User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 39

Yes, I mean 'insist,' but not in a pushy sense. It's a standard I hold myself to. I really would like some kind of source verification; if I actually owned the LP (which I don't) I wouldn't feel the need to. But since I don't I think the information, which I found elsewhere, should be validated. Your thoughts? -Litefantastic 18:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Mel. I somehow did not see your message. Yes, I managed to find out how to do the differ reports. Sadly, I have had to use it much more often than what I would like to. I also would like to take the opportunity to ask you if you would like to mediate in the Kosovo article. There are two particular wikipedians who do not seem to understand the nature of an encyclopedia and, to be honest, my patience to take insults in has got a limit indeed. Various attempts to reach consensus have been tried before to no avail. I do not really want to take anyone through arbitration as it would be nearly pointless as one of these users has previously admitted IP spoofing and sockpuppetry and the other has just got banned again for anon edits while on a 3RR block. I am fully aware of how most admins would not touch the article with a barge pole as spirits run high sometimesm, and throwaway usernames appear every so often to dirrupt any sort of consensus reached. Regards, Asterion 20:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mel - thanks for making these edits - looks and reads much better now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NigelSpiers (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 April 2006

Cool, you have the LP? Anyway, if you say the AMG can do the trick (I haven't checked) then so be it. Thanks for setting me straight on all this. -Litefantastic 23:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I'm having some trouble on the Punk'd article. An unregistered user named BigBang19 keeps re-inserting material into the article that is irrelevant, poorly worded, etc. I've tried posting a message on that article's Talk Page, but he has not responded. Because he had no User Page, my message to him was the first one on it. If you could check out the bottommost section on the Talk Page and chime in with your two cents on his revisions, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream 05:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :-) Nightscream 15:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CDs are overrated. At any rate: good to hear you have the record and therefore qualify as an outside authority on the subject. Or something like that. -Litefantastic 12:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mel. I know that you're an expert on dashes. Is this edit correct? [3] — goethean ॐ 19:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you think about the wisdom of posting a discrete link to this notice at the very page top Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals, and how do you like the concept? Something in a box saying See this New Notice (Flashing lights and sirens wouldn't be enough as far as I can see!)

• What other actions might be in order- RFC, VP, Adds at head ends of CAT:CAT and key children cats 'top down'...? The utility and desirability seems self-evident. Can't figure out why it wasn't part of the system from day one.

Sigh! Back to content edits! Best! FrankB 20:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the post to my talk following yours may clarify something I haven't seen- I'm late to get kids. See what I can see in an hour or less. ThanksFrankB 21:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I hit a major three mile traffic jam— newly ripped up major construction on my major commmute route, and it shoved around the whole evening which was already heavily committed... I'm just now getting back on line.

Thus the math says (5:20 hrs <= 1 hr)! (the 'new' math) <G>! FrankB 03:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok- I've got a clear picture now. I've been missing the CATs down off the page bottom. One has suggested: 'Cologneblue' skin. I've annoted the original post, and added a subsection as another noted the merit of adding the main article or articles as a useful notation, and if others are using the default skin as I have been, they aren't seeing categories easily either— the implication for Customer usage is disturbing. (Course, these last couple of years I've not been seeing much of anything easily!) With an edit window open, their position just gets worse... below all the edit buttons, summary line, special fonts, notices, and the kitchen sink. Can't figure out why I haven't seen one on a short category page, except perhaps because of preoccupation. Of such things are learning curves made. Maybe I'll write a poem about it. Thanks, as always. Best regards, FrankB 05:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Above again, More Egg

Oops: I apparently didn't save the edit to the Category page... Here's the current note just(belatedly-system access problems) posted:

I apparently never saved out on the edit I was recommending. It should have looked like This example or when polished for presentation and organization, the current: Category:History of Canada . Apparently too many open browser windows, or the like. Thanks and Apologies FrankB 02:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't run into you in a long time. Just thought I'd drop by to say hello. Hope all is well with you. Guettarda 20:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed 81.153.169.152's note on the Merton College talk page about having added MCR president and it then being removed, I've explained it's because it's not in the template - do you think it would be worthwhile editing the template to allow inclusion? Personally, I'm not sure that your average MCR president is as much of a public figure as your JCR presidents, but maybe that's just me. --Alf ^melmac 20:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate you efforts to maintain balance in the Jami article, but it seems there is little support for documenting this aspect of Persian culture. I myself am not inclined to perpetuate what has become a revert war, especially one that has expanded beyond the confines of this article and affects other articles relating to Persian culture. The whole situation has become corrosive. I suggest a period of rest and deepened study. Haiduc 10:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOU NOT CONCERNED WITH ACCURACY. There is Greek nationalism as I said the GREEKS have adopted it as such for the Zeybek dance. These Greeks label everything from a Greek point of nationalism - they took Turkish coffee and immediately labelled it as such and even vanadalised the coffee page with lies. Check out its history.

You are lier. Rembetiko culture at its root is about nationalism - about how Greeks were strong enough to defeat the barbarious Attila Turk and what is was like under their occupation (supposedly) so it grates with Greeks when they realise that the root of both forms of music is from Turkey, or more correct Turkish influences from the Ottoman Enmpire.

Yes, I'll damn well swear if I like. Seeing as you have no concious or guilt and you can LIE glibly without shame I think is far worse than my cussing. AT LEAST I AM REAL and I don't dress it up with false politeness. User talk:82.145.231.94 15:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense upon nonsense, coupled with childish nationalist (yes, tautology I know) ravings. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well my friend, take a breather. When the emotions are engaged, the brain disappears... I just relearned that one last night! FrankB

It's not quite a party, but...

You are cordially invited to pick on Frank:
(Beats handling problems!<G>)
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 19:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the technical efforts my friend, but this is a preliminary draft of a concept, and I was really looking more for your keen anyalytic skills. The need is trying to figure out how best to present the concept as an article that is encyclopedic. The timelines are most of what could be mentioned historically, and I'd initially thought they'd be a good way to build the background of the mental climate in which it was recieved. I can see somewhat how to do it as an essay, but it would probably also require a literary trick or two as well but then the POV furballs would fly, so I need a way to introduce it as an enclopedic article on the speech, while still educating on the background.

• I've made a general thanks for the comments on the great ideas already under my outline of concerns and list of questions that need answered. That discussion should also clarify what seems still to be needed given a first read of the gratifyingly lengthy suggestions.
• In the meantime, thanks as always. This looks to be a larger job than I can tackle soon, so next weekend I'll probably want you to move it into a user subpage. In the meantime, the collaboration goes on. (Funny how often I'm heading to bed, when I figure you're about to get up!)

Thanks, FrankB 06:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness! you were busy!. Thanks, but the article ought to be locked while folks assemble to comment! I've spammed 10-12! FrankB 00:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Goodness— it's amazing how different various things look in different skins. (I'm on my third tonight and the experience is near surreal) I gave you a public thanks for all the copyediting you did! WOW! FrankB 02:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly agree that "tertiary" and "quaternary" are seldomly used; however, because there is an entire page devoted to "tertiary education" and not one devoted to "undergraduate education" (which is simply a redirect page), I felt that the name on the template should reflect that; they should not be at odds with each other. To follow suit, I felt that changing the name to "quaternary" was appropriate, but I can see why you'd disagree with the change there since there is no page for quaternary education. I am absolutely fine with the more conventional names being used, but if that's the case then I believe undergrad and postgrad education need to be consistent in the terminology; the tertiary education should be renamed "undergraduate education" and that "tertiary education" should be a redirect to it. If you don't have any problems with that, then I shall make said changes. However, I do not see a problem with "tertiary" and "quaternary" being mentioned on the appropriate pages as alternative names, and I believe that these alternative names should be mentioned in the articles.

In regards to British English vs. American English: because there is no culture these topics are more strongly tied to, and also because you have raised this point and have been a major contributor to this article before me, I will comply with the British English used in these articles.

Regards,

Prototime 05:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, Mel. I think we need to have such a "question" posed in a more central, less scattered place. I don't think we need to have worldofbiography.com/whatever inserted in tens upon tens of talk pages. I am inclined to revert all your changes, but out of respect, am running this by you first. This is a clear case of self-promotion, whether inadvertant or not. Best regards, El_C 16:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta step out unexpectedly. Hope to speak to you when I get back. All the best, El_C 16:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there's no value in allowing it to be in hundreds of talk pages. That just supports more similar advertising in the future. One spot is fine. And reverting it's removal in so many cases was less than helpful. Especially so using the admin rollback tool was innapropriate as the editor removing the spam requests was acting in good faith. - Taxman ^Talk 12:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel- In your back yard see imbedded comments on dates; Also look in on newbie and article

When I've just watched a movie and thought someone was particularly good, and the film credits have scrolled past too quickly to read, I use WP or IMDB to find out who played what. I prefer to use WP, since it often has more info than IMDB. I originally thought I didn't care whether the info was there or not, but after looking at your work at DDLJ, I changed my mind. Please, stop doing this. You aren't being collaborative. If you think that the Bollywood films should be just the same as other films, change THEM, don't change us. Zora 23:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow! We're outdoing IMDB?!!! My 16 y.o. will be shocked! Funny though! FrankB

Hey, Mel... the film project does say to do ACTOR as CHARACTER... it is not the end all be all of film related style of course so I started dialogue (

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Cast) there since I don't know of another place. As far as I know there isn't competing policy. gren グレン 10:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Mel, I noticed your noble project the other day accidentally when I thought there would be no article for the brilliant "Outward Bound" album by Eric Dolphy. In any case I have created two articles for two other albums I like that were on your page: Eastern Sounds and Let Freedom Ring, you may wish to update your page, and of course more importantly, improve the articles themselves, since they are fragmentary. --Knucmo2 23:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mel,

Sorry for the confusion. I thought anyone can edit, but I now understand the procedure at Wikipedia. Sorry for not understanding at first.

Would you please see my site for "notability", and if you have time, write a short article on me, so you could add me to the drummer lists.

Please see my drummer site... www.paulgoldbergdrummer.com

There's BIO (w/numerous TV, Film & artist credits), major drumlinks w/ me, Endorsements, PICS, Audio Samples,Concert Reviews, Modern Drummer Articles, ETC. Ps.Also if you "google" me, you'll see many more sites that I'm on. Thanks for your time, Paul Goldberg write me at > [email protected] I hope to hear from you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.66 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 16 April 2006

You messaged me regarding an alleged 'removal' of content from wikipedia. This I did not do. I actually made an addition to the content of wikipedia. The specific addition was to note that Ayn Rand was inspired by John Locke. I did not remove anything.

It is often acknowleged that Rand was influenced by Locke. Indeed, Locke's influence was greater than that of Neitzsche. So, I do not see how you could say I REMOVED content. I simply added an historical fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.156.16 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 16 April 2006

Your edit. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please enlighten me as to which policy allows editors to spam Wikipedia. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on

WP:ANI which say that you condone spam indicate that you do not have a clue as to what spamming means. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

"Your comments on

WP:ANI which say that you condone spam"? Good grief. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't care (at least, not as a Wikipedia editor) about somebody increasing links to their site; I'm not an Internet policeman. sounds like condoning, to me. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mel,

This is a long one.LOL.

I can't thank you enough for starting that article on me! I wrote you last night, and noticed you already started my article today. I really appreciate that very much.
I now understand how things work there at Wiki, and once again, I appologize for editing in the past without doing it properly.

If you want to expand my article a bit, I'll give you some more viable info to use (because I'm afraid to edit my article on my own).
I hope I'm not bothering you... I know you're very busy. I just want to run everything by you first, for your approval. 

>Hopefully you will add me to the "List of Drummers", & "List of Jazz Drummers" at some point if you see fit.(Wikipedia is the only site I'm not on yet, and I think it's a great site to be on)

So, here's a few more TV, Film & Artist examples, (if you need them), for my article;

Also recorded drums on the soundtracks for; The New Poseidon Adventure Movie, The Drew Carey Show, Nutty Professor II, Rush Hour II, Dick Clark's American Dreams.

Artist recording and/or performance: Gerry Goffin (Carol King's writing partner), The Manhattans, Bill Medley, P.F.Sloan, LA session great Peggi Blu (who's CD went to #1 in Europe last year). Shows with Jerry Seinfeld, Chevy Chase, Rita Rudner, and Paul Riser.

I don't know if you saw the Modern Drummer article(Oct'05), but if not, it's on my reviews page on my website...www.paulgoldbergdrummer.com

Thank You SO much Mel for your time and work!

All the Best, Paul e-mail:[email protected]

re: Need to make this sortof thing work ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabartus/ 1632series_rework&diff=1632_series

or vice versa; was modeling on (&diff=48709063&oldid=47912987) — user:fabartus/1632series_rework to 1632 series

so 'suspended edit (major) to that which is there today! Can this be done? There are about 6 mn adds since I didn't finish the edit/changes; but mine was a major workover... Both are whole articles. FrankB 13:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-post here, Answer my talk please! FrankB

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking. I've looked at User:Fabartus/1632series rework and 1632 series, and there are many differences (the former having a lot of serious problems, I'm afraid, though so has the latter), but I can't work out what you want to do with them. Could you explain further? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I simply want to do a diff of the 'copy (offline)' version, incorportate equivilent updates from the current 'online' article, continue on to finish my edit from there. Yes, it still had problems, not least of which was a paragraph or two that just ended mid-sentence... so I judged time was for Zzzzz's, and resume workover later. Today 'qualifies' as later. N'est pas? I can cut in the current file and revert immediately, then take a diff, but I also want the general skill to use a comparison to a sandbox version like this for the other 6+ articles now extant in the series. It's the time, long overdue to clean these up, since no one has moved in to help with the project (in now a month).

sorry for the delay back-- had to deal with a client. FrankB 13:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• General idea is to use User:Fabartus/1632series rework as a scratchpad/sandbox page for any of the various articles, including new compostions. I'm tired of getting sandbagged by folks s.a. Hayworth at Arsenal of..., and it really is a better way to compose initial drafts and or major rewrites. Best! FrankB 13:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Contrast with this method of suspension in smaller article. The quandry is what is ID string of current, otherwise the url should work, I'd think. Hmmmm, wonder if current would work as a keyword? FrankB 14:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A diff is a link to the difference between two versions of the same article; is that what you want? You just go into the page history, select the two versions between which you want to see the differences, and click on the "Compare selected versions" button.

(INTERLEAVED CLARIFICATION: In this case want between the 'offline' and whatever is current article online, to ready the replacement efficaciously. We are looking at major overhauls here. All the advert, POV, and tone, plus better content overall.) FrankB

The most important aspect of the articles that needs work, I think, is the PoV; they read like fan (or even marketing) material rather than dispassionate and neutral descriptions. Some of the claims are a bit far-fetched (e.g., "1632 launches a new era in writing"), but mainly it's the tone. If I get a chance I'll pitch in and help, but as I hadn't even heard of the books before you mentioned them here, I'll be restricted to style adn presentation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See emphasis added above and re-peruse — Generally Need to assume (schedule & life in general) I can't do in one session; so want to work offline on the 'big' changes. i.e. prepare the 'new update' and contrast & comapare (versus) what is online, so I can also incorporate the relavant changes into the drastic rework. I recollect your disproval of 'Mr Tan' in his RFC replacing wholesale pages w/o incorporating interitive changes by others. The real problem is work 'windows'. If I can get an acceptable 'article state', I'll cut it into article space, but this gives me the lee-way to do a partial edit and tend to business and life without finishing at that moment. Need that flexability as my 'holiday' post-katrina, is pretty much past. Life needs to go on while accomidating wikiP, not letting WikiP dominate, as I've done this past month.

Clear? FrankB 14:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed cross-post, 'danged phonecalls!!!' <G> FrankB 14:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well this is amusing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1632_series&diff=current&oldid=48435148 result! Ahem! — looks like I need to cite specific paths in some way. FrankB 14:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Danged - Thought current was your talk page, not the article. I suggest polishing the sandbox 'user:fabartus/1632series_rework' with me, as I didn't realize you'd added three changes this day! FrankB 14:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to break about a half-hour: See email! Who to ask? Should be technically doable! FrankB 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your last From My talk: FrankB

Ah, you're trying to do the same thing as a diff, but comparing two different articles? If so, I suspect that it's beyond the Wikipedia software, though there are almost certainly third-party tools that would let you do it, probably freeware or shareware. I'll have a look around. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found a workable solution

Well the rude real world intruded longer than that half-hour! Regarding your last, is SAME ARTICLE, just different place as I was in no position to finish the edit. Perhaps I should just cut in and immediately revert, then do history compare, but a single command line would be much perferred as a general technique. Note the '&diff=current' part DID WORK FINE in the cross out above. (Examin detail in an url/address window, or edit window herein).

somewhat later...

• After some three flavored trial and error attempts...

Never mind: Got something workable Albeit, a bit more cumbersome than the ideal which would allow 'current' text & filespec address of some sort for both referenced 'Pages'; but this works (Index#'s are apparently unique (Hash-codes or) 'KEY-CODES' per 'Computer-Science' speak and thus merely index into a unique file reference in the database architecture. Or so I have to infer, being somewhat experienced in the field. <G>

Working Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1632_series&diff=current&oldid=46056677

note '46056677' is the one and only version in the offline 'Page' file 'history'— so don't even need two versions therein, since I've yet to start finishing that saved 'suspended' edit due to the otherwise busy day off WikiP.

Note also that being a 'stubborn Polack' has it's advantages, IMHO, even when my friends fail to understand at first! <G>

Report of diff given is:

Revision as of 20:15, 29 March 2006 Fabartus (Talk | contribs)... (Genesis- Suspended mid modification. Real world is calling.) ← Older edit Current revision Mel Etitis (Talk | contribs) (→1632 Launches a new era in writing - typo & more tidying)

• Just the two we want to see... Hmmmmmmm, gulp, oops! — I didn't realize it's been nearly three weeks! I did get absorbed in lost edits on my 'normal patrol' didn't I! Whoopsie! That's the very day I downloaded Firefox, and I Don't even want to talk about how many lost edit hours that has cost me!

1. The only remaining (semi-cumbersome) issue thus becomes altering the code number to corespond to the most recent saved edit 'off line', and changing the code reference in the comparison URL.
2. Not perfect, but it's workable, I'll just save the base URL comparison as a Bookmark and as a 'tab' in Firefox,
3. and the offline history as a second tab, occasionally refreshed, and modify by the new index code so obtained in a third tab... That will work fine as I want to see it in a non-edit browser window regardless for frequent reference in the ongoing edit upgrades, including another tab to the extant target article current form... that is somewhat easier to read than the diffs!
4. My Cost is thus just one more tabbed browser window, and the 'sense' to update the history 'code' when needed before doing a subsequent compare.
5. I'm using the Tab capability in Firefox that way now as well--e.g. for watch list, and my talk, your talk page, etc.; and it all beats dropping out of an edit preview screen when get a 'flash banner' announcing a new talk message.
6. All I need do instead is tab & refresh my talk and/or my talk history tabs (also in another tab) and there is no problem having two tabbed Firefox browser windows open. It's the stupid 'Hotkey typo' that abruptly closes the browser that has been giving me fits. I still don't know what key combo I inadvertantly key to close it down that way! Not a good thing for the equinamity, nor the productivity!
7. As per my email, I edit in IE6 since Firefox won't search into the edit window using CTRL-F when looking for typos. I'm not going to get sidetracked into the wikipedia editor extensions until I can discuss them with someone that is knowledgable and experienced with same, though one hopes search capability is extended in that flavor of the browser.

1. Therefore, once one gets the 'Key number' by navigating to history, clicking on 'current version', and it pops up in the URL window.
2. Copy the indexed KEY CODE 'suffix', pop it into the end of the 'comparsion tab url, and violá— a new comparison of the offline to the online article!
3. Hence, it follows that once the two versions are close enough, one just 'replace edits' the offline into the article space as desired when starting this inquiry this morning (4 Me!).

So now that we're both in the know, if you know any programmer/db type people besides Interiot, I think we should forward this with a suggestion to refine it into a general path command version as a general tool. As per the email, I think user talk:Interiot off Wiki for the whole month, but I'll leave a link on his page now regardless. I'd also like to see a command line modifier that one can tack on to easily edit section 0, since I seem to be doing a lot of upgrades to MOS standards on long articles!

Thanks! FrankB 20:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether or whether nor readers are interested what is happening in the west, the issue is whether or whether or not events events generally considered fortunate by many in the west would be considered fortunate to everyone else. Generally speaking, the answer to this is no. This may be because they disagree with the view it is fortunate, or it may simply be because they don't care about this event as it had little affect on them. While I agree, perhaps talking about it being in the west was incorrect since having reread it I realised it was talking about films of dancers which may serve as useful historical records of belly dancers not as I had thought films with dancers primarily designed for the entertainment for people in the west the fact remains, speaking about something as good fortune is expressing a POV that is it fortunate and so should be avoided whenever possible. 'For us' makes it even worse since it directly implies that the reader should feel it is fortunate. Either way, both of these comments (fortunately and 'for us') should not be included. I noticed that I unfortunately left out the word 'fortunate' in my edit summary. It should have read "Whether or not what the dance creating a craze was fortunate is an irrelevant POV that shouldn't be discussed. Also, 'us' assumes reader cares about what happens in the west". My disagreement was the mention that something was fortunate, not the issue of a craze, which was why I removed mention of fortunately and for us not the info in the craze. Nil Einne 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the edits in Bagha Jatin. It was appearing crowded with all the quotations, and was becoming difficult to decipher. Let's see what the main contributoe say! Bye! Thank you.--Dwaipayanc

I thank you again, though I hardly know why my contributions seem to have caught your eye. I have checked other pages and user contributions and most people don't seem to use them, unless they revert a page. I thought this was an unspoken convention, and I meant in my reply to your comments on my talk page that if I had reverted something without giving a reason, please be specific with it.

However, thanks to bringing attention to this, I decided to read the editing policy and it says nothing about using comment boxes. What you call a policy (edit summary) is not a policy but a guideline. I take your suggestion with good faith as I've said and I will leave comment when appropriate (especially if I think a page should be reverted) - but if I make substantial or subtle changes - I usually open a discussion on the relevant article's talk page. Deff6 20:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been so interested in my contributions I thought I'd extend you the same courtesy. I doN't understand why you saw fit to edit the Zeybek dance as you did. I've read the attacks on you and find them inexcusable, but I also have read criticisms about your edits from other credible people here. You say that the Greek version of the Zeybek dance differs from the Turkish one to such an extent that they requşre two separate articles - yet you do not elucidate this huge difference. I may be too dumb to get it but from both descripitons they seem exactly the same almost apart from regional variations.

The criticism that you did this because of the connections with Greek anti-Turlish feeling imbued in the Remebtiko and Zeibekiko strains - and ironicially having both greatly influenced by this - seems to have influenced your editing. Could you give me you reasons and explain exactly how they differ? And why when the rude person did make raise some pertinent points, you chose to erase these from discussion page and your page - when you could have just blanked out the rude words and left the points being made?

I think you also got blocked for reverting this page, too. Deff6 20:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no reason for the link not to be there. If one fansite can be feature twice for quite some time in those links, then why shouldn't one be added. It has just as much relevance as the first fansite, and if ours cannot be featured then I ask that theirs be removed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MurphysLaw (talk • contribs) 03:29, 18 April 2006

Then I'm asking that the other site be removed. It's only justice, because one site is no more relevant than the other. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MurphysLaw (talk • contribs) 04:10, 20 April 2006

To let you know, since you've been involved, I've given him the one-month block we've warned him about. It was for the creation of a context-free, contentless article and to an extent his anonymous and logged-in edit warring to restore the flawed Spider pit sequence. It's not the same as the random-space vandalism, but I believe this user is trolling and the vandalism was so blatant it's hard to assume good faith. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in regards to changing the format of dates, what makes you so certain your way of formatting is "standard"? considering the majority of articles on Wiki about individuals are formatted with the "Month Day, Year" style vs. "Day Month Year" style.

if you can show me anywhere within Wiki's guidelines that declares YOUR style as valid, i'll stand corrected. Drmagic 17:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gotcha Drmagic 20:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i was never upset at anything you said on my talk page. perhaps because of my use of CAPS it seemed i was but i wasn't. i have simply never had anyone lecture me on formatting dates. in any event, the reason i didn't reply in the first place was because i had no response.

you proved your point.

however i must remember that online people are "lost in translation." hence the one-word reply "gotcha." so in closing, i was upset, being hostile or anything close to that. just curious as to why you felt the need to correct me on my formatting (in addition to reverting them, despite you saying it didn't make a difference how it was formatted).

so there is no hostility. we are fine. Drmagic

cool. the slate is clean. Drmagic 20:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]