User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 10

RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trey Stone: Care to add anything? -- Viajero 12:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Tan

Tan is back - and it seems he's done a lot of arguing on the RfC (the best defense is a good offense). I'd really like to say a few words, but I don't know where and if it's allowed. Can you give me some tips? Thanks. JM Bell ° 14:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help

Dear Mel, thanks very much for your prompt help. It is fun to imagine 'Turn of the Screw' by James Joyce. Again thank you - much appreciated! Lorna Nogueira

"removed some (astonishingly) inaccurate unit-conversions)"

Hi there,

It was me that did the unit conversions that you described as "(astonishingly) inaccurate unit-conversions". I looked at what you removed and it was my conversion of '400 acres' to '1.6 km²' and '200 acres' to '0.8 km²'. I did the conversions by putting the value into the google search field and pressing the search button. For 400 acres, google said '1 618 742.57 m²'. For 200 acres, google said '809 371.284 m²'. I usually assume that google conversions are accurate, in what way do you think they have got it wrong this time?

Perhaps you mean that the conversions are accurate but imprecise. If so, then I accept that my choice of precision was arbitrary. If you think a different precision is more appropriate, please feel free to use that in the conversion and/or let me know so I can do better conversions in future. Thanks for trying to improve the article and keep up the good work! Bobblewik (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answered with apology Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, all points noted. Just to follow up your incidental comment about "the standard SI unit, hectares".

The hectare is not an SI unit at all. The SI authority says of the hectare: "use is not encouraged" http://www1.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/4-1.html

SI uses the square of the length unit (metre) to describe area (square metre). Prefixes such as milli and kilo are applied to these units of length and area in standard ways. This keeps the system simple and requires fewer conversions as size increases and increases. Farmers may use domain specific expressions such as 'quintals per hectare' or 'bushels per acre' but neither expression is SI (even though some are simpler to convert to SI). Hectares are in source material for Wikipedia articles but I would be surprised if many Wikipedia readers could point at a piece of land and guess the area in hectares, or given an area in hectares could point at a piece of land that size. I bet they could do a better job with m² and km². Read within my talk page for comments from those that have views different to mine. Bobblewik (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

c.

I noticed your use of "c." in a recent edit of Planting Fields Arboretum. I thought the abbreviation for "circa" is "ca." !? — Is "c." a valid alternative, or is it an abbreviation for something else? Rl 19:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your detailed explanations. That was very informative. Rl 05:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advise

I am fully aware of your issues. However, I will appreciate if you can stop stalking me and tracking down on my edits, indulging in my affairs wherever I go. I never did that to you right? I even gave you the right to copy-edit Kinnaur, etc, but I have seen that you have done little to improve the state, sometimes even deproving the standard.

I have heard somewhere that adminstators should not indulge in affairs of other users not relating to a particular dispute. If you still keep on stalking me like this, artribation may be the last resort. It's very hurting and let me do everything first. All I want is peace in my editing.

I also have witnessed the fact that together with Jmbell and Moumine, there is no substantial changes to the copy-editing articles over the past few days. Therefore, I would appeal to you to have the initiative to copy-edit it up quickly, or the list may get longer. (If you, the wikipedians or your associates) does not do any major copyedits within a few days time, I will assume that everything is in perfect order and will remove the template.)

I will review it then and there (a little review has been done by me). I will be grateful if all of you can spot out my wrong spellings (my lack of sleep results in some errors).

For your information, User:Nichalp dos not need to remind in the Talk:Maharashtra while he is now editing in the Maharashtra/temp. Anyway, I have done what you have wanted.

I will also appeal that you should stop removing the gcheck template in Zanskar. You, as an admin, should let me cleanup everything first before interventing. What you did was abusing and discriminating my right to edit, and and I'm not a vandal at all. There is no need to follow all the rules, just use your common sense. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Can we develop a sense of mutual respect for our decisions with each other?

Also, please go and reflect on yourself carefully at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan on my response. I hope you change for the better.

Tan, 10:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sikkim

I need some clarifications as to what is exactly you find a "tourist brochure" on the Sikkim page. Am willing to modify the same if you could point these out to me. PS. WRT Island/Isle, an isle (or islet) is a small island, I wouldn't put it as archaic or poetic. Regards, =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 04:30, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Greeks pic

so, i changed the picture on the top of the Greeks page. unfortunately it's a pic from Skopelos Island. So, I solved one problem and created another one! who's gonna write about Skopelos Island now? :)

Project2501a 07:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert on Kinnaur

Hi Mel, can you give me any good reason why you have reverted the latest edits to Kinnaur, as made by Tobycat, to the last version of Mr. Tan?

In doing so, you have turned:

Alpine species such as ... can be found at elevations between 3,500 and 5,000 metres

into:

Alpine species such as ... can be found between elevations between 3,500 and 5,000 metres

Moumine 13:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tan

Hi Mel, Tan is at it again. He's placed the gcheck on Zanskar and "counter-reformatted" it to make it more "presentable to readers." Reverted well-meaning revert by Moumine. I reverted his revert (and revert-revert, etc.). :) Should we protect? JM Bell ° 16:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Shall I seek an outside opinion? I have a good friend (or at least I think I do) who could be able to help out. JM Bell ° 17:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I shall. Good luck to us and good day! JM Bell ° 17:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have changed all of the headers in the Spice Girls category. They had been named ages before you came along - and three of those pictures were not even mine. I don't know what the fuck you think you are doing, but like I have said before, you can keep going buddy. But since I called the girls' article home way before you did, there is no way you can barge in and do things your way. That's the message for you.

And yes, fuck you.

Amazing. And this behavior is allowed to stand? FeloniousMonk 15:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it to the Administrators' Noticebroard, and there were one or two tut-tuts (and the inevitable attempt to defend him by Everyking), but nothing was done. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate media

Hi, if you have a moment, this brief article IMHO needs some work: Corporate media. My efforts to improve it [1] didn't last very long. Thanks, -- Viajero 22:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maha Jana High School. Thanks

Hi Mel, thanks for your time on the Maha Jana VfU story. I appreciate your efforts in shedding light on the issue. Sjakkalle 09:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Kim Wee

Hi, my edit summary was written wrongly: with "rv" I meant "ReVert" not "revert vandalism". I have no intent to refer your revert as vandalism. Apologize for this misunderstanding. Vsion 10:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why you have added new comment out of sequence in the discussion page, but in case you miss my comments: I have paste them here below:

I’m afraid my main question is not addressed: what is the gold standard? How to decide what is suitable for an encyclopedia? Your premise is that the word "interred" is not common use (based on style or otherwise) without suggesting any way to verify or falsify. For example, a test can be "have the British government used it in this context?" or "have the UN used it this way in an official statement?" Are these acceptable as evidence of common use? These are not "journalistic" English if that’s your objection. To my knowledge, that’s how dictionaries are updated, don’t you agree? Most slang or dialect phases will not qualify. I don't think I have misunderstood your reason at all. But, without setting a standard, you are presenting me a shifting goalpost, while rejecting the examples provided: you may suggest "no diplomatic English" later, etc.

In addition, with the same arguments you gave, are you suggesting you will replace all instances of the non-encyclopedic "interred" found in the wikipedia? I have already pointed out two articles earlier. I really want to know if you are going to replace these “genteelism” words, please tell us. This will help us understand each other better, because I’m really confused by your arguments, if you oppose the use here, but okayed for other articles.

Btw, I personally do not believe there is a significant difference between how Singaporean/Asian and British/American feel about or interpret the various issues we have discussed above. Although the manner we express ourselves are quite different; but this is a point I will elaborate later. (I’m not involved with the other ongoing “debate”),

With all due respect, let me do the research as you does not seem to care. If you are so opposed with the word "interred" in wikipedia, here is a list of articles you can work on, most of them contain the genteelism, non-encyclopedic "interred": see User:Vsion/temp. Many are Britain-related, none is Singapore-related (thanks to your edit, we have to use "placed the ashes") and I apologize for small number of broken links .. Vsion 16:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, Let's put aside our discussion on "common usage". The subject of the article is the only president I've known in all my life and he just passed away. In our culture, mourning is usually one month, and can be extended up to 3 months. During this period, we do not usually use the words "died" and "his ashes". Most of the readers will be Singaporeans, and would feel that the use of such terms during this period is impolite. Is it alright if we show a sign of respect and sensitivity in the article at least for this period, at the slight expense of "encyclopedic" style? I wish for your kind understanding. Vsion 23:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Singaporean Wikipedians

Hi Mel Etitis,

While I understand that you have quite a number of issues to deal with my fellow Singapore Wikipedians, may I request you to be more amicable and friendly towards them. There is little point in being so hard up on them.

I shall assume good faith on your continued dealings with them, and I hope that you will do so as well. :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 13:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mel,

Not just Tan, a few others like Huaiwei and Vsion, which hopefully should be ressolved by now. Perhaps I may have over-reacted over this, I personally actually thought Tan was treated a bit too harshly. Same as what I wrote to James just a while ago - You may be interested to know that Asians (me included) see pride and shame as an important part of culture, which they will strongly defend it at all costs so "fighting fire with fire" is a bad idea. And I hope you didn't have any impression that Singaporeans are generally "poor in English" (let me do if you feel so, I suddenly thought of this because I was surprised hours ago someone from UK commented on my blog that my English was also atrocious over just a few errors) because of the notoriety of Singlish in other English-speaking countries.

These are IMO after looking through the usertalkpages involved so far, it is possible that I may not have seen the entire of the story so I'm open to suggestions, and look forward to hearing from you. :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 17:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I can't look or comment too much further, I'm tired. =P In any case, I just hope there'll be an amicable solution for this. :) - Regrads, Mailer Diablo 17:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tan

Hello Mel, should we post something re. Mr Tan on WP:AN/I? JM Bell ° 15:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious - do you teach philosophy? What do you do as a philosopher? Just sit in a corner and contemplate the meaning of life? Just curious... JM Bell ° 20:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vyacheslav Molotov

I refuse to comprosmise on this page (I fought in 'Nam against commmies like him), and frankly the fucking bot was in my way.----198 05:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tan

In response to your message, I have a few things to say.

Firstly, I don't see where is the rule or policy that a /temp cannot be added on the actual article itself. I am currently doing a major edit on Wee Kim Wee itself, as I am wanting to add a lot of information to the page, just as User:Nichalp did to Maharashtra and Maharashtra/temp. Thus, I see that there is no reason to remove that notice if Nichalp could do that. Furthermore, he is also an admin like you, thus he should understand the wikipedia rules better.

Secondly, the fault lies in you and Mel in the fact that both of you are people who are extremely impatient. Just becuase seeing that Zanskar seems depreciated in terms of article quality in your POV while I'm copy-editing, that doesn't mean it will look bad after I have done everything. Furthermore, I am not finished, so why revert for no reason? This is hoolinganism. I cannot control you on protecting the page or blocking me, but I will do in accordance to the right ways. To me, if the article needs copyediting to me, so be it. Thus you should wait patiently for a few days and let me finish up everything before you proceed.

Thirdly, I don't see why you have been tracking me down and indulging in my editing affairs. You are doing against my wishes, and that can be considered something related to user abuse.

Fourthly, I insist that your english is bad. After your meetups with Mailer diablo and Huaiwei, you and JMbell have been stating that their English is like me as well. Since you have been stating that our English is below standard, I see that either our POV are different in terms of our Sinagporean education of English and your European education of English, or your English is genuinely atroccious. I do not remember where I have stated that our dialects are different. In fact, Singapore uses the acrolectal form of British English, and that is what I'm using now. I do not use loan words from Hokkien, Mandarin or Malay in my dialogs, except with some American admixture.

Last, but not least, I do not understand why you have the habit of the following in your English:

Your version:

The district of Lahul and Spiti in the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh consists of the two formerly separate districts of Lahul and Spiti. The present capital is Keylong in Lahul. (Before the two districts were merged, the village of Kardang was the capital of Lahul, and Dankar the capital of Spiti.)

My version:

The district of Lahul and Spiti in the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh consists of the two formerly separate districts of Lahul and Spiti. The present capital is Keylong in Lahul.

Before the two districts were merged, the village of Kardang was the capital of Lahul, and Dankar the capital of Spiti.

If you notice, you have a tendency to join the two paragraphs up and bracketing the sentences. Can you please elaborate more clearly on your styling?

Tan 15:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the past few moments, I have witnessed an edit war in Wee Kim Wee, Goh Chok Tong and Zanskar. I hoped you know my reasons well enough, and please do not zealously edit these pages. Even you want to revert, I would appeal to you if you could kindly make a proper explanation on its talk pages before you revert. I don't why you have reverted in Goh Chok Tong still.

Tan 17:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please proceed to my RfC for my reply.

Tan 18:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to indicate the gramatical errors before I edit? Please wait for a few days first on why I did that. Since I can't stop your persistent impatience, I will have to explain.

Tan 18:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Tan, we bracketed the above sentence because it has no direct relation to the other sentence AND because it is NOT THAT IMPORTANT! (for emphasis) I hope you do understand our motives. You are directing this edit war, not us. We are only reverting in self-defense. Zanskar and the other articles are good enough as they are, but I don't know why you have to edit them to suit "your point of view." That is entirely in your favor and bias, and I'm sure our readers will be very uncomfortable reading it, as your earlier controversial edits have proven. The /temp page is supposed to be a collaboration, not a page which you possess. Nothing on Wikipedia is entirely yours, Tan (a very sad lesson I had to learn), not even your own user page (though you do have power over these). Articles, even temp pages, belong to the public, so if they want to edit, let them. You have no power over that. And then you say that we are tracking down all of your edits and shooting each one down. Do you not notice that all your good edits still remain? We only take down the bad ones because, well, they're bad. But we let the others stay. So stop maligning us. Your statement in the RfC that we have commited perjury by saying that you keep the temp page to yourself is not at all true. The temp page is for everybody. Don't claim it for yourself. Your statement should therefore be considered irrelevant. That is all I have to say. JM Bell ° 12:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qualitative

Can you un-protect qualitative now it is no longer pending deletion. Thanks. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 12:15, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

speedy candidate?

Paper:Technology_of_the_Indus_Valley_Civilization

Now that's speedy. Thx. --goethean 16:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bitch reference

Hi Mel: I used Google with bitch "term of affection" as the search string. Try it yourself. I added those references last night in the vain hope that it would take the heat out of that edit war. I guess that I should have drawn it explicitly to the attention of the warriors but I felt that might be inflammatory. --Theo (Talk) 16:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the headers to small letters, since I was basically demanded to. Now that I have done that, I would like those pictures to stay, with the headers in small letters the way they had been before you changed them. And since "ballad" appears twice and has a link on its second appearance, I am trying to rotate that to its first, but you must interfere again. Just keep the photos, I will change the headers back to the way they were before we both came along (in small letters), and then the Spice Girls section does not have to be constantly changed anymore. 64.231.71.58 21:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tan

Mel, cool down now. I know that you will be directing an edit war with your behaviour, but let's not exchange hurtful remarks with each other. For the Wee Kim Wee and Zanskar, take your time to reflect on your behaviour, while I will write my response. All I want is an article that looks presentable, and filled with information with proper sentences.

I know that I have a few mistakes. I am willingly to apologise for that. If you think that I'm rude, I apologise. Concerning on my part, I will not give up until I have achieved my rightful goal. I understand your hard work, but let's work out our differences, and stop hurting one another, right?

Stop all your edits first, so does mine. Let's go seperate ways for the time being and write our POV towards the two parties. I will be grateful that if you would write your POV of the issue, but please do not tell lies or be biased in your comments.

I also feel that you are a bit unfair. While I saw a lot of errors in Zanskar, I don't see why you claimed that there are no errors and all the points can be claimed, and you even kept the redundant points. Even in Wee Kim Wee and Goh Chok Tong, I have let you edited redundant points which I also agreed to some extent. On your behalf, I have noticed that repeated reverts are needed in some cases before you can get to the point. if Nichalp can add messages and commands in Maharastra, I don't see the reason where I'm wrong.

You have shown zealousness in your edits. Furthermore, Nichalp stated in my RfC that /temp can be used when major structural changes are expected. Messages are advised to be put up. And that is what I want to do. What is wrong with you and my edits?

I have also witnessed that we have differences in our english, for you yourself being a British and me a Singaporean. I have also witnessed your response to the other Singaporean users, stating that their english is poor as well. This proves that our english is different.

Right, that is all I have to say.

Tan 13:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can be tolerant with your edits, the tolerance in every individual has its own limits. You have behaved unfairly, harshly and rude, and that is because you are either too stubborn to investigate into the case itself, or you are merely finding fault.

If you continue to direct an edit war and zealously edit the way you like and not make your points clear or solve the confrontation, I will suggest that either you pause your edits for a while or a block may have to be issued against your behaviour, which is already on the border of becoming uncivil. I do not understand where I need artribation, and I have yet to complete my response in the artribation. I also do not understand why you have been reverting my edits repeatedly. If you are unable to cooperate with me, you may get me into trouble, for your sense of trust on me is so low. All I want you to stop all your reverts, and let me do a proper job first before you step in. It is you that needs artribation in that case, not me. I don't find myself where I'm guilty. I have already apologised for my rudeness, and I don't know where you want to eke out more of me.

Tan 22:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, you have removed that in Maharashtra and its /temp. But why do I need repeated explanations before you can get to the point and remove both of us and removing only mine before that? You have shown the same attitude in Goh Chok Tong about the template,Tsushima Islands about the Baekje fact. Please do not be so hard-headed.

Tan 22:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I am about to do!

Also, you have yet to respond to my messages.

Tan 22:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking User_talk:141.157.35.222

Hi, thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia (my talk page)... I notice that you're a sysop - perhaps its now the time to block 141.157.35.222 for repeated vandalism? CustardJack 11:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About you

Hi Mel, you said that you've published lots of papers, articles, and a book on philosophy. May I know what they are exactly? I'd really like to get more material on philosophy. Would you recommend your own articles? (Of course (not)) Just curious. Thanks JM Bell ° 21:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply and the recommendations. :) JM Bell ° 22:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khuzestan and Ahvaz

If you have time I would like to request that you visit the Khuzestan and Ahvaz articles and their respective discussions, which have degenerated into pointlessness and absurdity. I believe the current articles are fairly NPOV as they stand and adhere to established history as presented by historians and academics, whereas Zora disputes the established history and wishes to impose historical revisionist views promoted by fringe political groups. I don't know if you know anything about these subjects, but regardless, your assistance and input would be much appreciated if you are able and willing to get involved. Thank you. SouthernComfort 21:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing to take a look. I'm not sure how on earth this thing will get resolved, but I would greatly appreciate a neutral POV on the whole matter from a third-party. My primary concern is that politics and revisionism do not enter into the fray (as far as the main articles are concerned). SouthernComfort 23:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

As you may have noticed, the ArbCom has accepted to arbitrate a complaint brought by Trey Stone against Davenbelle, and I am hoping that the material gathered for the RfC will serve as useful evidence. IMO, the problem of citations and original research is the most grave, but it is also the most difficult to document, as one has to delve into issues. In any case, I am not expecting any immediate miracles, but I am hoping that eventually the Wikipedia collaborative spirit will prevail and we can all spend more time on more creative and satisfying endeavors. All the best, -- Viajero 23:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That Is Enough

You do not put the pictures in the deletion file just because they don't have a freakin' copyright header. This whole violation thing is getting pretty disgusting. You cannot have everything your way - the headers were already one specific way. This does not enable you to just change them to your suitable preference. Plus, the pictures are not going anywhere. You just wait and see.

Also, I will be adding a few things to Avril Lavigne's section - don't you dare revert my edits. 64.231.66.71 23:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Stone and Davenbelle

Hi! Trey Stone has Requested Arbitration with me:

You are mentioned in evidence that I have presented and I'm bringing this to your attention. Comments and evidence of your own are welcome.

Sincerely, Davenbelle 01:03, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Feel free to email me. — Davenbelle 09:57, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wholism

I am new to wiki and have been trying to establish a wholism page, but have been subject to constant harrassment by a particular user. My contribtion was put on delete a week or so ago supposedly by you, but I noticed that the delete initially came from an alias page. Several people voted on the page, one of whom was just a page name, prior to me making significant additions including citations. Someone who again is only a page name has now deleted wholism and redirected it to holism. I am not familiar with wiki procedure, but I am slowly learning. Could you please confirm that what has happened to the wholism page is correct procedure and if not, could you please re-establish it and offer it some sort of protection?--Ogb 05:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because when I clicked on the page link all I got was a page name. I'm also curious about why you would delete some of my comments on the talk page of the vote to delete and also not identify who you were when you made the comments you made. I had supposed you were impartial, but I have been playing around with various other pages and noticing your comments on them. You do seem to have a very strong agenda. Are you really a professor of philosophy teaching at Oxford University or is that just spin? If you are you could be easily identified of course, so why the user name. Surely a professor would have answered my question as to whether or not all religions were made up, rather than just deleting it. I suppose you will end up deleting these comments as well.--Ogb 10:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(replied (needless to say, the accusations, and the page-name accusations against other users, are all fantasy at worst, odd mistakes at best) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wholism

I still don't know what you mean by saying that you got a page name when you clicked on a User; which User are you referring to? Why didnt SWAdair's reply satisfy you on this?
I've found the question you asked (on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Wholism). It appears that I (gasp!) typed five tildes instead of four when I replied to you, so that my comment had a date but no User name [2]. Nothing on that page was deleted by anyone, though you seem to have edited it from both your User account and 203.220.118.46 (talk • contribs).
What is this "strong agenda" of mine that you have discerned?
I have no interest in whether you believe that I teach philosophy at Oxford; it plays no part in my editing, and is merely an attempt to give the curious person some background. (I'm not a professor; we use that term rather differently.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Click on SimonP and you just get a page with a name on the top.

2. You obviously haven't looked at the page.

3. I've been reading the comments you have made on various pages. I certainly don't have the time to analyse and sustantiate my opinions on what I have read at the present time.

4. You are making a claim which appears to be that you are a university lecturer in philosophy at Oxford University without in any way substantiating this claim. --Ogb 12:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you insist on carrying out the discussion here:

That's his User page (and it also contains his licensing information). You don't like my saying what I do, and you don't like his not saying anything; do let us know how we should all edit our user pages in order to please you.
I've looked at the page, I've checked its history, and I've gone though every edit individually. No material was deleted. If you insist that it was, supply the diff.
Then don't make childish, vague insinuations.
As I've explained, my job is irrelevant to my editing; I make no claim, I simply mention what I do (I'm a college lecturer, incidentally; "University lecturer" means something different). If you can't control your obsession with me and my profession, let me have your e-mail address and I'll ask some colleagues to respond to your disbelief. Or I suppose you could get a life. I'll leave the choice to you. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Dalhousie

Thanks for the background. I have no intention of forcing myself to block myself for 3RR violation, though. :-) Lots of people watch these sorts of articles, so I shouldn't have to hold the fort by myself if he decides to continue his crusade. Proteus (Talk) 12:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. ;-) Proteus (Talk) 12:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What The Hell?!

I gave the fucking copyright info! At this point you are playing a stupid game, and just trying to take over me! There is no more of this placing pictures in the deleting pile! I see that you're just doing this because you want the article to be your style again! Thank you, but I am not stupid anymore, and your ways have become so transparent that even a child can see straight through them.

You either stop this nonsense, or that's it. I have people who will help me overthrow you. I gave the damn copyright info. DrippingInk 13:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting

I wonder why I am finding the Much on Demand picture of Avril Lavigne at MuchMusic in the copyright violation section. And I also would like to know WHY THE HELL there is a link to the CHUM station there!!!

Now you have really gone and done it! HOW FUCKING DARE YOU remove the picture when I have the sources and whatnot! You want to see Avril at MuchMusic you idiot? Well take a look. [3]

I don't appreciate you trying to get rid of everything I am posting. All the pictures I have uploaded have copyright sources now, and you still think it is okay to go ahead and trash them! And I know you are out to get me now! I don't want you fucking touching anything of mine from this point forward. Revert it - I report it.

Oh, wait. But since you threw the picture into the copyright violation, and I have a source for all of this, I am reporting you. You've stepped over a cliff and will be falling for quite sometime. DrippingInk 13:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

Please comment on Jguk's most recent actions [4], [5]. It seems to me that he is destroying what I thought was a carefully constructec (though not, of course perfect) NPOV article. I trust your committment to NPOV and would like to know what you think. Frankly, I think we may have reached the point where arbitration or at least mediation is required. I honestly do not believe Jguk understands or cares about NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Added

I have added the copyright to the Gwen Stefani picture. Don't you dare tell me that the added copyright "does not apply for this image". Thank you, that is all. DrippingInk 20:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Tan

Really? Anyway, I don't really know. Let's just hope he doesn't create too many problems, as he's wont to. To tell the truth, my patience is running out, and if Tan doesn't watch out he could be facing the ArbCom very soon. Though I don't want to do it so soon since it's contrary to my ethics. Anyhow, I guess this thing will be over soon, maybe once we prove that he is Chan Han Xiang (if we disprove, it will naturally take longer). He should really cooperate; his habit of throwing our descriptions of him back at us truly annoys me.

I guess we should just knock on wood then, cross our fingers, and hope for the best. All the best and good luck to us all - JM Bell ° 21:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The courtesy to ask who? I understand the issue regarding subpages, though I think they need to be more prominently shown - all i did there was remove the bq tag and wikify the table... silly. -SV|t 23:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tsushima Islands & Zanskar

Please do not revert anymore, both of them.

For Tsushima, I have quarantined the information for the time being

It was suggested that the current populace of the islands were mainly recent immigrants from mainland Japan, largely displacing the indigenious Japanese populace which may have some Korean ancestry, following Joseon's past policy to leave the islands uninhabited.

Modified from the previous version to make my analysis clearer. Furthermore, I don't see any policy or guidelines that analysis are unaccepted. I've found User: Corruptresearcher to help us out.

I have also proposed copyediting on Zanskar. If you realise, there were a lot of peacock terms in the passage. Please do not revert the changes (though you are encouraged to help out). While you revert changes which you think is bad, you had always reverted some of the good changes as well.

Tan 12:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth II

Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 09:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goolwa

Hi Mel, you marked the article about Goolwa as requiring cleanup, but didn't put any notes on the talk page to explain what you thought needed cleaning. Any comments now? Thanks. --ScottDavis 12:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We may be about to overlap - I've added a bit to Goolwa and committed it, too. I haven't seen your edits yet. --ScottDavis 12:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. --ScottDavis 12:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We were both concentrating on other things. I've spent the last week adding coordinates and electorate info to most Category:Towns in South Australia articles. I thought some of what I added to the plain Goolwa article felt familiar, but it didn't occur to me I'd found one without the redirect. Anyway, you added some good stuff that wasn't in the other article. It's better now than either one was before. From now on, I'll try to always check for the redirect page first! --ScottDavis 15:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Tan

In the first place, I haven't written my response in my RfC. In fact, I have already issued a dateline to complete the response.

Secondly, I have well-pointed out the mistakes of the Zanskar article. The manner you edited in other articles in not the same as those of Zanskar.

Thirdly, you are using artribation as a threat to chase me away just because you disagree with my views.

Fourthly, either you are biased towards Moumine, behaving in a way that you are merely making personal attacks against me. You are the one who needs artribation, not me. You have yet to try meditation before Artribation.

Fifthly, I have explained why it the English in wrong! Furthermore, when you revert, you made wholesale changes, making English from good to bad instead. If you have good wits, you must be able to spot a lot of gramatical and punctuation errors.

Last, but not least, is it fair for you to interrupt before I have completed the whole process?

Do you realise that I have backings against your explicit behaviour? I'm swallowing it down right to the bottom of the heart! If you insist on artribation, either I or you may win, but be expected to suffer heavy casualties against your rapport.

C'mon, let's work colloboratively. If you revert, you make a lot of reverts like this, you are doing harm to the article. I have explained, time and again, like a grandmother talking to her stubboirn child, the English errors that the article contained inside. I have my reasons for every edit that I make. Neither that my English is so bad now that it is substandard. If my english is atrocious, I wouldn't be able to explain about its english. So why don't we start again, and copyedit the article collaboratively?

Tan 20:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I appeal from you for a few things?

Edit collaboratively on Zanskar, respect my decision for copyediting. I understand that you are frustrated about my bad grammar, but please show me some respect for my edits, and not revert them zealously. If you have doubts that my corrections results in certain sentences from correct to wrong, do not edit that particular sentence in that case; tell me what is wrong, and I shall see to my mistake.
Have patience first. The moment I remove the copyedit tag on Zanskar, do whatever you like my then. Until then, I promise--I will give my full boost on editing the article. Just let me work on the article, meaning to say that you should revert none of my edits anymore.
Be civil. I do not want, at least I try not to, to become an enemy of yours. I want to be your friend, and not quarrel everyday.
Be flexible in your wits. I see that your protests against Zanskar is either merely a protest against my edits, or some other unknown reason. As a witnessed on how you edited on other articles, you seems to behaved in a very different manner. However, your hard-headed factor still seems to linger around. This is really giving me no peace in my daily lifestyle and wikipedia editing.
Be bold. Approach me if you have any doubts concerning about my edits.
Mutual respect. Your past edits seems to lack this factor--confucius says that everybody must respect each other, however different the opinions maybe.
Trust. You also lack another factor in your behaviour, and this maybe the cause of the edit wars. Together with impatience and the lack of trust, it maybe the reason that you reverted my edits. As you can see, I had gone largely untouched (although with a little edits) on your copyediting projects of Kinnaur and Lahul and Spiti, right? Anyway, I will attend to those matters in the near future.

Hey, I thought that you have understood my points, and here it goes again? Are evrything falling on deaf ears? Or are you trying to create vandalism?

Tan 22:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a mess of the whole thing in the process. The Iki province no longer exists, if you can see. Also, the Kanji should be at the top, and I have not confirmed about the quarantined paragraph. I just don't understand about your character, despite repeated explanations.

Together with Iki Province they make up the Iki–Tsushima Quasi-National Park.

Tan 22:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

QE II, once more with feeling

If you could explicitly summarize your views on what is POV about the article, preferrably something that doesn't involve the style (please! :-) I'd be grateful. Continuously seeing the dispute tags reverted is getting disheartening. JRM · Talk 15:04, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I shoud have pointed out that I wanted that summary on the talk page of the article. I am not involved in the article either way, but I want it established that there is a proper dispute, so we can put an end to these silly tag reverts. JRM · Talk 15:18, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Gave It, Happy Now?

I gave the Gwen Stefani image its source. Happy now? Good, now bye. DrippingInk 16:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting pages

I began to edit the page before it was protected, and it was protected while I was making my edits. Note the time on the page history. Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 16:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Don't Touch

I added hyphens to Let Go's song lengths. I have no idea why the hell you are erasing them. So don't touch them. DrippingInk 17:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Need a Second Opinion

Heya. I'm looking over Lo' Down, a page I came across while doing random page checks, and I'm a bit concerned about the article. First off, it needs quite a bit of attention, and read so much like advertising copy that I slapped an NPOV on it. But that's not the point.

The concern is that, reading the history of the article, that it's being used for a "rapper's war" instead of an article. I can't find anything significan't on "Lo'Down" or "LJ" (except for the name of another artist) or anything of the sort on the web...or, for that matter, anything in regards to a New Mexico rap scene. Comments like "growing up in a Christian home" and "was the 2005 champion at Mortal Kombat Domination" have no real bearing on the article.

At this point, I'm on the verge of nominating it for VFD, but I wanted a second opinion. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know what you think? Thanks. --Mitsukai 18:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panko

I was on the verge of re-writing a stub, but was just too lazy, otherwize you would have beaten me :) --Duk 18:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

I slightly changed the headers of the Spice Girls section, and corrected one misplaced link. I would like to start compromising with you since we have been having many troubles. This is my first compromisation - please do not change the headers back. How is it possible to have some of those pictures remain? I have copyright infos, I just don't get how I'm supposed to use it. DrippingInk 21:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We don't start off compromising by you removing the hyphens. If they are for some reason being removed from the Let Go track listing but remain in the Under My Skin track listing, something is not right. DrippingInk 21:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, my above message was sort of ignorant. Okay, I think that the section does deserve two-to-four good images, since the Spice Girls most certainly were outrageously big. (More so in Europe than over here in North America, but still quite huge.) I think the Channel 5 commercial definitely needs to stay, but... seeing as it might not be able to... DrippingInk 22:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added brackets to the song lengths instead of hyphens. It looks better. DrippingInk 22:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Spice Girls (the above was of Avril Lavigne; sorry for not mentioning that!) article. I just changed one of the headers, because it seemed more suitable (Build-up to fame to In the beginning). Also, sorry about capitalizing "in the" in Elton John's "Candle in the Wind". I had a strange moment there. Since I am a songwriter, I do know that "in", "the", "of", "to" and a few other words are lower-case. Oh, and thanks for changing "Up" back. :) DrippingInk 23:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound ignorant, but I don't see any images in Spice Girls section. The headers also seemed to have been reverted. Did something happen? DrippingInk 19:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see the images in the Spice Girls section now. I don't know why they weren't popping up earlier. DrippingInk 22:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a picture of the five girls, please state their names at the top so the onlookers know which Spice Girl was which. If you don't know which is which, I'll fix it. This is if you find a picture, of course. DrippingInk 22:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, boy. An official Spice Girls site? Not possible at this point. How long have they been away from the spotlight for? This will be the fourth year, but technically the fifth. Don't ask. It's weird. They do have an official site but everything there is copyrighted. DrippingInk 23:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

Here a (probable Fort Lauderdale) anon wiped the inactive Rfc on RexJudicata. Contribs are intersting, and will be watched by me from now on. You might say he just gave himself away. is his only contrib since which I am now going to revert. Just letting you know, and documented the incident at the Rfc, SqueakBox 23:19, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free will

I just found an interesting piece that gives scientific evidence regarding the existence of free will in people. Want to see it? Unfortunately, it's unavailable over the Net, so I'll have to type it out. :( JM Bell ° 15:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Scientific American Mind Vol. 16, No. 1:

If the brain carries out its work before one becomes consciously aware of a thought, as most neuroscientists now accept as true, it would appear that the brain enables the mind. This idea underlies the neuroscience of determinism. [In the 1980s, Benjamin] Libet¹ measured brain activity during voluntary hand movements. He found that between 500 and 1,000 milliseconds before we actually move our hand there is a wave of brain activity, called the "readiness potential." Libet set out to determine the moment, somewhere in that 500 to 1,000 milliseconds, when we make the actual conscious decision to move our hand.

Libet found that the time between the onset of the readiness potential and the moment of conscious decision making was about 300 millisecinds. If the readiness potential of the brain is initiated before we are aware of making the decision to move our hand, then it would appear that our brains know our decisions before we become conscious of them.

This kind of evidemce seems to indicate that free will is an illusion. But Libet argued that because the time from the onset of the readiness potential to the actual hand movement is about 500 millisecind, and it takes 50 to 100 milliseconds for the neural signal to travel from the brain to the hand to actually make it move, then there are 100 millisecond left for the conscious self to either act on the unconscious decision or veto it. That, he said, is where free will arises - in the vetoing power. Neuroscientist Vilayanur Ramachandran of the University of California², in an argument similar to 17th-century English philosopher John Locke's theory of free will, suggests that our conscious minds may not have free will but do have "free won't."

¹ - Benjamin Libet, now emeritus professor of physiology at the University of California in San Francisco

² - University of California in San Diego

- excerpted from "Neuroscience and the Law" by M. Gazzaniga and M. Steven

Regards - JM Bell ° 16:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article actually mentions free will at the beginning of the section, but it was too long for me to type out, so I just wrote the relevant part and so forth. If you'd like, I can type the whole section on free will, but the other parts only state the question of whether free will exists or not and its possible uses in law. I'd refer you to the website itself at [[6], but you need a subscription to view the article online. JM Bell ° 23:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use and Mention

Thank you, thank you, thank you. It is so amazingly refreshing to see someone else who actually understands the simple distinction between use and mention. I tried to point this out a zillion times in the who MoS/Style usage brouhaha, but the pro-style folks seemed utterly not to get it. Aaahhh! (but then, I do hold a Ph.D. in philosophy, as you seem also to... but really, it's not that complicated). All the best. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:35, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

the Lithuanian mythology

Generous Man, could you be fair-minded and don't revise things at least without a previous discussion? Linas Lituanus 19:40, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Invitation to Inquiry

Mel Etitis, you are cordially invited to join the Inquiry project. Adraeus 10:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

198.20.32.254

May I ask what happened to the one month block on this ip? Vandalism resumed on the 10th. Algebraist 14:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Algebraist 15:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]