 viisitors a day; so someone, unaware of what's going on, may have just decided that the links should be there.Mackinaw 20:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I didn't vandalize

You accused me of removing templates/vandalizing - I did not do that. I'm just trying to add information to the article "The Dan and Scott Show" - which was a long-running Internet radio show that I co-created. I must have did something wrong when adding the text, I'm still learning about this Wikipedia site. I'll go back to the "Help" pages and try to figure out what I did wrong. Hopefully I'll be able to add information at another time. -S.W. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott free (talk • contribs) 21:23, 14 March 2006

Hi SW, I have recently learned: because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links/or write about that organization site etc. because neutrality is such an important -- and difficult -- objective at wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be written or linked. So even if the information you wish to write should be there, if you are directly involved in the subject of the article (for instance if you are a co-host of the show), then you should not make edits to the article directly. The accepted procedure is to post the proposed edits or links in the Talk section of the article, and let other - neutral - wikipedia editors decide whether or not it should be included. Hope that helps. Mackinaw 21:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Er, thanks for trying to help, but that wasn't the problem — largely because I'd no idea that the editor was a co-creator of the programme, and because the message in question (which I found after a tedious process of going into this page's history, finding who left the unsigned message and going to his Talk page) wasn't about The Dan & Scott Show. It was about Scott Wirkus (since deleted after an AfD), from which this editor removed the {{verify}} and {{cleanup}} templates without doing the work required. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] see also

see also should only includes link not included in the article or really important. See wikipedia policies. Thank you for the lesson. Santa Sangre 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] last on librivox

The policy says:

  1. "you should ... link to the book"
  2. "you "normally" should not link to your own site."

"normally" indicating to me that there might be exceptions. One says "do this"; the other says "normally don't that." Which takes precedence? why? This is the problem: it was very unclear to me thhat a) 2 is more important than 1; and b) why 2 is more important. If I had understood this early on, all would have been well. Probably if I did not revert the links in the first place, all would have been well too. I had drinks with some geek friends last night, and of course we discussed this. (obviously from my perspective, biased etc). But they could not get over the idea that a) the links should be there b) "people" should make the links but c) "people from libirvox" should not make the links. This is a non-intuitive conclusion when you read the policies, which I did several times, unless it is explicitly explained that 2 takes precedence over 1. That is not clear in the policies, and that is why we had problems. I suggest someone should make those changes. (my wife will kill me if I write more than this last post).

re: "blame v1": either I did a bad job understanding you, or you did a bad job of explaining to me. Probably some of both. probably lots of both. your job as admin is, I assume, to explain policy. My job is to try to try to understand. Try as I might I could not. I am stubborn. You are stubborn. But not once did you write: "2 takes precedence over 1, and here is the reason why...and here is the policy that explains this precedence." In fact if you look at the history of the discussion you'll note in several places that I asked specifcally why you were preferring 2 over 1. You did not answer. If you had things might - perhaps -- have gone differently. Or perhaps we were both too steamed at that point to communicate properly. But at one point you asked "which part is unclear"? and I explained which part was unclear, and you responded: "Pretty clear, given that the second one gives the path that you should take in order to make the first part possible." Which is precisely the part that was unclear; why should the "don't link if..." take precedence over the "do link if..."?

to a non-wikipedian, it sounds like wikipedia has a crazy policy that says: "LV links should be there, but LVers can't make the links." that is the key. it is a very non-intuitive policy, and sounds nuts. You proposed the compromise several times - post to talk - but not fully grasping the reason wikipedia has this crazy policy, and in fact not even certain that this was indedd official policy and not stubborn Mel, the compromise seemed ... wrong. Now that we understand the policy, certainly we will abide by it.

re: "blame v2": you offended many people at librivox. that's not a moral or value judgement, it is a statement of fact. whether you wished to do so, feel they should have been offended, feel you were misunderstood, or feel that librivoxers are a bunch self-important sulkers, it does not change the fact that they were/are offended, and that you were the cause of the offense (and as an official representative of wikipedia, to boot). Now, I certainly share some blame for doing and writing some things that antagonized you. I also don't know all wikipedia customs. I reverted your deletions, which I now know is verboten. I am sorry for doing that. I am also sorry that I went back on a compromise I had accepted - that was embarassing, and bad form; but I am just one of many volunteers, and if they all say screw wikipedia, there's nothing I can do. It was all very frustrating. but:

the episode is over, I and LV now understand the policy and why it is there. we will change our cataloging procedures accordingly; i assume the clear explanations from WAS were enough to cool tempers, so i imagine all will blow over. now that we understand them, we will not break rules here, & we hope not-LV-people link to our recordings in your encyclopaedia, because the links should be there.Mackinaw 23:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh good grief. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
after tempers etc cooled and on reflection & re-reading the threads, I have removed the long explanation on my talk pages...and wish to strike from the record all comments after para 1 above. They do seem unneccessary. There was a genuine & good-faith misunderstanding on my part of wikipedia policy, why it is there, and what it means (as reflected in para 1 above); that misundersanding was the heart of the problem. I made an addition to the External_links policy to clarify the question, so that the policy deals explicitly with the area that seemed vague & uncertain to me previously (ie which takes precedence, the prescriptive or proscriptive link policy). Mackinaw 17:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somerville College

Greetings:

I am curious, can I ask why you edited out my addtions to the Somerville College page, detailing former MCR and JCR presidents at the college? I had intended to modity it to add more names as I found them...

many thanks....

Nordenfeldt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordenfeldt (talk • contribs) 00:22, 15 March 2006

[edit] about the reverts of AD to CE

I won't start a war over this issue. I'm going to say however that I am dissapointed that you chose to "fix" my insertion of the proper AD/BC abreviation for the Gregorian dating system to the discriminatory and orientalist CE/BCE recently invented by a certain group of agenda driven elitists in some academic circles. As an Anthroplogist, I am of course troubled by the rise of hegemonic discourse and this dating reinvention is a particualraly egregious example. As I have posted elsewhere on wikipedia, the use of C.E. and B.C.E. are deeply offensive to me. Clearly, I'm no christian, but I have no problem using a dating system (like AD/BC) based on the rise of some religious figure, whatever their title, be it Christ or Confuscious or Julius Ceasar or whomever; if it is commonly known and used it is not a matter of accepting some religious viewpoint to refer to dates relative to the rise of a historical figure like Jesus or acknowledging the rise of a widespread religion. To be offended by a historically accepted dating system because it was established around a religious figure that we don't believe in is simply overreacting, but to then attempt to force everyone to accept an alteration of that system with an equally agenda driven view is high handed intolerance. Calling something a "Common Era" is preaching an occidental viewpoint. To whom is this era common? The answer is - Western Judeo/Christian Imperial powers established and descended from Roman institutions. After all Europeans, Jews, and Euroamericans are really the important people; really the only ones whe matter right? Those were thoughts typical of colonial mentalities, and using "Common Era" amounts to legitimising western colonialism and the orientalist worldview. The term "Common Era" excludes most people on earth and marginalizes everything that is not western history. It is rascist and bigoted and I respectfully suggest anyone who uses the term reconsider what it is they are saying and why. I doubt very much that people who advocate this term really realize what they are suggesting and I sincerely hope this message makes you think twice about it.DHBoggs 00:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Morgan

Where he was born does not define his nationality. John Morgan was educated in England, made his name in England and defined himself by his Englishness. It is a misnomer to call him Scottish and the tag was only added by a Scottish user who wishes to promote his own country at the expense of accuracy. GWP 09:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel you're wrong in this, both in your opinions and your actions. However I have no wish to get involved in tit-for-tat so inaccuracy wins the day. GWP 10:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Its not a stub, I removed which ever one happened to be on there. Did you guys really need to edit war over that? -Ravedave 15:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden Democrats (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hi there. Is there any way to take some sort of informal poll to decide the outcome of the editing war? Would it hold any ground? It would also help if you and other administrators could make suggestions to imporve the article according to Wiki policies, as SweHomer (talk · contribs) accuses Liftarn and I, the two other editors in this conflict, work for the anti-racist Expo magazine and are out to demonize the Sweden Democrats. Thus, he refuses to listen to any of our suggestions.

WGee 18:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Coppied from WGee talk. Unfortunately, before the day was out WGee launched into some forty-four edits of the article, misleadingly marked as minor (see below). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Mel Etitis, when I signed on later yesterday I saw you were involved. Started to leave you a message asking you to block Liftarn and WGee for ignoring my good advice. But I guess that's not actually a blockable offence. : ) By my reading of the talk page 36 hourrs ago (which was difficult because none of these editors were signing with 4 ~), all the involved editors were being rude and stubborn. I suspected ownership/control issues. The forty-four edits might support that problem! I don't have much time today, but I will keep the article on my watchlist. --FloNight talk 15:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
SweHomer asked me for help with his response section text. I started a subpage for Sweden Democrats editors to work on content that's not ready for the article. Talk:Sweden Democrats/Response section. Please help if you can find the time. FloNight talk 23:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to mislead anyone by marking the edits as minor; I just didn't read the article concerning the subject and I didn't even think that was governed by a policy. I also apologize for not staying true to my pledge to not edit the article for a while. A heated debate can sometimes get the best of you. And during that debate, I will admit that I was at least a little rude.
Personally, I don't think the debate had to do with control issues. I only opposed SweHomer's edits, which I feel are unencyclopedic. My edits weren't perfect of course, and I welcome change and suggestion. The debate spurred due to the allegations of one person, and although Wiki is not a democracy, I felt as though SweHomer's changes were unjustified and based on personal opinions.
And as for my edits, I honestly thought that SweHomer would support them with only very minor objections, for I addressed many of his concerns. But I guess not.
Anyway, assuming the edit conflict is over for now, I thank you for your assistance.
WGee 01:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WGee again delets

I'm getting sick of this. Obviously he think he is my superior and some sort of administrator for this page. I must be able to work under the same conditions as he does. He does not check with me before enter material to the page, but states that I have to do this. Can you do something about this? SweHomer 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Alternative"

As a professional writer and a native speaker of English, I am well aware of the fact that "alternative" is a noun and adjective. That doesn't change the fact that it was used incorrectly in your edit. For what it's worth, "alternate" is a term that is completely appropriate and common in American English as a term for a reserve athlete. It was used correctly and didn't need to be changed in the first place. A quick look through Wikipedia reveals that it is used on many athlete pages in various sports. I'm ending this discussion here, because I really do not wish to continue it. I refuse to argue with you. Mademoiselle Sabina 19:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you refer to any standard American dictionary. "Alternate" is listed as a proper noun--not slang--in Merriam-Webster, The American Heritage Dictionary and various other dictionaries. The only one I could not find a listing in was the Oxford Dictionary--ie, again, this is a proper American term and is perfectly acceptable in an article related to an American subject.
If you refuse to accept the fact that American grammar has different conventions and word usage than British English, well, there's nothing I can really say to you. "Alternate" is an acceptable term that is used in sports, arts, and other areas both in and outside of Wikipedia. Mademoiselle Sabina 23:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
After you posted your message in a section of my conversation with Mademoiselle Sabina, I believe, I have a right to write to you here. As I see, academic dictionaries are not an argument for you, then perhaps you would like to have a look at a section of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. The article in question is about an American gymnast, and quoting the Manual, "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country". But I believe, you know it already as an administrator. And one more suggestion - could you please be more polite to a newbie and refrain from personal attacks all the more that she asks for this on her user page. Cmapm 00:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MS/CM V. ME (RFC) RESOLVED

This is repeat of email (essentially) See Here FrankB 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal warning

Hi Mel, You sent me a vandal warning. I couldn't figure out why. Although I just signed up for my Wikipedia name, I have done some editing in the past (mostly minor grammar fixes) and have been careful to not be stupid. I did do a significant edit last night (my first) on the Chinatown page where I removed what seemed to be some vandalism that had stayed there for two days. Can you help me understand what I did wrong? I'm trying to learn how to be a good wikipedia user. - -David s graff —Preceding unsigned comment added by David s graff (talk • contribs) 20:06, 16 March 2006

[edit] Tsushima, etc.

  • Hi Mel!
  • I hope you're 'on' and around right now! (I just got back to Wiki in the last few days... boy have I forgotten alot!)
    • I see Tan is still mucking around in Tsushima Islands... I just dropped in there to see if I could find the template (in history) I used once to lock the edit. I guess it was another article, as I didn't see it anywhere last July in 'diff'. I'm in the middle of another major upgrade and really need to know the template syntax, so if you can drop me a quick email with a clue, I'd much appreciate it! Is there a master list? '{{busy}}' wasn't it, and apparently now wants a second argument anyway. (I just searchedseveral hundred of my contributions discriptions, and it doesn't jump out there either! HELP!) I really need to leave this for a while soon.
    • cover later ... this raises: Is there anyway to text search special pages like a history for a keyword? How about a quick way to look in a span of dates? Or Text search the history of a article itself (needed this one yesterday to find out who'd added a clean template that got morphed to a globalize without good documentation in the shorts or talk). Who can I suggest tools too?

Thanks! FrankB 20:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Cancel the urgency in my last! I found it! ('Inuse' and permutations) Thanks... and the other questions are still of interest! FrankB 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply. I find I've been Amazingly Ignorant... for untold years. I didn't know any such windows global hotkey existed outside a particular editor! I can't imagine how I've never figured that one out, and it will certainly help me hereafter! Wow! How embarrassing. But grateful!
Ahhh... It's not totally global in scope across the web. Works fine finding words on foxnews.com, but not on Dictionary.com. Still, Can't believe I didn't figure that one out (as a computeer engineer yet!) long, long ago. Got any others I can use? (If I knew what they were, I wouldn't have to ask! <g>) Still, Thanks very much indeed! (I can live with the embarrasment now that you've empowered me!) I usually use CTRL-H in windows based editors, but that's history on the web, not search and replace. Why I haven't ever stumbled over '^F', I can't but wonder. Probably never tried to use the edit dropdown menu on a webpage, but automatically use '^A', '^C' or drag and copy whatever I was grabbing.FrankB 20:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Got the Google tip- Turns out my youngest installed it on me when I let him use my machine a week back, so how would I use it to find when a template first occured in a article (i.e. someone didn't bother to document why they placed a clean on the arty and such).
    • The google toolbar or something else he did has messed up all my title bars and inactive windows along my bottom (taskbar) so I can't figure out which rectangle has what page without guessing. Just get the first letter. Annoying. Suspect I should do a recovery and/or deinstall/reinstall. What RU using for prefered browser. If I get back into this, I should probably bend and get firefox, which iirc, allows a spell checker, or has that lack been corrected for IE6? As a rule, I avoid extra software if possible, but this thing takes up so much time now that I'd best optimize to minimize the investment.
    • Any rumors out there about whether Radiant! might reconsider and come back? I just noticed she'd gone this am. Did I miss the departure of anyone else that was significant? I really wish Jimbo or the board would be more authoritarian about a few things. (See the note I left Jimbo for one I think key. Knowing you, you probably already have!). Since she's not around, can you suggest anyone that would be able to suggest a couple FA examples in the area of book reports (Hmmm... only thirty-five years or so since I last did one! re:1632 (novel) and This First).
Thanks as always. FrankB 23:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Stay Up

...on MY account! It's early evening here.

  • re:Ah, The Google toolbar won't help with first occurrence of a template — for that, I think the History is the only route.
    • Do I understand you to say that no manner of text search will find a keyword like 'disputed' (I was just dealing with a stale one of these) or are you saying that google toolbar searches won't go into the earlier documents (err... obsolescent documents, I guess is better. Your English is slipping towards mine evidently! <g>)? Well, I didn't think it would. One issue was finding the damn thing inside the edit window. You've fixed that for me with '^F', and I presume that will work inside the history to locate the same kinds of thing (clean, dispute, whatever) if the edit comment is well formulated. Or am I wrong? In any event, not sure when or how you are using the google search engine - aren't you just globally searching Wikipedia for the keyword? Have to say I'm confused, which will be no news to anyone! FrankB 00:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Just confirmed CTRL-F in history works fine on comments. Just wanted you to get a good nights sleep w/o worrying about same!<G>FrankB 00:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similar to a previous request

I'm having another conflict with one of my professors. He states that the word "it" should not be capitalized within titles of stories, reports, etcetra. I am, once again, on the opposing end and do believe that "it" should be capitalized within titles. Please, could you clear the situation for me? I would appreciate it. Thanks. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pattern of contention

Hi Mel -- Have limited time here right now, but wanted to ask you about any history/information you might have on Sean Brunnock. On the Pottery article, (see discussion page and archive) for the past couple of months, he has been a source of contention with other users. Since I've been mostly away, I've only been "hit" a couple of times. While citing Wikipedia rules, he follows by applying them to his own opinions and arguments, but not allowing the same courtesy to others. He also does not appear to understand the idea of concensus, or the fact that any given topic can be seen from differing perspectives by people in other disciplines. He also discounts any personal or professional opinions by editors, except his own, of course. I am not interested in censuring him, but I also do not see any way of working with him in a constructive manner. Any information or advice would be welcome. WBardwin 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Edit Lecture

Uh huh. Thank you for your message in regards to that unimportant issue. Karmafist Save Wikipedia 04:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confucius article

Just curious: why the reverts to the formatting changes on the Confucius article? I don't believe I've changed the content of the article any, as your last edit comment seemed to imply. By way of explanation, I think the blockquote formatting looks cleaner than using ":" indents—both in the code and in the printed version. Is there a technical reason not to use blockquote tags, or are we just having a difference of esthetic opinion? On a related note, would you mind if I re-made the numbered list formatting change to the "arrest and execution order" paragraph? As written I find it unreadable. —Ryan McDaniel 04:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Mind if I re-do the numbered list change to the other paragraph, then? —Ryan McDaniel 13:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my post was unclear. I'd like to change

When Confucius held the post of the highest officer in Lu, he issued an arrest and execution order for Shao-Zheng-Mao (少正卯), a respected person in Lu. The order gave five rather vague reasons: 1. Having a recalcitrant mind, 2. Alienating himself and refusing changes, 3. Enjoying specious arguments, 4. Broadcasting others' faults, 5. Supporting and profiting from others' bad deeds. (１.心逆而险 ２.行辟而坚 ３.言伪而辩 ４. 记丑而博 ５.顺非而泽). (This accusation of judicial murder has been denied by Confucius' admirers.)

to read instead:

When Confucius held the post of the highest officer in Lu, he issued an arrest and execution order for Shao-Zheng-Mao (少正卯), a respected person in Lu. The order gave five rather vague reasons:

  1. Having a recalcitrant mind (心逆而险)
  2. Alienating himself and refusing changes (行辟而坚)
  3. Enjoying specious arguments (言伪而辩)
  4. Broadcasting others' faults (记丑而博)
  5. Supporting and profiting from others' bad deeds (顺非而泽)

This has been interpreted as an act of judicial murder, an accusation which has been denied by Confucius' admirers.

Do you see any problems with this? Obviously I'd make the change without the hr's, I've just introduced them to offset this post from article text. —Ryan McDaniel 20:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. By "hr"s I meant the horizontal rules (<hr>s). —Ryan McDaniel 21:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Substitution

Hopefully you wond mind me saying this and is not that much of a hassle, but do you mind substituting the {{prettytable}} template under the #Awards section of your user page. I would, if I could, but yout user page is locked. I hope you don't mind! Thanks, Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

Oops. Sorry for editing one of your archives. I followed a link and didn't even notice that it was archived. I'll watch out for that in future. Still, as I said: Ha, Ha!Crusading composer 20:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think if you look at the archive to which he was referring and then click on the link for Vhjh, you'll see the reason for the Ha, Ha! AnnH ♫ 22:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, he does seem to be a little over-interested in Robsteadman's article. It would be nice if they could both keep away from each other. Things are fine with me, thanks. In fact, I've just sent you an e-mail. There are about twenty Wikipedians that I owe or recently owed e-mails to, and I'm beginning to catch up now. AnnH ♫ 23:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Over interested, Ann? No edits this year - hardly an obsession is it? I had decided that I would not bother with that man any more.Crusading composer 23:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Mel, just out of curiosity, what behaviour of mine needs to be excused? I'd be interested to know.Crusading composer 23:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Well, now I see, that even the Manual of Style is not an argument for you. BTW, you didn't mention, that you explained your controversial IMHO revert of Mademoiselle Sabina's edit as "some tidying", the remark, which I believe to be biased, and which, I think, actually provoked all further discussion.

Even if I'd had my e-mail enabled, I should not respond to you, because this would be "a conversation behind backs" of other users IMHO (sorry for my bias). And finally, I have no idea, what and to whom do you want to prove by creating a "personal account" about an involved user. I was able to track the history of that discussion without this. Cmapm 00:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've not replied, as I usually do, on your Talk page; there seems little point as you deleted my last comment. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to reply, I just archived it, because it was 42 KB long. I didn't delete your comment from the archived version and left a link to that archive on my current talk page. You are welcome to reply on my current talk page. However, I'll refactor all words, which I'll consider to be personal attack against Mademoiselle Sabina. Cmapm 10:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the "weak keep" Mel. Happy Spring...Soraya ;)

>Weak keep. Well, it claims some notability, in terms of the performances, and the Web site (among a lot of what's clearly puffery) indicates enough to make her encyclopædic I think. The article should, though, be moved to Soraya (dancer), as it's clearly about the person.<


Dear Mel,

Marhaba (greetings in Arabic) and hello. Thanks for your comments. I hope you do find me "encyclopædic". I read about you, your education and was impressed with your credentials. I took an hour trying to make my article seem interesting and tried hard to write it well. Yes, I have a BA in Anthropology, enjoy to write and express myself creatively through the art of my cultural heritage. I didn't want to come off in a way that seemed more of an advertisement or "puffy". My family heritage is Middle Eastern and I have been dancing Arabic since I was 4 years old with my family. There is such a misconception with belly dance and hence, it is my mission to try and keep it in a positive, respectful light through my personal ideologies and professionally through my carefully chosen performances. Although I am young and still have a lot to learn, I am receptive and open to ideas. Being a novelty act/ethnic dance artist/ specialty act was never an easy way to choose to make a living, but I followed my heart. This dance chose me, I didn't choose it.

I felt that it was imperative for me to learn how to successfully market and promote myself and my often misunderstood art. Unfortunately, there is such a negative image with belly dancing and that is why I strive so intently to make my site different and fun. I put much time and creative effort into the maintenance and execution of my web site. I hope you had a chance to take a look at it, see the movie clips, testimonials and photos. I hope my article doesn't end up in the trash bin! I feel like I am talking to Simon Cowell on American Idol! SMILE.

[edit] RFC

Just a heads up if you weren't aware - The 'alternative' pair have raised an RFC against you [1]. exolon 00:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My E-mail

Dear Mel,

Here is my E-mail address: SorayaEnt@aol.com

You have a very beautiful garden by the way.

Have a nice weekend...Happy Saint Patrick's Day!

Shukran,

SORAYA

[edit] RfC

I think, we all should stop editing of that page for some time. I think, we all three are close to ending the discussion, but we may become far from this if someone of us will introduce new statements into it. Cmapm 13:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have already thought of and proposed my view on the way of ending the discussion (although no agreement on whether we should end it exists from all three of us so far). Please, feel free to comment it or make your own proposal. I left a similar message on Mademoiselle Sabina's page Cmapm 14:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ending the RfC involves your deciding that it was a mistake and withdrawing it. The notion that I should apologise for some unpecified (and non-existent) personal attack on a person whose inexplicable hostility and aggression set this whole thing off is peculiar. Perhaps I can't blame you for trying to save face, but I'm afraid that I'm not going make dishonest apologies in order to help you to save it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
You can blame me for any reason, but whether you do so, depends on your honesty. Well, as concerns apologies to each other, then perhaps you should not expect similar behavior from me. I'll not neither apologize to you nor will I decline any of my statements to you through the course of the discussion. I'll also discourage from apologies another part, because I have different opinion on the direction of personal attacks (and never repented of it). However, I recognize my above mentioned mistake more and more as I suspect, that comments on the RFC are made on the "service for service" basis. I didn't come in Wiki to make friends, hence, perhaps due to this, I have no chances in the RfC discussion. As I recognize my mistake, I'll thought of withdrawing it. Cmapm 15:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bloxham

ive heard it several times although i dont have a source at hand it was in a quiz once before, do you want me to remove it?

[edit] bloxham church

sorry i forgot to mention ti was me that sent that last message about the church/newspaper quiz Thatperson 13:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bloxham church confirmation

ive just searched around and found this http://www.thisislimitededition.co.uk/item.asp?category=History&ID=570 this mentiosn that the church is the highest in oxfordshire

[edit] FYI

Yesterday, I came to your talk page to leave a message about the Sweden Democrats editing dispute. I got sidetracked by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mel Etitis/Mademoiselle Sabina and forgot to leave it. (I hope they will listen to my advice to drop the Rfc.) I wanted to let you know that I included you in my comment to these editors. Do not remove or re-insert text without discussion leading to consensus. You have been asked nicely by myself and Mel. I took out the opening paragraph and asked them not to re-insert it until agreement was reached. SweHomer reported to me last night that WGee re-inserted some text again without agreement. I was watching Kentucky basketball game and ignored them. Today it looks like they are still fighting. FloNight talk 14:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] apologies if

that edit was not kosher. Mackinaw 16:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taoism Portal

The description of Taoism on the Taoism portal contains several highly controversial statements: that Tao is the "Absolute or First Cause" and that religious Taoism can be dismissed as superstition. There are other problems with the description as well. It's really mostly nonsense. I didn't want to just jump in and possibly cause problems, but this is not good. I wonder whether a portal is even a good idea at this time. I see you edit a lot on the Taoism page, so I'm seeking your opinion. -Jmh123 17:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replaced the description with the opening paragraphs of the current Taoism article. -Jmh123 18:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note to Jack O' Lantern

Hello, I noticed in a recent post to you said that date-based categories should be listed first on articles.[2] I am not aware of any such guidelines as to what order categories should appear. I don't see order mentioned at all at Wikipedia:Categorization of people. I wonder if you could please provide a reference? Also, the Category:Living_people is not really date-based, people are in there whether they are 10 years old or 100 years old. There is actually some discussion (no consensus) on the talk page that perhaps this category should be listed last, so as to call less attention to it from casual editors. There is also discussion about renaming it to something cryptic like Category:*. This would hopefully cut down on all the people who see it and think it is a joke.
Personally, I think the category is the worst waste of time - It does nothing to protect us from libel problems because a vandal could libel (for example) Bill Gates at any of Bill Gates or Microsoft or Monopoly or Bondage or Redmond, Washington. Putting all those articles on one watchlist is a lot of work for approximately zero reward. Johntex\talk 17:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks, for the clarification. Actually, I just checked, and your exact quote was "The normal Wikipedia ordering is..."[3]. It seems like with our hundreds of policies and guidelines, that if this is "standard Wikipeida practice", someone would have condified it into a guideline by now. That is basically the definition of a Wikipedia guideline, after all. I'm not at all disputing your observation. I was just initially confused because I interpreted you to be saying that there was a guideline and I couldn't find one. Now I'm just surprised that we don't have a guideline. Johntex\talk 18:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mischa

Thanks for not reverting my changes there yet. I posed both the Irish and category questions on the talk page. I think the easiest way is just to alpha-betize it. As for the Irish - I posted a quote on her talk page - it seems she has an Irish passport. Also not clear if she's a naturalized US citizen - she only says she has a green card. JackO'Lantern 18:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This should Kill the RFC

Calling out the Calvary ... pay special attention to the second thread I posted on Tony's page. If he approves the move, I do urge the apology 'prof'! Wouldn't hurt to find a link to a real attack page and pass that along to these two newbies. They seem nice enough, now that they've cooled. I'll also offer to act as an info resource to them. Will be interested to see Tony's resolution (if he's still working). I'm going to go mop the kitchen floor while waiting or the wife will have me head! FrankB 20:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hal Turner

Mel Etitis, I respect what you've done with the Hal Turner page. I did change a couple things in response to what he did, though, and I feel they were warranted. First was the removal of an accusation from the opening paragraph, which did have a link, but the link was broken, and was to his own site, not to anything which accused him of wrongdoing. This particular edit could be seen as Original research (coming to conclusions about something from primary sources). The second thing was the "Hal Sharpton from West Bergen" which I changed to "Hal from West Bergen", since the only ghits which refer to him as the former are Wikipedia mirrors, and there are many ghits for the latter. Lastly, the date of "Rally against violence" which I really don't know anything about, so I just left it. That one doesn't really matter, but the first two I think should change. If I don't hear back from you, I'll revert to my version in about 15 minutes. Thanks, Makemi 23:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bar Kokhba links

I thought links to the Hebrew terms, on an album entitled "Bar Kokhba" about a Jewish revolutionary, were entirely on target and relevant to anyone wanting to understand the music and the motivation behind naming the tracks after those terms. Is it not possible that a user who is not knowledgeable about Bar Kokhba or Hebrew would think the title and tracks were just so much gibberish? Wikipedia is about educating, providing links where perhaps readers might not even think to look for them. Finally, what's it hurt? Anyway, I think you are off the mark, but I'm not going to get into a war about it. I'll ask you to rethink, that's all, and if you see my point, please put the links back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephconklin (talk • contribs) 01:27, 19 March 2006

[edit] David Duke!

"Incidentally, what is this 'white nation', to which 'white nationalist' apparently refers? If I gave him the money, would Duke go and agitate there?" Nearly dislocated a jaw laughing at that :) WookMuff 04:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your perspective

Mel Etitis, I saw that you have commented on an incident involving InShaneee. I've taken the question of InShaneee's neutrality or lack thereof, to another administrator [4] as a first step before filing an official complaint, if needed. Your comments would be appreciated given that you are familiar with the case. --ManiF 12:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I beg you to take closer look into this issue as a neutral administrator. For an administrator with such a rigid interpretation of what constitutes a "personal attack" when it comes to the Iranian editors ([5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]), InShaneee's indifference, or reluctance to deal with several comments containing similar "personal attacks" by the other side, reported to him by the Iranians editors ([10], [11], [12] and [13]), seems very questionable. What is more troubling is InShaneee's endorsement of a statement in favor of user:Aucaman on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman, a page full of evidence of Aucaman's civility infractions, which perfectly comply with InShaneee's interpretation of what constitutes a personal attack. To me, such behavior demonstrates an enormous inconsistency in the enforcement of wikipedia rules on InShaneee's behalf. --ManiF 14:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mongoloid

Hey, you might want to semi-protect Mongoloid - most of the recent edits have been by the 80.138.x.x vandal. -- infinity0 13:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good to know you're out there

It's good to know I can apparently rely on you now to edit all my punctuation and incorrect linking. Have I become your latest project? user:josephconklin

  There you go again.

[edit] Re: Summaries

Sir, I know about summaries. It's nice to have some security though, and I understand since I sometimes forget to enter the appropriate summaries.

I like your talk page :). Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Speedy Delete this typo

Sheese- I'm up tooooo late. please speedydelete this mistook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurent_system&redirect=no

FrankB 07:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hell Mel, that was two hours ago. You must be slowing down. I'm going to bed NOW!

(Nested Marathon edit spree) FrankB

re: this why's this saying top all over the place? Still not bad, about 35 quality edits!FrankB re:top

I don't really know, I'm afraid, but at a guess I'd say that it means that your edit was the latest on that article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fabartus"
Duh... Yah, makes sense. (New thing, yes? –Yawn—24.61.229.179 18:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank Mr. Etitis

Weak keep. Well, it claims some notability, in terms of the performances, and the Web site (among a lot of what's clearly puffery) indicates enough to make her encyclopædic I think. The article should, though, be moved to Soraya (dancer), as it's clearly about the person. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The article's creator has just left me a message explaining that she is Soraya. That changes matters, of course; nevertheless, I still think that the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant an article, and if the result of this AfD is "delete" because the aryticle is self-promotion, I'd be happy to create an article myself (at Soraya (dancer)) based on material I can find on the Web, including her Web site. Would that be acceptable? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


Thank you very much Mr. Etitis.

Happy Spring,

SORAYA - Belly Dancer ;)

SorayaEnt@aol.com www.bellydancebysoraya.com

[edit] Iqbal

I am little disturbed why have you reverted my last edit on Iqbal? I am only trying to make it a better article. If you have any problem with any section or part please write it in the talk. I removed some redundent information (like name in persian which was wrong and extra). His birth and other details are to be discussed in his biography as per other articles. Regading his writing Indian national song, its related to the works and can be mentioned there, and please do check similar articles. Thanks --Falcon007 23:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Namco articles and 3rr, fighting with User:Gingerfield Rocks

You have now violated the 3 revert rule, with adding and removing of hte dates of the namco arcade games. I am volunteering myself to act as a mediator in this situation. Please explain to me why you want the dates to be removed from the Namco arcade pages. Are they incorrect? Please explain your view.--larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I haven't violated 3RR (see, e.g., [14] & [15]; you seem not to have understood the policy — it forbids reverting more than three times in twenty-four hours, not reverting more than three times over a period of weeks). Secondly, a glance at User talk:Gingerfield rocks, as well as at the Talk pages of many of the articles in question, should answer your questions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I apolgize for the 3rr statement, but it is becoming more and more frequent. On Pistol Daimyo no Bouken there were 2 reverts made in 31 hours, which is not in violation, but its not necessariyl a good thing either. In terms of the release dates, I realize that there are questions of verifaibility, but Arcade-History backs it up, althoguh the point is made that it is a user driven database. I think effort needs to be made to find out the correct release dates (perhaps from promo flyers, arcade flyers, or somethign like that) and to settle this issue for once. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Postgraduate education

(1) Sarcasm is not neccessary, thanks ;-) (2) Do a simple search on Google, and check out my comments on the talk page Thanks Helzagood 22:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)