User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 19

I have removed some entries under the "evidence of disputed behaviour" that had been inserted by another editor that went beyond the original intent of the RFC. I have ammended the summary of the RFC to list its two specific goals: that SlimVirgin's edit contains too many errors to be reinserted into the article and that she has held herself above any criticism of her edit. There seemed to be a misunderstanding of the scope of the RFC. Hopefully this clarifies. FuelWagon 18:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, thank you for your contribution to the ad hominem discussion. I would like you to answer my question regarding circularity there as well if you don't mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacques_Derrida/Ad_hominem#All_Overtaken_by_Events_.3F Maprovonsha172 23:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

i think you just helped me! if so then thank you! !zddob dod Hamster Sandwich 00:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC

The length style now being exhibited in the "Too Much" section is acceptable as I have used it before. I've made edits to all Spice Girls songs. 64.231.154.102 00:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are now under personal attack. I am in over my head. As you can see I am not doing very well. --Melissa --Melissadolbeer 09:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

]

Waiting

Hello there, you hypocrite. I'm going to get you soon. I'm gonna find out who you really are and then come over to your measly little university and get you. You better watch out. You didn't watch out for me, did you? Self-absorbed, greedy sysop. You just better watch out coz I'm really fed up with you. Fair warning. Hendyadyoin 10:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is fascinating stuff, Hendyadyoin. Addressing somebody as "Self-absorbed, greedy sysop" strikes me as an odd way of making friends and influencing people, but this may be attributable to my ignorance of the insights of the latest self-help books. Mel may have some difficulty answering "You didn't watch out for me, did you?" until you provide links to the relevant edits. And can you expand a little on what you mean by "getting" Mel? Inviting yourself over for a cup of tea in his office, perhaps? -- Hoary 10:52, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, quite right. I have some matters to settle with you, too, Hoary, once I figure out who you are (which I probably never will do). Still, I do suppose you've all figured out by now who I am, i.e. not a thirteen-year-old immature, mentally unstable, belligerent, arrogant adolescent. And I think you've got the sense in "getting" Mel - inviting myself over for a game of Russian roulette in his office. Hendyadyoin 12:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, Hendyadyoin, this is terribly exciting! Just remember to point your Russian implement at the fireplace. Don't point it at yourself; these things are terribly messy, and if suicide is on your mind jumping from a bridge is a much more romantic way to go. -- Hoary 12:53, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

It is exciting, but why point it at the fireplace when it's not even annoying me? There's a better target. Sarcastic o**. Hendyadyoin 12:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed that someone who isn't "a thirteen-year-old immature, mentally unstable, belligerent, arrogant adolescent" does such a good impression of one. I'm looking forward to reading about what happens when he's caught trying to bring a gun through British customs. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that, Mel. 'Twas me cousin. James Bell 10:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I truly appreciate the amount of attention I receive around here, not to mention the quick and well-written email you sent in reply to mine. Thanks, too, for all your farewell messages - really wonderful to know that I'll be remembered around here. Well, gotta go. James Bell 10:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your e-mail said that it was to be continued, with a promise of a mysterious confession; I was waiting to reply until I'd heard the whole thing. Still am, in fact. Give your cousin a kiss from me, if that's not a physical impossibility. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am a new wiki member. It appears that you are a very experienced editor and wikipedia user, so I am sure you will be able to help me out. My IP adress is clearly crossed with someone else's. It just so happens that this individual is a renowned vandal and is despised for adding nonesense to wikipedia. I have an account, and a user page, but I keep getting a new messages announcement. I read them, mostly complaints about "my" edits, but even then the "new messages" message does not go away. Any suggestions? Thank you very much for your time, I would sincerely appreciate any other useful tips you can give me. Please contact me at my user talk page. Banes 16:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be doing all your editing without logging in (including the above message, which you must have signed manually); there are no edits in your contributions list, and nothing on your talk page. Consequently, you're getting messages to whichever IP address you're editing from at the time (you don't ahve a static OP address). If you log in, you won't have the problem; I've left a Welcome message on your Talk page, which points to some useful links and gives a bit of general advice. If you have any other problems, feel free to come back here and ask. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you delete a wikify tag with a summary of Reverted edits by Nabla to last version by Mel Etitis [1], and then go and wikify the article [2], which shows it was accurately tagged? - Nabla 18:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, removing a "wikify" tag is normal when you're wikifying the article, but secondly, the tag wasn't really appropriate in the first place. There were a few years that weren't linked (and many people would argue that it's best not to link them unless there's some special relevance to the article), and a couple of minor organisational links (most of the ones that I tried were red). Disfiguring an article with a tag like that is sometimes necessary (I admit that I often do it myself), but should only be done when there's a serious problem (article in the form of notes, no bolding of the subject or Wikipedia-style summary, etc.)

Sorry if my actions seemed confusing, though; I hope that the result was OK anyway. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The result is OK. But it is quite unpleasent to be reverted as if I were a vandal.

Sorry for the format mess... I was trying to solve it but you were faster, I got an "edit conflict" error. - Nabla 22:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read the talk page. The article's called FRAPH, not "Evidence the U.S. was involved with FRAPH." J. Parker Stone 22:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

) 10:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Presently, there are 2, and I don't believe Mel is one of them. I wouldn't classify that as a lot. And, to paraphrase another user's words: slagging me off on someone else's talk page is irresponsible and breaking decency codes on Wikipedia. And I doubt Mel wants this on his page. PetSounds 13:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble sourcing some Spice Girls material, like them having been documented in the

]

That's OK, though I'm not sure how much helpI can be. I'll try to check the Guiness Book of Records stuff – I should be able to find someone with a copy, if only the local library – but the other details are probably only going to be findable by tedious Web-searching (if nothing comes up on Google, I usually try other search engines; they often throw up hits that Google misses). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mel.... It must have been an accidental slip of the finger that caused me to click m for minor when creating that page. Sorry about that... Thanks for adding the single - indeed it should be part of the discography.

Cheers PetSounds 13:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make you aware of this:

) 17:15, 17 July 2005

song length

Length 3:57 Country House (song) Song Length 13:48 on Debra (song) Endless Love (song)

Everytime One Sweet Day

all these pages, all that i've seen have it "0:00" way. So it seems to be a standard here. even iTunes. so do you want the others playing your rules.

and the next time you want to change the song lengh on the pages made by me. please, do it after you changed it on the hundreds of other song and albums pages if you want it your masterful way so much.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulstranger (talk • contribs) 17:21, 17 July 2005

Hi, Mel. Congratulations on your 10,000th edit on an article. I came to you before with a question because your welcome to me invited me to ask questions on your talk page, but I don't think I really thanked you for welcoming me. Here's why: when I order a book on Amazon, I get an e-mail two seconds after I press "place your order". It never occurs to me that a real human being typed up that message with all my order details in the two-second delay. Similarly, when I registered with Wikipedia and made some edits and then found your message, it never occurred to me that a real human being had made a decision to welcome me. I've since figured out that it probably isn't generated by the computer, since some people get no welcome for months, and since many people re-use the welcome they got, to send it to another newcomer.

By the way - not now, I'm too busy - I will be asking your help sometime about how to stop

]

Thanks. I will try that next week, when I'm less busy. Ann Heneghan 20:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because of my interest, involvement, and knowledge of Hinduism, I think that I am the right person to comment on this Rfq. Will do so when I have time. At the same time, I am somewhat notorious in Wikipedia for my skeptical and critical attitude towards Hinduism, and gurus, and insistence of having this represented, see talk:gurus. Hope this is not a problem. Andries 21:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you didn't understand the English properly or not, the fact is that you know that "Cool" has been released since you've been arguing about the "The song" header for a long time now. If it sounded confusing to you, then why did you not make it sound proper? Don't beat around the bush by saying you could not have done this; you knew the single had been released. DrippingInk 00:43, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

"...Being hailed the 'successor' of "Hollaback Girl", and has been put under much pressure to perform as well as its predecessor". These are just the facts. DrippingInk 01:05, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the VFD (

) was unfair. Is there anything that can be done?

--Melissa --Melissadolbeer 08:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the VFD (

) was unfair. Is there anything that can be done?

--Melissa --Melissadolbeer 08:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You make me giggle. The English is purely correct. We're not being told who is being hailed? "Cool (being hailed..." Hm, I think it says Cool beside the brackets. Please stop it with the excuses. If you didn't like it (which you always seem to feel when I make an edit), you should have just changed it. The song is not still "being released". Now please stop bothering me if you don't have anything else to do. DrippingInk 12:26, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Mel, I'm curious as to why you reverted the edits of 195.93.21.5 without explanation [5]. I know the edit wasn't acompanied by sources on the article or talk page, but it looked plausable at least (I don't know whether it was true or not). In that situation a reversion with edit summary and a note on the article talk and/or user's talk would seem apropriate. I'm presuming you had a reason for using rollback? The user's talk page suggests the IP is dynamic as there are comments from two very short activity periods, one in March and one in early June, and the edits really don't feel like the same as the cartoon vandal would make. Thryduulf 22:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, please stop it with your overall rude behavior and stop threatening me with your personal attacks. This isn't the first time I was told not to do such a thing? Excuse me, first of all, I don't tihnk I've ever changed a redirect before that dealt with you so stop accusing me of this, or I'll pull your personal favorite trick and accuse you of personally attacking me. Second, I'm going to have to move the articles back, because you moved them to the wrong title in the first place. The name of the song is "Crazy In Love". (That also applies to Me, Myself And I (not Me, Myself, and I). And please stop removing the headers. We already had an RFC discuss the matter for "Cool" and "Since U Been Gone" and you continue to be childish and revert back the songs like you do these songs, even though a third party already agreed that "the song" part was OK. OmegaWikipedia 23:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misplaced the punctuation with this page, so I moved it from article space (redirect remains). I just happened to see it on New Pages. I then noticed on User talk:Soltak that there appears to be some conflict concerning this page, which I really don't want to get involved in... --Uppland 10:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response in the talk section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colby_Donaldson . If you would like more examples, I would happy to provide up to 50 more, but anything beyong that point I think it would be a waste of my time. AriGold 12:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel. Mel. Mel. According the the history logs: You created an article called "Crazy In Love" and pointed it to "Crazy in Love". Then edited "Crazy in Love" into a self-redirect. The comments there and to OmegaWikipedia indicate you thought you were doing something very different. You are confused again. 4.250.132.22 14:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, once again, I want to know what exactly do you think you're going to do if you keep threatening us. If you want to talk cool, fine, but I find it really rude how you always threaten some nasty action if we don't listen to your ways (and I've seen that you threathen a lot of other people too). Please stop acting like a bully, nobody appreciates it. We might listen more if you actually reasoned with us like a normal person.

As for the "song" heading, only 2 people? This is something I can't understand especially you as an admin doing. We had a dispute, we resolved it, yet you still had to have your way. What type of reasoning is that? And if you look at the Talk Pages, more than "2 people" have thought that some heading was needed. I know you wormed your way out of the RFC with some semantical jumble about to revert the articles (and thats the main reason, Im reverting the articles. If the admin can just revert back to the way he feels the song heading should be after the RFC is resolved, its hard to maintain any type of direction. You don't follow the rules either I guess. You just seem to do whatever you fancy. Like that time, you kept changing back the "Cool" article, even though everyone disagreed with you, or for Love. Angel. Music. Baby, you keep stating that Cool was not released yet, even though it already had a video and had been released to radio!

Some of your editing is just plain "bad". If the name of the remix is "Hero (Morales Dark Club Dub Mix)", please don't change it into "Hero (Morales dark club dub mix). I understand your naming conventions and all, but at the same time, please use some thought and understanding. I would hope you would look at an article for what it is, and not just correct articles like some bot with no soul or understanding what looks reasonable.

Now, as for the title, I think we really should change them back. Mel, please stop being such a stickler for the rules, and look at a song for how it is. The song is called "Vision Of Love", not "Vision of Love". This is really ridiculous, and Ive never seen anybody who would name the song like that. It's not a phrase, that is the name of the song. If there is a rule against this, there shouldnt be, because we are dealing with songs.

Can I ask, why are you even doing this? Tell me, do you honestly like the music or have an interest in this? I think you'll probably say something like no you don't, but of course the articles violate Wikipedia style, and you have to come rescue it. If you don't even like the music, you know, it would just be easier for everyone if you would walk away. OmegaWikipedia 15:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has added your name to Vandalism in progress, which is clearly a set-up of some type. I know that you would never vandalize a page, and you should check that out immediately. There must be someone around here that wants you to get blocked, so please defend yourself. Horatii/Dbraceyrules 15:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, now I have more info. The user was

Woodrow Wilson International Center For Scholars on several occasions, redirecting to a page of inferior quality with much less encycolpedic value. The capitilization is in error, but was created via a link of the 'requested articles' page and certainly doesn't merit complete delete while the issue is being resolved." Take care, Horatii/Dbraceyrules 15:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikifying

Could you wikify the changes you made to the Spice Girls "Stop" to all of their songs? I can't seem to figure out what you've made adjustments to. 64.231.113.125 15:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you thought I was engaging in vandalism on May 8th? I have never done anything of the sort and sending general messages claiming as much without context is unhelpful and childish.

Hey, man, stop picking on and harrasing everyone. It's one thing when I have a problem with your edits. It's another thing when people actually complain to me on my page about your behavior. You're really causing a lot of problems trying to appoint yourself as some god sent "fixer" of those articles. So if you'd please stop, we'd avoid all this drama. OmegaWikipedia 16:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are ruining the Mariah Carey articles. There is no official policy stating that #37 cannot be used instead of number thirty-seven especially when in reference to a chart position, agreed that for other things No.37 seems more appropriate. Naming Conventions, yes, argues that words such as "and" and "at" should not be capitalised, but the chart positions remains something that is not considered unacceptable and is used widely in many articles. Please STOP editing this back to the words and if you have problems, start a discussion on a talk page where people can voice their opinions and hopefully some form of decision can be reached. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 00:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mel. I was trying to move

]

Yes, that's fine. Thanks again for taking care of this. SouthernComfort 22:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it might change, I just feel rather weird not properly citing references. There is the {{bioguide}}, but that doesn't acknowledge the Handbook of Texas ref, and there's no one place in there for an inline citation. Although they are external links, that does not convey the fact that they are the sources of all the information. --Laura Scudder | Talk 19:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What made me think I should do it is an ongoing discussion of what constitutes plagarism in Wikipedia and when sources should be explicitly referenced. It made me feel a bit self-conscious about just using External links instead of References, but I definitely understand your point. --Laura Scudder | Talk 01:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki entry for the great Jewish historian Simon Dubnov has his name spelt "Dubnow". However, in the references I have uncovered, including many history book I have, his name is spelt "Dubnov". I don't want to start any spelling edit war, so I need some input on this matter. Thanks!

TruthCrusader

I sent David Ehrenstein, an expert on Hollywood's gay scene, this email:

Dear David Ehrenstein,

As you are an expert on Hollywood gays, may I ask you to have a look at the following Wikipedia articles and the related discussion pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Adams

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nick_Adams

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Wood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natalie_Wood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bret

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Bret

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elvis_Presley

There has been a dispute whether actors such as Nick Adams were gay or Natalie Wood had contacts to many gay men in Hollywood circles. Some users have repeatedly deleted contributions to these articles which claimed that Nick Adams and other stars were gay. Perhaps you can help.

Here is Ehrenstein's quick but precise reply to my email:

"I can't access those links you sent me. But Nick Adams was gay and Natalie Wood was Grace to any number of Hollywood Wills."

You may ask him for further information: david AT ehrensteinland DOT com

I think this statement by an expert who had access to many primary and secondary sources undoubtedly proves that Adams was gay. 80.141.243.119 13:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Without reading the articles, he used exactly the same phrase that the journalist used in the piece you quoted originally? Is this in fact the same person? (Incidentally, I find Will and Grace unwatchably bad, but my understanding is that being a "Grace to a Will" means sharing a flat and being a friend...)

In any case, I don't know enough to gauge the claim that he's an expert (if such an animal is possible here), and in any case his opinion doesn't really stand as an adequate source for Wikipedia. I personally don't care a flying fox whether or not any of these people was gay, but I bowed out of all this when you refused to accept the compromise when it was offered. Wikipedia is about compromise and consensus. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Ehrenstein is author of the book, Open Secret: Gay Hollywood, 1928-2000 and has written many other articles concerning Hollywood gays. See [6] and [7] Many would call him a real authority and expert on the matter. I refused to accept the compromise because I was not satisfied with the arguments that had been urged by my opponents Wyss and Ted Wilkes and the totally mutilated information which misses some of the main points. The problem is that user Wyss has repeatedly deleted additional material I have included in the article, also material which has nothing to do with the claims of homosexuality. I think the following facts, supported by Wood biographers such as Gavin Lambert (2004) and Suzanne Finstad (2001), should be added to the article on Natalie Wood:

• 1. Natalie Wood's mother controlled the young girl's career and personal life from her start in films at the age of five. Natalie's father is described as a passive alcoholic who went along with whatever his wife demanded.
• 2. At the age of 16 she celebrated her release from child-star status by sleeping with her director on Rebel Without a Cause, Nicholas Ray, and her co-star Dennis Hopper. This is indeed confirmed by the biographers.
• 3. Natalie Wood certainly was in close contact with many men in Hollywood circles who biographer Gavin Lambert emphasizes were gay, including director Nicholas Ray and actors Nick Adams, Raymond Burr, James Dean, Tab Hunter, Scott Marlowe and playwright Mart Crowley. All their names should be mentioned, as these men played an important role in her life. Her contacts with Raymond Burr and Tab Hunter, for instance, have not yet been mentioned in the article. I don't know why. Tab Hunter himself said he was a frequent companion of Natalie Wood at the request of Warner Brothers, which had both stars under contract. They would attend parties to promote films like The Burning Hills even though he was gay - not publicly at the time - and she was still in her teens. Suzanne Finstad, author of Natasha: The Biography of Natalie Wood (2001) who received the Frank Wardlaw Prize for literary excellence for her first book, says that Mart Crowley "worked for them for many years, many years. She also hired his boyfriend." Finstad also says that Raymond Burr enhanced Natalie’s life and that he loved Natalie. "When I was talking to Dennis Hopper about that, he was saying I just cant wrap my mind around that one. But you know, I saw them together. They were definitely a couple. Who knows what was going on there." That most of these men were gay, is a sigificant fact which should be mentioned in the article. Wood's fundamental sympathy for, and support of, gay people in Hollywood, at a time when many homosexual stars were forced to marry straight woman in order to provide a safe cover for their true sexual orientation, is a very important aspect of her life and demonstrates her social engagement for minorities.

I stopped to include this material in the Wood article, as I would like to discuss it first, but the other users, Wyss and his alter ego, Ted Wilkes, do not discuss these facts which can be found in the biographies. They are only accusing me of vandalism, etc. As requested, I have now also written articles on The Boys in the Band (play) and Gavin Lambert. 80.141.235.16 14:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mel, I am so sorry, but the edit war is going on. Yesterday, user Wyss has, without reason, deleted one short paragraph which made reference to Adams possible homosexuality and which was a compromise. This is not O.K. I have now included two additional passages in the Nick Adams article, but user Wyss has repeatedly deleted this text:

1. At about the same time Adams was also a close friend to Elvis Presley. This is confirmed by Red West, member of the 'Memphis Mafia' (pals and employees of Elvis), and Judy Spreckels, the platonic girlfriend of Elvis in the early days of the singer's career.

It should be added that there are photographs showing Elvis together with Adams. So it is quite clear that Adams and Elvis had been close friends at that time. See [8] and [9]

2. According to several sources, Adams had homosexual leanings. In his 2004 biography Natalie Wood: A Life, Gavin Lambert writes, "Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams..." In 1972, Sal Mineo stated that Adams told him that he had a big affair with James Dean. The book Elvis: The Hollywood Years (David Bret, 2002) even claims Elvis Presley was intimate with Adams. That the singer had an affair with Adams is also confirmed by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley. However there are no court records, contemporary letters or statements attributed to Adams to support the rumours that Adams was homosexual.

The reputed biographer Lambert, who also worked for many years as a Hollywood screenwriter, was a lifelong friend of Wood's. Sal Mineo was in close contact with both Adams and Dean. It should also be noted that in the Hollywood world Adams is more widely known for his contacts and affairs with other well-known stars than his acting career. So his affairs with James Dean and Elvis Presley are of much importance.

In my opinion, the last sentence, written by Wyss, is not necessary as many Hollywood homosexuals did not "out" themselves, but I am willing to make this concession to user Wyss. I have only cited what is written in independent books and articles (see discussion page). I think this is in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. In addition, gay biographer David Ehrenstein, who has written a book on Hollywood gays, sent me an email in which he confirmed the assertion that Adams was gay (see above and

Talk:Nick Adams. Further, user Wyss is unable to cite any sources which undoubtedly prove that Adams was heterosexual. Perhaps you can help. 80.141.255.226 23:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• The anon apprently does not understand that he's the only one who has to prove anything about his assertions.

• The anon contiunually takes this discussion onto the talk pages of admins and bureaucrats, not on the related talk pages, where I think it belongs.

• The anon almost always mis-represents my statements and actions to the point of misleading readers.

• The anon has not provided reliable sources, only published, undocumented gossip, which has for the most part appeared only decades after the celebrities in question died.

• I sincerely believe that the anon has been attempting to use the Nick Adams and Natalie Wood articles as a basis for seeding the Elvis Presley article with the ord homosexual in an attempt to distort search engine results.

• The anon has refused all offers of compromise, he seems to offer a choice of his way, or his way.

• The anon copies large quantities of his own repeated posts along with copy pasted WP policy statements onto the talk pages, slowing down and confusing reasonable discussion.

• The anon seems to usually mis-interpret WP policy as to sources.

• The anon is reminded that the absence of evidence is not that same as the presence of evidence, it is the opposite of the presence of evidence.
  Wyss 23:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Where are your sources, Wyss, which undoubtedly prove that all the independent sources I have cited are wrong? It is only your personal opinion that these sources may not be reliable enough. Interestingly, Wyss and Ted Wilkes again seem to take turns in doing repeated reverts in order to delete what I have written, presumably to escape violation of the three revert rule. See Nick Adams. This supports my suspicion that Wyss and his alter ego Ted Wilkes try to suppress specific references to homosexuality in some Wikipedia articles on Hollywood's gays. Significantly, I am the person involved in this edit war who frequently cites different sources which all prove that Adams was gay, and Wyss/Ted Wilkes is the person who is constantly disparaging these sources - in lack of further evidence supporting his view. Wyss even does not tell the truth as he has stated above that I have "not provided reliable sources, only published, undocumented gossip, which has for the most part appeared only decades after the celebrities in question died." This is what I call ignoring facts. Certainly the Wood biography by Lambert is a reliable source, as the author, who died some days ago, was a reputed writer and much involved in Hollywood's gay scene during the 1950s and 60s. He must have known that Wood's friend Adams was gay. See also this photograph showing Elvis, Natalie Wood and Nick Adams: [10]. Further, there is a statement by gay actor Sal Mineo in a book which was published as early as 1972 that Adams had an affair with James Dean. And I am sure that there are further sources from the period which gay biographers such as David Ehrenstein must have used to support their view that Adams had homosexual leanings. Last not least, there is no absence of evidence as Wyss wrongly claims, because every source I have cited says that Adams was gay. 80.141.234.124 00:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said repeatedly, I don't need to provide any sources. If you would like to edit the above-described assertion into the article, please provide a secondary source which cites documented evidence supporting the assertion. As yet, you have not done this. Please see the talk page for details.

Wyss 00:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Sue you sir

Has G Di Stef issued you with the threatened libel writ yet? And do we know it's actually him editing his page!!?? --mervyn 15:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a page that requires no new information, but heavy edits as most of its English is a mess. Since you're an English professor, I come to you assuming that you will correct the page, and wikify it if necessary. The page is the following:

16:04, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Another reply

You're accusing me of anarchy? This is rich. Then explain this to me, Mel. (Although I'm guessing you probably won't respond to this, as you ignored me rudely when I tried to politely talk to you about this before). You put up an RFC concerning "Cool" and "Since U Been Gone". The issue also concerns "Behind These Hazel Eyes" and other various articles in which you keep removing the song header. Most people from the discussions page agreed that having a "Song" header was OK. You didn't like it, and went for the RFC. Fair enough. You said that the first section was too small for a header. So to compromise, I expanded the section and the third party agreed. However, you just decided to change it back anyway even after the compromise. Is this your what you call "community", Mel? And Mel, don't even think about worming out of this situation by claiming that the 3rd party was talking about the content of the article; no, you and I both know the issue was about having the first header. Am I "stubborn" and "agrresive" for trying to resist your "stubborn and "aggresive" edits? I know I'm not alone, and that you seem to be causing a great ruckus among many articles. It seems like when you make an edit, and people disagree, they're wrong, but when you make other people make edits, and you disagree, they're still wrong. You claim to be an admin, Mel and that you follow the rules. Then show it Mel, and follow through when a compromise has been reached, even if its one you dont like. Don't keep chaning the song header back because you don't like the way it looks.

And when dealing with music charts and stats, its normal dor people to use stats like #1 and #25 and so on. If you don't like numbers so much, why don't you go to an entry like Pi or a baseball player's entry like Derek Jeter and edit out all those numbers? But of course, you wouldn't because it would be ridiculous to spell out Derek's batting average of .306 as Point Three Zero Six. By the same token, it's outrageous that you actually want to spell out chart stats when its normal to list out the numbers like that. If entries involving math and science and stats from sports are allowed to use that notation, music stats should not be treated differently.

Editing the titles of the remixes is ridiculous too. Remixes have set exact titles. No, the name of the remix in TGTBAW is not "Alternative", it's exactly "Alt". At the end of the day, if you have an issue with some grammar, then fine. Go ahead, have fun, and lowercase some things, insert your commas, and enjoy yourself. I don't have an issue with that. But when, you keep taking out headers, using weird chart notation, and ruining the titles of remixes, and overall screwing up the articles, that's where I think I have to disagree with you. I've tried very politely to compromise with you before, but you always lash out personal insults and threats, and refuse to listen and think all your edits must stay. I hope you can get off your pedestal and we can reach some middle ground. But if not, hmm...

OmegaWikipedia 16:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's VfD running on philosopher Ernst Tugendhat. Could you please give your opinion and possibly fix the worst mistakes here? Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 16:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping - seeing your Talk page I start to fully understand the word superbusy. Pavel Vozenilek 18:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El C drew my attention to this, [11] though you probably know about it already. Which one of these would have your vote? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know Marx had won. How odd. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I have posted a modified version of Armenian quote(Hitlers reference), at the talk page of the entry. I need your comment. Thanks. Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 18:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a RfC on Ultramarine [[12]]. I commented at some length on his behavior on DPT and cited your comments on his PoV. Septentrionalis 00:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your message and it makes a great deal of sense. The truth is that Poorman and I are husband and wife and we have decided to provide Wikipedia with documented proof of this via snail mail if necessary, or even use a web cam or conference call. The statements that Ril has made are false.

Our situation has been complicated by the fact that my mother-in-law has been in a life-threatening car accident and we are not going to be available for the next couple of weeks. Thank you once again for your help and good advice. --Melissadolbeer 05:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed something very strange: when you blocked Ril on July 9th he was almost immediately unblocked by Theresa knott. I definitely feel something is not right here (see arbitration). Would you please look into this as quickly as possible? I believe she is about to do something. If I am wrong, I will apologize most humbly. --Melissadolbeer 08:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel I've replied to Melissa directly over this here Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you changed some dates in John Mercer Langston, by removing the ",". According to

:

• Day Month Year
  • [[February 17]], [[1958]]
  • [[17 February]] [[1958]]

the previous style (with comma) seems better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cate (talk • contribs) 20:00, 21 July 2005

Thank you. I stand corrected, insulted, and demeaned. You certainly have discouraged me from being a part of Wikipedia. greengrocer —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerK (talk • contribs) 02:10, 22 July 2005

You've repeatedly tried to get me to engage in civilisized mature discussion? Mel, I hope you were joking or being ironic, because nothing could be further from the truth. I've been trying to talk to you calmly, and all I ever got were threats and rants from you. I'm not sure where you were going with that, but all your comments seem to be filled with innuendo and threats, as those you're trying to intimidate us (which if you are is kind of weak), and if you aren't then your behavior is just plain unexplainable. Maybe I think you're redirecting your misplaced anger at the wrong subjects. Where is this anger coming from? Did you have a bad childhood or something? If you have some personal issues, maybe you should talk to someone, or I could even talk to you about them. But there is no need to misplace your anger with rants and threats on Wikipedia. I know you can do better than that.

So how many people do you want to comment on the RFC? Enough until you get your way?

And Mel, don't even try to insult me by thinking that I don't know how the human language works. Oh, I think I know how it works. But at the same time, you're showing a bias against music (not to mention a disrespect of the field of musical stats). And Mel, looks you avoided the point again...how does a number like Pi get spelled? And if you actually looked at the page of Derek Jeter, you'll see many numbers spelled out. Or maybe I shouldn't tell you this, then you'll go on a a frenzy and ruin all the pages of baseball players too. But the bottomline, this is standard practice for musical stats, and your edits show a lack of respect and knowledge about the field.

What? What part of "currently on the radio" don't you understand? No, that is not the "jargon of music journalism". How else would anyone interpret that? I would have to seriously question the intellgence of someone who gets confused by that statement. And I am trying to resolve this matter too, but when you keep changing things due to your style and inapporpriately hoarding articles, then we make no progress. I can only extend an olive branch, Mel, but I can't make you accept it, if you refuse to. OmegaWikipedia 10:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi9

1. Our respective comments are a matter of record.
2. I've answered your question about pi.
3. I've no doubt that other Wikipedia articles include mistakes and non-Wiki-style; that's why many, many editors spend a lot of their time correcting them.
4. "Currently on the radio" tells me little or nothing. Which radio? Where? What does "on the radio" tell me about the status of the single? What's wrong with saying (as I did in my correction) that the single had been released in July 2005?
5. I've corrected articles in line with correct English, encyclopædic style, and the Wikipedia MoS; you've repeatedly reverted my edits, usually without even an edit summary (even though other editors have intevened and pointed out that your actions are unreasonable). I'm not interested in olive branches, but in sensible, collaborative editing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1.) What? 2.) Where? 4.) No, it tells you all need to know. It's being solicited on radio stations. Everywhere. Release usually refers to a commericial release. 5.) Like who? Your actions have been called out by a lot more people as very unreasonable. You're not interested in an olive branch? This is the type of attitude and bad behavior from you that works compromise impossible. Everyyime, I try to talk to you, I get agressive and snobbish replies. OmegaWikipedia 11:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his actions would be called out by me as very unreasonable too. 84.142.167.206 22:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't understand your reason for describing "Langer" as a disguised personal attack. It's utterly baffling. There word is simply a part of Cork speech, and in my opinion the article is an exceptionally good one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I first came across the article (which has been recreated a number of times in different forms; when I first saw it, its sole content was: "Person from Ireland, who is know as a bit of a fool. Slang word for idiot.") I asked a friend from Cork, who told me that he'd never heard the word, and suggested that the article was a heavily disguised attack on someone called "Lang", "Laing", or possibly "Langer". As I already had my suspicions, I was perhaps too quick to take his word. In any case, though, I see that the article was VfDed, and the vote was to transfer it to Wiktionary ([13]). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it was decided that the article should be wiktionaried (not deleted) nearly a year ago. Now please stop repeatedly deleting the Wikipedia article. It's extremely frustrating to see you doing this for no discernible reason. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused; you seem to have recreated the article, against VfD, and added the "wiktionary" tag. I assume that that's not really what's happened, and that I'm missing something, but I can't work out what. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The VfD, decided last year before the recent vote on transwiki deletions, resulted only in a decision to transwiki. There was no deletion result. Moreover the current article is patently more an encyclopedia article than a dictionary article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take "transfer" to mean "move" — that is, removed from one place to another. That certainly is how I read the VfD debate. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well that problem here is that another interpretation is possible--and indeed there was at the time, as far as I'm aware, no practice of deleting transwikied pages. The article was deleted out of process, and with no justification that I can discern. There were only two delete votes, and one of those expressed as "very weak". It was also closed irregularly--Rossami had voted in the discussion and then went on to close it. If there really is a terribly pressing reason to delete this perfectly good article, it should be VfD'd. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The proposer can surely be taken to have voted "delete, which makes three — and one of the "keep" votes was also "weak". Another way of putting it is that there were only two "keep votes, one of which was "weak". But the route to take if you really believe that the article was deleted out of process is to nominate it for undeletion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, bad speedies can be summarily restored. I do this daily, we'd lose a good many useful articles if I didn't. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I've raised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Langer, in an attempt to get other opinions, and I've copied our discussion there. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Please feel completely free to discuss Wikipedia matters anywhere on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel: Please see the VfD on

]

Wikilinking dates

Then why in the world did you wikilink the months in the "Stop" article? These actions resulted me in wikilinking the dates in each of the Spice Girls singles. And would you please leave that article alone? First you were picking to "Too Much", now it's "Stop". And "Stop" wants you to "stop". Thank you. DrippingInk 13:20, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Could you drop me a note on the history of this Dink individual that User:ChadBryant seems to be having so much trouble with? Thanks. Kelly Martin 22:02, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

It would appear that the only problem with your

22:55, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Mel -- this category is inappropriately titled. The term is obviously "muckrakers." Does this type of change take an admin's "powers?" If so, would you like to do the honors? Thank you for your work -- I see your name quite often around the site. WBardwin 06:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In modern terms, the term is very POV. But there was a strong historic tradition of 19th century US journalists and activists proudly using the term -- raking up all the muck on the robber barons and corruption in government. (---from my political point of view -- we need them again.) It would probably be more POV to use "emerging journalists" - but I will look for articles using the term and see how it has been defined in Wiki. Could you delete "Category talk:Early muckrackers" too?

Sorry for the stuttering entries to your talk page. Almost every edit I made yesterday posted more than once. Who knows why. Thanks for your help. WBardwin 18:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Source U asked to the source of Image:AllamaIqbalyoung.jpg.--Sheikhu 09:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that all "Greek films" are all "Greek language films"? Thet Greece did not and will not produce films in any other language? mikka (t) 16:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one that is vandalizing the "

, it says "Numbers may be written as words or numerals. Editors should use a consistent guideline throughout an article." The article was already consistent, and there was no need for you to change all the numbers into words. The article should also be consistent with the other 30 articles about Mariah Carey's songs where all the numbers are written out in numerals. Wikipedia rules never state anything against having a "Theme and influence" section. That section is also present in all Mariah's song articles, so there is no need for you to revert that. Also, the "Chart trajectory" section is included in all of Mariah's song articles and is a very interesting piece of information for chart fans. You are continuously removing that as well. While you keep reverting the "Vision of Love" article, you are reverting good edits as well. There are at least 10 edits dealing with links and additional info that you have reverted just because you want the article to fit your OWN personal style. You are the one that is vandalizing the article. Do not say that you are following Wikipedia guidelines when are not. And what are the NUMBER of articles that you are accussing me of vandalizing? You are unbelieveable. --Musicpvm 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. I haven't altered the charts, only those parts of the article that are normal text. I've done this in accordance with normal Wikipedia prctice, and with every manual of style I've ever seen. Journalists, being often pressed for space, use many abbreviations, including numerals for numbers, which we don't have to (and which normal reference works don't either). Incidentally, the articles didn't use numerals consistently, but mixed them with spelt-out numbers (especially ordinals).
2. We don't follow Billboard or other music-journalism style.
3. The "Theme and influences" says nothing about the theme and influences (and a section is in any case unnecssary there).
4. I have no idea what the "Chart trajectory section is supposed to mean, but as it stands it's a string of unexplained numbers. Wikipedi isn't fanzine, and its articles shouldn't be understandable only by fans.
5. I've done my best to retain good-faith edits while revrting the bad-faith ones. As you've been reverting both wholesale, I believe the adage about throwing stones and living in glass houses is appropriate.
6. I didn't accuse you of vandalising a number of articles; I said that you had joined the editors who are vandalising a number of articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, stop removing my inuse. It says As a courtesy, please do not edit this article while this message is displayed I'm reading that you make a lot of noise here. Stop it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.136.204 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 25 July 2005

You have placed this on two articles; in both cases you made a controversial edit at the same time, and then did nothing more. The template isn't a way of protecting your edits against interference. If you do the same thing again, I'll treat it as vandalism, and block you from editing for a period. If you want genuinely to make substantial edits to those articles then do so — but there's no need for the "inuse" template in any case, as neither article is being edited intensively. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lesson, Mel. I had no idea. :)

]

Authentic Matthew

The previous VFD on this article was effectively sabotaged multiple (in some cases self-admitted) sockpuppetry, and was closed as "inconclusive" - i.e. it was not possible for the closing admin to determine what the votes actually were (as opposed to "no consensus").

Due to the sockpuppetry etc. involved previously, if you have under 200 edits prior to the re-opening of this VFD (which was at 00:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)) your vote is likely to be discounted (particularly if you sign as another user, and make comments as if you were the other user rather than yourself)???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikefar (talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 July 2005