User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mr Tan[edit]

  • I'm back.
  • No, what I mean is that should adminstrators warn of the blocking policy and rules. (Asking for curiosity)
  • It is a lame excuse for you to complain that my English is so poor that it has reached up to a point where it is deemed as incomprehensible. You have been deleting certain facts done by me, and I do not see why facts have to be deleted to furnish gramatical improvement. Especially in Zanskar, I see that you have been reverting nearly edit that I contribute. It is, however, the mood of mine whether I will contribute poor or good quality content and that I will contribute and enhance the quality of the article further. Until sometime in May, I will not conduct a major cleanup on Zanskar.
  • I want to put up the Maps of Korea to show Tsushima's political status, as it is shown on most of the old maps, and I see no reason for you to remove it after I give a bracketed explanation of the putting up.
  • There is also no reason for you to remove about the linguistic fact that the Tsushima dialect is influenced by Korean. For you, it seems there is a edit war before you are finally convinced about the facts.
  • It has reached up to our point where our comments should be placed up on each of our talk pages.

Tan 13:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand your standard for good english. I'm not reverting at all, in fact I'm helping out. Saying that you block me for a period of time is a abuse of authority as I do not understand what is yor definition of good english. It seems to me, however, your statement in my talk is very lame; you do not understand at least how a proper article format should be. I assume that you understand what I say, and saying that my english is so bad that I'm not fit seems to be a very lame excuse for you to act as a tyrant among the wikipedia users. For your interest, I warn that you better change your rude and aggressive attitude towards others. The sentence construction is just unacceptable--I assume that you yourself have a very poor command of english and trust in other's works in that case, for you are restricting the slighteset edit I make--I bet you I can give you a fair standard article if you give me a few days. None others have complained of my English, however.

Tan 21:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry about the error that no one has commented about my English. In addition to you, I should not exclude Nichalp, and Moumine, the three of you.
  • You have not answered my question: should adminstrators warn of the blocking policy and rules?
  • I still do not understand how bad is bad. To overcome this slution, I would suggest that you help me delete off Zanskar/temp, and put it with the current version, and let me reedit myself from there, serving it as a test. When I have completed, I will reply to state that I have completed. Fair enough to test my english? I feel that the Zanskar article still seems awkward, but I can bet you that our english are miles apart, be it me or you, either poor or good, vice-versa.
  • Do you realise, that it is extremely awkward in the same sentence again, to mention Zanskar within the same paragraph again when the introduction already states Zanskar? It is really, really awkward. I will give more poiters in the near-future.

Tan 23:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As of today, JM has helped me commented to help us sort out this dispute. I do not understand, be it good or bad, about your (my POV) your awkward, but irritating, mysterious, quasi-rude, quasi-friendly, yet giving a slight tinge of friendliness. I do not understand you, since you stated that my English so bad, I do not understand why you have not done enough work for Tsushima Islands and Zanskar, but I find that the English standard of Zanskar is just much more further away than the standard of Tsushima Islands is to Sikkim, which was featured. The use of awkward punctuations, and sentence constructions, has improved, but it is, a fact, if you do not notice, is a far cry from those of the featured articles. If I were to rate it according to Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0, Zanskar could only be rated at a standard of 0.2.

I do not mean to insult, or to provoke you in anyways. Instead, your acts of ignorance of my questions towards you, and your poor atitude towards Tsushima Islands and Zanskar by sort of "leaving it to die" attitude has greatly infurated me. I do not want the "gcheck" template to be up there, as it may be doomed to be up there permanently for it seems to be an unpopular topic. As an admin, you should be responsible for your actions, more than other users do.

Mel, all I want you to do is that, since you feel that my English is poor, please help me, as a dedicated wikipedian, to acheive the noble goal of enhancing the appearence of Zanskar and the grammar which you think best of it, into the standard of Sikkim, or at least find someone else fit to do this task, then tell me about the user himself. I just cannot readily accept the state of Zanskar it is in now. That's it. After that, your presence will no longer be needed under my eyes.

For the third time, I also insist that you answer this question to me: should adminstrators warn of the blocking policy and rules?

Tan 23:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm With You[edit]

Several people have asked me to look into a series of edits where someone has changed the Wikipedia versions of the titles of published songs and books to be something other than what the publishers actually printed on the page and on the album covers. (Example) Shouldn't we report in Wikipedia what publishers actually publish, eh?  :)) Any ideas? ---Rednblu | Talk 20:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Like many editors, I've corrected various titles to conform to proper English (and Wikipedia) style — mainly misuse of capitals for articles and prepositions. Very occasionally someone takes offence, and insists on changing it back; the example you give is the only one that I can remember recently. The anon in question has offered no grounds, not even an edit summary, for the change. I wonder what makes you think that the incorrect English is the correct title? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • ?? Incorrect English? There are several style manuals aren't there? How about let's be sympathetic to anons, eh? Let me agree with you, it seems a hopeless task, educating all the anons, doesn't it? And I appreciate your generous "Welcome" you give to new UserIds. But do we have an agreed approach among ourselves? Could we ask the anon to check on and see what the standard commercial listing for the song is? I don't know the diplomatic solution to this anon situation, but is this really a matter of "incorrect English"? Many style manuals say that "all prepositions are capitalized in titles regardless of length," and some style manuals make the break at "prepositions of four letters and more," is that not true? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. But which style manual are you referring to? Which one says that titles should (or may) have capitalised prepositions or articles? I've never seen one, but I'd be interested to be proved wrong. Moreover, it's Wikipedia style, which is more important in this context.
  2. If the anon had made any attempt to explain the reverts, or used a static IP address, then I'd have engaged in conversation of the subject.
  3. Note that this article is in any case only existing by the skin of its teeth. It has already been made into a redirect on the basis that it lacked sufficient (actual or potential) content to stand alone, and the anon recreated it under a new name.
  4. I'm perplexed; has the anon approached you? Not on your User page, but presumably by e-mail. Why didn't he or she explain on the Talk page of the article? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  1. But which style manual are you referring to? Which one says that titles should (or may) have capitalised prepositions or articles? I've never seen one, but I'd be interested to be proved wrong. Moreover, it's Wikipedia style, which is more important in this context.
    • Here is a list. And here is the first from that list on page 12. But there are lots of style manuals!  :)) I would suggest that Wikipedia style should not "correct" what anons find on their record CDs--except where there is a documented mistake, which should be explained and documented. There are some classic examples.
  2. I'm perplexed; has the anon approached you? Not on your User page, but presumably by e-mail. Why didn't he or she explain on the Talk page of the article? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I cannot explain why anons do what they do. But wouldn't it be a good idea if we had a standard reply for this kind of situation? Maybe we could say "Check on and use the same capitalization that uses." What do you say? ---Rednblu | Talk 22:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Chipping in: no, we should not say that, Rednblu. Wikipedia has its own house style, detailed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The Wikipedia capitalisation of book titles, album titles, and song titles is the same as that of most academic style guides. However, the Manual of Style is much more elastic than the standard academic styles, and it absolutely is sympathetic to anons; one of the first things it says is: Clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required. I can't seem to find the sections about book, album, and song titles this late at night (in my time zone), but, generally speaking, conventions are no substitute for the wiki house style, and the wiki book, album, and song capitalisation rules really should be followed as far as possible (most appropriately followed by silently correcting them, the way Mel did). One reason for this is that the titles of many, many wiki articles are book titles or song titles. Article titles, once in place, aren't as simple to change as other text around the site. The "Go" and "Search" commands are case sensitive, so [mis]titling an article, say, The Country wife or The country wife instead of the correct (house style correct, not "English" correct!) The Country Wife will cause real trouble, even though of course using plenty of redirects will be useful there. Hope this helps.--Bishonen | talk 23:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Thanks for this; I've copied it to Rednblu's Talk page.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question about number of edits[edit]

Hello, since the welcome message to my talk page came from you, I presume you're the person I should turn to with any questions. I notice that every time anyone makes a change in an article, the old and new versions are stored in the history page. I'm not terribly computer literate, but it seems that that would take up a lot of space, and I presume Wikipedia doesn't have infinite webspace. If I see an incorrect comma in the third paragraph, a spelling error in the fifth, an incorrect link in the sixth, an incorrect date in the eighth, and unclear wording in the thirteenth, does Wikipedia prefer that I do one big edit so that it will have only one new page to store, or is it okay to save as I go along? Are the individual versions in the history page deleted after a certain length of time? I've been editing my user page, and just wonder whether I should leave changes until I have something big to change.


Ann Heneghan 20:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Butting in here, again, as people ask more interesting questions on Mel's talk page than on mine). Ann, firstly, diskspace is so incredibly cheap that you could type flat out for your whole life and you wouldn't fill a drive that cost 100 euros; so don't worry about diskspace. This issue of what to do in an individual edit is one purely for the convenience of other people who are reading it. So if you're doing a bunch of fairly trivial tweaks (fixing grammar, spelling, formatting, etc) then do all of those in one go (and give an edit summary like "various grammar and spelling tweaks". If the article needs tweaks and also need a higher-level change (adding or removing a big chunk of text, fixing some wording that you thing is seriously incorrect or misreading) then do the trivial fixes in one edit, and the other fix in another (with an edit summary like "removing nonsense about Father Dougal"). So (in summary) make changes based on what is a logical unit, not what's convenient for the software. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 21:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Thanks for this; I've copied it to Ann Heghan's Talk page) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for detailed and helpful answer, and also to others who sent me advice. Thanks also, Mel, for your advice on uploading photos. Actually, Gerald Farinas has been kind enough to upload my photo for me. However, I will examine what you wrote, and hope that by the time of my next graduation (I'm hoping to start a doctorate soon), I'll have learned how to upload photos myself. Thanks again. Ann Heneghan 22:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Thanks a lot for a nice welcome. I've already had some experience from Polish Wikipedia, so I will not have any problems to get used to editing English one. However it is good to know, where the important and helpful sites are. --Viol8or 22:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Clicking 'Save page' too quickly is what everyone, who has ever edited Wikipedia, knows very well. Anyway, it's nice to see that someone is helping new Wikipedians to acquaint with useful tips and options. Greetings --Viol8or 22:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Mel, I have a small problem. I redirected Wholism to Holism, in the process deleting an article that contained little to no content about a purported 'religion' that I am almost certain is fraudulent, which consists of a single website with little content. Another editor reverted my change, wanting to "give the article time to grow". I have always heard of Wholism as a synonym of Holism. What appears to have happened is that the owner of the website is using wikipedia (as well as the term "wholism") for some free publicity. I don't have enough knowledge of IP addresses to figure out if the anon that I'm talking to on the talk page is the same as the owner of the website. --goethean 16:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just found this whilst browsing wholism on google. Oh dear Goethean really has got his knickers in a twist hasn't he? Just to make him feel even sicker, if he checks out meta physics (two words) on google he will find that my wholism site is no 1 there as well, out of more than 1,000,000. ...added anonymously at 06:15, 2005 May 5 by


Hello ...

... um ... you're not going to bite my head off are you?

Good ... you've put me through quite some stress lately, so my head probably wouldn't taste so good at the moment.

Actually, I came here to ask you if perhaps in future, would you mind terribly to talk things over first (1)? Preferably before you bite another one of my legs off. It's terribly inconvenient to hop around like this.


(1) I can be reached on my user talk page, per wikipedia email (linked from there), -or even better- via real time communication on IRC (, #wikipedia).

Kim Bruning 17:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hi, sorry if I made a mistake. Today was my first time "speedying" articles, and I got 5 speedied. The Homeboys in Outer Space article was identicle to Homeboys in Space, but that got speedied. If you feel it is worthy of being an article then I defer to your judgement. Thanks--Chammy Koala 19:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No worries--Chammy Koala 19:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mel, I strongly disagree with your redirects of the Avril songs. There is ample precedent for individual articles on popular songs. Everyking 19:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've become extremely chary of editing on top of others' edits. Rather than fix it myself, I'd like you to go over recent history for this page and see if you can't find an acceptable way to include William of Orange. Obviously, we don't need the whole historical song-and-dance, but I think there should be a direct link. — Xiongtalk 21:41, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

I reverted the anon's edit largely because it produced a howler (though admittedly a very funny one): "Orange signifies Protestantism in Northern Ireland, from the colour of William of Orange, who would later become a British Monarch, a Dutch Prince (see above), and Hinduism in India." I like the idea of William of Orange finally becoming Hinduism after his rise through royalty.
I've added a 'see also' to the Orange Order article, which gives the required information. I hope that that's OK. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that's just fine. Thank you. — Xiongtalk 22:32, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

Re: Mr Tan[edit]

Dear Mel Etitis (how may I call you?), I sent User:Mr Tan a small reprimand regarding his current behavior and grammar. In it I stated that he should stop considering himself an English grammar expert. A few hours later, he sent me a reply, stating, among other things, that he knows his English is not perfect, but merely "passable, good." To prove this, he asked me to take look at his "cleanup" of Lahul and Spiti. The article was already in a deplorable state before he came along, with run-ons and nonsense sentences and all that, but now it is utterly unintelligible. I tried to clean it up just now, but I was very quickly overwhelmed by the number of errors. It is clear that this fellow does not intend to stop. Please do two things for us (and I will help one way or another, rest assured):

I implore you

most sincerely and exasperatedly(?), JMBell° 22:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I strongly support an RfC. I don't know what to do with him; he even has the nerve to give out "pointers" (yes, you wrote that). What an idiot. Why does he have to plague us with his innumerable mistakes? Why can't he just stay in the Chinese? I will try my best to reason with him - I just hope he listens. If it doesn't work (which is highly probable), then off he goes (I hope, because he seems to think a ban is unfair). Let's just cross our fingers and hope for the best, and in the meantime, I'll try clean up after his mess. Regards - JMBell° 23:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've tried another tactic with Tan. I hope he stops now. BTW, he's done more "correcting" on Lahul and Spiti - will clean up after his mess. Good day to you, sir - JMBell° 10:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mr. Tan has agreed to stop editing for the time being. See User_talk:JMBell#Tan. I guess this gives us a chance to fix up his errors. Unfortunately, he says that if we tell him we're over and he is not satisfied with our work, this whole cycle will start over again. But at least he'll stop. Best regards - JMBell° 12:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too Long[edit]

This page is due for archival; I can no longer load it directly. — Xiongtalk 22:36, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

clean up tag at Miranda House[edit]

I see your point. Perhaps I was too hasty in removing the tag.

Voting vs Polls[edit]

Shall I make my report?

I managed to catch Jimbo Wales and JamesF and talked your concerns through with them. Somehow I ended up defending your side of the story to them, to the best of my ability. :-) Let's see where this goes!

Kim Bruning 01:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletes[edit]

In return, please son't bite my head off if someone, namely the person responsible for this "Kyla" non-article, is too lazy to write more than a couple of half-baked sentences in expectation of it "expanding." Also, I would greatly appreciate your leaving messages of this type on my e-mail and not a public page. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 04:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have read your comments. Honestly, let's not talk about comments. To me, you and Moumine are equally aggravating to me, and what I want you to do is, change the styling of Zanskar something like Lahul and Spiti.

We have to work out on our differences. See how other users edit in wikipedia, such as Nichalp, and compare with me. Honestly, I tell you, I have scored "A"s for my English during my school days. The problem is that our POVs are starkly different, and we must learn to have mutual respect for each other, so that both of us can come to a stage both of us are satisfied about Zanskar and Lahul and Spiti, by working hand in hand together in that case. Zanskar, looks more like a piece of research paper than an encyclopedia article to me.

If you do not understand the way I want, I do not want an article that makes a person, after reading, feels monotomous, such as Zanskar. Instead, I would like something like the Liancourt Rocks, just like Lahul and Spiti. There is not as much gramatical errors as you have thought. You are mistaken. For example, using ;, the word and too frequently in a sentence rather than using commas is not good english.

I suggest that to work out our differences, stop editing all together about Lahul and Spiti for the time being. Instead, go to the Wikipedia:Requests for comments, and you comment about me, and I comment about you by using the page /Mel Etitis & Mr Tan. The final judgement will goes to the rest of the wikipedia users on who is right in the overall.

Also, please help me explain on the conduct of User:Nanshu on Tsushima Islands. He has deletd some facts and has been replacing them with his own version, which is not impartial, ommitting the Korean facts of Tsushima.

User:Mr Tan 14:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not see where is the point you accept such a "rubble" article like Zanskar. I appeal you to clean it up, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. You even have threatened to block me, by all means to harass me, in anyway. I do not understand why, for what so ever reason, you do not understand how you call that a "good" article. I am appealing to you, to cleanup up to a stage where I am satisfied. This cannot go on for long. And I don't want to hear a reply on this message.

[[User:Mr Tan|Tan4:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

why dont you have the courage to state who you are and your address instead of the cowardly manner you defame people using absurd nom de plums. if you believe what you are writing about people and me in particular then have the courage to say so and do it with pride. i am giovanni di stefano and my address is via tommaso salvini 15 roma 00197 italia and my telephone number is 0207 332 0156 and e mail


Hello. Please explain why you reverted my edits at Tsushima Island. I afraid you did not notice I explained my questions about Mr Tan's edits and pointed out his errors at Talk in detail. I put a question to you about the page title there too. Also, I ask you to prevent Mr Tan from dodging my questions by giving all-in-one replies instead of answering each of them. --Nanshu 14:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quote from User_talk:Nanshu.

As you may have realised, this article is a sensitive one for some reason.


It is best not to make major edits without first discussing them on the Talk page.

Yes. And I did.

I didn't expect you to say such a thing. I put detailed explanation about my edits at Talk. But neither Mr Tan nor you answered. For example, I pointed out the term "Tsuikai Kingdom" is erroneous for two reasons 12:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC). But Mr Tan ignored my remark and that error is still left uncorrected at the article. Hey, what can I do else? Unless you reflect discussion at talk on the article, we don't move toward settlement. Your strong-arm approach produces nothing. --Nanshu 00:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For my map, see its image description page. It is the highest resolution. I created its png version together with the jpeg file. But there isn't so much of a difference between them in quality although the former was five times larger in file size. --Nanshu 00:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greeks page[edit]

I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at the Greeks page and its history. I'm trying pretty hard to make this article NPOV and a couple of Greek nationalists have been making that hard. Your thoughts here or in its Talk page -- and potentially your edits -- could, I think, be very helpful. --Macrakis 17:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • FYI, it appears that Charonite is the same as -- see edit history of User talk:Charonite). I guess he decided to drop anonymity and join in discussion, which is a good thing. But he still thinks he has a monopoly on the truth, alas. --Macrakis 15:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Mel Etitis. Can you help merging the edit history of Nanyang (disambiguation) and Nanyang? Thanks so much. — Instantnood 17:37, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

In fact either way would do. Thanks. :-D — Instantnood 18:05, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, may we have the contents on Nanyang, and not on Nanyang (disambiguation)?--Huaiwei 18:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Refer to my response in User_talk:Huaiwei#Nanyang_.28disambiguation.29. Thanks!--Huaiwei 19:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zanskar et al.[edit]

Dear Mel (may I call you Mel or would you like the whole name), I think protecting Zanskar would be a good idea, since Mr Tan has been voicing his intentions on "cleaning it up" sometime in May. The same goes for his other articles. That's all. If it's ok with you, then good, but if it's not, then that's also ok with me. - JMBell° 18:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just thought you'd want to know - it seems that Mr. Tan has gone on that week-or-so-long Wikibreak of his. He posted on his user page that he might be gone for "either a week or two permanently." Now, since that's a contradiction, I thought that he might not really mean it, esp. bec. he has another message a bit further down saying that he'll "be contributing less frequently," not stopping altogether. But he didn't log on at 1700 UTC yesterday and 0400 UTC today, so I guess that means he's really on break. Just thought you might want to know. And btw, should I write something on the RfC? And where, bec. I've already signed the "Users who certify basis etc. etc." part. Thanks for your time. - JMBell° 09:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sorry about that. As a matter of fact, I thought it was Mr Tan who made the corrections and I was pretty impressed by his rapid improvements in english grammar(apart from the comma). But now that I know that it was you who made the corrections, I can figure out why the english suddenly seems right.

Maybe you also could drop a word about the rfc to User:Jmabel, he also seems to have had some issues with Mr Tan

Moumine 21:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete, part II[edit]

Hi again. Sorry if I snapped, especially in light of your magnificent editing record and personal conduct. It was a rather stressful day. Lame excuse, but it's the best one I have.  :^) Best, Lucky 6.9 21:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More speedy-deleteness[edit]

Sounds like we were both having the same kind of day. You da man! - Lucky 6.9 21:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Considering that Holon exists, does Wholon meet the criteria for speed deletion? --goethean 23:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks to me like an attempt to boost the links to, and the apparent significance of, Wholism in the (somewhat inscrutable) sense of yet another flavour of pantheism (or something like this) rather than simply a spelling variant of Holism. It all looks pretty non-notable (etc) to me, but I realize that I may have a particularly tiny appetite for the religious and quasi-religious. Still, if somebody would like to nominate this for VfD or to redirect it, they'd have my support. -- Hoary 06:36, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

I made it, Mel![edit]

In no small measure due to your considerable support! Thanks again, so much, for everything! Yours always, El_C 00:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reversion shock horror sensation![edit]

Hello hello, what's all this then?

Some of my changes might have been a bit off, but as I glance at them no grotesque solecisms jump off the screen and hit me over the head. Perhaps they should, for perhaps my English (or editing ability, or something) is worse than I realize. Time for me to hobble off and get a brain transplant, or what? -- Hoary 03:48, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Stockwell replies...[edit]

Thanks for the note on the article. I'm new and just got over zealous. I appreciate the information and thanks for looking out for me. --Stockwell 05:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Tan[edit]

Yes, yes, but his arrogance annoys me. The dialect stuff is a sort of tactic - know what that is, Tan? - and besides, he referred me to another Singaporean's page to show what "Singaporean English" is like. I don't want to throw him out, but I am peeved by his inaccurate "facts", insistence on "correcting" "wrong" grammar, and pride in thinking that his English is far better than that of an English teacher, a learned Swiss, and a freelance writer (is that the correct term) combined. Really, it gets to be too much sometimes. Well, at least it's good to have this small breathing space. But we need to ask him about the cryptic sentences he places in the articles, and which I have sequestered (or isolated, whichever may be better). I feel that the articles will be incomplete without these and evidence that they're for real. Anyway, that's all for now. Till next time - JMBell° 14:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're not missing anything. The anon in question,, was running around creating User: pages with the single word "try" on them. I left the anon a note on eir talk page [1], then listed him on WP:VIP when e didn't stop. The user pages in question were created by this anon and serve no purpose; I see no reason not to delete them. They could also just be blanked, I suppose. Kelly Martin 22:30, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Update: Apparently my attempt to list this individual on WP:VIP was unsuccessful as I can't find the listing now. My apologies. Also, the user apparently quit after three pages. Kelly Martin 22:34, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the contributions of User:Aaronantrim are relevant here; I spotted the vandalism from the RC list and it was listed as a new page. As far as I can tell Aaronantrim has never had a user page (despite having prior contributions). See [2] for the other two user pages vandalized by this short-term vandal. Kelly Martin 22:38, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
I suppose I was recommending a solution that would restore the status quo ante. Blanking is functionally little different, I suppose; which approach is actually taken is of only minor concern to me. Kelly Martin 23:46, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

bomb dogs speedy[edit]

Non-notability isn't a factor for speedy? Man, I have to rethink my entire strategy then -- I've nominated scads of articles for speedy based on the fact that they're vanity, or gibberish, or otherwise non-notable, and I think you're the first person who has complained to me about it. I shall exercise greater discretion in the future if it's warranted. --I. Neschek | talk 01:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My RFA[edit]

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Although the voting period just ended with a 14-8-2 vote, I will admit once and for all that I used it more as an evaluation of myself. Being promoted would have been a plus. I was more interested in who voted, when they voted, who would change their votes and when, and the comments I would receive. Hopefully I will correct the main weakness that was raised by those who voted oppose -- that I was too eager to put articles on VFD. Also, I will try to interact more with those Wikipedians who did not vote at all.

As for next month, I don't know if I will nominate myself again. I might not think about it until somebody else puts me up there on RFA at a later date. Eventually, I see myself as an admin, especially as the number of articles and users continues to grow. Thanks again and good luck at improving this vast archive of free knowledge. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Would you have a look at the Anacalypsis article? I'd value your thoughts. -- BD2412 thimk 11:31, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Can you check vandalism on Simple Plan?[edit]

I think there's something seriously wrong on there-..-- Thanks, Greedy

Sorry Mel, I've been frustrated recently with leaving people's messages and never getting any response. I should have been more polite :) Sorry again. Iluvchineselit 22:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this really matters to you then please feel free to update the entire mobile weapon list.

List of Mobile Weapons

Ockham's razor[edit]

I did post on the talk page, I simply forgot to sign it. I leave it to you to replace the bolding after you read the section of the wikipedia manual of style I quoted in the talk. --metta, The Sunborn 16:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mel!

I put this article (apparently it was a spurious redirect when you deleted it) which you deleted on April 16 on WP:VFU. Can you look into the concerns I posted there please?

Sjakkalle 12:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

someone's impersonating you[edit]

User:MeI Etitis (third letter of name is capital "Eye"). FreplySpang (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've blocked their account, and reverted their recent edits. -- The Anome 19:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


Before sending me some random comment, explain why you did. That could help. DrippingInk 19:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:GreeceEuro.jpg in Greeks[edit]

Hey Mel. I love the statue of the Kouros and the other sculpture, but imho, the soccer team pic does not belong in Greeks. What's your take? Thanks :)

Project2501a 22:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What kind of "everyday modern greeks" picture are you looking for? kafe? frape? souvlaki? (hehe, am i stereotyping?). Maybe i can help.
ok, cool. i have a couple in mind. one wiht a butch of people crossing the street in Omonia square and another one in Pireus drinking cofffee, in the Zea marina. both are courtesy of dolnet ( I'll do that first thing when i wake up.

Project2501a 00:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahem... Yet Again[edit]

Do not speak to me as if you are a computer. In case you have not noticed, not every article (yes, I'm being honest here) has the word number spelled out. Some do have #. And yes, I now know that I am not to be capitalizing the beginning of a new title. Sometimes I do wish that the "L" in "Links" would be capitalized, though, as it seems highly disturbing not to be. But I learn.

When it comes to song titles, the majority of words are capitalized. Not all, of course, but one certain word is that seems to keep getting spelled lower-cased. DrippingInk 22:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allan Nairn[edit]

Hi again, if you have a moment, could you take a look at Allan Nairn? Trey Stone is up to his usual games. Details on the Talk page. I have just reverted him. If you agree with my position, I would appreciate some support. Thanks. -- Viajero 10:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And this article as well: Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti. BTW, Trey Stone appears to be editing anonymously as well: [3]. Viajero 11:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ming Mang Mong deletion[edit]

I'm not sure the Ming Mang Mong entry qualifies as nonsense. There is a fictional band called Ming Mang Mong whose doings are well documented on [4]. Many fictional bands have entries in Wikipedia, indeed there is a category of them.

The entry is obscure, but fans of the (genuine) band Prolapse (which has an entry) might be interested in one of its members' current, if fictional, career. I did't think obscurity was a qualification for deletion.

I do concede that the article needed work. It's attitude was in-jokey, but this can be cleaned up. --Mongreilf 15:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Truth hurts?[edit]

Since when is the truth considered vandalism? I'm showing the real face of Martin Luther King, whether you like it or not the facts I present are not assumptions, they are fact and as such their place on an encyclopedia should be assured.

I know you think changing people's assumptions on that liar's person is a bad thing, free thought in general as become a bad thing. But I think the truth is more important than preserving years of poorly set lies. As such I see absolutely no reason to consider my posts as vandalism.

Excuse Me![edit]

How DARE you accuse me of English not being my first language just because I said rather confusing things. For one, don't talk to me like a computer or robot meaning the following: "perfect phrases with big words appaering every other word".

This "personal" taste stuff is also quite mind-boggling. One, I have no idea what you are talking about, and two, do not tell me that I am ignoring it when I expressed that I had come to realize that some words are not capitalized in English even though they seem to be everywhere else.

Again, who do you think you are of accusing English not being my first language? Think twice before you speak.

If you reply, I don't expect it to be absolutely perfect. DrippingInk 00:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia articles of dubious importance - quick question.[edit]

Mel: I ran across a history related "article of dubious importance" (Thomas Knowlton), and tidied it up. I then moved the tag to the talk page. Can plain little old editors remove such a tag altogether? Thanks. WBardwin 05:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for removing the tag and for the compliment. I find I get compulsive about worthy stubs. WBardwin 09:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mahajana, thanks[edit]

Thanks for posting a response on the VfU page. Personally I think the article should be undeleted, but only on procedural grounds. I see that it can be a problem when people, without reading the article, vote keep on any article with a title ending with "School". Sometimes I wonder if the school inclusionist squad thinks that deleting a school article is tantamount to closing the school itself. Do you think I should enter the VfD debates about schools or do you think it wiser just to stay out? Sjakkalle 09:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thought so. :-) Sjakkalle 09:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I continue[edit]

I'm practically fed up with having to repeat myself. One: English is my mother tongue. I don't know where you were getting off at, but it certainly is.

For the second time, stop telling me that most of my sentences are confusing, because that is starting to tick me off greatly.

Oh, no. I said I've realized that some words aren't too be capitalized. Now when this comes to song titles, things are totally different. Plus, I don't ever, ever remember "Up" being lower case (with some exception).

I do not expect a reply if you haven't a clue what I'm saying. DrippingInk 12:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have checked hundreds of grammar books and spelling books, and at this point, "Up", as I figured, is capitalized in song titles. So is "With". At this point, I no longer give a damn if Wikipedia says that they're lower-case. Because they are wrong.

Also, you do not have the power to block my friend from editing. This whole time he has been making adjustments to tiny errors, and yours was one of them. If he is not unblocked, I will report you. DrippingInk 13:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plain Dumb[edit]

Could I ask why the hell you are reverting the singles into one section on Avril Lavigne's album if you leave them out on the main article on her second album? What's the point of this?

Ah, so then why didn't you merge the second album, Under My Skin, earlier?

QUIT reverting the Let Go album's time length. It is not 50 minutes. It is 48 minutes. I think I would know this on the count of I own the LP. So quit changing it. DrippingInk 15:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am vandalizing nothing. DrippingInk 15:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If "With" is capital because Avril Lavigne wanted it that way, you have no control over lower-casing it. That is what the vandilism is. Just because she wanted it to be spelled one way to the world doesn't fit (ahem) "proper English", doesn't give you the power to go and change it.

Until you came along, "With" had been capital for quite a long time. Leave it be, because I won't be giving up. DrippingInk 15:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Five out of those seven sites not just had "with" in lower-case, but some also had "you", too. One even had "I'm" spelled "i'm". What proof is that supposed to show?

And of course the two sites that were correct spelled it with proper English - they obviously don't know about this. They're just sites that are trying to sell records.

Again, get over it, for you won't succeed. I've come to the conclusion of reporting you.

<<Until you came along, "With" had been capital for quite a long time. Leave it be, because I won't be giving up. DrippingInk 15:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)>>Reply[reply]
  • You are right, Sir DrippingInk.  :)) You are right. You have encountered unreasonable authority. And you are right, and unreasonable authority is wrong. Nevertheless, how about you and I just let unreasonable authority--together with unreasonable authority's bad grammar, bad spelling, bad vision, bad logic, and blindness to written rules and protocol--just have their day for a few days?  :)) I suggest you and I should just let it be for a few days, what do you say? ---Rednblu | Talk 15:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've really had it this time. Calling my English bad and blocking me and everything. Watch out all of you. Drippinglnk 19:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia Policy[edit]

User:Jdforrester (aka. JamesF) is very interested in your interpretation of wikipedia rules wrt voting and polls. I told him I was assuming you'd read through policy very carefully, and drew the conclusions you had drawn.

It appears that this section of wikipedia policy might need some work, due to this, and he's thinking of going and fixing it.

Could you contact James and help him to find problems with the wording or current policy?

Thanks in advance!

Kim Bruning 17:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


elements cross-posted

I'm sorry, but you are indeed labouring under a misapprehension - 'voting', in as much as undertaking binding votes, is fundamentally anti-wiki and anti-policy, whereas 'polling', conducting straw-polls which are not binding is often a generally good way to gauge what different parties feel or believe, and help people establish consensus. This is a very widely-held policy (note the distinction, please, between actual policy and policy-as-it-was-written-down), and is what Kim was saying (and quite rightly).
What I'm interesting in is which documents, policy or otherwise, you read and got the wrong impression from, because I (or someone else) evidently needs to update them to aid people in their understanding of policy.
James F. (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, indeed, there are quite a number of terms of art associated with Wikipedia and the various community processes we have; their use, though perhaps slightly unhelpful for clarity to newbies, massively increases clarity and - almost as important - brevity for those who have made it over the learning curve.
Thanks to the issues raised from this this episode, as a first step I updated Wikipedia:Survey guidelines ([5]) to make this clearer, but would greatly appreciate your thoughts on further modifications necessary.
James F. (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can you please explain why qualitative is pending deletion. It does not meet any speedy deletion criteria, has not been listed on VfD and there is a much better version in the history [6]. -- FP <talk><edits> 20:44, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


I'm back for a while.

Oh, yes, I'm expecting the Comments, and I have lots of statements in this respective issue as well. Concerning about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan, may I enquire where should I place my statements?

By the way, I will settle all the projects with you soon. Please excuse me for a few days more. Meanwhile, reflect on your reverts and edits, etc, for you have done things beyond the permitted limit. I have a lot to comment as well, and I will specify why I do not accept Zanskar, and explaning on my writing style. Thanks.

Tan 15:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't edit protected pages[edit]

[7] Wikipedia:Protected_page#Policy. Also Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Editing_protected_pages

Sam Spade 14:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate what you say about not reverting other people's well intentioned edits when dealing with objectionable text, and under all other circumstances I would not have done so, however Timecube is not a stable article. While these edits did include a disambiguation and a revision of a sentence, as well as your own {{copyedit}} tag, these changes were all made to the version of the article which is "uncleaned-up" and do not exist in the cleaned version, so would have been difficult to preserve. The version to which I reverted is one which myself and several other editors have been working after the general consensus of the VfD was to cleanup and keep. Anonymous user reverts these changes to the pre-VfD version, offering fairy evasive arguments as justification. See Talk:Time Cube and archives thereof for further details. The user is also avoiding arbitration, so it is difficult to see how we can proceed here. I shall also cross-post this to Talk:Time Cube. Anilocra 15:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok thank you :) i'm new to posting on wikipedia and really didn't understand the rules... thanks for helping me.


What type of stuff would you like me to add to this page? also, i am having the head of the group go in to add to it... so hopefully it will get better :)



Hi again, sorry to bother you again. I am beginning to wonder whether it isn't time open an RfC on Trey Stone. He reverted my reverts to Allan Nairn this evening with the edit summary: i've proven my case, i will not discuss this any further ([8]). What kind of attitude is this? Moreover, he has done nothing of the sort. I cite Nairn's own articles in The Nation and elsewhere. He cites nothing. -- Viajero 21:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of the policies he breaks, Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:No original research come to mind. Can you think of any others? -- Viajero 22:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand. Good luck with your duties! More anon... -- Viajero 22:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


point well taken, but i thought it was better to place an article in a somewhat related category where it would have a better chance of being found by interested people than to just leave it in the slosh of all the bio-stub articles. i guess i should be more careful next time--i didn't see the mention of the high priest. Psp 22:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Mel Etitis,

In the article on francisca:

  • I changed the link Reenactment to reenactment. I believe that the first letter of links has no case-significance: certainly both links appear to work. (It disconcerts me on occasion to find upper-case letters in the middle of sentences due to linking...)
  • I re-wrote "c." as "circa". I have some prejudices about abbreviations in general: they seem less necessary in an on-line encyclopedia than in an off-line equivalent, and less ambiguous when spelt out (and in this case italicised to mark foreignness...). Perhaps I also half-remember something like this extract from the Wikipedia Manual of Style:
Scholarly abbreviations of Latin terms like i.e., e.g., or n.b. should be avoided and English terms such as that is, for example, or note used instead.
  • I "restored" a previously-deleted reference to the "distinctive shape" in the first paragraph. It seemed to me that we should disabuse a reader of any pre-conception that the Franks may have used something closely resembling a modern "standard" axe - though the illustration may help in this. The second paragraph goes some way to discussing the "distinctiveness" of the francisca: I simply wanted to express/foreshadow that - up-front in the first paragraph. But I wouldn't die in a ditch for that formulation.
  • I re-cast the first sentence as two separate sentences when I felt that the original seemed "overloaded" (particularly with all the variant spellings and translations). As you point out, I edited for style: hopefully without loss of clarity.

Regards Pedant17 02:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Qualitative Research[edit]

Dear Mel,

I am an academic in psychology - specialising in research methodology. My first foray into Wikipedia was to make some improvements to the page on "Qualitative Research" (under the IP address I can assure you that my edits were both fair and well supported in scientific literature. You (according to your user site) have no expertise in the area, yet you saw fit to simply undo my very considered work.

This experience has turned me off Wikipedia. When just anyone can undo the work of specialists in the area, then only ignorance can thrive.

I won’t undo your edits, but nor will I every consult Wikipedia again.

Just thought you should know…

Jeff Patrick