User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 20

Hi, Ril is back. Melissa and Poorman are not avaiable(I am not her Sockpuppet). I guess it is time we took a break. Maybe I did more harm than good. You seem like a good person. Thanks!--Mikefar 20:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.6.180.47 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 26 July 2005

You noted that "It is considered by some to be an offshoot of Hinduism." in the discussion Page of Ayyavazhi. Officially Ayyavazhi was not recognised but from the mythological point of view and in belifs it differs a lot from Hinduism. And in religious practices Ayyavazhi (Ayyavazhi and Hinduism )is faraway from Hinduism. But officially it is only viwed as an offshoot section of Hinduism.- Vaikunda Raja

Mel, I kind of agree with you. Many of its practices are in fact similar to

Raj2004 01:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware of the rule, sorry, will stick to it next time. I don't think Im vanadalising the article, but thats a different matter, I just didn't know the rule. Sorry! Ultimate Star Wars Freak 22:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's a fairly new and promising editor on wikipedia, who is still learning the ropes. So give him some air and *LET HIM* learn the ropes.

It's simply not fair to throw your weight against a new person like that.

You couldn't solve this conflict. I couldn't solve this conflict, so let him try!

Kim Bruning 00:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Asking him a question and pointing out what seems to be a mistake is part of helping someone to learn the ropes. Saying nothing and watching them go wrong isn't.

   Quite so, though I didn't quite percieve your actions as doing that. I'll look again. Kim Bruning

2. You're defending SS, but you call my actions "throwing my weight around"? My comments are a matter of record; I'll leave others to judge whether your characterisation is accurate.

   I'm not defending Sam Spade in this one. I typically don't. He's quite capable of looking after himself. Sometimes I'd like him to improve his behaviour though. Sometimes he even listens to me. :-) Kim Bruning

3. You haven't tried to solve this conflict (except in the sense of supporting SS against FM), I'm not in a position to, though I've done what editors are supposed to do in the face of poor behaviour from SS, and Tznkai is trying to sweep everything under the carpet.

   I have not. And Tznkais instincts here are correct. SS and FM can very well take their conflict off this wiki, and themselves with it if they don't stop. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Kim Bruning

   We disagree about the former; the latter isn't inconsistent with trying to resolve disputes. Jumping on me (here and in your aggressive e-mail) won't get you anywhere, nor improve the situation.

4. Let's get this straight; I think that some of FM's actions were ill-judged, but excusable given SS's nasty behaviour over a long period; I support FM in this, and I make no pretence to neutrality. You support SS; why not drop the very flimsy pretence that you're neutral? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Trolling me won't work. Kim Bruning 12:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm unclear as to what you think "trolling" means, so don't really understand this last point. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Well now you do. Don't do it again. This discussion is over. Have A Nice Day. Kim Bruning 22:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   ANY ftacual criticicsm of Kim Browning is "trolling" according to her.. she can do anthyhing she wants cause JimboWwles is her friendsand nd mybe will protect her so every1 is fraid of her whn she hurts poeple. thats the honesttruth. she is isso more important than other users. its obvious this. doset matter, wshes just going to delete this or make fun of me l. ohbut this tlak is over now and have nice day. yeah RIGHt and yes i'm hiding behind this ip and not my acrual acount cause i know she';; have me blocked -= ArD

Your’s is a right question. We cannot say that Ayyavazhi arose completely independent of Hinduism.You might have noted that most of the religious practices were different for Ayyavazhi from Hinduism.Regarding belifs I think that the relation Ayyavazhi had with Hinduism is similar to that of Judaism and Christianity.Like Old and New Testaments of Bible, Akilattirattu is splitted into two parts (i.e. Pre-Incarnational Events as part-1 and combined Incarnation and Post-Incarnational Events as Part-2. The first edition of Akilam in 1939 was as two books and in later editions they were combined. Akilam states that the Vedas are true but caste brahmins had destroyed the original Vedas and regenerated it as they like for a long period of time, and God informed it to the later Brahmins to inform it to the world but they instead hide it and only then God decided to Incarnate as Vaikundar. It also suggests that from the Dawn of Kaliyan, because kaliyan bought all the contents of Vedas and all religious texts as boons they had lost their substances and so it paves way for the Incarnation. So the first part of Akilam says what Hinduism says, but only some changes as in the system of Yukams etc. as Bible do.The next part is unique to Akilam and not accepted by Hindus as New Testament not accepted by Jewish religionists. The devotees of Ayyavazhi consider only Akilam and Arul Nool as sacred texts and not the scriptures of Hindus (not Akilam and Arul Nool in addition to hindu texts)but accepts what it was said in First part about them.-Vaikunda Raja

Perhaps another analogy would be between Mormonism and Christianity although there does not appear to be anything objectionable with AyyaVazhi. Mormonism focuses more on the Book of Mormon, if I am correct than the Bible. some consider Mormons different from Christianity.

Raj2004 09:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Mel! I can not believe how terrible your talk page looks on my screen (resolution 1024x768, one of those flat panels on a stalk where changing the resolution just leaves you with a blur). Let's see, there are two big boxes side by side, and there's a sidebar on the left... OK, so there's a clear... hmm, possibly a full 12 millimetres for what you probably think of as the TOC. Sheesh. I wonder if the goggles would help any? Best, Bishonen | talk 11:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. It's OK on my screen (same resolution, I believe) via either Mozilla or Konqueror. Which browser are you using, Bi? -- Hoary 11:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've tried it (same resolution) with Opera, Firefox, and Explorer. I wonder what the problem is. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems when I look for them, though. Using Konq, when I reduce the width of my browser window the central quasi-column moves over the left one (so that only a few letters of each line of the latter are visible). The relationship between crushable left and fixed centre is not so happy in Mozilla, for that matter. And when I look at the pseudosource (what you typed in for WP's preprocessor, I see (probably irrelevant) oddities such as an "align" CSS property. (No such CSS property exists; see CSS check.) -- Hoary 11:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I use Mozilla 1.7.8 for Mac OSX 10.4. Wait a sec, I'll try it in Safari. Hm, that's better, though not great: 35 millimetres for the TOC. OK, I suppose the difference is a question of my font prefs rather than the particular browser. I've set them kind of ad hoc in Mozilla, as those settings are a mystery to me (no, they shouldn't be, I quite agree, but either Mozilla's weird about fonts or I am). Essentially, though, the font I use is NOT BIG and doesn't screw up any other pages. I guess I'll just keep looking for the goggles. (It's "Bish" by IRC consensus, Hoary, not "Bi".) Bishonen | talk 11:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comments on RfC's. The RfC on Ultramarine seems to have done some good. (Some of that good may be attributable to the simple fact that there are now multiple editors who oppose his PoV assertions; but that's hard to judge.) I am now persuaded that U is a high school student in part awed by adult voices, but even if so, he is not alone. Septentrionalis 16:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One difference between Ultramarine and your encumbrances is that U values WP as an encyclopedia. (He wants it to be the Great Anti-Soviet Encyclopedia, but that's another question.) Your nuisances don't, it sounds like: they want a webpage called WP:bandname. (If it would be any help to have another non-admin watching the pages in question, send me a list.) Septentrionalis 16:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Etitis i want to ask you a question, why you removed a sentence in Madonna's entrance section that said that "Many consider Madonna to be one of the most iconic and influential female figures of the late 20th century.". ? Vorash 19:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just ask because, there is a dispute on Michael Jackson's page. I think that statements like "most iconic and influential " or "King of pop" are unnecessary POVs, but they say that Wikipedia allows these statements. Vorash 19:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, it works both ways. I feel your actions are vandalism too because the article should never have been moved. By moving it you caused vandalism in the first place, so I felt I had to undo it. I find it that you accuse me of vandalism when Im just undoing your vanadalism. Should I report you too? OmegaWikipedia 21:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You yesterday edited the hudud article, which i put considerable effort in updating on the contemporary punishment for adultery, and other scholarly views. I supported the update with a fully detailed reference. There was NOTHING objectionable in the revision.

Please explain why you felt the need to delete this update? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.43.11.157 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 28 July 2005

Just curious about the need for a hyphen in "A bee pollinating a water-lily flower". I don't want to screw-up editing any of the related articles for "no hyphen" consistency within WP. Thanks, hydnjo talk 03:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got it , thanks. Actually the caption would seem cleaner as "A bee pollinating a water lily" with flower being redundant. What do you think? hydnjo talk 13:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. I'm going to edit in the interest of keeping the "no hyphen" consistent where possible and hope that the reader will forgive us for any unintended sexual interpretation. ;-) hydnjo talk 14:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[1] your presence will be helpful here . Farhansher 04:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I couldn't find one that said 20,000 edits, and anyway, this one was too cheesy to pass up. So congratulations!! I wish you sturdy mental health, deep reserves of patience, and an interesting supply of drugs for the next 20,000. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

You asked why not to link Ali Sina. The reason is because in the scheme of Islam he is completely unnotable. If we link him we could link the likes of

I suppose this hinges on how you view a certain issue. Is "opposition to Islam" and "criticism of Islam" the same thing... or, are they both of equal importance. I would argue that opposition to Islam is typically polemics. Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian" to be his philosophical critique of Christianity, not the active lobbying against it. (I have not read the whole thing but unless he concludes in a fashion contrary to the tone of the rest of the article what I say stands) Critique of Islam and Christianity and Islam and all religion for that matter are rampant and notable. Whether it's the philosophical coherency, the sociological characterization of their founding societies, linguistic references in the Qur'an (which is more important in Islam than any other religion) scholarly criticism is and should be mentioned. Opposition to Islam is quite different. It is an effort to end a religion and is, as I mentioned above, is polemical (in the most pejorative of senses). Making the Islam article from this kind of writing is a problem because it is not typically the well researched scholarly type of argument that encyclopedias are supposed to cite. Authors like Ibn Warraq do somehwat bridge these two methods. There are numerous critics of Islam, typically being on certain Islamic practices that they can discuss from their field of studies, and some like Fazlur Rahman are from within Islam. A strong opponent to Islam is not necessarily a good critic of Islam. Most of the authors from Prometheus Books who write about Islam are opponents as well as critics and they are all a cut above Ali Sina insofar as they are published and have more than an internet following. Robert Spencer fits the same category more or less. So, if we need to have "opposition to Islam" those are all a cut above Ali Sina -- personally I think for the most part criticism is notably more scholarly but I do concede that some of the top levels of opposition should definitely be included. Ali Sina does not fit into that category and I feel the only reason this is being discussed is because his movement is an online one with the power to mobilize support for it. Sorry for this being rather long. gren 10:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my answer would be -- because we don't link to

Well, we might well link to Time Cube if the article included a section on pseudo-physics. We might also link to Paul Feyerabend if the article had a section on criticisms of physics (I haven't checked, so I don't know whetehr it does — I suspect not). Still, gren has done enough to change my vote. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I noticed this edit (marking FlaBot as a bot), which puzzled me since the script user:Jamesday ran to generate the list added the "bot" indicator based on the bot bit in the user database. I chased this down (perhaps you did as well) and looking at user talk:FlaBot it would appear user:AllyUnion "debotted" this bot a few months ago (which explains why it wasn't marked as a bot in the list). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

your reply from my talk page: OOps, no — I just looked at the User page, saw that it was a bot, and added the designation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think you misunderstood. I wasn't saying this was an oops. FlaBot is a bot. I was simply offering an explanation of how the bot indication was missing. I think it is appropriate for the edits from this account to be marked as "bot edits". Thanks for doing it. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:17, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mel Etitis. I'm having a dispute at Mysticism, I wonder if you might be willing to take a look. Thx. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hey what you mean by rm information overload? - Nigelteo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelteo (talk • contribs) 11:24, 29 July 2005

hey..

u know what! rajib is f****** a** hole and disturbing other people page . tlk like smart guy.. so better f***his mother. best wishes, westcoast

Thanks for reverting an article I made on Kulkulcan. I didn't know there was already an article on it, so that's why I put up a deletion tag. Take care, Dbraceyrules 17:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a barnstar for your 20,000th edit:

Happy editing, Dbraceyrules 17:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mel, Thanks for the revert and the subsequent blocking of the vandal. However, the vandal is creating sockpuppets and coming back again. Today, the vandal created the account Antirajib (talk · contribs) and vandalized my user page. I know the IP block from which the vandal is coming, but that IP block may be a dynamic block (Though from the pattern of edits, I am sure it's a block of IPs assigned to a cyber cafe or orgnaization). Anyway, thanks again for keeping a watchful eye. --Ragib 01:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A new user User talk:Sayazzie has essentially wiped out the old article and replaced it with new material. I left him a note on his talk page and plan to restore some/all of the material he removed early next week. The new material is good, within its areas of expertise -- good enough that I have some copyright concerns on both text and pictures . Would you look it over and see what you think? Thanks. WBardwin 01:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- it just looked a little too easy. Appreciate your help. WBardwin 23:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Add 'Taoism' to Watch List... revert war in gestation? FrankB 04:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that they are same person's accounts? --Ypacaraí 13:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you, but I wanted to canvas the views of those who were talking a differnt line to myself

• I recognise that there was no consensus to delete this article – and that is unlikely to change. But I still have grave concerns about it. I did warn –Ril- that his involvement in the second re-listing was likely to be counterproductive [2] but to no avail. I am left wondering how many of the ‘keep’ votes were influenced by –Ril-‘s antics. But getting this article right is more important that –Ril-‘s behaviour.

Looking at the last vote

Is there room for an acceptable compromise? I’d like to move it to

Discuss at Talk:Authentic Matthew#-a compromise?

andre torrez isnt a "blogger." that title kind of degrades him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.24.170 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 30 July 2005

I didn't write it (I assumed that he had, in fact); I know nothing about him. I've been involved simply to protect the article from vandalism.

Since u disgarded my warnings against your slanderous behaviour, u leave me no choice but to issue a complain against u. --ETTan 03:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yay Divinity (confectionery) I can't believe we didn't have that. makes me hungry :D cohesion | talk 10:31, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I changed the heading to Bands that have released on the label. This is because Converge is no longer a part of that record label, and now part of Epitaph. --GVOLTT 18:15, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I am going to ask you a favour. I really hope you choose to agree. As Im sure you're aware, I have put up a

You are the first person I could think of coming to. There is this new user, User talk:Dtowng, who has been incessantly making a mockery of the Mariah Carey article. Take a look of some at his or her edits:

• Deletion of her career acheivements
• Deletion of the entire article
• Rewriting the article with POV laden languageand here.

Finally, after the vandalism was reverted by User:Acetic Acid, the entire was :deleted again. I am asking that you ban this user as he/she has been warned, but has continued to vandalise article content. Journalist 02:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, 64.12.116.201 have deleted thE ENTIRE ARTICLE. Im guessing the are the same person.

Journalist 02:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mel, I thought you have done a pretty good copy-edit to Stella (film). Why did you revert the article to the category "need copy-editing?" Would be glad to learn from you. PM Poon 16:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mel, for the elucidation. Honestly, I don't know who said it either. I merely corrected the English, LOL. PM Poon 19:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, I am indeed very impressed with your contributions and your attitude towards Wikipedia. Hope to emulate you but I know I will fall short. PM Poon 19:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You left a message on User talk:Quebec saying that s/he had been blocked. Now User:Quebeck has popped up, making the same type of edits. I'm not saying anything, but you might want to look into it. Thanks, Hermione1980 20:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel: Purely accidental. I was mistakenly looking at Queck's edit of 15:18 [3], where he blanked the first warning -- what I intended to do was re-add the first warning and then add a second of my own. What I actually did was revert the later edits, which was unintentional. Thanks for letting me know. Nandesuka 23:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a problem with an anon (66.208.246.186) continuously adding a fan speculated potential cast list to the article for an in-development Shazam! movie starring the character (and adding said information to the corresponding actors' Wikipedia pages). There is, as of present, no cast and no potential cast (I'm not even sure that they have a finished script, yet). I've already reverted three times, so, to keep from breaking the 3RR, I'm asking for moderator assistance on this issue. What can be done? --FuriousFreddy 14:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look at

But in a dictionary, or Wikipedia, it should be like "actor" to refer to both, actress is no longer used. It has become "sexist" to differentiate a job that has nothing to do with sex. It is time to help eliminate such conditions.

From Merriam Webster: c : one who escorts persons to their seats (as in a theater)

Encarta: 1. somebody who seats people: somebody who escorts people to their seats in a place such as a theater or church

Oxford English Dictionary: noun 1 a person who shows people to their seats in a theatre or cinema or in church.

Wordsmyth English Dictionary: 1. one who escorts people to their seats in a church, theater, stadium, or the like.

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: 1. One who is employed to escort people to their seats, as in a theater, church, or stadium. 2. A man who attends a bridal party at a wedding. 3. One who serves as official doorkeeper, as in a courtroom or legislative chamber. 4. An official whose duty is to make introductions between unacquainted persons or to precede persons of rank in a procession.

If you would like to, we can put in a note:

(Traditionally in Great Britain the term usher referred to a man [male] and usherette referred to a woman [female])

WikiDon 18:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But in a dictionary, or Wikipedia, it should be like "actor" to refer to both, actress is no longer used. It has become "sexist" to differentiate a job that has nothing to do with sex. It is time to help eliminate such conditions.

From Merriam Webster:

• c : one who escorts persons to their seats (as in a theater)

Encarta:

• 1. somebody who seats people: somebody who escorts people to their seats in a place such as a theater or church

Oxford English Dictionary:

• noun 1 a person who shows people to their seats in a theatre or cinema or in church.

Wordsmyth English Dictionary:

• 1. one who escorts people to their seats in a church, theater, stadium, or the like.

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:

• 1. One who is employed to escort people to their seats, as in a theater, church, or stadium. 2. A man who attends a bridal party at a wedding. 3. One who serves as official doorkeeper, as in a courtroom or legislative chamber. 4. An official whose duty is to make introductions between unacquainted persons or to precede persons of rank in a procession.

If you would like to, we can put in a note:

(Traditionally in Great Britain the term usher referred to a man [male] and usherette referred to a woman [female])

WikiDon 18:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But in a dictionary, or Wikipedia, it should be like "actor" to refer to both, actress is no longer used. It has become "sexist" to differentiate a job that has nothing to do with sex. It is time to help eliminate such conditions.

From Merriam Webster:

• c : one who escorts persons to their seats (as in a theater)

Encarta:

• 1. somebody who seats people: somebody who escorts people to their seats in a place such as a theater or church

Oxford English Dictionary:

• noun 1 a person who shows people to their seats in a theatre or cinema or in church.

Wordsmyth English Dictionary:

• 1. one who escorts people to their seats in a church, theater, stadium, or the like.

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:

• 1. One who is employed to escort people to their seats, as in a theater, church, or stadium. 2. A man who attends a bridal party at a wedding. 3. One who serves as official doorkeeper, as in a courtroom or legislative chamber. 4. An official whose duty is to make introductions between unacquainted persons or to precede persons of rank in a procession.

If you would like to, we can put in a note:

(Traditionally in Great Britain the term usher referred to a man [male] and usherette referred to a woman [female])

WikiDon 18:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]