User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 38

Hi Mel, I noticed that you have deleted my reference to God's Debris. I acknowledge that I am new to Wiki. However, I strongly feel that God's Debris is a Neo Vedanta text, and at least it should find a mention in Influence of Vedanta section. Regards Ashish Banerjee

I saw your posts on

will give a little background with a couple more research links in the Unblock section.

Essentially, Nlu cited abusive sockpuppets as the reason for the block, however having a sockpuppet is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. Nlu then stated that the violation was

, however these have not occurred, and even though I have tried to demonstrate this, Nlu blocks my account and protects the talk page preventing any means of trying to rebutt his falsehoods. His failure to demonstrate what violation has occurred and his efforts to prevent me from demonstrating he is incorrect is very frustrating.

I am a good Wikipedian, and I hope that someone will listen. I could really use some help. Thank you for your time. TryingToDoWhatsRight 02:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to ask you, why was Croatian historian unblocked so soon after being blocked for personal attacks? --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 05:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea Mel, why are you protecting Croatian historian? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 07:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize for reverting your change to Laozi and offer an explanation. The OED says that a celebrity is "The condition of being much extolled or talked about; famousness, notoriety" and "A person of celebrity; a celebrated person: a public character", all of which certainly apply to Laozi (no matter how much he'd hate the idea today). Ajnewbold 18:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I added the

]

Thanks for pointing out that the article lacked ant reference to Kolkata. I have added a linr , along with reference. Bye!--Dwaipayanc 08:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey how's it going??? i noticed you're an admin herre, so anyway the comment u made on Nlu's page is so true (btw i ain't poolguy's sockpuppet). well anyway i was hoping if u can check out my talkpage and maybe we can file an arbitration against Nlu and Jiang (de-adminship??) anyway hit me bak aight?? appreciate it--Freestyle.king 07:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I appreciate that you have for now fixed all the links, but can you provide a reason/rule that "Boethius" does not go directly to the 6th c philosopher? I had started a discussion on the Boethius page, if you would like to follow up there is probably more appropriate. -- Stbalbach 14:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Please see Talk:Boethius, I need to know your position on this so there is no continued edit war problem, you need to communicate more. -- Stbalbach 23:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mel, thanks for the heads up. I'm really quite puzzled by this. I don't know how that text dissapeared. I'm using javascript "godmode-lite". Honestly, I don't know much about how it works technically; a couple veteran RC patrollers helped me set it up in my monobook. It adds a "rollback" button and functionality. I'll be more careful in the future. Though it looks like I might have to abandon this tool completely, if this sort of thing is happening. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 16:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have it figured out. The reason this happened was because my "rollback" button is slow (it's not a true rollback button, like an admin's), and while I was reverting the vandal's first deletion, he deleted another section. So even though it says "revert to last by Tangotango", it didn't revert the vandal's second deletion. It was a sort of edit conflict, but I wasn't aware of it. In the future I'll make sure this doesn't happen again. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 16:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

As you know, I abhor reverts... this is only my sixth, i think. Felt justified in Second_Sino-Japanese_War(&action=history), affecting only the intro. I was checking watch list, and won't claim it can't be better worded, but it seems more appropo for the reason I state. Query: is it appropriate to call this a Minor edit? A little guilt here as I haven't made an edit therein since summer last. FrankB 16:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Added: How is the former http link truncated to [Second_Sino-Japanese_War&action=history] properly wikified? This gives a new article edit-option page, not direct link to the history for you to see quickly. FrankB

Sir, I am impressed by the depth of knowledge you have on philosphy, especially the Indian Philosphy.

I would like your comments on Scott Adams book on God's Debris [1] and its relationship with Shankara's Vedanta.

regards Ashish Banerjee Ashish Banerjee The Technology Evangelist email: ash.banerjee [at] gmail [dot] com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.246.8.205 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 31 March 2006

People would think that after all this time editing you would learn something, but NO! You tidied Santana albums that I've started updating last night, well when you started then do it right. You just placed [[ ]] on the names of personnel and didn't even bothered to check who are those people. You know Greg Walker is a name of a musician and not former power-hitting first baseman in Major League Baseball. And if you cleaned those articles you could have cleaned others too you fool and others need work too. You probably saw edits on the recent changes and went after them without bothering to look the others. You're just the same like many people on this planet, somebody who is going to do some small work and then take credit, but infact you didn't do any work you peace of shit. And I don't care how many talk pages you have archived or that you are an Administrator, you need a lesson man and the one you just got is just the begining of my wrath! Burn in Hell!!!! Yes I'm going to sign off because I'm polite (except fot the shit part), and I stand behind what I said. And don't even try to block my account because of a personal attack. It cannot be personal cause you are using a name Mel Etitis. He is a wikipedia user and not a person. There are no persons here, we are just robots who do work so that people can come here and find information that they want, and for us to learn something by working here. I can talk about philosophy too, but No original research!!! Death2 21:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wandering how much can you control your self! Try and block me philospher! You philosopher, you no so much about nothing at all!!! Death2 21:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too much coffee, or early trauma? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize for my messages. I would also like to say that regardless of those bad words the message was critical of your edits and written by a cool head not a raging one. You could have been more tactical and say "Yes I did a mistake" and not responding with "no comment" and "you will be blocked". γειά! Death2 22:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Too much coffee, or early trauma?" What do you mean by this. Death2 23:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mel.

Thank you for your response, and most of all for avoiding me spam, by changing my email address.

Somehow I canNOT locate your email of 21 March '06. Please note that I am NOT online, but will hopefully access my emails via my local Internet Access Point (Web cafe) on Tuesday next week.

One way or the other we`ll make contact.

Yours.

P R Morgan (Mr) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.136.214 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 1 April 2006

Apologies, I thought this was automatically done when inserting the code. Regards, Asterion 16:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. But which edits were you talking about? I see you everywhere on wikipedia. Le Anh-Huy 08:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You messaged me about removing or editing posts, 'vandalising' and I wish to inform you that I have not. I have only posted on one subject, which you can no doubt locate. I have not had the time or patience yet to edit other posts, thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newforest (talk • contribs) 21:59, 2 April 2006

This stupid edit war has got to stop. It seems to me that you have three objections to my version of the article:-

• The size of the image. You cite the strange reason of page loading time, but I will like to point out that nowhere in Wikipedia is the size of an image in the page decided by page loading considerations. A large number of images are shown at large sizes. If you feel that we should display all images at minimum size then you have to propose and pass a policy because there is currently no policy or guideline suggesting this. Images are not made small as a general practice in wikipedia.

• The content about Mohiner Ghoraguli. It is an important fact about Chandrabindu that they heralded the recent flourishing of Bangla Bands, but they were not the first band. The Mohiner Ghraguli reference provides a little context and explains the exact place of Chandrabindu in the band pantheon. As you obviously do not know the cultural background of the related events, you should not pass judgments on the issue. All wikipedians familiar with the scenario wil agree that this is a necessary comment.

• The fame of the dialogue. The dialogue is one of the most famous literary line in Bangla literature (which incidentally is the fifth largest language in the world). Compare this to the fame of "To be, or not to be". "Chandrabindur Chaw, Beraler Talobyoshaw ar Rumaler Maw" has become a very frequently referenced and parodied expression in the language. Obviously it is not famous to you or your peers, but Wikipedia is written for the global population, not just English natives.

Thank you. Loom91 06:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of the fame, you are right and I've changed it. But the image is far too small in thumbed form, most Wikipedia articles use a reasonable sized image to illustrate the opening paragraph, and this includes all the featured articles, so obviously community consensus is exactly opposite of your views. Perhaps you should change consensus before taking such actions? As for Mohiner Ghoraguli, discussion of any topic becomes meaningless without appropriate context, and that's why the text should stay, to give context and clarify the cultural status of Chandrabindu. Loom91 09:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided for use subheadings sparingly redirects to a style guideline that does not mention anything about using subheadings sparingly. My reasons for using the subheading are:-

1. Subheadings make for better organisation and navigation.
2. The style section will be expnaded in future.

For the Mohiner Ghoraguli text, I don't understand you at all. If you have complaints about style and spelling, please improve it (I probably got a bit carried away with the lone ranger part) but don't delete the content. It IS completely relevant to the subject of the article, the band Chandrabindu. Information is meaningless without context, and the text provides very important context with very few words. Please tell me how the same information can be cnveyed abou Chandrabindu without making the brief reference about their status with respect to Mohiner Ghoraguli.

Comparing with another person or topic to clarify the status of the subject is a common practice. Writers are often compared with each other, such as Shakespear with Tagore or Sukumar Roy with Lewis Carol. Loom91 05:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what?

And I dont appreciate your snarky comments about a "test" -- I am a very good wiki'er. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.186.198 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 April 2006

1. My comment concerned this edit.
2. If you have complaints about the template text, I suggest that you bring it up at Template talk:Test. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel: thank you for catching that. I was not vandalizing, simply could not figure out why the links posted were coming out so sloppily, so I removed them. I am glad you have caught them and fixed them. Perhaps you could have used {{

) 06:50, 5 April 2006

al-Karkhi

Can you please have a look at this:

]

ManiF 06:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Please read the authoritative sources, provided in the reference section of

ManiF 17:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Registering

Hey - I saw in RC that you were online and subsequently I managed to figure out that you're an admin. That's great! You see, I really need an online admin - specifically to register me at this page. Of course you should check my contribs etc etc. but assuming I fit the bill I would be grateful if you would register me so I can have a closer look at this magical AutoWikiThingie. Regards, Celcius 08:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second request on this talk page for you to engage in discussion on the Boethius talk page instead of edit warring. As an admin you also have the ability to correct the page naming problem (a problem created by you, there was no reason for that talk page redirect, except to lock up the page from non-admin renaming). 99 times out of 100 when someone types in "Boethius" they mean the philosopher, there is no reason to force people through a dab page (well, except the one you gave, which is not supported by the rules and is kind of peculiar). --Stbalbach 14:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here for years, as you probably know (I recognise your name, I'm sure you recognise mine. And if you don't, you could have checked my contributions), and I'm an admin, so I can only interpret the message you left me (re: edit summaries) as sarcastic. I've therefore removed it. Exploding Boy 15:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled as to why you took the message to be sarcastic. Your edits to an article on my Watchlist had no edit summary, and I left the template message; perfectly straightforward. A check of your contribution history suggests that you rarely use edit summaries, so the reminder is particularly important. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you? Then take a look at the template (or whatever) you used:

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

I've been editing Wikipedia for years. I know what an edit summary box looks like. I know where edit summaries appear. This would be akin to me reminding you to "please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Thank you." This would be appropriate for a new user; I use it all the time. But when addressed to an established user, it comes accross as sarcastic. Exploding Boy 15:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use the template when I see someone not using edit summaries; if you actually used them, you'd have cause to be annoyed. As you don't then being an "established" user just makes it worse. That you inist on removing it and spluttering in indignation rather than quietly mending your ways is disappointing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider the fact that templates are not the best recourse with established users. I'm certainly not "spluttering in indignation," I'm telling you how I perceive you placing that particular template on my talk page, when instead you could have left a simple reminder. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that that sort of template can come accross as sarcastic is irritating. Like most users, I don't usually bother with an edit summary when I'm making very small changes, and frankly you're certainly not making the situation better by being insulting. Please stop altering my talk page, and don't bother responding unless you have something new to discuss. Exploding Boy 20:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First I would like to apologize again for... I know that edit summary exists, I fill in some info but when doing minor editions when I quickly finish editing it's a waste of time to edit the appropriate message and those who monitor the page will surely come to see what has changed. And also vandalists upon their actions input text minor changes or fixed this/that, and when you look you see VANDALISM. But I will try to put brief summary. Also somewhat known users who have user pages and talk pages in blue (not just some redlinks), their edits may not been seen as vandalism. I'm almost done with Santana albums so you won't see me soon. I'm not vandalising nor attacking other users, and am experienced in albums (I do that mostly). And please for the future #"song title" (composers) & ndash; (one empty space) 3:45 with an emphasis on # for numbering the songs and on an empty space after "& ndash; ". And also check to who do you link names so that you do not link to other people with the same name. Please! Have a nice day! Death2 17:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something else: Feel free to check Havana Moon i wikified it and added more info (very more). I don't wikify words that repeat and that is a wikipedia policy too, I think. γειά! This means goodbye on Greek not anything vulgar. "Too much coffee, or early trauma?" I was just upset by your superficial edit. I don't remember of any childhood traumas although I knocked my head into a wall a couple of times.

Hello, I was just curious why you seem to edit or remove most of what I personally submit??? i.e. Larry Hagman,Tony Sirico, Dominic Chaniese....etc. A very interesting pattern has emerged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bairdso66 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 5 April 2006

Why do you insist on changing Chainese's description for "most famous role" Junior is his most famous role...just clarifying for readers, another indicator of your penchant for changing my contibutions..what's up here?? Bairdso66

Hi, in this edit you reverted a newbie change from quotation marks to italics back to quotation marks. By my reading of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Words as Words, "Use italics when writing about words as words", the newbie's edit was at least an arguably good one. What caused you to revert? --TreyHarris 17:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, could you please check out

]

Smooth move

Now why didn't I think of that :) --Alf ^melmac 21:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response, but I still find your reasoning suspect. If you look at many other actors you find that their pages say "what they are most famous for in particular" It is easy for people to identify with....do you intend to change all of their pages?? Bairdso66

see Tony Sirico for Chianese comparison...same situation...Bairdso66

A revised version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much.Loom91 09:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Can you tell me what happened to Category: GMA Programs? It's gone. It seems to have been deleted, but the deletion log had the summary "speedy renaming". So was the category "renamed" to something else? (Because I think it was redundant, and so should just be deleted and not renamed.) Sorry in advance if I'm being thick. Thanks. --Mercurio 12:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as I see you are there, could you please unblock my user page? It seems to be a misunderstanding, Borghunter saw that someone had replaced a box on my page that had been deleted from a subpage and as he did not have the corrected version chose an old one that had fair use images. Borghunter deleted them and when I replaced them with public domain ones apparently thought I tried to ignore him. Please check if you find something wrong in my last edit, I cannot see anything and believe it was an error of his. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)PS: Wow, you have many stars.[reply]

Hmmm, this isn't clear. It may be that the images that you placed on your User page weren't fair-use, but looking at the Berlusconi one, it's provenance and status are unclear. You say that you "cut" it from public domain, by which I suppose that you mean that you took it from a larger public-domain image —but you don't give a source, and you've placed on it a copyright notice in which you claim to be its creator. As you're not the photographer, you're not the creator.

While I agree that User:Borghunter acted hastily, and should at least have warned you before protecting the page, the protection isn't obviously wrong. Could you clarify the status of the images, and place the account here? Then either he or I (or some other admin) can assess it and make a decision on lifting the protection. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that was the problem. The Berlusconi picture was taken from the Berlusconi article where he is shown together on a public domain image with a Texan politician. I cut out the Texan, what's wrong with that? It is also explained in the image summary. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I see you had already been involved in this, may I draw your attention to the fact that

NicholasTurnbull now blocked ROGNNTUDJUU! indefinitely with a very questionable explanation? I think this is totally out of place and am quite concerned about the persistent bullying of this user that I noticed already quite a while ago. De mortuis... 15:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

surpised

I guess I am just surprised you have taken this situation so seriously...thanks any way--Bairdso66 16:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw you put a link to your talk page after a link to user page when you sign off by ~~~~. Usually it is just a link to a user page and the date-time of message. Is there a java script for that, that I need to put on my monobook.js page or...? By the way I was told I can not remove warning from my talk page. Since that's over can I remove it now? Sorry to bother you, thanks. Death2 19:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel -

why revert my last edit to the previous one? The one you reverted to contains the following sentence, which is grammatically incorrect:

"The only reliable story of note is one by Aristotle's about Euripides being involved in a dispute over a liturgy..."

All I did was remove the superfluous "'s" to make it grammatically correct.

I could fix it again myself, but I figured it would be be to leave you a message lest we accidentally get stuck in a ping-pong edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.127.219 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 7 April 2006

Dear Mel Etitis,

I want to report the fanatical patriotism behaviour of a user

. The following are only recent examples.

Geber, although he was born in Iran(part of the arab empire at that time), his ethnicity is with most certainity arab: Columbia Encyclopedia , Ancients & Alchemists , Britannica Encyclopedia, Encarta Encyclopedia .

In the articles, where his ethnicity is not important, In good faith I removed info regarding his arab ethnicity, but this user inserted "Iranian-born" infront of his name to make the impression that he was Iranian.

• Hydrochloric acid
• Sulfuric acid
• Citric acid
• Alembic
• Alchemy - he removed Geber (arab) and replaced him by al-Razi(persian), although all discovires muriatic, sulfuric, and nitric acids, soda, potash) described were done by Geber.

• List of Arab scientists and scholars - wanted to rename
  List of Iranian scientists
  should stay. (I was blocked 24H because of this).

If I am wrong on this than please let me know. If not, then I ask you please to do what ever in your hands is to stop the fanatical patritiosm of this user, which is a threat to the success and credibality of Wikipedia.

Thank You. Jidan 11:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. Jidan 12:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an online messenger? --

]

County flowers?

You cannot restore all these references to "county flowers" without some source. A charity or any other private organisation can say anything they like about various former administrative divisions: it does not make it true. Perhaps, at a pinch, it is worth a wee footnote saying that as part of a marketing campaign Plantlife, in 2002! (long after the abolition of nearly every county concerned) invented a number of "county flowers" (sic). But c'mon, they are not really county flowers unless a proper county (of which few remain, and none in Scotland) actually adopts and uses it. In how many cases can that be said? Yorkshire, Lancashire, County Durham? That seems to be about it. --Mais oui! 14:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just to point out (although you probably already know) that the

]