User talk:Mel Etitis: Difference between revisions

nor your breath. Sam Spade 23:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And don't revert my talk page. Thanks, Sam Spade 23:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've looked for any mistakes I might have made in my headers and titles, and only have really found one. I have used "The album" as a non-descriptive header which I should have probably called something else. The titles of my articles for the Donovan albums are simply the name of the album. The only time I add (album) after the title is if someone has created or might create another article with that name. For example, I put "Catch the Wind (album)" because another user may want to write about "Catch the Wind (song)". If this is incorrect or if I'm completely missing the boat, please let me know. --JMDeMai

Thanks. I know, that my English is too far from good, being influenced by Lithuanian, Russian and other languages, all of them are synthetic, but majority of our “Lithuanian” users aren't native English speakers, so they simply skip this thing and I almost don't have chances to improve my “Wikipedian” English. (I wrote the article in English anyway, a translation would be better). But when You see this criterion, I see yet another thing: the present article is biased too much. I can add only few notes here: 1) Lithuanian mythology isn't an old mythology anyway (differently from archaic Lithuanian language). Perhaps it have some archaic elements, but it isn't old as whole. 2) Only few details are known from earlier stages of Lithuanian mythology before the 19th century, but exactly these details are the most interesting for many scholars, being a part of “more pagan” heritage than the later ones. 3) Thus many scholars tried to reconstruct (or perhaps we should use the word 'restore' instead of 'reconstruct' in English?) system of these earlier stages of mythology. Their works, including studies of P. Dundulienė, are mostly speculations on mythology, but not an actual mythology. Unhappily there are many different point of view on this problem with no any prevalent point of view. - And I don't think, that my version is perfect, looking from this point too, but I tried to write the main things, that it become more possible to write a future not biased version of the article. This is the second thing, why my version could be less understandable than the earlier one.

And I could also add few ideas there:

1. What concerns term pagan mythology, many users consider this word pagan offensive. But I have more serious reasons to avoid this word. The definition in the article pagan includes not Jewish, not Christian, and not Islamic, but many people understand “monotheistic” under this word. The idea of the supreme God and “a cabinet” of Gods isn't expressed in Lithuanian mythology (except in speculations of one school restorations), and we can't call it polytheistic. It was rather pantheistic than monotheistic or polytheistic and confronted neither with monotheistic point of view nor with polytheistic one. Thats why I'd like to avoid this pagan, that can be misunderstood. I don't want to add pantheistic too, for this word has a bit different sense in Western philosophy, than what I mean, but I think some suitable definition is possible.
2. The all present list of gods in the article is actually alphabetic list of names, mentioned as divine entities, in old (13th - 16th centuries) treatises on history or philosophy. Only few of them are known from known myths. The authors of these treatises often use word 'gods' in the sense of 'idols' or 'worshipped objects', and looking both from the point of the modern mythology and from the point of deeper analyzing of these texts, the objects, meant under these names, shouldn't be called gods presently, except few specific cases. Deeper analyze of it shows, that not only gods, spirits and other spiritual and superhuman beings but also some holy (ritual or magic) things are mentioned here under the title of god. And the one school only from two or four among Lithuanian mythologists consider, that such approach is similar to the actual understanding of the holy entities in the earlier Lithuanian mythology. So this list gives us some information, but it doesn't characterize Lithuanian mythology, although taking the bigger part of the text.

Perhaps, these two ideas will help You to understand, what did I want, and what improvement the article needs. I also will try to answer Your questions on the article gladly, because my main idea was to improve the article, not preferring my own specific ideas or thoughts. Linas Lithuanus(talk) 09:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

First I must thank you for creating the article on James Carter. I added him to the list of requested musicians several days ago, so I am very appreciative that you took the time to create an article.

My question regards an element of wikipedia style. You recently edited the "Born January 3..." into "b. January 3..." I am a new user (though I have contributed anonymously for a couple of months), so I am not completely familiar with the minute details of Wikipedia style. Is this the correct way to write out the birthdate? Should I always abbreviate the "Born"? I welcome any advice you can offer as an admin.

You're right, sorry I didn't sign what I wrote above. I'm still getting used to this. Anyway, you responded to me about Lithuanian mythology, not the question regarding the James Carter article. I guess that means that someone out there is still waiting for an answer from you regarding Lithuanian Mythology. And, of course, my question still stands. Thanks for your help. --Sophitus 12:53, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

PMFJI, I stumbled over the same problem. From what I have seen, writing out "born" is more common in WP which (unlike traditional reference books) doesn't have to save space by using abbreviations. Personally, I try to use abbreviations only when they seem to make the text more readable (e.g. km²). Rl 15:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I normally reply on my correspondents' Talk pages, as I did with Sophitus, but as there are two of you...)

I see the point concerning "born", but we probably disagree concerning when it's more helpful to abbreviate and when not. For example, I go along with the MoS in preferring to spell out "kilometre", partly because the km² is actually rather difficult for many people (because of their monitors or their eyesight); I prefer "c." to "circa" on the other hand because it's the standard abbreviation, and the full term can confuse people who understand the import of the abbreviation, but are unfamilar with what it abbreviates. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out: [1]. Better add that article to your watchlist too. -- Viajero 10:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My first ever experience with him today (in which he managed to get banned for 24 hrs over a 3RR violation, and irritate me over purely minor, technical matters) proved to be... quite something. See the Castro article and respective talk page for more whiney details. El_C 11:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did comment on WP:CP - basically, it's unwise to leave a copyvio in the history if we don't have to. There was no rush to redirect, so i thought it better to let the copyvio process run its course. I see you've now speedied the copyvio, but whatever. sjorford →•← 11:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds really snappy, for which I apologise. (I really shouldn't edit while I'm in a bad mood, i.e. from 9 to 5.) And yes, I do love redirects, but I hate copyvios even more. Copyvios are about as far from a "free encyclopedia" as it's possible to get. sjorford →•← 12:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mel, if you're still interested in the article, I have the whole section on free will posted at User:JMBell/temporary. Forgive me if I seem a bit obsessed with the topic; it's normal for me to stick to one topic until it is closed. In this case, I'm not entirely convinced with what you said that they might not have understood the question of free will. I'm posting this article section so that you can take a look, because I think they might actually have understood the question of free will. Cheers - JMBell° 21:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was all getting too much at Solana. I was wrongly accused of being Cumbey's sockpuppet and Kfc was demanding i stop editing Javier Solana when i was in the middle of extended edits to improve the article. I know there has been opposition to my withdrawing the Rfc, and that Kfc wants me to restart it. I am due to talk to him soon, but feel very torn about what to do. I am trying to bring Cumbey back in to wikipedia through a less enforcement approach. She is interested in and knows a lot about Solana, and I just wanted to try to see if she could change her ways. It is a difficult one, and I am not entirely clear about where to go (will chat to Kfc first). I think Whig is a completely different situation. I am not opposed to many of his new styles and was supportive of his style change at Juan Carlos I of Spain, but was also aware of the chaos he was creating in lots of places. Then he made some pretty flaky edits at Rastafarianism and Haile Selassie, and, after thinking about it I reverted some of them, some of which he then reverted, so I just felt I have experienced what the problem creating the Rfc is, and the trickiness of Whig, and as I was in agreement with what I read, I signed, --SqueakBox 22:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC). I have reconsidered after your remarks, and changed my position re Whig, and yes, the Rfc is not the way to go, --SqueakBox 23:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

When i signed I had assumed the good faith of those making the Rfc against Whig. I am now not sure, so thanks for flagging it, --SqueakBox 02:20, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

For trifles such as my forgetting a tilde and your pointing it out, my adding the missing timestamp and deleting your pointing it out isn't "rewriting history" (as you accuse on my talk page) but mere Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages and "Delete, Don't Justify". Such unimportant trifles didn't mandate your reverting the page (as a minor edit, no less) and thus deleting my answer. I've reverted back to the answered page (and inserted a note about the refactoring). -- Diff to my refactoring, not marked as a minor edit and clearly summarized as "Answered Mel Etitis about bans + Transient trifles: fixed my previous comment's poor wording of "permanent vandalism" and timestamp faux-pas, then deleted Mel Etitis' comment about them.)"

←^#6  _{talk 23:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)} [reply]

Refactoring isn't policy or widely accepted as several other admins have pointed out to me. Adraeus 23:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, Mel, is that very few people actually agree on what is and is not the "mainstream" when it comes to self-defense ideas. That is why I believe NPOV requires the term "necessarily" when it comes to a value judgment on my views. Who decided that they are not "mainstream," and on what basis? Plenty of people view sports as just that -- sports -- and thus do not see MMA bouts as self-defense training. Plenty of firearms advocates believe left-wing supporters of firearms prohibition cannot truly practice self-defense while embracing such a paradox -- and so forth.

I think the vague nature of the term "mainstream" demands the term "necessarily" because so few people can disagree -- and there is no one authority to whom we can go on the subject.

- Phil Elmore

Check this out: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle/Proposed decision. The ArbCom, at least based on the initial comments of Fred Bauder, is going further into the content issues than I had expected. Stay tuned. -- Viajero 14:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hectares are the standard metric measurement for land areas in this size range; also Sequoia can't be grown on Long Island (it isn't winter hardy there); the reference probably refers to either Sequoiadendron or Metasequoia, but I don't know which, so left it out - MPF 14:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scanning live RC, I was not sure why you deleted Blood borne pathogen. The content was poor (just a list), but certainly not nonsense, and the topic is clearly encyclopedic and readily expandible. In the future, please make sure that something meets the criteria before you speedy it. Fawcett5 14:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the triplicates, the database was glitchy and I couldn't tell if it was taking the edits at all. You'll notice I fixed it literally within seconds. As for the deletion, I'm not trying to pick a fight — I've certainly been accused by more than one person of being a deletionist myself — but I would argue that that article did NOT meet the very restricted speedy criteria, especially since it had context. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. You have to give editors a *chance* to expand a reasonable subject area article before just blasting it off the map within minutes of creation. Deletion policy guidelines suggest such articles should be stub tagged rather than deleted. Fawcett5 14:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Essex girl redirects to Stereotype (as you know) which gives not a clue as to what an essex girl is or why the redirect occured.

I followed up and found jokes and a newspaper article and comments that lead me to wonder why essex girls shouldn't be treated the same as Dumb blonde.

Cheers, 4.250.201.64 16:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, I have to agree with 4.250.201.64. Redirecting it either to stereotype or to dumb blonde is plain wrong. Essex girl is far more than dumb blonde - there's a significant cultural aspect, with noted characters, specific fashion, and indeed no requirement that essex girl either be blonde or dumb. I really don't want to get into an edit war with you over such a trivial matter, but it's difficult not to when you seem intent on making ill informed changes unilaterally, and without the courtesy of discussing them. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 17:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]