User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 50

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Somali clan

I don't want a stupid revert war, but I think my version was more accurate. All sources seem to indicate that Rahanweyn is a larger grouping, although they disagree on whether it includes Digil or not. It's therefore incorrect to use and when talking about these 3 groups. Also they occupy a second tier. This is not a direct consequence of the 3 reasons given, but rather they explain the relative isolation. I was trying to improve on my original text.

My understanding of National varieties of English is that since I started the article, my preferred dialect (British) has precedence. Serial commas are not the norm for us, and make this passage inconsistent with the usage in the rest of the article. Harvard referencing indicates the page with a colon, see How to cite sources

Best wishes Gailtb 10:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure what you're saying about citations. The references are already at the bottom of the page. I basically want to revert, not to change. Serial comma indicates that they are less common in British English, but the most important thing is for the article to be consistent in usage. All or none of the lists should use it. Gailtb 10:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hey

i never knew u were corrupt to your playing a bad game you i dont want anymore admin being bent and deateing people without saying why i caught you commiting crime --Butterrum 10:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)×

If I could understand you, I might know what you were talking about, and if I knew what you were talking about, I could reply properly. The best that I can make out is that you're trying to make a personal attack; the only reason that I don't take further action is that it's so inarticulate that no-one could possibly take you seriously even if they could work out what you were saying. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replt To Lyrics

First of all it should not say lyrics if it isnt going to be lyrics. Also it had been suggested and requested that the lyrics be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keano62871 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 March 2007

[edit] IPKF, and deletion edits by Jacksonanthony

Hi Mel, This guy called Jacksonanthony keeps deleting some sections from the IPKF page that alleges human- rights violation by this force. Other than the fact that he's trying to delete referenced sections in blatant POV pushing, I have a funny feeling he may be a sockpuppet of User:IAF.

I had an edit war with him last year in the same page last year, and he used to delete the exact same section. I tried to talk to him about the NPOV and referenced section and stuff but he admitted that he thought the allegations were propaganda and he deleted it because he could not allow LTTE propaganda into the page. This Jacksonanthony guy is deleting the exact same section, and the account is being used only for this purpose. I have warned him once, but I am sure he's going to keep doing this. Any idea what to do at all?Rueben lys 17:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

CheersRueben lys 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

How would you do it? Shaneymike 18:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is everything satisfactory in regards to all the critieria for archiving? Please take a look: User_talk:ShaneymikeShaneymike 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thank you very much. Shaneymike 19:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straight Outta Lynwood

Could you explain both the mis-capitalisation and the move protection (why some consider moving it)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Socby19 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fools Dance | Presence | Babacar

I realize that all articles relating to these bands most likely do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for noteworthy muscial achievements, and I am prepared for the worst case scenario should an administrator decide to delete them because of that. The reason that I started them up in the first place is that I'm a big Cure who is also interested in all the other projects that some of the other band members have been involved with. I can see why The Glove merits an article because they were a supergroup involving two members who had already achieved fame in other bands. Actually, truth be told Babacar qualifies as a supergroup; I'll go ahead and categorize it. But what about Fools Dance and Presence?

Like I said, the reason I created those articles was that I assumed other people might be interested in knowing more about them, and they would have liked to have a readily available source. Is that a legitimate reason to have them in place? Shaneymike 20:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Shaneymike 21:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need help!

Hiya! I am a big fan of Wikipedia and love to contribute and read. However I recently change my skin appearance of Wikipedia in "My Preferences" and it doesn't want to change back. I have even done the Control + F5 thing after changing my settings. I love using Wikipedia but don't think I will ever get used to this horrible skin I have chosen and may have to stop using the site if no-one can help me. Anyway I hope you are having a pleasent day! Please send me a message if you can help! Cls14 20:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be working now. I changed it on another computer in the end. Thanks for your patience when I was about to go mad! I dont know if you watch The Simpsons but Wikipedia and myself have the same relationship as Homer and the TV. So I hope that Wikipedia and myself don't have to fight anymore! All the best! Cls14 21:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It was a close run thing, lol. So what sort of things do you like to contribute to Wikipedia? I like writing about geographic things like settlements, rivers and lakes. Also about soccer teams/players and thespians. Cls14 22:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Under the Influence - 21 years of Flying Nun Records (2004)

Why did you remove the quotations from this page? I believe the quotes that they give enrich the understanding of what happened during the recording sessions. tom

[edit] Spaced en dashes

Mel, very soon after I posted something here you happened to archive the page. Because there is something instructive in what I wrote, I reproduce it here for your attention:

Mel, you write earlier: "I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the en-rule ought to be flanked by spaces in this case; not in the guides to typography that I've read. Do you have a source for that?" I take it then that you are unfamiliar with such standard and current resources as The Penguin Working With Words, The AGPS Style Manual, Karen Schriver's Dynamics in Document Design, and The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Of these, one implicity and three explicitly require spaces around a range-marking en dash when either of the joined elements includes spaces, or is otherwise compound. Lonewolf's usage has impeccable backing. As I myself found, many months ago, your attitude to such things is very doctrinaire and high-handed. I appeal to you to check your facts and your manners before barging in like that. –Noetica 05:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

–Noetica 00:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Ptpgta 01:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ptpgta, tell me where you start losing track of what I have written, and I'll explain. You can find my post in its original context here, if you're really interested. In any case, it needn't matter much to you. The message is for Mel. –Noetica 03:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fraud

i see you and Klyptzm love to fraud people that is vandlizum and can resolt to the stripping of your rank or even be blocked i know this because i tol.d a clean admin about this bent admin on this site--Butterrum 02:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] RFC discussion of User:CineWorld

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of CineWorld (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CineWorld 1. -- Real96 07:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Nairs

Hi Mel, This crap has suffered further at your hand by mistake. Your reversion yesterday removed valid content. Since somebody did more edits no reversion can reinstate the lost crap. I mean this one. Can you afd it?

[edit] hey i've noticed a false error

you stated that ptpgta is a puppet of Craxy this is false hes a good adminator trying to get these bad adminators and this bad user from geting a hold and thinking they can own the page i just want you to please stop this junk you people start if your a admin like you state be a good one you don't even have proof hes Craxy or Klyptzm has any proof as well i don't no one dose so i state this complaint to have this unlawful action to cease and unblock him till you have proof please you don't need to increase his time ether because i backed him up i wanna make wikipedia a clean place not a corrupted one --Liberty City's Miguel 14:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kl4Uz

And what about his votes? Don't you think that there's something strange about his contributions? --Checco 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I was asking you something different: isn't he a sockpuppet or a single-use account? And, in general, can a user with few edits vote in a poll? Is there a treshold of edits to surpass? --Checco 16:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
But can we strike his votes or do we need to count them? --Checco 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I ensure you that this is the last comment on your talk page... So, the rule is "leave comments, do not count votes". Ok? --Checco 17:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
In the future, I think we'll need your mediation in that page: you can easily see that some votes are very ideological, while the proposal was only to uniform the title with titles of all the other articles about Italian Provinces. Thank you for now. --Checco 17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken from my talk page, however, as an admin - I would like it if you could address his insults and comments accordingly. I would also like confirmation of his vote to be striken as it is a single-use account. Thank you for your assistance! Rarelibra 17:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you unstrike Kl4Uz? --Checco 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I was proven that the account is single use - why you fail to see this, I don't understand. But please - I don't take kindly to threats. Do not threaten me. Period. Thanks for the advice, we'll handle the user by editing out all further attacks... seeing how that doesn't get him blocked, anyway (but striking the vote gets a threat). Rarelibra 19:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't change my mind: I said "the rule is leave comments, do not count votes" and you answered "that's right". Anyway it doesn't matter: things are probably too much complicate for me, as the fact that "votes can be given more or less weight according to the reasons given and the person making it". --Checco 22:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TGBBQ PAGE

Can i ask why you removed my adds to tgbbq page as the presenters i added where all correct and i don't need sources

James Callow (was on on monday) Alan Ennis (ON TGBBQ right Now) Abby Surgeon (on tgbbq last night)

Check the website scheduals i watch tgbbq everyday and i know alot about that channel and you keep changing all of my edits back why?? message me please

Michael —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelmark91 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] FYI

FYI - It's a common misconception that it's appropriate to try to force users to keep some kind of brand of shame on their pages. Please see "User space harassment" in Wikipedia:Harassment, and several threads archived on WP:ANI, e. g. this and this. The templates about not removing warnings, and the block threats, are for anonymous vandals, not for cases like this. I have a right to remove anything I like from my userpage(s). After all, there is a block log that is easily accessible (as you know) and is for the sole purpose of seeing any and all user history and block history. Rarelibra 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I will kindly let you know that if you read above, you will see that what I am doing is fully allowable... but what you are doing by forcing the issue, if anything, is potentially harassment and borderline 3RR violation. I have discussed this many times with various admins... so I was trying to let you know. The issue is done, I read the talk page, I am moving on. There really is no need for the insistence you are bringing. Please... Rarelibra 20:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked sock

Who is Liberty City's Miguel (talk · contribs) a sock of? John Reaves (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. I found the user at CAT:UNBLOCK so I guess it's an obvious decline. John Reaves (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Have any of the socks ever e-mailed you? If so what were the first halves (i.e. before @) of the e-mails. (I'd like to compare them to the e-mail I just received). Feel free to e-mail me if you have privacy concerns. John Reaves (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, it's the same. Thanks. John Reaves (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leonard Feather

  • Blush* Why thank you kind sir; it's not every day a young lady gets such a nice compliment.--Newport 21:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Gaalkacyo

There's probably no site out there to prove otherwise. It's irrelevant what you believe anyways. I'm from there. And the facts on the ground speak for themselves. Every Somali knows that Gaalkacyo was started by three clans, the Leelkase, Majerteen and the Sacad who were late commers to Gaalkacyo. If i come across a somali site that can make things more clear for you, will cite it. in the mean time, this is nothing to loose sleep over.

[edit] Wikipedia:Dead external links/301/m

Hi Mel, I wonder whether you can help. I just tried to remove the reference on this page to Mel Hague because the link [1] is definitely not dead. Anyway, when I tried to save my change I got an anti-spam message saying that one of the other links on the page is blacklisted. Given that this is a list of dead links it's not particularly surprising. What do you think I should do? If you respond to me it may be a little while before I acknowledge - away for a couple of days. Thanks. SMeeds 10:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talkpages

Re: [2]. I totally agree that Jeff's responses have been highly uncivil and have more than crossed the line on personal attacks. However, I don't think people should be forced to receive messages from those they have expressly asked not to post on their talkpages. They are well within their rights to delete unwanted messages. WjBscribe 14:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beautiful Liar

Just for future reference, for most articles about modern music, R&B should link to Contemporary R&B, not Rhythm and blues. Thanks for cleaning out that article, by the way. ShadowHalo 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spic (slur)

The source you added supports my initial premise that the correlation between the term "Hispanic" and "spic" is not valid. However, in order to improve the article I feel the need to remove incorrect theories with no source to back them up (as for any article, not this one in particular). I'll check the article in a couple of days, maybe someone else will venture into adding a reputable source that discusses such correlation otherwise I will remove it again. Have a good day. --FateClub 17:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding theories without specifically mentioning that the sources you are adding consider them false will mislead the reader, IMHO. As it stands, this false theory is in equal standing with the other ones. Such correlation is a misconception and this articles does not help much into clearing it. The purpose of an article is to enlighten, not to confuse someone by mixing false theories with those supported by those in the field indiscriminately. --FateClub 17:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You said "What part of what I said above was unclear", then I must apologize too for not being clear enough. Let's look into what you keep adding in detail, shall we?
<<Finally, a third theory is that the word "spic" is from the shortening of the word "Hispanic".[2]>>
However, [2], especifially considers it a wrong assumption, while the wikipedia lists is as a "theory"... hardly.
<<All three theories are in line with standard naming practices>>
The wikipedia article is somehow defending this assumption, and not only that but in the same standing as the other ones.
In summary, that is why I believe that as it is, the paragraph is misleading and better gone. --FateClub 18:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Because I do not think spending much time on a bad assumption is worth the time or space in the article. The purpose of an article is to show what something is, not what something is not and why it is not that. If you'd like to spend sometime clarifying that the "third" "theory" is a baseless and incorrect assumption go ahead, that would certainly improve the article. For now, unsourced (the source does not describe it as a theory, but rather an assumption) content that is incorrect has no place in an article. --FateClub 18:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but this article does not mention that the third "theory" is an "error", and not only that but it appears to defend it <<All three theories are in line with standard naming practices>>. --FateClub 19:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course, isn't this what we all do here? --FateClub 20:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If they delete chunks of incorrect information they are certainly improving the articles. Just imaging adding random pieces of incorrect information on each article and then labeling them as "bad assumptions" with no sources to back them up. My grandma has plenty of them, but I will certainly not include them in articles as "theories", just because granma says "this" or "that". --FateClub 20:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I certainly did not mean to offend you and this is not an issue of who wins or loses. It is not about giving in but reaching concensus, and it is not about you and me (that is why I plan to wait out a few days until somebody else modifies the article). Please do not take these matters personal, because they should not be. I generalize to assure you that I do not have a special connection with the article, or the topic but whenever I find material that is objectionable I either modify it or remove it (when it is incorrect). The Grandma was an example, a real one, she does have opinions on lots of topics and many of them are incorrect, whether they are personal thought or she shares misconceptions with the general population that is something I have not analyzed. The point is that mere opinions or misconceptions do not have a place in an article. --FateClub 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I never assumed the wrong information was added from bad faith, never did, although I was taken aback as far as why you added wrong information with no reference after I removed it, but still I never hold grudges. The information was unsourced (therefore removable), and it never specified whose misconception is it (making it irrelevant if it is not a popular, generalized, common misconception), plus... again, the article never mentions it as a bad assumption. AGF on me too, I never meant to offend you (I am not evil) or to damage the article in any way (I do have a life). Simply put, I removed incorrect information with no source to back it up. --FateClub 21:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel like we are going in circles here. You did add a source... however, as I explained it above, the source you add it mentions the assumption is incorrect (which was exactly my reason for removing it), while the article not only fails to mention that but calls it a "theory" and pretty much that it makes sense. <<All three theories are in line with standard naming practices>>. I am not the one assuming that bad assumption has any value... therefore I am not the one who has to rephrase it to make it look good. I find no value in that "theory", as it is incorrect... supported by your own source. He who considers it valuable should improve the phrasing to justify its existence, not the ones who find no value in it. --FateClub 21:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I feel the language you are using in this discussion is rather hostile (IMHO "what part of what I said above is unclear" and now you think there is a problem with my understanding of the English languate), if it remains this way I rather take a break for a few days for the discussion to cool down. If this issue is so important as to "win" a discussion and keep the incorrect information, you will have it for... let's say... a week? Now, assuming good faith, here it goes: Theory means either baseless assumptions or science-based assumptions. This distinction is not made in the article, if someone does not care examining the souce you are provided they will be mislead and assume it is a scientific theory, based on research, rather than a careless assumption based on the commonality of 4 letters in both "hispanic" and "spic". --FateClub 21:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes... that and the excessive number of dots in "................ improved.........................." and "good grief" may be also considered hostile by others. If you think my understanding of the term theory is incorrect you may want to point it out in the wikipedia article, since I simply summarized it for you. Do you have a different opinion on the term theory in the meantime? --FateClub 21:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not object as it being categorized as an incorrect theory. It currently is labeled as a "theory... in line with standard naming practices". I thought we had been over this by now. As in regards to the inclusion in this article we must justify it. I never say "1 and 1 is <<2>>, although a theory says it is <<11>>". --FateClub 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bebo image

You're right. Updating it every week would be excessive, and probably futile. But if someone wants to contribute a newer screen grab, I see no reason to stop them. Also, you'll note that the new image incorporates a slightly updated Bebo logo. --Enter The Crypt 21:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maggie Nicols

Thanks a lot for your careful (wonderful experience!) and helpful editing! Hope that last paragraph is now understandable. At least one source is cited now. Main features of the article are translated from the German Wikipedia. --Annamarie Ursula 12:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject University of Oxford

WikiProject University of Oklahoma

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Oxford. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Casper Gutman 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review of Jesus College

Hi there! As you've previously taken a constructive interest in the Jesus College, Oxford article, I'd be very interested in hearing any comments you might have on ways to improve it at the peer review page. I'd love to get it up to at least WP:GA level — don't see why Oriel College should be so much better represented than anywhere else on here with its WP:FA status and all! Casper Gutman 15:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Basset

You like tidying up other's non-wiki format work, why not have a go at this page, needs your unique touch... :o)

[edit] Sam's speech link removal by you

If Sam Pitroda's speech in his original voice recorded perfectly is linked on his wiki page. Whats wrong in it ? It has been downloaded 75 times and being listend more than that. We do'nt charge for listening. Do you want internet and wiki to stay only providing text and text links ? Do not you want to drive wiki in audio video related links ? Whats the problem with you man that you are deliting his mp3 speech link ? I will rewrite this page thousands of time after you remove this link because I belive in wiki and in technology and that this link is not only proper but neccesory for this page. I will stop this only if I am convinced that I am wrong and you are right. Please get back to me on <email removed for your protection> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.231.6 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 25 March 2007

[edit] The beginning, Melody Thornton

Was only wondering why a statement like "Tracklist confirmed by herself on March 21, 2007" in The Beginning (Melody Thornton album) don't need to be sourced correctly. Thanks. --Strangnet 13:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Madam or Sir,

Be advised that this message constitutes acknowledgement of your message of 25 March 2007 entitled "Formatting." Otto4711 18:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Madam or Sir,

This is to acknowledge receipt of the addendum to your previous message entitled "Formatting." While I am mystified as to why you felt the need to bring my parents into this by questioning my upbringing, let me rush to reassure you that should you or any other editor leave a message on my talk page to which I do not feel a response is required, I will remove it from my talk page without notifying that editor. The editor is certainly free to make any assumptions about me or my upbringing that he or she wishes to make. Both of your messages shall now be deleted, and should you leave future similar messages they too will likely fall before my mighty delete key. Otto4711 18:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 25

Why did you speedy delete an AfD log page? --Metropolitan90 21:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 25

I have restored Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 25. If you want to delete it again, please give a better reasoning, thanks. -- ReyBrujo 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see you may have tried to delete one of the articles inside. No worries :-) -- ReyBrujo 21:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Guessed as much, after reviewing the CSD tag :-) -- ReyBrujo 21:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GnoSoft deleted? Why? Kuju Entertainment next? Should I continue adding data on the rest?

I lost some time gathering data on:

  1. GnoSoft
  2. Kuju Entertainment
  3. I-Play
  4. Babaroga
  5. Distinctive Development
  6. Fuel
  7. Tira Wireless
  8. Blue Lava

and other Mobile Games Developers to fill in the very big blanks Wikipedia has on the matter.

I wonder if I spent my time well after seeing this attitude...

Thank you, Mobiler Mobiler 21:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you express your thinking here as I seem unable to follow you.

What's wrong with those Mobile Game Developers? Or the way I filled in content? Do you want sources? Look below: - http://www.iplay.com/ - http://www.gnosoft.com/ - http://www.kuju.com/ ... If you have the time and the will please explain me what am I doing wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobiler (talk • contribs) 21:50, 25 March 2007

[edit] Beautiful Liar

Yes, I think the Amazon images would be better than the iTunes one since singles are usually recognized by the covers of the physical singles rather than the digital ones. ShadowHalo 08:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot template for the article "Ain't Miss Bahavian"

why is their a plot template for this article in the first place? Is it too long or it seems to be copyright because i'm the one who typed up the summary for this article and i can tell you for sure that it's not copyright.--Kid1412 10:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Signature

I've tweeked my signature to remove some redundant code that was used to ensure proper formatting when I first created it. However, I would suggest that next time that you have an issue with someone's signature, kindly take it to their talk page, as making such a comment on RFCN is really not appropriate. Thanks much. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 13:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit on cymbals-Please help!

To Mr. Mel Etitis:

Dear Sir;

I am new to Wikipedia as a contributor. I have used Wiki as a resource many times before for subjects of interest. My only contributed input was on cymbal companies. My edit was removed because you felt it was for comercial purposes. I assure you it was not. I added two new companies, Agean and Turk Masters. I also wanted to add others such as Istanbul Agop, Mehmet Agop (A & M Agop are now two totally different entities) in addition to Turkish (Orkestra Zillieri) and many others including companies that do not exists anymore.

I am interested in the history of cymbals as musical instruments, tools of war, etc.

Turkish cymbal went through quick changes that happened during the late 1920's and early 1930's. It was a reluctant cymbal maker; A. Zildian, suddenly thrust into the family business in the New World that made changes that took cymbals to a whole new level and insured the survival of the family business. He, Avedis Zildijian, in conjunction with suggestions from Jazz drummers took the cymbal as an effect only and created many types of cymbals that we use today. Thus he created a whole new use for cymbals that changed American music. He took the drummer from the dark to the limelight.

The history of cymbals is very important to me. I am searching for pictures and dates of pre 1929 cymbals from Orchestras and Philharmonic societies as well as museums and collectors.

Two of my credits are lost films I found and restored, then donated to the American Film Institute. They are in The William Salas Collection. The names of these silent films are Tom Mix “The Sheriff and the Rustler” 1913 and Tom Mix “The Man from Texas” 1915. Both were Selig Polyscope films shot in and around Prescott, Arizona.

I would greatly appreciate your help in teaching me how I can contribute to Wikipedia.

Thank you.

Best regards;

William Victor Salas—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cymbalmaker (talk • contribs) 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Civility

With regards to your comments on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. The Behnam 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:The Behnam. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The Behnam 18:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop templating the regulars Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

For those who wonder what this is about, I was one of a number of editors who expressed mild amusement at The Behnam's vote to block an account indefinitely because the user name "young and sexy" "[r]efers to incitement of sexual desire"... He then sent us all templated warnings about our appalling rudeness. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI#Admin_civility

A discussion related to the above incident has been started on WP:AN/I; thought you'd like to know. auburnpilot talk 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Sorry for using the warning templates. I should have left a real note. The Behnam 19:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Betacommand

I brought up the threat at WP:ANI mostly in reference to the request for comment regarding his username actions there. All of the names I have listed occured after the initial request for comment, however have not happened in the past week or 2. I would not be adverse to unblocking him to let this get sorted out however, i am not in support of his actions overall and feel that he has abused his admin powers in several ways. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you recently blocked him, I think you should say something at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Betacommand. I'll list you as a formal party unless you object strongly. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Charoog10

No worries, Mel. I noticed he says on his userpage that he is 12-years-old. I sure wish parents would stop treating us like babysitters. Sarah 18:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amos Han Talk 19:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this better? Amos Han Talk 19:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reddy

what the hell? i was editing the reddy page with the correct information and you say im vandalisng it!? do u have any source that says the information that you give is right? because i do and i've been editing it with the correct information and you havent! so please just leave the page as it is....dont change it because all the information i give is correct!! i am not a vandlist, i love wikipedia and want to contribute to it....and infact you are the vandalist by editing it as you like! but im editing it with the correct information unlike you mate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangstadude (talk • contribs) 21:47, 26 March 2007

[edit] ???

If you are the person who keeps changing the cover could you please place a reference saying where you got it from. Why remove a cover that has a reliable source with one that is mispelled with a picture from a magazine photoshoot? I will just keep removing it until you place in the discussion a source for the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtaylor1689 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 March 2007

[edit] The 'Wait a Minute' Cover

I don't want to argue over something so trivial, but how can I be accussed of not having a source for the actual cover when the one displayed does not have one? Here is the link for my source: http://amazon.de/o/ASIN/B000N87ZM0/ref=s9_asin_image_1/302-3289337-0287221?pf_rd_m=A3JWKAKR8XB7XF&pf_rd_s=center-3&pf_rd_r=03DQVJHKT6BDPAFNAK2Z&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=125823191&pf_rd_i=301128

It has the front and back cover of it.

I'm new at this (as you can tell!) but I will leave an edit summary from now on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.98.154 (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] You're welcome

Hey, you're welcome for that. It's so nice to have one message on my talk page thanking my work, as I spend a lot of time reverting vandalism. Out of all of the bad edits I revert, there's that one that I made a mistake on, and they just clutter my talk page with them. Good luck with your own editing, anyways! Thanks! BlackBear 22:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your garden is very beautiful 69.230.77.155 23:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)user:penubag

  • my reply: *It is very beautiful, please do post a picture of how it looks now. --Penubag 04:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)penubag

[edit] reddy

ok man tell me where the spelling mistakes are? show me where the formatting errors are? and i do know alot about reddy's and i bet you didnt even know what reddy meant before you became a moderator for wikipedia! and what you think your, your own sorce of information? so do you know everything about reddys' since you said this "I know and you don't doesn't constitute providing a verifiable source". i have actual sources unlike you mate!!!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangstadude (talk • contribs) 21:47, 26 March 2007

[edit] Reddy

OK, so if i correct all the spellings and give sources you;ll keep the page as it is right? fine i'll get sources for you! and sorry for taking that notice at the top of the page off!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangstadude (talk • contribs) 21:47, 26 March 2007

[edit] Reddy

OK man from now on i will give references and sources!! Thanks!!!

[edit] Jajouka/Joujouka

Hi Mel, i've just undid your redirect of the album. There has been an edit warring which lasted for months. In fact, the issue is a bit complicated and both groups exist (compare Master Musicians of Jajouka and Master Musicians of Joujouka) and both groups got their own version of the album. For more details please refer to talk pages of all related articles. It is just a big big headache. I am planning to visit the village of Jajouka?/Joujouka? soon to witness the truth myself. An encyclopaedist becoming a journalist reporter!!!-- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 12:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First, you reverted – without the courtesy of an explanation – a merge and redirect that had been proposed and discussed, with no objections. As an encyclopædia we shouldn't be party to a squabble between msuicians; we should present the facts as best we can, within policies such as WP:CITE, etc. Having two articles on the same album, with virtually no content in the one that wasn't in the other, just because people have had a spat about what it should be called, is surely absurd; we should have one article that explains the reader what the issues are.
Secondly, please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
First, i am sorry to say that your tone is not appropriate and sound like a school lesson! Just after reverting i came to your talkpage to explain to you gently the facts that you are not really aware of. That's the etiquette we should be talking about! Aren't you in a good mood today?
Second, i haven't marked the revert as minor in purpose. It was a mistake.
Third, i am glad i am getting rid of this this contentious issue. It has made me sick. Good luck w/ the edit warriors when they are back. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
My apologies — all I saw was your revert, marked as minor and with no explanation. Your message on my Talk page got lost, because it was followed by lots of others. If I'd seen it, my response would have been differently worded. Still, to be fair, my edit summary pointed to the Talk page, where the Move discussion and consensus could be found, and you could have seen that I was fully aware of the background.
Anyway, I hope that all's well that ends well. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 ;) No worries Mel. I thought you believed the message below was part of my message. It could have happened to me as well. So no personal issues here of course. Actually i saw the section about re the consensus to move but i still suspect the edit warriors would be back anytime. :( -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Mel, a merge is good but not when you state that a group that is trading in the commercial world is the artists on this record as opposed to the actual artist on the original recording MMO Joujouka. That uis contentios and non factual. I am also an academic but as a historian am more concerned with the examination of the course of events , the primary sources and the abolistion of ambiguity or done right mistruth. You need to 1/ read what has been said before on the discussion pages as has been pointed out to you on your talk page by another admin 2 having done that not assert that a recent artist in the World Music business is the artist on this record as per public relations exercises.

I have the original and the re issue It is not philosophy , it has all been discussed in the media, use those sources. Howeevr you mustr read the archived and non archived disscussions on the variuos related pages on Wikipedia before you take a high moral tone here.

You can not link this album to Bachir Attras Jajo=jouka nad not to the original group who recorded the original album.

The page could be 1 The history of the record 2 the original release 3 the controversy surrounding the reissue as reported in Independant, Evening Standard, The Wire, The NY Times etc etc


that is the history

As it stands your "mergeing" is promoting a single POV that of Bachir Attar's management and his group. That is ahistorical, unscientific and sorry , bad research.


Block Trinity College Dublin's IP if you wish, there will be many updates from hundreds of wikipedians blocked by that action.

Mel. Though you are to be congratulated on the work of merging the two pages, I am afraid you have let some POV into the garden. The idea that the group that recorded on Sub Rosa is somehow not a continuation of the original Masters who recorded for Jones is false. By including it, you are perpetuating the POV put forward by the Jajouka (with an A) faction, who would like nothing better than to write the Joujouka (with an OU) group and Mohamed Hamri out of the picture entirely. I will elaborate on this shortly when I have time. Suffice it to say that you have managed to perpetuate some of the contentious issues despite your attempts to avoid that. Jonur 16:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned obscurity

> Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. > It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising

I do not understand why you removed a link to a software used in network monitoring in a topic named "software used in network monitoring".

Moreover, why do you say it is spamming ???

Spamming means sending "unsolicited bulk messages". I think you made a mistake since I've not sent unsolicited bulk messages...

I only added a link to a software used by thousands of people, in the appropriate listing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenyo (talk • contribs) 14:16, 27 March 2007

[edit] Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 13 26 March 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wait a Minute

Sorry if I sounded accusing! Someone has been stressing me out adding a fake cover to the section and I am not really sure how to cite the real one. Do I just put the new picture up and place the source to it at the bottom of the page with the others? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.98.154 (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Craxy Sockpuppeting nonsense

GtaXl (talk • contribs • count) is clearly a sockpuppet of Craxy; when he first began editting, I noticed right away that he was a puppet, but, because I actually thought about giving him a chance, I let him alone since he didn't begin to antagonise me. Everything was fine, until I tried to tell him that something he suggested would not be plausible. He's began where he left off at his "Ptpgta" name: leaving hostile messages and removing my replies. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks :)

I'm sorry I seemed a bit annoyed, I fully misunderstood the situation and I apologise if I sounded accusing. I think I have added the image officially, and I feel it's met the fair use, but I would appreciate if you could double check for me, you seem to know more about this than I do.

Thanks again for all your help!  :)

[edit] ??

"Pipe them properly...existing categories?", I'm sorry please explain what you mean, I might not be familiar with some of these terms. I didn't change anything I just added links and categories. Thank you as this could help me become more familiar in wiki--Kathanar 20:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I do appreciate it, even despite my time on wiki, I'm still learning the ropes so to speak :-) --Kathanar 12:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Attribution

There has been an extensive effort to combine Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (together with much of Wikipedia:Reliable sources) into a new policy called Wikipedia:Attribution, and its FAQ, WP:ATTFAQ.

Recently, on Wikipedia talk:Attribution and on the Wiki-EN-l mailing list, Jimbo questioned whether the result had adequate consensus, and requested:

You are invited to take part; the community discussion should be as broad as possible. If you wish to invite other experienced and intelligent editors, please use neutral language. This message, for example, is {{ATTCD}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


you say "you started spam-linking but were stopped, so you opened this account and started doing the same".

People that open an account to give their own identity to do something could also be people that assume their acts...


[edit] its ok

i have my resions for his warning dont worry about me ok because ive been taught alot ive been seeing bad things coming from ewikipedisa and i wanna stop it ok dont worry about me he reverted his things i dont want anything to do with you or Klp dont talk to me--Butterrum 12:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor Review

Hey, Mel. I've been admiring your skills and knowledge as a Wikipedia editor since our row over Kandern. I wonder if you might take a look at my editor review. I've been reviewed by one other person, but always like second opinions. At this point, I don't think that I need/want admin powers, but I would like to be a better editor in the long run. Any advice you can give would be appreciated. Thanks a lot.--Eva bd 13:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Me closing Yomomma23

Consensus is not simply vote counting. 9-13 is what you get if you ignore the value of the arguments presented. For example TortureIsWrong seemed to "vote" allow based on the idea that he found it funny. Several people said "it is not an insult", but did not address the sources that showed it was indeed an insult. You said "no violation of policy", yet others showed how it is insulting.

Where as the disallow "votes" were based on policy. When judging consensus you need to take into account whether people are in line with policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the closing personally because the question of offensive is subjective in this situation. Many of the allow arguments were based on the fact that it was believed that the name in its current state was not offensive and therefore NOT a violation of policy. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I stand by the closing. Even if I dismiss only TortureIsWrong's "I find it funny" vote, that leaves 61% disallow, which is a consensus to me. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

See my general comments at the Talk page. With regard to this case, though: if I had been closing (which I wouldn't have done, having been involved in the discussion) I'd have pointed out that most of those saying that it was insulting ignored the arguments against them, and at least one raised a fatuous non-possibility of confusion leading to conflict. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have explained my rational for the closing in more detail on the talk page. I hope you see that I did not ignore the policy based arguments. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ok

friend first of all i didnt know what 3RR ment TILL SOMEONE TOLD ME ok you dont need to kill people over it i get it --Butterrum 15:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Human_rights_in_Sri_Lanka

I am not sure why you consider my valid argument as a personal attack..The user has a history for bias editing and continuing to do so even now as it is evident from the diffs..anyway,I have added a different name to the heading, hope this will clear the dust..--Iwazaki 会話。討論 16:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some Daffodils?

I will give you one too. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I will give you one too. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mel. Can I send you some daffodils and tulips, the first flowers in my garden? Cheers from a fellow gardener.Ivygohnair 16:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

From Paris with love
From Paris with love

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the pictures, all. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting Question

In will.i.am I added breaks in the info box so that consecutive items would be listed on separate lines, and you reverted this citing standard format. I've been looking for a definition of format and have found none, but I have found similar breaks inserted to separate items like this in several other music and non-music related info boxes. Is there a place I can look for information on this or do you have a link to the definition of infobox standard format? Hewinsj 20:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Coincidentially I followed the link for wikiproject: music in your first note and wound up on the same page you sent to me in the second. I disagree with it a bit because there is the potential for things to get messy but I don't mind too much since I don't edit music that often. Thanks for the help. Hewinsj 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allan Ludwig

Thanks for your help with my article. I appreciate your critiques and helping me move it along. Hjghassell 23:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. It was a sublink, but I was having some trouble finding the exact URL for it. I think I have it fixed now.Hjghassell 20:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Are You So Mean To Charoog10?

The poor kid is just trying to help Wikipedia by making the tracks on "Her Name Is Nicole" look more organizied with them being in the box-mode. If other albums like Omarion's 21 have it like that then Nicole's desereves it too. Also, I wouldn't want to drag myself into this but it seems like you and the user Sarah are teaming up on Charoog. He is only 12 (I saw his page) and you people are giving him no rights. Just because he isn't a WIKI-admin like you 2 it doesn't mean you can treat him that way. If you would like to leave me a message I don't have a Wikipedia account so you could just call be "Tawny S." 71.94.129.104 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Tawny S.

[edit] unreferenced

Well the reference placement is a matter of personal choice I guess. I prefer the top because it informs readers from the start that the following information may be unreliable. Also, I don't see how the revert swept up other corrections. I linked 'Chicago' to Chicago rather than Chicago, Illinois because Wikipedia automatically redirects to to 'Chicago'. Spellcast 08:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 50 Cent discography

Next time you revert my edits, at least check to see where those links take you. They all either redirected to Beg for Mercy, or, check out Wanna Get to Know You. --- Efil4tselaer 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to check why I removed the links, I asked you, and everyone else that adds those links, to find out where they take you, before adding them to an article. --- Efil4tselaer 21:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, leave me alone. --- Efil4tselaer (talk · contribs) 22:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I'm taking a break, so you don't have to constantly watch my talk page anymore. --- Efil4tselaer (talk · contribs) 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 00:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beautiful Liar

I've unprotected this page; I can't find a request for protection, nor an explanation for your action, and you'd edited the page before protecting it, so shouldn't really be applying protection at all. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, I understand your position, and why you would choose to unprotect the page. However, here are my concerns: I don't believe that the policy states that you can't ever protect a page if you have edited it. An editor was reverting the image in the article, because he/she did not like the fact that the official single cover featured Beyonce only (and not both artists). As such, I reverted the page to its correct version, and protected it against 3RR and vandalism by the editor.
Also, I do not appreciate the fact that you reverted every single one of my edits, including the updated chart information and the entire section on chart performance (yes, you actually reverted the page to a week old version). The Billboard charts are so easy to find (billboard.com). It may have been easier and far more productive to take a glance at their website to validate the information, instead of reverting another person's hard work. (Keep in mind that the version that you reverted the page to was also not sourced.) Orane (talk • cont.) 03:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've sourced (or have tried to source) the information in the article. But in the future, it will only take a second to check the information yourself. If many anon editors are persistent in updating the info, it could mean something. I know that rollback button comes in handy, but .... Orane (talk • cont.) 04:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm quite aware of the difficulty we have with maintaining pop articles, and I commend you for even trying. Also, in hindsight, it may have been too much to ask that you source the material yourself— at times I forget that not everyone is a fan of pop music. I also realize that my above post may have been a bit rude, and I beg your pardon. I know that you do good work here (in fact, you are one of the few editors from which I model my behaviour), and I encourage you to continue. Thanks. Orane (talk • cont.) 16:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SAHS

I apologize for the non-cited statements, but I can tell you from experience (I go to that school) that the edits are correct, have an NPOV, and aren't controversial at all. I will do my best to try and find a source that will back that up, but for the time being, please leave them.

[edit] User talk:Shakirfan

You asked: "Why did you remove a message from FA Maker from this editor's Talk page? It contained nothing that indicated the need for deletion, and you gave no explanation."

Sorry, this was on the principle of WP:DENY. This account is a confirmed abusive sockpuppet of a banned user. --Yamla 16:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beautiful Liar

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Beautiful Liar. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you.

I'm not sure if you noticed or not, but I see "rv unexplained & unsourced edits" or similar summaries eight times in a 24-hour period. According to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, these do count to the 3RR unless the edits are actually controversial or libelous. ShadowHalo 18:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know to be more careful. I have no intent to ask for a block now or in the future over this article since, I don't know, some nonsense about the spirit of the rules, WP:IAR, and the fact that your reverts have kept the article in a manageable state. But it might be helpful to tidy what's added a little more rather than reverting (especially so other users don't get frustrated that their edits are being undone). ShadowHalo 18:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My opinion of you

In general, I'm not too critical. Overall you're a positive chap, but I think sometimes you violate wp:bite and wp:jerk. Yours, wiki review nonny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.172.33.56 (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Her Name Is Nicole

Hi, It's The Recently Been Blocked "Charoog10" And I Just Wanted To Say Let's End Our Whole Charoog10-Mel Etitis-Sarah Feud Were Were Having. By The Way The Edits That Baby Luigi Did I Think Really Made The Page Look Better. So, If You Want To Just Be Nice To Each Other And Forget The Whole Box-Mode Thing Please Mesage Me Soon! Charoog10 21:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 50 Cent Discography

With all due respect, I was removing information inputted by a known vandal and sockpuppet. Deiz, Agathoclea and I have been after him for months. So, in conclusion, please don’t accuse me of vandalism when, in fact, I’m just trying to help out. Rockstar915 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I do believe I explained my edits in the explanation box. And I’m not accusing you of having bad faith. I’m accusing you of jumping the gun too quickly on accusing someone else of vandalism. Not a good quality of an admin, but that’s just my two cents. Rockstar915 22:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't reverting your edits. I was reverting those of Spechialone.Rockstar915 22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I made a mistake. I was still acting in good faith, and I still don't appreciate you biting the newbies. Rockstar915 22:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I just looked over my edit and realized that I touched nothing of yours. I removed vandalism from a known vandal, and called it “reverting.” Maybe you should have looked at the edit and realized that what I removed was not yours, but rather the work of a vandal. Instead of accusing me of not looking at my edit, maybe you should have read it a bit closer. I wasn’t accusing you of vandalism, and that should have been apparent by what I edited out. I think that puts both you and me in the wrong. Rockstar915 01:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Page/Edit Summary

Nice user pge you got. But I will also start using the Edit Summary. Sorry about that.Even though that was a mean comment. I'm new to wikipedia. I'm only 11. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cgkimpson (talk • contribs) 03:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Steam (Nicole Scherzinger song)

Please do not accuse me of vandalism when it is not justified.

You accused me of vandalising the "Steam" page, reverted my edits and then immediatly after you edited the page and did exactly what I did, removed a deleted image. My edit was not vanadalism simply because I did not add a summary to it. In the future I would appreciate an assumption of good faith. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. M Vallee Talk 02:17, 31 March 2007

[edit] Re:Virkshatriya

I noticed your sarcastic remark about an alleged discourtesy by me, but must I inform you that {{indefblock}} had been placed by me on the vandal's userpage? Surely that is the same as dropping a post on his user talk page. Please be more careful when thinking of making synde remarks. Rama's arrow 17:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)