User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 42

1. If you want to continue editing here, you should learn to care about Wikipedia (not my) style.
2. If you had changed the mistake rather merely mass-reverting everything, I might have known what you were talking about. Calm explanations are generally more informative and productive than tantrums.
3. You may disagree, but should be
   civil
   ; you may not, however, insist on reverting good-faith edits that bring articles into line with the Wikipedia MoS. That is disruptive. Conformity with policies and guidelines isn't a matter for consensus.
4. I'm not threatening but warning. The pattern of your behaviour is familiar: aggressive bluster, refusal to reflect on your position, open contempt for community standards, etc. There are two ways it always goes: either you'll realise that your approach is counterproductive, change your ways, and become a productive member of the editing community, or you'll settle into a stubborn rut of reverting, waving your arms about, and making juvenile attacks on other editors — in which case you'll eventually find yourself facing a series of blocks and other sanctions. I'd rather that you went the former route, but it's your choice. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Indeed, but there's no need to be so abrubt and rude about it
2. I can say the same about you! You mass reverted me a number of times. It was me that finally gave in and edited your editing mistakes.
3. I don't disagree, I merely disagree with rude editors. e.g. the case of people setting my images for deletion even though I specified where they came from and therefore left an avenue for the author to be reached. You can't expect every (new) editor to read and understand 100% of wikipedia style and the politics behind them before making any small edit - if you did then wikipedia would be a much smaller and poorer resource. As a user with experience I would hope you'd help newer members out, not threaten people with bans for good faith edits.
4. Warning/Threatening it's just semantics. The general idea is you were just plain unfriendly and showed a complete lack of respect for the tidiness of the page. Like I said even after you made your last edit, in which you finally corrected your typo, you still deleted some of the information from the page which I had to go back and fill back in.

You sir are the one being rude and doing all the name calling here ("juvenile" etc.). I am merely standing up for myself in the face of rude editors. I admit that sometimes the (wikipedia) law is not on my side, but that doesn't excuse your behaviour. So are you going to apologise or what? aLii 00:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you shopuld consider the possibility that your confrontational response to my edits coloured my response to you? Your violent outbursts to other editors seem to have the same effect. My previous comments stand. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and perhaps you should apologise for your inconsiderate editing of pages that I've put a lot of work into? Your edit changed what I thought was a good format. Yes I know about overlinking, but whether something is truely overlinked or not is reasonably subjective. You didn't leave any kind of decent explanation for me until after we'd both reverted each other's edits a number of times.

• My edit had 3 links in close proximity. I had left them in the infobox for consistency of style, i.e. dates in black, teams in blue. There was nothing overly offensive about it. The article itself had no such overlinking.
• Your edit had a careless typo and some information removed. I saw it as careless, unnecessary and rude, and so I reverted you. You reverted me without correcting your mistakes, and so I simply reverted you again as you were being continually rude.

I may have come across as confrontational, but your continual "No, I am correct" revisions came across to me as confrontational. You started this. You are still being rude with your refusal to take any blame. As I read through your talk pages I see a lot of this arrogant "I know best" behaviour. Sure you contribute a lot, and probably do know the correct style better than the average contributor, but can you not accept that your behaviour in this case was far from ideal? I can accept that mine was, but as I have pointed out a number of times already you started this and I felt the need to defend my position. aLii 10:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "There are exceptions, but it's not clear to me why bellydance is one of those." Are you saying that the sites you deleted are not really realavant to bellydance? Because they are! Middle Eastern Dance offers numerous neutral views on various subjects in Middle Eastern Dance(commonly called bellydance) and Amulya's site offer's many links to video clips of dancers which would allow people to see the art in action. I'm not suggesting that every dancer out there add their own personal promotion site but, there are some really great sites out there that offer that offer quality information on the subject which you continue to remove. Wikipedia may not be a link resource but, it is supposed to be a tool for people to use to discover more about various subjects. I have read the policy on external linking and I think maybe you should review it. As it states in the wikipedia external links guide: "What should be linked to: 5. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article." and "6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews." both middle eastern dance and amulya's site offer neutral and accurate information that is not already in the article and could not possibly fit in the article (Middle Eastern Dance has over 200 pages of information!). It says Ideally they should be worked into the site... keyword ideally but that does not mean they absolutely have to be. In regards to #6, Middle Eastern Dance offers a lot of meaningful, realavant content that is not neccessarily suitable for inclusion in the article such as how-to's on dance movements, music, costuming, and more. It also contains reviews of various bellydance products available such as books, movies, and performance/instructional video's. Neither site seems to fall under the what links to avoid section of the guide. If you had checked them out you could have verified this. I don't think it's civil of you to remove sites that could potentially provide quality information on the topic without even finding out what they are about. As far as the tone of my message perhaps you are reading it wrong. I'm simply stating that you are not in my mind qualified to determine that these sites are less appropriate than the one's listed there already since you do not appear to belong to the bellydance community or have the best interest of the bellydance community at heart. All of the sites offer different but complementary information which is highly realavent to the topic of bellydance. If you think the sites should not be listed why not provide a detailed response as to why they should not be included. I have certainly provided plenty as to why they should. As a bellydancer for over a decade I believe these sites are both helpful and realavent on the subject and provide the uneducated reader/viewer with accurate information. Also, I asked you to please stop removing helpful sites... how is that uncivil? Cassandra581

It is a matter of relevance or it would not be listed as part of #6 in the guidelines. I have seen nothing that limits articles to having only 5 links and see no reson why it must replace another instead of haveing 6 links or seven links. As far as editing editors because they don't have enough experience with content I do think it's acceptable when the editior are continuosly removing things that are beneficial to the article and won't listen to reason. This link clearly falls withing the wikipedia guidelines if the experience and knowledge of people who are bellydancers and know what's good content and what's not carries little weight then what's the point of even creating the articles? Every part of the article is presented in as much of "POV" language as the link I added it's not POV it's my contribution to try and help make the article better by providing viewers with even better resources. So that tons of half-baked ideas can be presented with no basis in truth? The point of wikipedia is allow people who do have knowledge about a subjuect to share it and for others who have more knowledge to expand on it. What's the point of even allowing any external links if you can't list the ones that are realavant and helpful like it says in the guide?

As far as the FACT about Islam(verifiable not only by asking any Muslim but also by reading passages from the qu'ran and hadith), I will be glad to provide proof but perhaps you would like to tell me exactly what kind of citation you want and how many sura's and hadith are acceptable so I don't go over your limits.

Hello,

Regarding your rv in the Pierce Article: As a rule I do not check the Wiki Manual of Style each day - I assumed this was something that was not tampered with unless a crucial error is found to exist. It was you who made the date/dash change on April 29. If it is the concensus of all that such a change is valid, so be it. However, I will check the discussion and determine if this is so.

Michael David 12:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: If you look closely you will see that I do use the endash.

Michael David

Hello again,

Here is how it came down:

In my original edit I used the ndash (option-dash). It appears this way (

. We are both using ndashes. I believe the problem lies in the fact that I place a space before and after the endash. I feel this looks better.

I really don’t think we’re that far apart in out usage & our thinking.

Be healthy,

Michael David 22:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, you had nominated this article for deletion and it was unsuccessful due to a lack of consensus. We've received an email at OTRS from one of the women listed on the page--and I can only think that this will become more and more prevalent as time goes on should this list stay here. This young woman is non-notable, doesn't wish to be notable, and apparently her picture was published without her permission. Note: the models are generally not from English speaking countries and do not enjoy the same protections that the western world offers.

As a member of OTRS, I'm not sure if it would be appropriate for me to resubmit this for deletion debate. However, in light of the circumstances, I am inclined to loudly support a new deletion request. Bastique▼^parler_voir 16:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Mel. I'm surprised the postgrad/undergrad distinction hasn't yet been clarified in the UK. How are things like data collection, student representation, fees and privileges divided? Are the students in such programs afforded the same privileges as students in postgrad programs? I'd also like to apologise for being a bit snippy re: the whole 'graduate entry' thing - we were talking about the same type of program, just with different names. Cheers Natgoo 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, why did you add {{

]

Your comments on Wikipedia on LKY

Hi,

I am doing some research and am wondering if you happen to know the name of the doctor that delivered LKY ?

Thanks, Steve ([email protected]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.50.72.247 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 May 2006

I'm afraid that I have no idea what you're referring to. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am highly suspicious that Puckman765 is a sockpuppet of Gingerfield. Gingerfield was self-depecrating sometimes in his attitude towards himself, which could have led to the creation of User:Gingerfield sucks which in turn became User:Puckman765. Their edits are highly similar, although Puckman's have been more beneficial thus far. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 14:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot going on here, so I'll try to break it out.

• I appointed myself mediator, because that's what one is supposed to do when a case is brought before the
  Mediation Cabal
  . I saw a case I thought I could tackle, so I assigned myself mediator. That's how it works.

1. 1. I will admit right off the bat that MedCab has absolutely no authority, so if you don't feel like listening, you don't have to. However, if the parties involved are not willing to
      more formal mediation process
      .
   2. I am not required to post on your talk page about the goings-on of the mediation. I place my comments in the case page itself or on the talk page of the article. I thought that way, it would be more centralized than spreading things out over many people's personal talk pages.

• Regarding the links in general, I have quoted below one of the points of
  WP:EL
  that is listed under "What should be linked to." I believe all of the links that are posted in the External Links section follow this guideline, and should therefore not be removed.

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.

• Regarding the one particular site that is purported to be owned by Cassandra, I would concede that it shouldn't be listed until it can be verified that she does not own the site. (
  WP:EL
  quote below, under "Links normally to avoid")

A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.

• Regarding your comment that 'articles are not link-resources,' I don't really see that anywhere.
  WP:EL does suggest (quote below) that articles should not only be links, but I would say that Belly dance
  is plenty long enough and a large number of links would be appropriate.

Wikipedia is not a web directory; no page should consist solely of a collection of external links. Wikipedia always prefers internal links over external links. However, adding a certain number of relevant external links is of valuable service to our readers.

• I believe I have answered all your questions. There is no rule that says there can only be 5 links in any given article. They are useful sites that could not be reasonably be integrated into an already long-enough article. The questionable link should remain off, but the others should stay. Please refrain from arbitrarily removing links. If you continue to have a dispute, I recommend you bring something up with the
  Mediation Cabal case. Have a great day and happy editing. Amalas =^_^= 14:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

{{RFMF}} Cassandra581 07:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please

.

I believe the

]

Consider it dropped. Amalas =^_^= 15:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I apologize for reverting the "unique" phrasing. My lack of preference either way combined with my exasperation with your continued reverts and a lack of care in editing on my part resulted in removing "unique". I'll be more careful in the future. Second, the presence of the link in the opening sentence is not "undiscussed". You'll see from my very first post on the talk page that I suggested changing the disputed text, not adding new text to the second paragraph; in my second post I specifically said that both aspects need to be addressed in the opening sentence. I apologize if you thought adding the text elsewhere would satisfy concerns. What concerns me most about this is that you seem to be the only editor who supports your preferred phrasing. Consensus appears to be against it, to me. Why do you continue to revert to your preferred version? Powers 16:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the situation was not handled ideally by certain elements. You are by most accounts a fine editor and admin, if occassionally controversial. =) May I suggest that we leave the article as it is for now, say a week, and come back to it then? Powers 16:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page, so me removing a section that I created that no longer had any use would not classify as vandalism, would it? Secondly, you should have looked at what I removed before you added it back -- I removed them because they were already mentioned twice (then) thanks to the addition of the band-stub. Hence my removal for the band members.

My edits were genuinely minor. How were they not? That's your own personal perception, as the article you're citing even states at the very beginning. It could be classified as any of the following, as stated in the article: "formatting and presentational changes and rearranging of text without changing any content." The area was already replaced in the band box, therefore it was rearranged.

Thank you for your concern and trying to keep the page vandal-free, however. Enfestid 18:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was never claiming I owned it, I was making a point that I wasn't vandalizing my own material. I know I don't "own" the article. There is no confusion about this. I understand this concept completely, so please stop patronizing me.

It included instruments, but that is also in the biography that I wrote. I felt the need to remove it because the band members were already mentioned, and the instruments were also already mentioned previously in the article.

Removing a section that is no longer needed is a minor edit in my personal perception. This is not a stretch of imagination in any way, shape, or form. Again, please stop patronizing me in this regard.

Enfestid 17:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to explain your reverts on the discussions page of an article if it isn't obvious - and especially if you are re-reverting! Take, for example, the

]

• There were over ten reverts from you over the same points. I don't know on which editor's page you've discussed the said topics, but I believe the entry's discussion page is where discussions on the entry should primarily be placed. -- Raga 16:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't clear because I

]

Thanks for clearing that up.

---

Yeah, sorry- I fill in the edit summaries first so I actually include them, otherwise I forget! Damn Opera crashing!

EvocativeIntrigue 16:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, as explained exp to you

]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on

Chinese classic texts

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule . Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 19:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your mail; and posted a comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard William M. Connolley 20:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what template have you been using to welcome users? I usually just use {{welcome}} or {{welcomeip}} but that's kinda boring, and it looks really plain. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 21:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Referring to the article on

) 23:27, 20 May 2006

Lawrence Washington at Brasenose

Mel Etitis,

Why did you edit out the following addition I just made to the Brasenose College article?

* Lawrence Washington, the great great grandfather of George Washington, was a Fellow of Brasenose College...

--Kessler 00:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

quit changing the correct flower of sigma nu!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.167.91 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 May 2006

quit changing you have no idea what your talking about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.167.91 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 22 May 2006

Learn your stuff it just sounds stupid and its horribly incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schultz4434 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 22 May 2006

Hello again,

I don't mean to nitpick, but a person dies 'from' (as in 'from the effects of') a disease - not 'of' a disease.

Be healthy,

Michael David 12:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I learned, and have been using, 'died from' to chart a person's cause of death for years. Research into the use of the two seems to indicate that it depends on whose writing it - professional v. nonprofessional. I'm content using 'died from'.

Be healthy,

Michael David 15:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, Mel,

The usage does appear to be somewhat regional. I received my medical training at USC and my psych training at Berkeley; in both (US west coast) settings the phrase ‘died from’ was used when referring to cause of death.

Another interesting thing: When I started participating in Wikipedia I discovered that Categories referring to some deaths had been termed, ‘Deaths by…’ (e.g., Deaths by pneumonia). When I began creating other Cause of Death Categories I just naturally used the phrase ‘Deaths from’. I’m considering a formal proposal to rename the ‘Deaths by’ Categories.

And, speaking of renaming Categories, isn’t it time to consider renaming ‘Deaths by apoplexy’?

Be Healthy’

Michael David 11:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mel -

It seems that when you reverted the "stranger" editions out of the Plato page, I also lost my edits on the Chrononlogy > Schleiermacher's ordering of the dialogues >> did you intend to remove these too >> if so, why? If not, shall I put them back...

2ndly: Do you see any way possible to show that Plato in his later works to some extent stepped away from "Socrates" as being his central "character" to use of "strangers" to explicate his philosophy??

I tried to post these questions earlier but they disappeared... at least they didn't show up where I would have expected them, perhaps I made an error logging it...

let's see what happens this time...

yours - pl.

Phillip 13:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, I've put back my italics on the chronology, I'm still waiting for any feedback on the Strange Stranger issue > and if I don't get any commentary I think that I'll make another stab at making the "character" issue (which of course is fundamental to understanding Plato) go BeYond Socrates to (in as unpersonal a way as possible) > Hint at the idea that the "late" Plato somehow wanted to dialectically balance his "Socrates" off to different "Strangers", be they "Athenian", "Eleatic," or even "Manitenean" >> this seems a BIG improvement to the top of the Plato page, perhaps a hint to the effect that Modern scholarship is really LOST when it comes to the "late" Plato ... What do you say MEL? you seem to be the #1 editor who has taken on my issues.... just curious - I don't want to ruffle too many feathers right off...

bestens, phillip Phillip 13:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel > this is an answer to Red&Blue's request that I back up my research into the stranger with something that he could "touch", a bit of genuine Platonic scholarship... I include it here and wonder whether this is the right spot or whether you and Red&Blue would agree that perhaps it should be moved to the "discussion page for Plato" - that, namely, there is something to my desire to make mention of the 'Stranger' as being an important character - in many ways > just as important a character as is Socrates.... which is worth considering?

Phillip 15:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your query, sir, I hope that you won't mind if I don't quote James or Spinoza who are well-known but who didn't do particularly valuable research vis a vis Plato, rather to get to the pertinent remarks, one need only open up FDE Schleiermacher's Introduction to the dialogue Sophist (where, of course, the Stranger first puts in his apperance according to FDE) - and, since I only have this beautiful prose in deutsch I hope you don't mind: Ä ä Ë ë Ï ï Ö ö Ü ü

[from pp.92/94 of the Akademie Verlag (accurate!) edition - Volume II-2.]:

"Denn im Lauf der Untersuchung über das Nichtseiende entsteht,gerade wie sie selbst als ein höheres in der über den Sophisten entstanden war, die Frage uber die Gemeinschaft der Begriffe, von welcher alles wirkliche Denken und alles Leben der Wissenschaft abhängt; und es eröffnet sich auf das bestimmteste die Anschauung von dem Leben des Seienden und von dem notwendigen Eins- und Ineinandersein des Seins und des Erkennens. Gröβeres aber gibt es nirgends auf dem Gebiete der Philosophie, ... und zugleich darauf, daβ Erkenntnis weder ohne Ruhe noch ohne Bewegung, weder ohne Stehendes noch ohne Flieβendes, weder ohne Beharren noch ohne Werden bestehen könne... indem ja diese das letzte ist, worin die Indirekte Darstellung, auf deren höchster Höhe wir uns hier befinden, endigen muβ.....Daβ hier in der Tat das Wesen aller Philosophie ausgesprochen ist, bedarf für den, dessen überhaut empfänglich ist, keiner weiteren Erörterung.....deshalb kann man mit Recht den "Sophisten" als den innersten Kern aller indirekten Darstellungen des Platon ansehn, und gewissermaβen als das erste in seiner Art völlstandige Bild des Mannes selbst."

and then, a little while later (as I'm sure you're eagerly awaiting the Stranger...)

"Es ist auf jeden Fall bedeutend, dass diese Wiederlegung des Parmenides einem Eleaten in den Mund gelegt wird; .... die Äuβerungen des Fremdlings..."

I hope that (although somewhat abbreviated) the above quote will enable you to understand that this may INDEED be a very important piece of Plato scholarship... need I quote Allen Bloom who states that Schleiermacher appears to have the "best grasp" of the character and the meaning of Plato's dialogues. (Intro to Bloom's transl of the Republic, p. xxiii.)

Of course, I am new at the wiki stuff and will not pretend to know all of your ways ... If there are people who are interested in something other than 'Socrates', something a bit more mature in Plato's works ... I would be happy to introduce these important concepts to you - and being a stranger myself, it seems rather appropriate. Phillip 13:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Naturally, a lot more can be found in FDE's introductions to Statesman and Symposium...

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rednblu"

Dear Mel (please cc: Red&BLue..) This morning I've done a little friendly editing on the Plato page (somebody seems to have messed up the late dialogues as they were commented out... I commented them back in). A few other minor changes on this page... Then I put more on Schleiermacher's basic contentions in the Stub on the Socratic Problem > this seems to be a good place to stick it. I will not hide the fact that, naturally I do have a translation of Schleiermacher into English (9 dialogues) and see myself as "his defender." He's been terribly misused, the Rowolts edition of his works changes HIS ordering that he considered absolutely CRITICAL to a right understanding of Plato >> so, even though when you buy Plato in Germany and it says that it's by FDE, actually it ends up being totally misordered which is something that he would have a hissy fit about if he were still around > they also dare to go in and change "a few words" around, to better suit the "tastes" of the time... I go into this for you so that you may believe that I TOO very strongly HATE it when unqualified people mess up other people's hard work by their incompetence. My question for you is whether IF I did go to the trouble of, say, adding a new page to go into all of the ins and outs of FDE's stance, whether this Page would have any hope for not being deleted or re-edited by fools who "the community" accepts as knowing where-of they speak.... this is - I guess - a difficult question and I'm not even sure if you are the person to whom it should be addressed. As I have said more than once, I am new at this wikipedia way. I have been using the HUMAN page as a sort of sandbox to see how minority views are treated... you may wish to have a look at the discussion there - everything is One, as far as Plato, Schl. and I am concerned...

thanks, Phillip 12:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that all this simply confirms that you have an agenda that militates against the Wikipedia aims of NPoV, as well as indicating your dismissive view of those who disagree with you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My agenda is defending Schleiermacher, I do not dispute this; whether Wikipedia desires that such old-fashioned views are worth including - this is up to you, Red&Blue and whoever else you may see fit to include... Everything that I have input in the Plato and Socratic problem pages can be backed up with citations from Schleiermacher's Introductions to his translation of Plato. I'd be happy to give you the titles, dates & Publisher if you'd like the same. I have been straight forward and as careful as I could be in trying to state Schl's viewpoint in a neutral manner - I do not have any desire to spend much more time improving wiki without some support on the desirability of my input; it is easy to accuse others of POV - truly understanding the highest level of scholarship takes years of dedication and research; I have become used to being dismissed and will continue to shrug it off: the ball is in your court, I realize that my additions to the "Socratic problem" page don't precisely fit in there - but I needed a sort of sand box to place what I see (from working through FDE's transl. of Plato) as most fundamental, and this seemed an OK spot, not too much traffic and -being a stub- it requested input; plus there isn't a Socratic problem, there seems to be a Stranger problem - so, that wraps it up; I'll check back here in a few days - or you can feel free to contact me at [email protected] if you and yours see any sense in having my input. I thank you for your efforts in considering my strange case, yours, pl. Phillip 11:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Juggalo article, you linked to articles which were merged into the article in my revision. However you did not undo the redirects on those articles, so at the present they are effectively gone. I have no special attachment to the Juggalo article as I was just attempting to merge the articles for the sake of simplicity, but please be more careful next time. This was a confusing revert from you, and resulted in a net loss of information from Wikipedia.--Rosicrucian 14:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I see nothing wrong with a trimming of the article, as presently due to the merge it is rather large and unweildy. I think perhaps the subsections on the various annual gatherings could probably be reduced to a bullet-list with years and locations, but I'm not sure how to shrink the Dark Carnival section. When I merged I started with pretty much a direct port of the text to avoid controversy on an article I'm admittedly less-than-knowledgeable about. I haven't had a chance to look at the article for serious revision yet. --Rosicrucian 14:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've posted what I hope will be a compromise version. Dark Carnival material has been restored to its own individual article. The years and locations of the Gatherings have been reduced to bullet-points, but I've kept the larger subsections on why the Quarry can no longer be used, and the planning process for this year's Gathering. I've also restored the abbreviated Juggalo Code section, as prior versions of the article seem to favor an explaination of Juggalo ethics. I've tried to keep it NPoV, but if you see any problems let me know. Sorry for any inconvenience I've caused. --Rosicrucian 15:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please un-blank and un-copyrightviolation that Lawrence Washington page: I am in the middle of writing it -- yes I'd just copied some material into it, but I rewrote most of that and was taking a break to get some work done before finishing the rest. A lot of work has gone into that article, and I'd appreciate being allowed to finish it.

--Kessler 22:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi ho -

just wondering if there's something special in the way you get messages as I've left some through the ADD + key and then there's this "click here to send msg" > is this like two different mailboxes? - one that ends up on your User Talk page and the other gets to go straight to you?

Phillip 14:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, pl.

• • • • • • • • • • >> WELL, I guess not, as I see this came through... you may ignore the question,

or perhaps explain why there's two different routes to the same place... just getting myself a little acclimated to this winki thing. ps: I do agree that truth is with the minority... always a personal thing; which makes winki itself 'suspect' ... yours, Phillip 14:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

read the subject (This comment left by 205.188.116.66 (talk · contribs) – who clearly thinks that I'm clairvoyant – at 19:30, 24 May 2006)

There's a notice on that IP's talk page about vandalism. Powers 22:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes — in fact there are lots of notices, only one of which (from a week ago) was placed there by me. It's been followed by many more from other editors --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wondering why you have reverted the article Chinese Classic Texts back to last version. As I checked the article

? I just saw it has been like Edit war. Anyways, I hope you can send me message back. Daniel5127, 01:48, 25 may 2006 (UTC)

Mel, I would appreciate you to refrain from your editing of the

article. I understand that Wikipedia is a place for everyone to make edits and contribute, but the simple fact of the matter is that you are not contributing to the well-being of the article; rather, Mel, you are simply modifying the page from any edits I make because you had a disagreement with me.

I would appreciate it if you could show a grain of maturity in your edits on this page. If you cannot, I politely ask you not edit the page at all unless you have something to contribute (which you have yet to do). I am editing the article to have a pleasing layout and fit with Wikipedia's standards. You, however, are just editing the page to razz me.

I changed the picture (logo) size to 250 to make it so that the band members' musical instruments are on the same line as the name of the person using that particular instrument. This makes the page much easier to comprehend at all resolutions of one's computer monitor (including 800 x 600). As for the capitalizing of the P in "Progressive metal" -- why did you change this to begin with? Was there any meaning behind this change? When I look at the vast majority of band pages (e.g. Red Hot Chili Peppers), the genres are all capitalized. Whether they are on different lines or are seperated by a comma seems to change from article to article, and there's no particular style that articles seem to go by.

Please explain to me your edits. I have nothing against you adding or subtracting to the page for the betterment of the article, but you seem to be making edits simply to get under my skin. I comprehend the fact that no one owns articles on Wikipedia too, before you bring that up again. I am not claiming the ownership of the article, I am merely asking why you're making changes to the article that make little sense other than the possibility that you're doing it to get under my skin, as I have already said. Thank you. Enfestid 19:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Posting a link to Wikipedia: Assume good faith means nothing to me if you do not admit to me that you didn't do it with a rude intent. Until then, this link cannot tell me anything. If it were true, then why would you simply not come out and state so?
2. It isn't for MY browser or MY settings. It is for ALL browsers and ALL settings -- did I not make this clear? Is there something I forgot to explain?
3. [[2]] -- 250px is acceptable.
4. Why is there no need? I am going by what all the other band pages do. If you feel the need, change every single one of them, not just the 30 Seconds to Mars one. I have seen no articles on Wikipedia to indicate that it should not be capitalized.

Can you link to any of what you've told me to verify this, other than your own personal opinions on what the article should and shouldn't look like? I have found nothing, and I've been searching for a while since I read your message. Thank you. Enfestid 03:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please view

Wikipedia: Featured Articles

in music. Here are some examples of what I am referring to (just going to the first three artists there):

1. Louis Armstrong: Image is bigger than 200px, indicating an article is fine with a image size of over 200px for band pictures. Numerous yearly dates are Wikified.
2. The Beatles: Image is bigger than 200px, indicating an article is fine with a image size of over 200px for band pictures. Genres are both capitalized and on seperate lines.
3. Mariah Carey: Image is bigger than 200px, indicating an article is fine with a image size of over 200px for band pictures. Numerous yearly dates are Wikified.

Your "tidying" is not tidying. Thank you.

Enfestid 04:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this change the fact that it does not have to be how you edited it to be? Do all of those articles need to be changed to 200px? No, they do not. The

30 Seconds to Mars

article does not, either. Just because you believe it to be the norm does not mean the article has to look like that. And you still have not explained the capital letters.

Your style for musical articles is not the only one, Mel. I do not believe you are acting in good faith, and yes, I read the article. The article also says to talk it out in the discussions and talk pages, which is what we're doing, is it not? I believe the only reason you're doing this is to get me blocked from the article, quite honestly, which would not surprise me in the least bit.

I'll say again: your style for artist/musician articles is not the only one. I can clearly tell from your user page that this is the format you use for most of your articles. This, however, does not make it the best way to format an article, and it also does not make it the most appealing. Can you give any reasoning behind changing the article to fit "your" format? Because I have yet to see any valid reasoning at all.

Perhaps if it were for the benefit of the article I would not care, but the simple fact of the matter is that it is not. The only thing you're doing is keeping your own style. If I wanted to go edit all of the articles you started to fit "my" style I could easily do just that and claim I was "tidying" the article. But I wouldn't be. I would just be changing the article to fit my own personal preferences on how an article should look.

Maybe if you even cared about the article I would understand, but it is apparent to me that you do not, based on the nature of your other musical articles. I would appreciate it if you just stop these revert wars. Thank you.

Enfestid 14:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you review this article for me please. Thanks. --RogerK 06:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do seem to be a little confrontational. It's somewhat intimidating for a newbie.

But I'm prepared to stand my ground, as the MOS supports me that there is no consensus on the Oxford comma where there's no ambiguity.

There's so much appalling grammar and punctuation in Wikipedia. Let's edit that, rather than pedantically editing where it's a matter of opinion.

Dweller 10:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a very confusing person.

You admit that you were wrong about Wiki's MOS.

You admit that the sentence I wrote was correct and unambiguous.

Yet you repeatedly, insistently, maddeningly and pointlessly reinsert an Oxford comma in the text.

Why?

I had it right. You are confrontational. Why won't you back down, even after you admit you're wrong?

Be a big man. Revert your own revert.

Dweller 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. Dweller 13:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]