User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 32

List of Qazis of the Maldives is fine.

It is fine to have List of Qazis of the Maldives. Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyaaz (talk • contribs) 12:37, 23 January 2006

Copyvio problems with User:Jack71483

We have been experiencing problems with Jack71483 since he arrived, and I would like to ask you for your assistance. When he first started editing, he contributed a half-dozen vanity articles about himself, with names such as Hsu-nami, Hsunami, and others. Nearly all of them were speedy deleted as duplicates, with the last one, Jack Hsu, being posted to AFD. Well now I come to find that he's adding copyvio articles left and right. What troubles me most is that this person does not respond to feedback on his talk page, and I'm not quite sure what to do about that. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milton

Sorry about that; I tend to forget to include an edit summary when the edit doesn't take very long. I'm also in the bad habit of placing quotes around search terms (often easier to find stuff that way) so the only "Milton, South Australia" I found was linked to Wikipedia. Bad habit + bad habit = death by lung cancer :) -VetteDude 19:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JuJu (Wayne Shorter album)

I do not know why we keep sparring over the following sentence.

On "JuJu", Shorter's timbre is rather astringent, and his phrases are long and volatile, neither being typical of his later work; elsewhere, "Yes or No" is reminiscent harmonically of Coltrane's "Giant Steps", and "House of Jade", like later Shorter ballads (including "Infant Eyes" from Speak No Evil) is similar in melody and structure to "Naima".

A couple of things are obvious:

1. The sentence is too long. I should know, I wrote it. 2. "Neither" refers here to a set of three adjectives. (Or maybe to two nouns - "phrases", which is to say, he only plays two??). "Neither" refers to nouns. Two nouns. Not three adjectives.

I'll leave policing my link to Coltrane changes up to you. When I say "Yes Or No" is reminiscent harmonically of that tune, that's what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.76.235 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 23 January 2006

Which University?

I am studying Property Development(now year 2) at Portsmouth University. Originally from Warwick, but was drawn to Portsmouth due to the sailing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceej18 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 23 January 2006

Gen-so fantasia

Wondring why you put {{copyedit}} back on. It looked OK to me - but yeah what you did after me was good but isnt it finished now? Defunkier 13:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining

Hi! At first, sorry about my horrible English... hope u may understand my words. Marina Dias is a Brazilian supermodel and I hope that the links I had inserted at the article may be enought to show it. Besides, I thought that Fair use images were acceptable at the Wikipedia.en, so that's the way I uploaded those images. Hope u might understand me. I was just trying to increase Wikipedia's database, not to disturb. Best wishes, Sturm br 23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REMOVALS

I just want a detailed explanation as to why my material is removed? Many of the things I put up their ARE related with eachother. I am not the 'Wikipedia is NeoNazism' vandal, so I do not know why my stuff is removed, given that it is based on present analogies between the subjects I presented (particularly Carl Jung and Vernadsky). Can I have any feedback on this? 69.248.43.27 00:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC) (Update: I have just signed in, so you may contact me at IdeArchos 02:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Wikified

In response to you comment on user talk page: The Blues for Salvador article which you think needs to be wikified has the typical set up of a wiki article for an album. Because it has all the relevent structure and links (primarily the album info box) it is in accourdance with the wiki structure. However it needs to be worked on to have a more information (and as such i've added the stub tag), but the structure is already set out. I have not removed the wikify tag because I suspect that you'd put it back. Though it doesn't need it. Matthew kokai 03:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove my wikification on the Brandon C. Rodegeb page, which I have not reverted back? Matthew kokai 03:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand tag on talk page

Ok, thank you. I didn't know. --Edcolins 11:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anamnesis

Sources provided as requested. Cheers. JHCC (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation and the Euthyphro Dilemma Article

Hey there.

I noticed that you reverted my edits to the capitalisations of the word "God" throughout the article. The issue is trivial, but apparently not trivial enough for me to not make the changes and for you to not revert them. Can you please explain why the odd capitalisation here?

Thanks.

Re:Removals

Alright. I am sorry for having it all capitals, I was just shocked since I have assistend in editing the whole WiNN mess, and as a philosophy, many of the people I put theire do have an association with aspects of cosmotheism, especially H. G. Wells, Vernadsky and Fr. de Chardin, and the references to the Collective Conscious and Unconscious, the global brain, and the Noosphere/Omega Point seemed highly analogous to each-other. But, I will stop at here for now. Again, I am sorry for the capitals, I was just shocked.

I would also like to know, why is the pantheism article on the pantheism discussion board, and why are there administrators keeping it there? WiNN told me that it was there so that theire could be some retooling decisions, or something like that, I do not know if I can trust him fully though...

IdeArchos 01:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back from Ann

Hi, Mel. I just want to say (rather belatedly) welcome back. I had noticed your absence, and had thought of e-mailing you once or twice, but never got round to it. I've been rather busy lately. Your page has been on my watchlist since you welcomed me to Wikipedia last April, so I noticed as soon as you came back. See you around. AnnH ^(talk) 17:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 25, 2006

Bah, I was obviously a bit quick on the draw with the {{db}} tag - I honestly hadn't encountered any "<month> <day>, <year>" articles before, and a quick check of January 24, 2006 (at the time) reinforced my hunch that they didn't exist. It was my error though, so thanks for catching and correcting it. Cheers! --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 23:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Çağlar

I removed the wikify tag as the article is incomprehensible and possibly a hoax. Until those difficulties are fixed it would be a waste of someone's time to wikify it. Once the article is written in English the tag can be added, if then necessary. Avalon 23:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full stop!

Hello! I hope you're well. Thanks for rectifying this. I'm unsure what compelled me to edit that in (perhaps because I frequently see it); however, when I double-checked my style guides and realised that the style wasn't noted, I headed back to edit it out when I realised you did so. BTW: is there a guideline that deals with the use of periods in titles, etc. in Wp? Anyhow, thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the Ages

Nice stub. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 13:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent page move

Hello, Mel Etitis. I respect your contributions to many philosophy articles and your opinions on how to title them. I know you have strong feelings about the best title for the article on the elder Dan. I have read all of your arguments on that talk page, and they are probably the best written ones there. But they are not the only ones, and the opinions of other editors, after a period of discussion, should also be taken into account. I see a page move request there that did meet the commonly accepted threshhold of 60% approval. It appears to have been closed early, then re-opened, then left in limbo for quite some time. Please accept that my attempt to carry out the request was done in good faith. Jonathunder 18:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realise now that I should have done this a long time ago but please take a look at this edit. It certainly changes things a bit but as Jonathunder notes there were many others that posted good faith votes for the move. Anyway, with this in mind, I don't think anybody can complain that you reverted the move. Keep up the good work. Stefán Ingi 13:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shania Twain singles

Hello,

I'd like to thank you, for all the effort you have put into the the Shania Twain pages I've been working on. Although I don't agree with all of your edits (removing the performances) I'm sure you have Wikipedia at mind when you do it.

So thanks again,

--Thankyoubaby 19:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPE

Hi, just to explain why I think the PPE article should not contain the york link you're putting there: there are 12 universities mentioned in the page ALL of which could have a link, but - obviously - we can't have that many links. Since only Oxford has some sort of 'special status' wrt PPE and York certainly does not, why have the york link? If you want, create an article called "Universities that offer PPE" and make the link there. Just my thoughts... Mikkerpikker ... 21:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see your point - shouldn't have called it linkspam. (still learning wikispeak! :) Anyhow, I don't particularly think giving examples of different PPE degrees is necessary, an interested reader can just look for the info on the websites of the universities mentioned. That said, I don't feel particularly strongly about it. Perhaps, however, a link to an American uni would be better? (2x UK) Mikkerpikker ... 22:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removing my entry

why did you remove my entry it wasn't complete

you say yourself: My approach, therefore, unless there's some genuine reason to delete, such as a prank article, is either not to get involved in such votes on people, or (if I can see a good argument against deletion) to vote to keep.

so what gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crapmylegfelloff (talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 January 2006

Recent edits

Re Brett Dorey, I used the headings as a note for expansion of the section. Cheers for the info though.

And I never edited Major Taylor. Cheers, R o gerthat ^Talk 11:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for movepage tip, any others?

Thanks for letting me know that I could move a "newpage same as creator name" to the creator's user page. I'd tried to do that before, but I'd been told that I didn't have the privilege of moving pages. I guess my account must have "leveled up" since I'd tried that. I'm still very wet behind the ears here as an editor, and I've been trying to learn the ropes by doing grunt work on newpage patrol and checking for vandalistic edits. I've tried to read all the policy and guidelines docs I can find, so I hope I'm not making too many mistakes. Suggestions for how to get the best results from my editing time (in other words, what grunt work does WP need the most?) are very appreciated. Ben Kidwell 22:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roses

War of roses be-in todate...

Signed in

165.21.154.113 23:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London League Teams

Hello mate. I have noticed that you have removed the following pages: London Welsh F.C., 1st Scots Guards F.C. and vampires F.C.. If you have problems with these articles shouldn't you be taking them to afd rather than just deleting them without any consensus. All these teams were part of the London League and an essential part of English football league history. Spyrides 00:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (Spychats)[reply]

Trinity College Oxford

Hi there,

Why did you remove the section about the Chapel from the Trinity College, Oxford page?163.1.162.20 12:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity College Oxford (again)

That's fair enough, but surely something should be put in instead. It might not have been the first not in Gothic style, but it was one of the first, if not the first purely Baroque chapel, and it's such a notable feature of the college that it shouldn't go unremarked.163.1.162.20 10:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to authority

Hello. I'm soon to be a philosophy student and, aware of your qualifications, was wondering if you could either take a look at the "Appeal to authority" article or at least my suggestions on the Talk page and critique/scrap them before I implement the changes. Yes, I am appealing to authority, and possibly not acting "boldly"; but I am inexperienced in both philosophy and wikipedia usage. Any help would be appreciated, and lack thereof understood. :-) Leon... 11:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macmillan New Writing

Hi,

My name's Roger Morris. I was the person who added the paragraph about Macmillan New Writing. Thank you for deleting the untrue claim about writers having to pay for editing. The only sources I can cite for what I wrote is myself, a Macmillan New Writing author, together with conversations I have had with Mike Barnard, the Macmillan UK board director who set up Macmillan New Writing. On refelection, I understand that such sources are unverifiable and therefore accept that my contribution should be in the discussion section. Now that you have removed the section you did, the article is uncontroversial anyhow.

roger's plog

Bombay Ducks and Digby Chicks

Hi, I put back the theory about Bombay Ducks and Digby Chicks. If I find the reference I'll post it - you can do a quick Google to verify that I'm not the only nutter who's heard the theory. It seems no more unlikely to me than the "Bombay Dak" theory, and there is plenty of material around with which you can verify the existence of the Digby Chick.

If you want to delete it again I won't complain (I have no references yet, after all), but I wanted you to know I wasn't mucking around.

Cheers!

recent deletion

Hi Mel. It's been a while since we crossed paths. I thought I'd drop you a line about Talk:Aetherometry. Helicoid came up in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2 a bit in reference to the aetherometry battle. (Hilarious result.) Considering that there a few AN/I posts, etc pointing at those talk pages, I'm a little curious about why he's in such a hurry to delete them. Anyway, I hope you are doing well and having a good new year. Cheers, Banyan Tree 00:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, isn't this precisely the hidden agenda Mel was wondering about? The word that is being dropped to the wise (Mel) here is that - hint hint, nudge nudge - before he deletes the Aetherometry Talk pages, he should consider the fact that Helicoid voted against Connolley's adminship and participated in writing anti-wikipedia articles. But you know what? The reason I voted against Connolley and co-wrote the anti-wikipedia articles has everything to do with precisely these "hidden agendas" that seem to be one of the mainstays of how Wikipedia goes about its business. And after dropping this "hint", which clearly suggests that the non-deletion of the Aetherometry talk pages is meant as an act of revenge, this Banyan Tree innocently pretends to be "a little curious" about why I want the pages deleted! Please, can we stop playing these endless games? Helicoid 01:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helicoid, well at least you're forthright about it. I see that you are someone who appreciates and is accepting of an honest opinion, so I might as well make myself clear: I think Helicoid is a pseudoscientific loon who is trying to get an admin to remove easily accessible evidence of his looniness. I respect Mel's judgement and I don't have an exact objection so won't undelete it myself, but think that if anything good comes from Helicoid's participation in Wikipedia, it will be accidental. And if Helicoid has anything to say about me, I trust he will say it on my own user talk page rather than continuing to fill up Mel's talk. - Banyan Tree 04:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Banyan Tree, I am sorry, but I believe in keeping discussions continuous - and since the discussion started with your little hint to Mel, I think it is appropriate to work out the issues right here, where it started. As I said very clearly at the Village Pump, the Aetherometry Talk pages contain unfounded, unsubstantiated derogatory claims about Aetherometry. You are simply making another such claim, and acting as if you were saying something important and revealing. All that you're revealing is your own prejudice - and since you seem to be proud of it, I am willing to congratulate you on it. But I still don't see how there is anything "curious" about a proponent of Aetherometry wanting those derogatory claims removed. You insinuate that the reason for my wanting the claims removed is that they are true. But this, too, is completely unfounded: I might just as well want them removed because they are false. And your elevation of name-calling to the status of "evidence" is not a great testimonial to your intelligence, you know. Helicoid 04:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that BanyanTree has now unilaterally moved the discussion to hir own User Talk page. Helicoid 06:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid rude commentary?

I noticed your comment on User talk:Lao Wai; you've misunderstood, I'm afraid. The phrases "loony left", "loony right", etc., are fairly standard ways in English of talking about extreme political positions, and are perfectly acceptable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(You responded to an anon, but that was an accident. It was really me posting that.) I absolutely do not agree that it is acceptable to go into a discussion on an article where we already know that the subject of the article is engaged in the debate about the article, and proceed to use hostile terminology against him. That's just deeply deeply inappropriate behavior. Even if the subject of the article is not known to be around, we should consider that calling people 'looney' is still wrong for us.--Jimbo Wales 03:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Studying philosophy

I'm going to be studying at the University of Melbourne. In Australia, an honours qualification requires an extra year of study and I'm also concurrenly doing a medical degree, so we'll see how things pan out. I'll probably major in philosophy (in the BA) if I can and fill out the rest of my course with linguistics. Thanks for your interest and help! I've responded briefly to what you wrote about the logic Leon... 11:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wrote this before I actually responded, and I edited that response also. I assumed timezone considerations would have meant that I could take my time. Leon... 11:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allies (band)

Not sure why you have a problem with the term seminal. No indication on the talk page.

Also, not sure why you continue to change the capitalization of the album titles. I prefer the mixed case, but that is not the way that the albums are named. Other artists and bands don't use this case and I'm not sure why you feel that it's required for this band. Please explain. I'm not going to have an edit war over this. --Walter Görlitz 00:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, none of the information in the band is referenced. You'll have to give me some sort of clue as to how you would like their importabce referenced. Several later bands have stated that SCB influence them. They are one of a handful of bands who are referenced in a skit interlude by another foundational band of the genre, Servant. Since they were one of the only bands playing R&B and fusion rock was a key influence on the remainder of CCM. So if you want proof, I'll just rease all biographical information and we can have someone with more proof write the articles. Otherwise, please leave it as written.

Thanks for the hard work you do in editing, but don't edit stuff you don't know about. --Walter Görlitz 00:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seminal means three things, and only two are important when discussing a band:

Of, relating to, or having the power to originate; creative.
Highly influential in an original way; constituting or providing a basis for further development

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

This describes SCB. Again since you don't know anything about the subject, I suggest that you stay out of it.

Finally, pelase don't tell me that I don't grasp Wikipedia. I full understand it and that we are suppsoed to have a NPOV. What you don't understand is the topic and you certainly don't understand me. I am not a fan of the band. They were one of my least favourite bands of the era, but they were vital in the movement to include rock-oriented music in what was becoming Contemporary Christian music. This is not my opinion, it is the opinion of many, many others. I suggest, once again and with the greatest amount of force and influence that I can exert on the point, that unless you understand the topic that is under discussion that you refrain from taking an editorial position and leave the debate to the experts. You seem to have your fingers in a lot of pies, but don't seem to have grown any of the fruit. This is one pie I'd like you to refrain from ruining. Thanks. I will not be having an editing war on that page. I suggest that you go with the three revert rule and not change my edit back and leave it unless a domain expert disagrees with me on the subject. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz 18:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion that you stay out of fields that you know nothing about is not rude. It's true. It's not boorish--it has nothing to do with farming and it's a simple statement of fact, and it is far from mistaken. The fact is that SCB is considered by those who are insiders in the CCM industry to be a seminal band. They were foundational to what CCM has become. I have no documented proof, but community consensu will have to suffice. I will go seek that now and perhaps the group of editors can leave our sub-culture alone until they understand the subject.

If you remove editing rights for those who oppose you, it's not doing a service to Wikipedia, it's censorship for the elite. Thanks for your hard work and care, but please don't comment on me any further. --Walter Görlitz 20:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit

This was a good edit. Thank you. Sam Spade 19:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request

I know that you must be tired of my constant pestering, but could I ask for one more favour? :) Extraordinary Machine, Eternal Equinox and I have been working on bringing "We Belong Together" to featured status, and I would really appreciate any help you can give. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Love Hewitt

Don't use abusive edit summaries.
- I will write what I will write--at least my edit summaries are detailed and justifiable. Your one word is not a summary. I do not go undoing people's contributions just because my assumption of their grammar is inadequate.
Your understanding of grammar is neither absolute nor, in this case, correct.
- Your understanding is not absolute either. "In 2003," "To date," and "More recently" are introductory clauses and are NOT subjects. Obviously, if you know anything about grammar, you know commas follow introductory clauses, introductory prepositional, verbal, and some appositive phrases, a distinct pause, and in other instances.
- Why make "minor edits" when all you did was revert all my edits. You don't "own" these articles. I speak from experience, so unless you have over 25 years of education, you are not anymore correct then I am. Additionally, the "minor edits" that you make are NOT considered minor edits.
- Before you go changing everyone's contributions, you should at least discuss it. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship and a consensus, does not include just one person, namely yourself. As far as the record shows, all your edits to this article have been to undo changes made by other contributors.
- Lastly, if you do not think commas go after introductory clauses, go tell Wikipedia they have it all wrong, because on every single Wikipedia page for which an introductory clause exists, there are commas which follow. --therearenospoons 00:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loony Left and Loony Right

They are not standard expressions in the United States. Among Americans who read The Economist, these expressions have a quirky Britishism character to them. Among Americans who are unfamiliar with British usage, they would probably be personal attacks. Robert McClenon 12:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category merge

Hi there, someone recommended that you weigh in here on a proposal to merge categories containing philosophers in Classical Antiquity. Thanks! Pilatus 18:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmotheism

Mel, I am the anonymous user that edited the Cosmotheism page. I have since then registerd as user "Oklahoma". What I'd like to know is why you think that Nesiyahu "created the term". Please go to the "discussion" page for the Cosmotheism disambiguation page, I gave my reasons for the edit there. I hope you will help me in restoring truth to the Cosmotheism page. Thank you, registerd user Oklahoma

216.45.251.197

I should point out to you that this IP is a sock puppet of Paul Vogel, who keeps targeting Cosmotheism, Pantheism, and related articles, and was banned by the Arbitration Committee for one year. Please update the ban timer the next time he edits. --TML1988 05:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should also clarify to you that I did not say that Oklahoma (talk · contribs) was Paul Vogel; I only said that 216.45.251.197 was PV. Therefore, I believe you should reconsider your block of Oklahoma. --TML1988 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine and ANI

Please look at WP:ANI; Ultramarine is lying about me, and I believe his practice of exact reversion violates the ArbCom decision in his case. There is already a mediator; can you think of another step before going back to arbitration? Septentrionalis 06:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Nikolay Yakovlevich Danilevsky, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

I have placed the same message on the page of the original contributor who created it as a stub. --Gurubrahma 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive edit

I'm sorry if I shouldn't have editted the archives. It just happened so because that redirect was only used there and the redirect is now deleted. Cheers. -- WB 02:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Yakovlevich Danilevsky

I saw the source... I was just hoping that would prompt the writer to footnote the exact page. While the rest may come generally from the article that seemed like quite a lofty claim. Since it is an encyclopedia it may only come from one page. In that case I suppose a note may be redundant but it just seems to me the type of claim that should be explicitly marked. gren グレン ^? 10:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Earnt" versus "earned"

I will not change the word in that particular article again but personally I do not consider that it is "perfectly acceptable" to use a "word" that is not found in most dictionaries, including dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster Online. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and should be written to a higher level of English than personal colloquialisms. I will continue change words when I think it improves the readability of the article and if the original author (or anyone else) wants to revert back to what I thought was a poorly chosen word, they are certainly free to do so. For the record, this is the first time in my thousands of edits that I can ever remember someone reverting my corrections, so I think my decisions are generally good. Please refrain from lecturing me on what I should and should not do in broad generalized statements like "Please don't change another editor's choice of English". Much of Wikipedia is very poorly written and needs to be improved (including many of the things that I have written); it is a wiki, after all. -- DS1953 ^talk 13:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC neutrality

"____ insists on adding long section of _____. Other editors argue that it is, first, unencyclopædic, and secondly, completely unsourced"

That is nowhere near neutral. --James S. 16:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you admit that "insists" is POV, invite me to change the RFC, and then revert it to the same text, eliminating the crucial details of the situation? Why? --James S. 21:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way, is this neutral? "Mel insists on reverting a two-sentence RfC. Other editors argue that it is, first, non-neutral, and secondly, completely without any of the important details surrounding the issue." --James S.

You admitted your RfC could be seen as biased, invited me to change it, then reverted it to your admittedly-biased version which excludes crucial facts, and now you are calling me dishonest? Amazing. --James S. 21:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are accusing me of 3RR, after each all but one of my RfC edits was a legitimate edit, and all of yours were pure reversions? I have shown both versions; you have only reverted to your identical version. I also think citing two other editors on the External links talk page as some sort of a guideline is absurd. --James S. 21:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Aetherometry

You deleted Talk:Aetherometry. But note that the top of that specifically states that the closing admin left the talk pages alone. Because they are useful. So I've just restored the t:page. If you really want it deleted, can you explain why?

William M. Connolley 22:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding piped links

Is there some convention on Wikipedia that prefers suffixes outside of the linking markup? For example [[Cuba]]n instead of [[Cuba|Cuban]]? I saw that you tidied Oscar Hijuelos, and I've been doing mostly all piped links when the title of an article I want to link to doesn't correspond to the text. Thx.--Rockero420 22:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx.--Rockero420 23:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, and I'm no grammar expert, but just thinking back to high school English here. And what I remember is that commas are used to separate dependent clauses from independent clauses, but they are only necessary when the dependent clause comes first. Like if you start a sentence with "While he was going to college...", you need a comma, since "while" subordinates the rest of the clause. But when you are simply listing two things (or actions), the and does not actually create a separate clause. "I like cats and dogs", "I worked and went to school". I could be wrong. I'm not trying to revert your edits out of spite. So please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks--Rockero420 00:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orale pues.--Rockero420 23:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chadbryant and User:TruthCrusader

Hey there - over the past ten days or so, I've noticed alot of revert warring over the addition/removal of sockpuppet tags on several userpages. The majority of these seem to be centering on whether or not a given account is a sock of either User:DickWitham or User:Chadbryant - the most recent such edit was here. Since you have a list of Chadbryant socks, I thought you might have some sense of the history of this. I've tried to dig deeper to figure out who is who, but it seems this has been going on for weeks (if not months), and I really don't have a good place to start. I thought I'd bring this to your attention, and maybe you can share some insight into the matter. Cheers. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 20:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love Devotion Surrender

Sorry about that. I don't remember doing anything besides adding a lead, so I must have been accidentally editing an older version. Though I don't remember the warning, either... Anyway, sorry again, and thanks for fixing it. Deltabeignet 02:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Change in "Editing of anime in international distribution."

I added the part of that article pertaining to Name/Title changes, and I saw you point, so I re-organized the article in Censor-Based Types of Localization Types and Non-Censored Based Types of Localization Types. Just thought you'd want to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitman6787 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 10 February 2006

Sigma Nu

Thanks for the help on cleaning that up. Cheers! --Scaife 14:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]