User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 11

Archive 11

---

my proposal

Hi,

I just announced I am stepping away from the proposal discussion for several days. I know I have polarized the discussion, which I didn't want to do. If you are willing, I hope you will visit the page periodically and do whatever you can or think is appropriate to facilitate discussion between both sides.

Thanks

Steve

Album Format

Why do you continually revert my edits in which I use the standard album format for albums like Let Go (Avril Lavigne album)? You do not provide any feedback as to why you are violating the standard format, which leaves me no option but to revert it back. How many times do I have to ask you to please please please explain why you revert something? This is just good practice.

--Nabber00 15:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

You keep referring to the Naming Convention page as your reason. I don't see how that applies to the page format, can you please be more specific?

--Nabber00 03:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Please read my comment from 18 May on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums and respond explaining where my logic is flawed. Unless you explain to me otherwise I'm going to assume I'm right, as is the case with most people. And how come you get to revert articles before a decision but I can't?--Nabber00 01:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Universism

Sorry - didn't realize that was a previously vfd'd article! I was trying to fix the redlink in Universalism - I'll unlink it to avoid future recreations. -- BD2412 ^thimkact 17:53, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Don't waste my time

nor your breath. Sam Spade 23:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And don't revert my talk page. Thanks, Sam Spade 23:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Titles

Hi. I've looked for any mistakes I might have made in my headers and titles, and only have really found one. I have used "The album" as a non-descriptive header which I should have probably called something else. The titles of my articles for the Donovan albums are simply the name of the album. The only time I add (album) after the title is if someone has created or might create another article with that name. For example, I put "Catch the Wind (album)" because another user may want to write about "Catch the Wind (song)". If this is incorrect or if I'm completely missing the boat, please let me know. --JMDeMai

Lithuanian mythology

Thanks. I know, that my English is too far from good, being influenced by Lithuanian, Russian and other languages, all of them are synthetic, but majority of our “Lithuanian” users aren't native English speakers, so they simply skip this thing and I almost don't have chances to improve my “Wikipedian” English. (I wrote the article in English anyway, a translation would be better). But when You see this criterion, I see yet another thing: the present article is biased too much. I can add only few notes here: 1) Lithuanian mythology isn't an old mythology anyway (differently from archaic Lithuanian language). Perhaps it have some archaic elements, but it isn't old as whole. 2) Only few details are known from earlier stages of Lithuanian mythology before the 19th century, but exactly these details are the most interesting for many scholars, being a part of “more pagan” heritage than the later ones. 3) Thus many scholars tried to reconstruct (or perhaps we should use the word 'restore' instead of 'reconstruct' in English?) system of these earlier stages of mythology. Their works, including studies of P. Dundulienė, are mostly speculations on mythology, but not an actual mythology. Unhappily there are many different point of view on this problem with no any prevalent point of view. - And I don't think, that my version is perfect, looking from this point too, but I tried to write the main things, that it become more possible to write a future not biased version of the article. This is the second thing, why my version could be less understandable than the earlier one.

And I could also add few ideas there:

1. What concerns term pagan mythology, many users consider this word pagan offensive. But I have more serious reasons to avoid this word. The definition in the article pagan includes not Jewish, not Christian, and not Islamic, but many people understand “monotheistic” under this word. The idea of the supreme God and “a cabinet” of Gods isn't expressed in Lithuanian mythology (except in speculations of one school restorations), and we can't call it polytheistic. It was rather pantheistic than monotheistic or polytheistic and confronted neither with monotheistic point of view nor with polytheistic one. Thats why I'd like to avoid this pagan, that can be misunderstood. I don't want to add pantheistic too, for this word has a bit different sense in Western philosophy, than what I mean, but I think some suitable definition is possible.
2. The all present list of gods in the article is actually alphabetic list of names, mentioned as divine entities, in old (13th - 16th centuries) treatises on history or philosophy. Only few of them are known from known myths. The authors of these treatises often use word 'gods' in the sense of 'idols' or 'worshipped objects', and looking both from the point of the modern mythology and from the point of deeper analyzing of these texts, the objects, meant under these names, shouldn't be called gods presently, except few specific cases. Deeper analyze of it shows, that not only gods, spirits and other spiritual and superhuman beings but also some holy (ritual or magic) things are mentioned here under the title of god. And the one school only from two or four among Lithuanian mythologists consider, that such approach is similar to the actual understanding of the holy entities in the earlier Lithuanian mythology. So this list gives us some information, but it doesn't characterize Lithuanian mythology, although taking the bigger part of the text.

Perhaps, these two ideas will help You to understand, what did I want, and what improvement the article needs. I also will try to answer Your questions on the article gladly, because my main idea was to improve the article, not preferring my own specific ideas or thoughts. Linas Lithuanus(talk) 09:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

James Carter and Wikipedia Style

Hello,

First I must thank you for creating the article on James Carter. I added him to the list of requested musicians several days ago, so I am very appreciative that you took the time to create an article.

My question regards an element of wikipedia style. You recently edited the "Born January 3..." into "b. January 3..." I am a new user (though I have contributed anonymously for a couple of months), so I am not completely familiar with the minute details of Wikipedia style. Is this the correct way to write out the birthdate? Should I always abbreviate the "Born"? I welcome any advice you can offer as an admin.

You're right, sorry I didn't sign what I wrote above. I'm still getting used to this. Anyway, you responded to me about Lithuanian mythology, not the question regarding the James Carter article. I guess that means that someone out there is still waiting for an answer from you regarding Lithuanian Mythology. And, of course, my question still stands. Thanks for your help. --Sophitus 12:53, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

PMFJI, I stumbled over the same problem. From what I have seen, writing out "born" is more common in WP which (unlike traditional reference books) doesn't have to save space by using abbreviations. Personally, I try to use abbreviations only when they seem to make the text more readable (e.g. km²). Rl 15:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

(I normally reply on my correspondents' Talk pages, as I did with Sophitus, but as there are two of you...)

I see the point concerning "born", but we probably disagree concerning when it's more helpful to abbreviate and when not. For example, I go along with the MoS in preferring to spell out "kilometre", partly because the km² is actually rather difficult for many people (because of their monitors or their eyesight); I prefer "c." to "circa" on the other hand because it's the standard abbreviation, and the full term can confuse people who understand the import of the abbreviation, but are unfamilar with what it abbreviates. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

More sterling scholarship from Trey Stone

Check this out: [1]. Better add that article to your watchlist too. -- Viajero 10:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

My first ever experience with him today (in which he managed to get banned for 24 hrs over a 3RR violation, and irritate me over purely minor, technical matters) proved to be... quite something. See the Castro article and respective talk page for more whiney details. El_C 11:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Why I Am Not A Muslim

I did comment on WP:CP - basically, it's unwise to leave a copyvio in the history if we don't have to. There was no rush to redirect, so i thought it better to let the copyvio process run its course. I see you've now speedied the copyvio, but whatever. sjorford →•← 11:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

That sounds really snappy, for which I apologise. (I really shouldn't edit while I'm in a bad mood, i.e. from 9 to 5.) And yes, I do love redirects, but I hate copyvios even more. Copyvios are about as far from a "free encyclopedia" as it's possible to get. sjorford →•← 12:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Free Will again

Hello Mel, if you're still interested in the article, I have the whole section on free will posted at User:JMBell/temporary. Forgive me if I seem a bit obsessed with the topic; it's normal for me to stick to one topic until it is closed. In this case, I'm not entirely convinced with what you said that they might not have understood the question of free will. I'm posting this article section so that you can take a look, because I think they might actually have understood the question of free will. Cheers - JMBell° 21:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Rfc's

It was all getting too much at Solana. I was wrongly accused of being Cumbey's sockpuppet and Kfc was demanding i stop editing Javier Solana when i was in the middle of extended edits to improve the article. I know there has been opposition to my withdrawing the Rfc, and that Kfc wants me to restart it. I am due to talk to him soon, but feel very torn about what to do. I am trying to bring Cumbey back in to wikipedia through a less enforcement approach. She is interested in and knows a lot about Solana, and I just wanted to try to see if she could change her ways. It is a difficult one, and I am not entirely clear about where to go (will chat to Kfc first). I think Whig is a completely different situation. I am not opposed to many of his new styles and was supportive of his style change at Juan Carlos I of Spain, but was also aware of the chaos he was creating in lots of places. Then he made some pretty flaky edits at Rastafarianism and Haile Selassie, and, after thinking about it I reverted some of them, some of which he then reverted, so I just felt I have experienced what the problem creating the Rfc is, and the trickiness of Whig, and as I was in agreement with what I read, I signed, --SqueakBox 22:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC). I have reconsidered after your remarks, and changed my position re Whig, and yes, the Rfc is not the way to go, --SqueakBox 23:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

When i signed I had assumed the good faith of those making the Rfc against Whig. I am now not sure, so thanks for flagging it, --SqueakBox 02:20, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Re: User:62.254.0.38 - Don't revert what is mere Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages

For trifles such as my forgetting a tilde and your pointing it out, my adding the missing timestamp and deleting your pointing it out isn't "rewriting history" (as you accuse on my talk page) but mere Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages and "Delete, Don't Justify". Such unimportant trifles didn't mandate your reverting the page (as a minor edit, no less) and thus deleting my answer. I've reverted back to the answered page (and inserted a note about the refactoring). -- Diff to my refactoring, not marked as a minor edit and clearly summarized as "Answered Mel Etitis about bans + Transient trifles: fixed my previous comment's poor wording of "permanent vandalism" and timestamp faux-pas, then deleted Mel Etitis' comment about them.)"

←^#6  _talk 23:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Refactoring isn't policy or widely accepted as several other admins have pointed out to me. Adraeus 23:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

"Necessarily"

The problem, Mel, is that very few people actually agree on what is and is not the "mainstream" when it comes to self-defense ideas. That is why I believe NPOV requires the term "necessarily" when it comes to a value judgment on my views. Who decided that they are not "mainstream," and on what basis? Plenty of people view sports as just that -- sports -- and thus do not see MMA bouts as self-defense training. Plenty of firearms advocates believe left-wing supporters of firearms prohibition cannot truly practice self-defense while embracing such a paradox -- and so forth.

I think the vague nature of the term "mainstream" demands the term "necessarily" because so few people can disagree -- and there is no one authority to whom we can go on the subject.

- Phil Elmore

ArbCom

Check this out: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle/Proposed decision. The ArbCom, at least based on the initial comments of Fred Bauder, is going further into the content issues than I had expected. Stay tuned. -- Viajero 14:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Planting Fields Arboretum

Hectares are the standard metric measurement for land areas in this size range; also Sequoia can't be grown on Long Island (it isn't winter hardy there); the reference probably refers to either Sequoiadendron or Metasequoia, but I don't know which, so left it out - MPF 14:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

As I've understood the Wiki MOS in the past, hectares are permitted (and advised) in situations where they are the normal metric unit used (i.e., forestry, agriculture, horticulture, etc). I'm well aware that Bobblewik has been running what I can only think of as a personal vendetta against the hectare, trying to remove every reference to it anywhere in wikipedia; he has been taken to task over this repeatedly (see his talk page) but still seems to be pursuing it; I am wondering if he has changed the MOS to reflect his apparent prejudices. I would certainly consider that the hectare is the best unit to use as a "translation" of the acre where that has been used.
Of Sequoia, its hardiness is well researched; NY is well (by several hundred km) outside its potential cultivation range. Looking at the website, it almost certainly refers to Sequoiadendron giganteum (Giant Sequoia), not Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood). As an aside, I couldn't help notice that a lot of the wiki page is copied verbatim from the arboretum website, and is likely in violation of their copyright - MPF 17:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note;

"Ah, you mean that I've been hoodwinked? I did check "hectare" (I'm not a complete mooncalf), and found that it is indeed not an offical SI unit, so I just assumed that he was right about the rest. Pish." - I would say yes! :-) It is true that it is a derived unit, not a base SI unit, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be used in relevant situations.
"On the copyright front, I did originally question the person who created the page, and he admited to lifting the text, but said that he was editing it away from the original. I checked a couple of times, and he was indeed doing that, but then I let it slide. My suspicion is that the arboretum wouldn't object to our article; should I contact them to ask?" - Good idea; I'd suspect you're almost certainly right, they'll be happy to see it there once they know what it's about (after all, it comes down to free advertising) - MPF 18:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

deletions

Scanning live RC, I was not sure why you deleted Blood borne pathogen. The content was poor (just a list), but certainly not nonsense, and the topic is clearly encyclopedic and readily expandible. In the future, please make sure that something meets the criteria before you speedy it. Fawcett5 14:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the triplicates, the database was glitchy and I couldn't tell if it was taking the edits at all. You'll notice I fixed it literally within seconds. As for the deletion, I'm not trying to pick a fight — I've certainly been accused by more than one person of being a deletionist myself — but I would argue that that article did NOT meet the very restricted speedy criteria, especially since it had context. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. You have to give editors a *chance* to expand a reasonable subject area article before just blasting it off the map within minutes of creation. Deletion policy guidelines suggest such articles should be stub tagged rather than deleted. Fawcett5 14:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Essex girl

Essex girl redirects to Stereotype (as you know) which gives not a clue as to what an essex girl is or why the redirect occured.

I followed up and found jokes and a newspaper article and comments that lead me to wonder why essex girls shouldn't be treated the same as Dumb blonde.

Cheers, 4.250.201.64 16:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel, I have to agree with 4.250.201.64. Redirecting it either to stereotype or to dumb blonde is plain wrong. Essex girl is far more than dumb blonde - there's a significant cultural aspect, with noted characters, specific fashion, and indeed no requirement that essex girl either be blonde or dumb. I really don't want to get into an edit war with you over such a trivial matter, but it's difficult not to when you seem intent on making ill informed changes unilaterally, and without the courtesy of discussing them. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 17:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel, I don't mean to insult you. But none of your edits to the Essex girl article indicate that you understand of the topic. Maybe I'm mistaken. Perhaps you'd care to explain why you think Pauline Calf is a dumb blonde? -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 17:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The Image

I found an image identical to the one that Speedway had previously posted in Spice Girls article. This time, I went through all the trouble to find that it can legally be used. And boy, it was not easy. So I hope it makes a good article intro-image. DrippingInk 20:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Ratification on honorifics

I put together what I hope is a neutrally presented view - would appreciate if you copyedit it to make it more neutral where possible. I hope that pointing out the issues will help avoid them in the future. However, I am frustrated with the changed presentation of the vote from the Survey to the Ratification and doubt I have been as neutral as I should be. Can you take a look? Trödel|talk 23:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look - and making the changes - especially the stylistic ones - they helped the clarity Trödel|talk 11:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I hope this reaches you

Dear Professor of Philosophy;

I am enjoying reading your commentaries in Widipedia and viewing the beautiful photos you have posted, too.

Please contact me at seasonalsusan@yahoo.com

I have several questions about OUPress that I hope you may be able to answer or might suggest where I may find the answers I seek.

Thanks so much.

Susan

Mr Tan

I'm back. Sorry about the delay in repling your message, partially due to my computer problems. Concerning about your attitude towards me, I am currently still analysing about it.

I have already seen your biodata in your userpage. I believe you are currently a philosopher and English teacher by profession, teaching in the University of Oxford.

Would you mind if I call you a professor? I don't want you to be so harsh and violent, and that is exactly what you are, I'm afraid. I am willing to learn from you, however hard it can become. I'm sorry if you think if I'm to arrogant or ignorant, but your edits are too unjustificable. But a teacher like you needs to show is some care and attention to a student.

Can we edit articles collaboratively, rather than reverting every now and then? I have also witnessed that your group have already completed the copyediting of Lahul and Spiti and Kinnaur, but still, the standard of Zanskar and these two articles stated above are considerable.

If you won't mind, can you please sit back patiently, and let me copyedit Zanskar first? Your reverts has not enabled me to prove my capabilities. I will make one more revert--If you still do not agree with the following above, I will explain you until you understand my motives--it seems that you still have a low understanding of it before I revert. (However, it doesn't seem to make sense after my gramatical explanations at the talk page, and you suddenly change your attitude for the worse)

I also like to stress that many of your reverts make things from bad to worse, especially in the context of spelling errors. I would like to notify you that there is no need to use formal English in the context of discussions. My english has its flaws, I understand, and I'm willing to learn.

Ah yes, before I forget, I would like to discuss with you about the arbitration matter. Forget about the response in the RfC, for I think that if-----if ever arbitration will be held against you and your fellow buddies, I think that that is the most suitable place.

You have now placed an (oddly worded) accusation of vandalism on my Talk page. Why do you refuse to learn from your experiences? You're criticised and resisted by every editor on the articles that you edit, you're the subject of a unanimously critical RfC, I’m afraid, that this statement is made by me in response to Mr Tan, having been assured by a number of editors that the Zanskar article is grammatically and stylistically fine, has placed the "gcheck" template on it and started to "correct" good English to bad (creating verbless sentrences, mangling syntax, etc.). He's done this repeatedly, and is immune to explanation. It's difficult to see that this is less than unacceptable, and it at least comes close to vandalism.. (Not amounting to insult you), but what the statement above of yours is exactly what you are yourself, for you have reverted many of the edits which you think is bad at the expense of the good edits. I cannot tolerate insults or people with a stiff and stubborn attitude.

If you can change for the better, I can forgive (but not forget) you. I want you, to have a friendly, rather than your current and hostile attitude towards article editing.

tan 19:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not comprehend why you have paged my comment in the RfC. Is there anything wrong with it? Or are you trying to threaten against me for the proposed editing of Zanskar? What's the matter? Can you please explain why?

tan 20:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's time for arbitration. JMBell° 14:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I think we better not give Tan any more bright ideas; he's all too eager to use our own weapons against us. He must be brought to his senses. JMBell° 14:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Why is it a PA?

I would like you to explain to me how this is a personal attack. It was left on User:Ungtss's talk page, not on User:FeloniousMonk's talk page, and does not say "Felonious Monk is a bastard" or something. The Australian Democrats have a saying "Keep the bastards honest." They are refering to the 2 main parties in Austalia, the Labor and Liberal parties. No-one finds this offensive, so if Felonious Monk finds what Sam said offensive, then he is being overly sensitive. Sam has told me that he was just trying to give Ungtss encouragement, and was not trying to slander anyone. I'm not claiming Sam is a paragon of good, but if he hasn't actually made a personal attack, then don't try to claim he has. And don't answer to this by dredging up every comment Sam has ever made, I am asking about this particular comment, and why it is thought to be a PA. --Silversmith 11:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

So in other words you are throwing our fundamental principle - assume good faith out the window. Also, it is a saying. If he had said, "user x and user y are bastards, don't let them grind you down" or something, that would be a PA. I remain unconvinced. And no, I don't expect you to try and convince me, I am just upset that you are harassing a person who seems to be trying to better himself and his relationship with fellow wikipedians. --Silversmith 12:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry I said that, I have retracted it. Here are a couple of examples:

A compliment to SLR, please note SLR's response on Sam's talk page as well. A compliment to SlimVirgin and El C noted that Sam had performed a maintenance task on his talk page. Not to mention I came on to wikipedia severely disliking Sam for his exchanges with my boyfriend. He and I have discussed this. I shouldn't be trying to convince you though, if you want to know more about Sam Spade I suggest you have a conversation with him.

Citing El C as support that Sam is "trying to better himself" is off the mark considering that El C was alongside me also alluded to as being a bastard by Sam, a point not lost on him here.

As for your suggestion that if Mel wanted to know more about Sam he should have a conversation with him, don't assume he hasn't... most encounters were marked by Sam pointedly insulting Mel [2] [3], so that idea is a non-starter.

I'd think that if Sam were genuinely trying to better himself, he'd start by disarming the situation he created with the abusive personal attack sent in his pissy epistle and subsequent attempts to misuse policy and suppress evidence to cover it up. An apology would have sufficed, but Sam squandered that opportunity, which is likely long passed. FeloniousMonk 14:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

My point in making that first post was to ask why Mel thought it was a personal attack, when I couldn't see how it was, and Sam has told me that he did not intend it to be. The reason El C comented on Sam's maintenance task was due to his belief that Sam does not like him, and therefore thought it strange. I already said not to dredge up the past, as it doesn't change whether or not this was a personal attack. By saying that it is a personal attack for no better reason than because of Sam's past behaviour is ignoring our princile of "assuming good faith." And in regards to my suggestion that Mel should have a conversation with Sam, the examples you've shown are not conversations, they are arguments on a wikipedia discussion page. When I say conversation, I mean a friendly get to know you conversation not stemming from disagreements over article content. Everyone says stupid things that they come to regret. And have you considered that Sam didn't apologise because he didn't believe he'd made a PA? I'm not here to defend Sam, I'm here to argue whether or not what he said was a PA. That has been done. Sorry for discussing this on your talk page Mel. --Silversmith 18:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and about the email he sent you, that's not what I'm discussing here. If you want my opinion on that, talk to me on my talk page. --Silversmith 18:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

What is the point in stubs?

Stagecoach in Chesterfield is a stub article. What do we do with stub articles? We expand them! This afternoon, my brother spent a lot of time expanding it, only to have it reverted to it's original form, by you. If it can't be expanded, then may I why there is a stub there in the first place? Sonic Mew 17:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I got your reply, and I can see your point. It does seem pretty pointless having a stub, if there is nothing that can be added. And I can't think of anything other than the routes. Deletion sounds like the best idea.Sonic Mew 18:28, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Why'd you use rollback on jnc's archiving of the administrators' noticeboard? It's only for vandalism. He's been archiving that page for ages and is very good at it. silsor 18:44, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

No problem on the mistaken reversion; thanks for the note. Noel (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Censoring comment pages.

Good day,

I recently saw that you had reinserted a comment on Sam Spade's talk page that he had censored, only to notice that he censored it yet again. I reverted it yesterday, he objected on my talk page, removed it, and I added it again. I'm sure he'll remove it once again. Can users censor their talk pages? I don't believe that you own your own talk page -- you should be able to select whatever format you like, but you should not be able to remove comments that critique your actions (unless we're just talking about a string of obscenities). Perhaps you know more about this. Thank you for your time, and for your many valuable contributions! --Zantastik 21:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It appears this user has posed a lot of problems for quite some time -- see this page. --Zantastik 22:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

ok

Sorry. Andycjp 22 May 2005

Reply

Ok not to copyedit Zanskar? My grammar is far from perfect? Professor, please note that I may use colloquial english in my discussions, but not in my article edits! Also, neither you have shown any objections on my proposed gramatical changes (I don't see any).

If you still think Zanskar is good enough, tell me then, how you define the article is good in contrast to the already-copyedited Lahul and Spiti. You have reverted all the edits everytime I make one, always at the expense of good ones.

I also see that you have reverted my edits in Zossen. The words should be in bold, as it is in most other articles, and I'm trying to wikify it. Are you doing this for the sake of sentimental reasons against me? Tell me then, if you have any.

No. I think that you got me wrong. No body is 100% wrong nor 100% good. I may be bad now in your own eyes but who knows when can I change for the better? Also, you have no sense of trust in any of the editors. I will not revert Zanskar for now, nor should you take any actions on asking for an arbitratior to look into our case now, nor take any further legal actions. We're not finished with our discussions in the first place. Wait for my RfC response in a few days' time.

Also, I apologise if you find me rude in anyway (I have some slipoffs sometimes).

Tan 11:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for encouraging me. I just need that at that time. Sorry for answer you so late.Jacob grace

Re: Stagecoach in Chesterfield

Yes, I know this isn't Yellow Pages, but the whole point of an article is that there should be as much information as possible about the subject. However, you keep taking bits off this article. Why? Do you have a grudge against Stagecoach? Ted Ted 12:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Stagecoach

I found contact details for Stagecoach South in Encarta recently. Ted Ted 12:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Theodicy

The reason why I have put this in is expressely because I don't think it is trivial. Norman Pike's philosophical output has served as the backbone of numerous theistic defences of the problem of evil and should not be overlooked. It has in fact suffered less criticism that Plantinga's thesis which you give so much space to. I therefore think it is presumptious of you to assume its triviality. If I dont have a sufficent reason for your exclusion of this piece I will reintroduce it to the article at some point in the future. Of course if you do put a valid case for its removal then I will be happy to agree, but just putting statements like 'it is trivial' as a reason for its non-inclusion I think undermines your credibility.

Contact details

I've just found contact details for Stagecoach in Mansfield in Encyclopaedia Britannica!

Problem of Evil

By the way Augustine's 'privatio boni' is more usually translated as the 'privation of good'. This is just a suggestion, and I won't change it myself, for you seem somewhat protective of these 'evil' entries.

Theodicy & Problem of Evil

Ok, I take your point about the personal appraisal involved, and although not convinced of the argument's marginality, I am willing to concede that it be moved to Talk. I may try and restructure the argument so that it is more appropriate for an encyclopaedic format. Thanks.

Thanks

Thanks for the help with the cleanup of the Electric Fence article yesterday. Tobycat 15:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

duplicated article content

Hi - I'm trying to chase down exactly how article content occasionally gets duplicated. There was an instance of this a few days ago on WP:TFD from this edit (an edit of yours). Do you happen to recall exactly what happened? My guess is that an edit conflict window is involved somehow, with perhaps some manual copying and pasting - but no one has remembered yet. Thanks. -- Rick Block 15:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me know if I have this right. With the latest occurrence, you were adding a new section, ended up with an edit conflict, copied the "your text" box (which I assume at this point included the entire article), pasted it into the top box and hit save. I think this fits my theory about how this is happening (since the entire article is in the "your text" box, you're led to think that this is the amount of data invovled in the conflict but copying all of it is not the right input for the resultant "save"). I don't know how receptive the developers will be to changing this, but it seems to me like a clear user interface bug. I hope having a specific instance with a specific user will help. Thanks very much. I assume you won't mind if I quote your experience on this? -- Rick Block 20:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I think both the top and bottom boxes have the entire article (top "as is", bottom "your changes"), so whether you copy only your portion of the lower box or the whole thing, the upper box ends up with the entire article and I'm thinking hitting "save" at this point when you started by adding or editing a section adds the entire article as a new (or replaced) section. -- Rick Block 00:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

What I think is going on is the edit conflict page is generated with the granularity of the entire page even when the user is only editing or adding a section, so what the software is showing you in this case is really not that helpful. Depending on how extensive the changes were, I suspect the actual best thing to do is to start over - copy all or part of the section from the bottom box and then reload the current copy of the page and edit the section again (judiciously pasting as appropriate). I'm not 100% certain, but I think the only alternative is to chop the top box down to just the relevant section (by deleting everything else, before and after) and then merging in the desired changes from the bottom box (which I'm thinking pretty much no one does). Copying only your section from the bottom box and replacing the entire top box with it will avoid duplicating the article, but I assume will also overwrite the change that caused the edit conflict (i.e. some other user's change will be lost). IMO, this is a very, very bad user interface - I'd guess close to 100% of users who are editing a section, run into an edit conflict, and end up hitting save from the edit conflict page either duplicate an article or overwrite someone else's changes (or both). -- Rick Block 14:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Zossen

Yes, of course, go ahead. I'm just translating from the German; I'll incorporate your edits into the translation when you're finished. JMBell° 17:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Polly Samson edits

Hi,

I cleaned up an article on Polly Samson I had started, only to find that you reverted the changes to a version by LongHair. The polishing was under an IP address name (before I had this account). Is your policy to revert any changes made by anonymous users? The changes I made did not alter anything LongHair had written (he/she had only amended the categories) and improved the quality of the article. I am curious as to why this happened - I'll check back here for a response, but feel free to leave a note on my talk page.

Many thanks.--HighHopes 18:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your very prompt response! My query was in part motivated by a different article, where it appeared you had also reverted an anonymous edit (seemingly on principle), but I see your point regarding the Polly Samson article. Being my first ever Wikipedia article, I'll no doubt return to it to improve it more thoroughly at a later date. Thanks! --HighHopes 18:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Gerhardt

You seem to know what to do with the article. Do it. -SV|t 18:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Anastas Mikoyan

Thank you for your message. You might want to see Talk:Reaction to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, because it says that there should be an article for the funeral and that page should be just for the reaction. SNIyer12.

Thank you for what you said in response to my message. The new article will be started shortly. SNIyer12

User:ElKabong

I've blocked him for 24 hours for the 3RR violation you reported. I saw your report using the diff function, but for some reason I can't see it on the page. Perhaps a cache problem. Anyway, I'll report the block on that page as soon as I can see where to do it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

User:KaintheScion / User:ElKabong

Despite the RFC, this user continues to repeatedly engage in personal attacks and violate the 3RR. I've advised him on his Talk page that this behavior is completely unacceptable, and that if it continues, I will ask Arbcom to open a case against him. If this becomes necessary, would you be willing to assist in this process? Firebug 17:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

New user template

Hi there! We discussed this a long time ago, but would you please add something about mergism to the new user template? The relevant link is at Wikipedia:Merge. Thanks, Radiant_* 17:42, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

minor reverts

Please do not mark your reverts of other's work as a minor edit, per this page. --goethean ॐ 17:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. I read the last paragraph on the page. --goethean ॐ 17:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Lulu

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. A new issue has arisen. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 20:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Plato dialogues naming survey

As an active participant in the discussions on Category_talk:Dialogues_of_Plato, I wanted to draw your attention to my survey proposal. This would likely bring in a number of outside and (presumably/hopefully) objective views - at the least, a fair enough number to make a consensus at the conclusion. Surveys need to be discussed by the involved parties ahead of time in order to come to an agreement as to their content, and thus make them valid. If you have the time, I'd appreciate if you got involved. Thanks! --Girolamo Savonarola 23:21, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

RFC

Hello, Mel. Persuant to your comment, I have created a second RFC against Lulu. It is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 2. Perhaps you could check it out. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 11:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mel. I'd like to urge you to reconsider your endorsement of Smoddy's newest game in the RfC area. I will not participate in it, but I saw the mention of it on my talk page. You are the only name there who isn't one of the "usual suspects" in the endless "style wars" flame fest, which has spilled over increasingly to "gaming" WP admin procedures.

It is true enough that I made some comments (either on my own talk page, or in edit comments, or in a silly VfD attached to an even sillier RfC) that did not treat the whole nonsense as serious and somber—because it is patently not so. Smoddy, with the flush of youth I am sure, decided to stomp his feet and threaten to hold his breath until I acknowledge how very adult and important he is. His latest RfC is this, and nothing other than this: "I'm so important, I know how to write an RfC!"

I reckon it's true that non-admins are not supposed to add the {{vprotected}}. Actually, I don't even really know for sure if that is true. The pages on page protection and stuff are not 100% clear to me; and I've definitely read more pages on administrative procedures this week than I ever hoped to in joining WP. I do not know if the same is true of {{protected}}, which I tried changing to around the time I tried the "request for page protection." I guess I would honestly like to know whether there is a user-level page protection mechanism, since I am still unsure. In any case, as near as I can see, the "issue" with the closest (albeit still remote) connection to an RfC is that I have not yet memorized the arcana of administravia on WP. I plead guilty to that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:40, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

You left a message Please don't edit proteced pages. at 09:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC). Apart of the level of rudeness about it you will note that I did not edit a "protected" page there recently. On the 16th I reverted an edit by User:Ed g2s and if you look at his talkpage you will see that I pointed out to him that he had edited a protected page and I was reverting him on that. I suggest that you check your accusations before making them in future. (Your message removed from my talk page therefore) --Vamp:Willow 12:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Not everything goes in an edit summary box, especially where a user's talk page is also utilised, however "reverted to original" should have also been clear. 'Moreover, there should be no editing of a protected page at all,no matter how good you think the reason is. is something I quite agree with and, as it appears I must repeat this for you again, I did not *edit* the page, I reverted it. --Vamp:Willow 12:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)