User talk:Mel Etitis: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:28, 20 October 2005

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archived talk
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9	Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18	Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27
Significant milestones
10,000th edit: 25 iv 05 15,000th edit: 12 vi 05 10,000th edit on an article: 17 vii 05 20,000th edit: 27 vii 05 25,000th edit: 31 viii 05 15,000th edit on an article: 8 ix 05
Admin-related actions
blocks (last twelve blocks) page protections & unprotections

Useful links

Pages I often cite

Dhul-Qarnayn

Hi ME. Can you please verify the content and the context of Dhul-Qarnayn? I am asking this from you because I believe you may know a little about the subject.

IMO, the article is a bias because it presents only one face of the coin about the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn. While this identity has been debated for centuries between scholars -and no consensus has been reached yet, the article presents only (as a fact) that he was Alexander the Great. Some editors are trying to push this opinion forward and give no way to present that as a theory among many others. The intro says all and therefore it looks like if the article is just a mirror of Alexander the Great.

As a consequence, the article experiences an edit war that I don't know when it can end. -- Cheers Svest 17:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mel. Cheers -- Svest 07:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of People v Rule of Law

Right now Wikipedia is going through a period of conflict between a rule of people and rule of law. It is seen in extreme cases such as the anonymous vandal that has been attacking me for weeks - he has more than enough power to attack me, but I have absolutely no power to deal with him. More troubling to me is how it shows up in a pervasive contempt by rather ordinary editors - not vandals or trolls, or even particulary POV warriors - who simply do not follow the rules, and then use the generally permissive stance of the wikipedia - and the cumbersome nature of doing anything about anyone other than the 3rr - to continue to degrade the quality of the work. Part of the problem is that, as Hobbes pointed out, law relies on a certain moral outrage which, when expressed, tends to end any possibility of peaceful outcome.

I'm not sure how to address this problem, partially because individual attempts tend to be seen as idiosyncratic, and often bog the editor or admin in question down into the mire. My suggestion is to have reasonable people who you know who will back you up on reverts - one scofflaw is usually willing to revert 4 times because he can get away with it, but not the 7 it takes to stop to editors. "Calling for back up" may be an informal mechanism to deal with the present break down of formal mechanisms, but it is something I urge people do when they reach a rule of ko situation on a page.

Best

Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 17:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism copyedit

Could you please specify what parts of Atheism that you read prompted you to put the "copy-edit" tag there? I've already copy-edited most of the article, and I see relatively few grammatical and spelling mistakes on the page (though there are plenty of other types of things to be improved on the page, certainly), so if you could pinpoint what types of problems you saw that would be of great help, especially considering that it's a rather large page. -Silence 18:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.18.109.218

I've been keeping track of (and been a frequent target of vandalism and attacks from) this one, and given your recent block of him, I thought you might find this of interest: User:Gamaliel/todo#67.18.109.218_.28talk.C2.A0.E2.80.A2.C2.A0contribs.29. Gamaliel 18:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Adams, Bryan Adams (hockey player) and User:Michelle1

(She's handling it this much better this time, but...) User:Michelle1 is again apparently trying to dictate what is Wikipedia policy as to the Bryan Adams article (in particular, the disambiguation issue). See User talk:Nlu#hockey player etc. Since you had much more luck with her last time than I did, can you step in and discuss the issue with her as well? Thanks. --Nlu 21:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be happy to dismotivate one more Wiki-fan

Well fine, feel yourselves like kings here. Make your statements. I'm deleting my account and stop adding something good to that thing. It's not worth it. Because you are not ready to change, to improve. You've made your rules here. But without changes you won't go far. You will be on the same boat. Even rules are a subject to be changed. But you do not comprehend it. It always happens when Philistines have the power. Do it on your own. Bye. Be happy to dismotivate one more Wiki-fan. Ex-fan. Beautifulstranger 22:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

loazi

Anyway - just a friendly reminder to check talk pages before using admin powers :). Take care :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Sections and Subheadings

I noticed that you are a respected admin and knowledgeable about writing style (both in wikipedia and in general) and you mention citing "Wikipedia:Use subheadings sparingly" often. I have taken to adding sections often, even when I am only making a small contribution to the content of an article (see [1]). Does my usage of sections (and formating in general) show a good understanding of their purpose and application in wikipedia (see [2], [3], [4])? I am mostly looking for pointers, and hopefully a vote of confidence. Thanks. Smmurphy 15:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna albums

Thanks for cleaning up after me at the Madonna albums. My impression was, and I believe that I am under this impression owing to a previous exhchange with you, that the wikilinking of years was "deprecated". Can you point me to some guideline about when, and when not, to wikilink years? Jkelly 23:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xanadu house edit

In response to your msg to me: Please stop removing content from Wikipedia that people have worked hard to create. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

um...listen Mr. Wiki-addict...anything I did was an attempt to update the fate of the Xanadu house. Do you think your work is more important than the FACT that the house is gone and that I was trying to tell people that here?? I've never updated anything here and thought I was helping...forgive me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.197.137 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous user is correct, Mel Etitis. The edit was not vandalism, it was simply information without a given source. I have added a source, there is also a website with pictures of the demolition of Xanadu. — Wackymacs 06:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The set of edits on which I was commenting were these — the removal of a large chunk of text, with no explanation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You always have arguments with other users, Mel, registered or not. Has it ever occured to you that perhaps your professor-like demeanor just isn't suitable for an online community? It's very hard to gauge someone's expression without seeing his face, and most of the time, you seem to be quite robotlike and aggressive, not to mention somewhat judgmental and quick, too quick to jump to conclusions. And playing up your academic side doesn't help - people think you're trying to put on airs or something. But sometimes, you do get along well with people, let's not exclude that. Don Diego 17:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either Don Diego (talk · contribs) is DrippingInk (talk · contribs) or shares exactly the same rather peculiar terminology. In either case, I'm not interested in this sort of pointless attack. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your copyediting after my omissions/carelessness on Confucianism. --Dpr 02:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Pop music issues

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues. --FuriousFreddy 05:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Courtland Mead

Hi, You removed a My Space link from Courtland Mead. At first sight it did look like a fake but after i went on that website and did Alot of digging, i found that the link was 100% genunin. the evidence was his picture gallery, Aswell as a picture of him as a kid {which i can confirm is him} the pictures of him as a adult/teen do look like him aswell. thanks - Agent003 12:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Lam

It seemed that the Sandy Lam article has been attacked by anon vandals for some time. Are there any thoughts about banning any of them (although I suspect "they" are one and the same person). There're some very clear denigratory edits which people who don't know the artiste would be easily misled, hence my concern. Mandel 17:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bancassurance

User:Merovingian has deleted this rediret, doubtless in error. Rich Farmbrough 23:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity article

John Louis Da Silva Here's another one by an anon. editor, for your magic delete button this time. Thanks. WBardwin 05:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted move-to-Wiktionary

It had been inactive for over a month. Would you prefer that I restore it? --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 08:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 08:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're very welcome. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 08:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 146: / Line 146: @@
 ::*You always have arguments with other users, Mel, registered or not. Has it ever occured to you that perhaps your professor-like demeanor just isn't suitable for an online community? It's very hard to gauge someone's expression without seeing his face, and most of the time, you seem to be quite robotlike and aggressive, not to mention somewhat judgmental and quick, too quick to jump to conclusions. And playing up your academic side doesn't help - people think you're trying to put on airs or something. But sometimes, you ''do'' get along well with people, let's not exclude that. [[User:Don Diego|Don Diego]] 17:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
+Either {{user|Don Diego}} is {{user|DrippingInk}} or shares exactly the same rather peculiar terminology.  In either case, I'm not interested in this sort of pointless attack. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 21:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 == Thanks ==