Misplaced Pages

User talk:Mel Etitis: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:37, 16 March 2006 editSweHomer (talk | contribs)303 edits →WGee again delets← Previous edit Revision as of 19:20, 16 March 2006 edit undoMademoiselle Sabina (talk | contribs)1,103 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 176: Line 176:


I'm getting sick of this. Obviously he think he is my superior and some sort of administrator for this page. I must be able to work under the same conditions as he does. He does not check with me before enter material to the page, but states that I have to do this. Can you do something about this? ] 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC) I'm getting sick of this. Obviously he think he is my superior and some sort of administrator for this page. I must be able to work under the same conditions as he does. He does not check with me before enter material to the page, but states that I have to do this. Can you do something about this? ] 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

== "Alternative" ==

As a professional writer and a native speaker of English, I am well aware of the fact that "alternative" is a noun and adjective. For what it's worth, "alternate" is a term that is completely appropriate and common in American English as a term for a reserve athlete. It was used correctly and didn't need to be changed in the first place. A quick look through Misplaced Pages reveals that it is used on many athlete pages in various sports. I'm ending this discussion here, because I really do not wish to continue it. ] 19:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:20, 16 March 2006

Please click here to leave me a new message.
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates
Archived talk

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8
Archive 9
Archive 11
Archive 10
Archive 12
Archive 13
Archive 14
Archive 15

Archive 16
Archive 17
Archive 18
Archive 19
Archive 20
Archive 21
Archive 22
Archive 23
Archive 24
Archive 25
Archive 26
Archive 27
Archive 28
Archive 29
Archive 30

Archive 31
Archive 32
Archive 33
Archive 34
Archive 35

Significant milestones
10,000th edit: 25 iv 05

15,000th edit: 12 vi 05
10,000th edit on an article: 17 vii 05
20,000th edit: 27 vii 05
25,000th edit: 31 viii 05
15,000th edit on an article: 8 ix 05
30,000th edit: 29 x 05
20,000th edit on an article: 16 i 06
35,000th edit: 18 ii 06

Admin-related actions
blocks

(last twelve blocks)
page protections & unprotections

Useful links

Pages I often cite



Fricka & LibriVox

(copied from mackinaw) I don't know who Fricka is, but there's a message on LibriVox telling everyone to hold off wikipedia for the moment till this gets sorted, so it's not anything "official" ... we do have about a thousand volunteers; and 10,000 viisitors a day; so someone, unaware of what's going on, may have just decided that the links should be there.Mackinaw 20:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize

You accused me of removing templates/vandalizing - I did not do that. I'm just trying to add information to the article "The Dan and Scott Show" - which was a long-running Internet radio show that I co-created. I must have did something wrong when adding the text, I'm still learning about this Misplaced Pages site. I'll go back to the "Help" pages and try to figure out what I did wrong. Hopefully I'll be able to add information at another time. -S.W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott free (talk • contribs) 21:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi SW, I have recently learned: because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links/or write about that organization site etc. because neutrality is such an important -- and difficult -- objective at wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be written or linked. So even if the information you wish to write should be there, if you are directly involved in the subject of the article (for instance if you are a co-host of the show), then you should not make edits to the article directly. The accepted procedure is to post the proposed edits or links in the Talk section of the article, and let other - neutral - wikipedia editors decide whether or not it should be included. Hope that helps. Mackinaw 21:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Er, thanks for trying to help, but that wasn't the problem — largely because I'd no idea that the editor was a co-creator of the programme, and because the message in question (which I found after a tedious process of going into this page's history, finding who left the unsigned message and going to his Talk page) wasn't about The Dan & Scott Show. It was about Scott Wirkus (since deleted after an AfD), from which this editor removed the {{verify}} and {{cleanup}} templates without doing the work required. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

see also

see also should only includes link not included in the article or really important. See wikipedia policies. Thank you for the lesson. Santa Sangre 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


last on librivox

The policy says:

  1. "you should ... link to the book"
  2. "you "normally" should not link to your own site."

"normally" indicating to me that there might be exceptions. One says "do this"; the other says "normally don't that." Which takes precedence? why? This is the problem: it was very unclear to me thhat a) 2 is more important than 1; and b) why 2 is more important. If I had understood this early on, all would have been well. Probably if I did not revert the links in the first place, all would have been well too. I had drinks with some geek friends last night, and of course we discussed this. (obviously from my perspective, biased etc). But they could not get over the idea that a) the links should be there b) "people" should make the links but c) "people from libirvox" should not make the links. This is a non-intuitive conclusion when you read the policies, which I did several times, unless it is explicitly explained that 2 takes precedence over 1. That is not clear in the policies, and that is why we had problems. I suggest someone should make those changes. (my wife will kill me if I write more than this last post).

re: "blame v1": either I did a bad job understanding you, or you did a bad job of explaining to me. Probably some of both. probably lots of both. your job as admin is, I assume, to explain policy. My job is to try to try to understand. Try as I might I could not. I am stubborn. You are stubborn. But not once did you write: "2 takes precedence over 1, and here is the reason why...and here is the policy that explains this precedence." In fact if you look at the history of the discussion you'll note in several places that I asked specifcally why you were preferring 2 over 1. You did not answer. If you had things might - perhaps -- have gone differently. Or perhaps we were both too steamed at that point to communicate properly. But at one point you asked "which part is unclear"? and I explained which part was unclear, and you responded: "Pretty clear, given that the second one gives the path that you should take in order to make the first part possible." Which is precisely the part that was unclear; why should the "don't link if..." take precedence over the "do link if..."?

to a non-wikipedian, it sounds like wikipedia has a crazy policy that says: "LV links should be there, but LVers can't make the links." that is the key. it is a very non-intuitive policy, and sounds nuts. You proposed the compromise several times - post to talk - but not fully grasping the reason wikipedia has this crazy policy, and in fact not even certain that this was indedd official policy and not stubborn Mel, the compromise seemed ... wrong. Now that we understand the policy, certainly we will abide by it.

re: "blame v2": you offended many people at librivox. that's not a moral or value judgement, it is a statement of fact. whether you wished to do so, feel they should have been offended, feel you were misunderstood, or feel that librivoxers are a bunch self-important sulkers, it does not change the fact that they were/are offended, and that you were the cause of the offense (and as an official representative of wikipedia, to boot). Now, I certainly share some blame for doing and writing some things that antagonized you. I also don't know all wikipedia customs. I reverted your deletions, which I now know is verboten. I am sorry for doing that. I am also sorry that I went back on a compromise I had accepted - that was embarassing, and bad form; but I am just one of many volunteers, and if they all say screw wikipedia, there's nothing I can do. It was all very frustrating. but:

the episode is over, I and LV now understand the policy and why it is there. we will change our cataloging procedures accordingly; i assume the clear explanations from WAS were enough to cool tempers, so i imagine all will blow over. now that we understand them, we will not break rules here, & we hope not-LV-people link to our recordings in your encyclopaedia, because the links should be there.Mackinaw 23:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh good grief. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Somerville College

Greetings:

I am curious, can I ask why you edited out my addtions to the Somerville College page, detailing former MCR and JCR presidents at the college? I had intended to modity it to add more names as I found them...

many thanks....

Nordenfeldt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordenfeldt (talk • contribs) 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

about the reverts of AD to CE

I won't start a war over this issue. I'm going to say however that I am dissapointed that you chose to "fix" my insertion of the proper AD/BC abreviation for the Gregorian dating system to the discriminatory and orientalist CE/BCE recently invented by a certain group of agenda driven elitists in some academic circles. As an Anthroplogist, I am of course troubled by the rise of hegemonic discourse and this dating reinvention is a particualraly egregious example. As I have posted elsewhere on wikipedia, the use of C.E. and B.C.E. are deeply offensive to me. Clearly, I'm no christian, but I have no problem using a dating system (like AD/BC) based on the rise of some religious figure, whatever their title, be it Christ or Confuscious or Julius Ceasar or whomever; if it is commonly known and used it is not a matter of accepting some religious viewpoint to refer to dates relative to the rise of a historical figure like Jesus or acknowledging the rise of a widespread religion. To be offended by a historically accepted dating system because it was established around a religious figure that we don't believe in is simply overreacting, but to then attempt to force everyone to accept an alteration of that system with an equally agenda driven view is high handed intolerance. Calling something a "Common Era" is preaching an occidental viewpoint. To whom is this era common? The answer is - Western Judeo/Christian Imperial powers established and descended from Roman institutions. After all Europeans, Jews, and Euroamericans are really the important people; really the only ones whe matter right? Those were thoughts typical of colonial mentalities, and using "Common Era" amounts to legitimising western colonialism and the orientalist worldview. The term "Common Era" excludes most people on earth and marginalizes everything that is not western history. It is rascist and bigoted and I respectfully suggest anyone who uses the term reconsider what it is they are saying and why. I doubt very much that people who advocate this term really realize what they are suggesting and I sincerely hope this message makes you think twice about it.DHBoggs 00:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

John Morgan

Where he was born does not define his nationality. John Morgan was educated in England, made his name in England and defined himself by his Englishness. It is a misnomer to call him Scottish and the tag was only added by a Scottish user who wishes to promote his own country at the expense of accuracy. GWP 09:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel you're wrong in this, both in your opinions and your actions. However I have no wish to get involved in tit-for-tat so inaccuracy wins the day. GWP 10:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Its not a stub, I removed which ever one happened to be on there. Did you guys really need to edit war over that? -Ravedave 15:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sweden Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi there. Is there any way to take some sort of informal poll to decide the outcome of the editing war? Would it hold any ground? It would also help if you and other administrators could make suggestions to imporve the article according to Wiki policies, as SweHomer (talk · contribs) accuses Liftarn and I, the two other editors in this conflict, work for the anti-racist Expo magazine and are out to demonize the Sweden Democrats. Thus, he refuses to listen to any of our suggestions.

WGee 18:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Coppied from WGee talk. Unfortunately, before the day was out WGee launched into some forty-four edits of the article, misleadingly marked as minor (see below). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Mel Etitis, when I signed on later yesterday I saw you were involved. Started to leave you a message asking you to block Liftarn and WGee for ignoring my good advice. But I guess that's not actually a blockable offence. : ) By my reading of the talk page 36 hourrs ago (which was difficult because none of these editors were signing with 4 ~), all the involved editors were being rude and stubborn. I suspected ownership/control issues. The forty-four edits might support that problem! I don't have much time today, but I will keep the article on my watchlist. --FloNight 15:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WGee again delets

I'm getting sick of this. Obviously he think he is my superior and some sort of administrator for this page. I must be able to work under the same conditions as he does. He does not check with me before enter material to the page, but states that I have to do this. Can you do something about this? SweHomer 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Alternative"

As a professional writer and a native speaker of English, I am well aware of the fact that "alternative" is a noun and adjective. For what it's worth, "alternate" is a term that is completely appropriate and common in American English as a term for a reserve athlete. It was used correctly and didn't need to be changed in the first place. A quick look through Misplaced Pages reveals that it is used on many athlete pages in various sports. I'm ending this discussion here, because I really do not wish to continue it. Mademoiselle Sabina 19:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)