User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 41

A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)

Hey, Mel Etitis/Archive 41, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight.
If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever...
Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me...

The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Threaten me

Don't threaten me please. My behaviour is in response to yours Mel. You are perpertuating your own view and personal sympathies on Wikipedia. Your actions to separate the dance form of Zeybek into two pages and not allow the proper history of the fance on the Greek Zeybek page shows your racisim in your editing - not mine. I haven't been racist towards you - though I believe you are prejudiced. You write what you like and then say if you don't like it prove it - even though you yourself can show no independent testimonial on the Net that supports your view.

I have given examples of articles, objectively written, that all give the impression that there is ONE zeybek dance with regional differences - those two regions just happen to be in different countries now and are known as Greek and Turkish zeybek dances. Simply because this dance came to Greece with the forced disapora of Ottoman Greeks doesN't detract from the fact that it has 'faithfully kept to its origins to the modern day - and doesn't mean that you can divide it into a separate dance with one small sentence as to its actual orignation.

The articles I provided show that the Greek style has not developed so much from its original counterpart as to be concluded as two different dances. You cannot even provide a link to state the opposite.

Don't threaten me now that I have proven you wrong. You can't silence me in that way. Every response you have given has been dismissive or shows that you haven't even taken the time to read my comments properly - your mistake with assuming I was still talking about edit summaries shows this clearly.

I stand by what I said. I believe in divine justice. Deff6 01:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Album infobox

You might like to know that {{Album infobox}} has been updated and it's now possible to leave the second instance of the artist name unwikified without substing the template. You just need to add the field 'chronology = Artist name'(as I've already done on the Sgt Pepper article). I say this because you seem to be the main culprit of the substed infobox, and I assume this is the only reason you do subst it? Flower party☀ 02:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Well, I don't know of any guideline which says not to subst the template, except for one fairly ambiguous line at WP:SUBST#Templates that should NOT be subst'd, but then I hardly ever see the raw code in articles nowadays. I guess the main reasons not to subst are 1) that it makes the article easier to edit, and 2) any changes to the template (which in this case is protected, anyway, so vandalism's not an issue) are immediately realised in the 15,000-odd articles that are using it, rather than having to change each of them indivually. Well, carry on copying if you wish, I just thought you'd like to know of the change since you've raised the issue of the duplicate link before. Flower party☀ 16:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the protection would seem to be permanent - it's been protected as a high-risk template since December, and it's only likely to become more high-risk over time, I guess. I agree that vandalism is a legitimate concern for most infoboxes, though. Flower party☀ 17:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise an Americanism?

Can you check this edit versus Commonwealth usages and vet it one way or the other— two places— don't overlook the bottom (sports) usage. I may also have misapplied the term to Franchising if I'm wrong in assumption about commonwealth English usage for 'outlet'. Thanks. FrankB 18:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to chime in on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 1 (Section:Category:Science fiction novels by milieu to Category:Science fiction series) my category name query (Which is how I got THERE to those edits. (But give me a few more minutes to finish up!) FrankB 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) & Franchise

Hello. I'm sorry, but I'm reverting your edit at Franchise. For edits to disambiguation pages, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 21:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of MoSing the dab page, but you seem rather to have un-MoSed it to a certain extent (for example, by placing a central entry, Franchise (sports), in a "see also" section. Perhaps if you could explain which aspects of the article you think go against the guideline (remembering: "For every style suggestion above, there's some page which has a good reason to do something else. These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason."), we could come to come agreement. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: these edits:

You're unnecessarily adding periods;
You're unnecessarily piping links e.g.

* A [[Franchise (sports)|Sports franchise]], particularly in North American usage.
*''[[Franchise (book)|Franchise]]'', a science-fiction story in the anthology ''Nine Tomorrows'' and a 1989 novel by Isaac Asimov.

You're unnecessarily adding dictdefs and irrelevant links e.g.

* As an [[Americanism]], the term may mean a key or star player in many American sports; such players may be referred to as ''The Franchise'', or a ''Franchise Player'', especially in television and radio news, talk-radio, and print news, including syndicated columns and weekly magazine coverage of sports. The implication is that without such a player, the team would not be able to contend effectively and only compete at a lower level unlikely to make a play-off berth.

Did you happen to notice that Franchise (sports) is also a disambiguation page? Because you're not linking to it as though you understood that. And you're a little late with this sports definition, see Talk:Franchise (sports) for more info.

Did you even read the manual the of style? Yes, rules can be broken when there's good reason. Did you have a good reason? Ewlyahoocom 05:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied (pointing out that none of those edits was mine). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You went from politeness to sarcastic aggression rather rapidly. Perhaps that speed also explains why you didn't look at the history of the page very vacarefully: I did none of those things — they were there when I started editing, and I was gradually cleaning up the page.

Instead of losing your temper, you might calm down and try editing amicably. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is gradually cleaning up the page? Perhaps you should have started with a clean version instead of one with Fabartus's sloppy additions? Ewlyahoocom 07:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why are you re-cleaning up Fabartus's mess anyways? Ewlyahoocom 07:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slander

That you slander my name because you can't prove I am that anon - and nothing I have said points to that, you are just using it as an excuse.

If admins on Wikipedia are like you, then Wikipedia is not an place of knowledge. Just a place for small people in the real world to try and make a mark here. I pity you. I really really pity you. All all your accusations against me are really things you have done.

My English is just as good as yours. You are rude, unhelpful and very very egotistical.

You've shown your true colours and I'm glad. At least whoever reads this discussion will know what type of person you are. Deff6 23:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, yes, they will. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Musical Edit War; Your Help Requested

Hello, Me Ettis. I am looking for some help with concensus on a musical issue and am inviting you to participate. Rather than prejudice your thinking, i will simply say that it involves a song by David Allan Coe called Nigger Fucker. In order to understand the flow of events, i suggest that you read the history of the page, and read through the revisions in date order (there are not an overhwleming number), then go to the talk page. Basically, there is a conflict between those who feel it is valuable to note what the song is about and those who wiish to "clean it up" to the point that there is no mention of the controversy between satire versus racism. Things became very heated when Shel Silverstein's name was dragged into it (why? Go figure...) and there is a user who is bsically reverting the article to a stub every few hours. I have never been in this sort of a conflict before, and i want to do what is right. I am not looking for people on "my side," just for people who have experience editing music pages who can bring some calmth to the situation. Thanks for looking it over, if you have time, and, if not, thanks for at least allowing me to ask for help. Catherineyronwode 00:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soraya

Hi, while admiring not just (part of) your garden and the impressive list of contributions on your user page, there is no way I can understand what made you remove the "search link" (List of all pages beginning with "Soraya") and replace it with a half-baked, contentious stub, Soraya Saga. I don't believe it is a measure contributing to Wikipedia's user friendliness to prevent casual browsers from easily accessing all pages related in one way or another to "Soraya" or, say, from finding out that there is also Soraya (crater) (although that page is a redirect).

Best wishes, <KF> 10:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS And what, pray, is the difference between See also the Soraya disambiguation page. and {{dablink|For other uses of this term see [[Soraya]].}}? <KF>

Teleological argument

Hi Mel Etitis, why do you consider my addition about the third premise ("The assumption of such an "undesigned designer" implies that one does not conduct scientific inquiry beyond some arbitrary point and instead accepts the "undesigned designer" as a dogma") inaccurate? Icek 21:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medlars

Hi Mel Etitis - The species is Common Medlar, not Common-medlar (nor the grammatically awful Common-Medlar either!); of flowers versus 'blossom', because 'blossom' is a decidedly old-fashioned, rather quaint, poetic term that generally isn't used in botanical reference. Poets use it, botanists don't. As an aside, also please leave dimensions as figures, rather than spelled out - figures are standard in scientific work, and make for much easier reading. MPF 16:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"common medlar is the name, but when the noun phrase is used to modify another noun, it standardly takes a hyphen (compare, for example, "he described the common-medlar blossom for his work on soft fruit" and "he despised the common medlar-blossom, preferring more unusual blossoms")" - Duh?? I've NEVER come across this idea anywhere, ever. And that's in reading hundreds of books on plants, animals, etc., and thousands of scientific papers. The names of species are not altered by the context they are used in; to do so would be very confusing.

Of spelling out measurements, that's a bit of a ridiculous nonsense; implementing it would involve changing almost every taxon page on wikipedia and would be very unpopular with other editors.

I checked two major source works (Bean's Trees and Shrubs Hardy in the British Isles, and the RHS Dictionary of Gardening); neither use the term 'blossom' at all, both use 'flower', for apple, cherry, etc. - MPF 17:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens - you said "It's not a matter of changing the name", yet you did; the name should retain the same orthography as used in the page title, i.e., not hyphenated. Although not the case here (the hyphenated example doesn't exist), Common Medlar and Common-medlar could potentially be different species. Measurements - the MoS is not clear nor consistent in this. Standard usage in other style guides that I've used is that numbers should be written out one to ten, then 11-12 etc., but that measurements are always as figures with the standard unit abbreviation (thus e.g. "they have planted six to eight trees 2 m tall, and 30-35 trees 3 m tall"). Blossom - I note all but one of your examples was American, not English; and that one was a photography site, not one I'd consider very relevant to the issue. I acknowledge that 'blossom' is much more widely used in American English, but even in the US, botanical sites tend to use only 'flower' and avoid pointless synonyms; see e.g. examples from Flora N America, Jepson Flora of California. These are the sort of scientific publications which I consider we should be emulating. - MPF 22:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Un Flic

Nice clean up, but you don't want to call it a policier? (It is one.) Jonathan F 03:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To call Un flic a policier is mainly to acquaint the reader, through example, with an international genre, like the spaghetti western or the samurai film.

Also, police procedural movies typically strive for suspense over accuracy. I'm thinking of Between Midnight and Dawn, a 1950 Columbia Pictures release credited as the model for Jack Webb's Dragnet TV show (and thus for every TV cop show to follow). There is drama in this film that leaves this viewer unconvinced that it reflects any actual police work. In one scene, a cop enters a hotel room through an upper-story window, instructs the child inside to hide under a desk, then, to smoke out a gangster, proceeds to throws in a tear gas canister! And yet, the film is considered a police procedural. Jonathan F 18:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Tags

Hi, Can you please see user talk:slimvirgin#Merger_Tags, and use your expertise to sort out the three or four articles? Thanks FrankB 04:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- your wisdom and experience are needed, this article is chaotic at best: List_of_fictional_universes#Motion_to_Revise, Thanks FrankB 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Shkija"

Hi! On the Serbophobia page, you removed "Other examples of Serbophobia can, according to some, be found in language used to refer to Serbs by other groups in the Balkans. For example, the word shkija in the Albanian language is a derogatory word for Serbs.". In the edit summary, you explained that the addition is unsourced. Could you explain which part of the statement you doubt and request a source for? I 'm asking you this question, even though TheFearGod is the one who should have asked it; instead, he has started to revert without any comments. All this could lead to another meaningless conflict. Greetings, --Anonymous44 15:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Asn5.jpg

I wanted to let you know that images which contain a fair use tag completely unrelated to the content of the image (like {{logo}} on a photo or {{publicity}} on a map) can now be speedied under CSD:I7. I have speedied this one. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you?

Hi, it's hard for me to thank you for "tidying up" after me on various occasions, even in the face of the greater good of enforcing Wikipedia policy and thereby creating a sane, sustainable and, legally speaking, problem-free encyclopaedia. In particular, removing the Christine Kaufmann images while at the same time thousands of other images persist whose fair use claims are at least as questionable as those two gives me the vague impression that there are people out there working against each other and enjoying it.

If one of the images is not a cover, which I believe it is, it could just as well be classified as a {{film-screenshot}}, which it definitely is (although one that has been published in printed form). I'm far from reverting your edits because I never do that on principle unless I'm dealing with vandalism. But for me some of your edits do not tie in with the spirit which I believe should be guiding the collaborative effort of building an encyclopaedia. Rather, they show a certain small-mindedness which I usually do not associate with the job of a philosopher.

And please don't hide behind a passive ("The images have had to be removed").

All the best. <KF> 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't want to have the argument you have outlined because I agree with you that it is no argument. What I am trying to say is that other users, including admins, might not think the two images in question are in any way problematic. When I "assume good faith" while working on a page created by someone else, I do not delete anything but leave everything as it is, including images, and concentrate on spelling mistakes, syntax, paragraph structure and the like instead.

If I had not tried hard to be civil, I would probably have used language such as Deff6 on 3 May 2006 (see above), but I usually don't do that either. So once again, peaceful dreams, <KF> 22:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As you seem to enjoy misinterpreting what I say here's some more material for you.

I've stated that "for me some of your edits [...] show a certain small-mindedness". How much more hedging does it take so that this isn't classified as an accusation?

Also, I was actually not referring to careless admins who don't mind what people upload and how the uploaded images are used afterwards. I was thinking of those few who, rather than deleting or removing/orphaning an image, look for ways of rescuing it, for example by recategorizing it or at least suggesting such a recategorisation. (As I suggested myself, one of the Kaufmann images is a screenshot as well as a detail from a magazine cover. And as far as the other image is concerned, I really don't understand why you consider the cover of a "How to" book on mature beauty written by Kaufmann, whose activity in this field is mentioned in her Wikipedia biography, as "non-fair-use of a fair-use image".)

Thirdly, I do not limit myself to one small area of editing. I was only talking about articles written by other people and the photos they uploaded. See Talk:Anthony Berkeley Cox as an example where I try not to interfere without waiting for other people's comments.

By the way, I have referred User:Stifle, who promptly wrote me a message about "Orphaned fair use image (Image:C Kaufmann III.jpg)" to you.

Also, I have a hunch that you may want to have the final word — well, I'm waiting.

All the best, <KF> 18:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal line

May I ask why you are adding a horizontal line after the disambiguation of in Othos. As a general rule horizontal lines are to be avoided. Joelito (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Jose Moreno

Hi Mel, I just noticed that you reverted my deletion of:

Francisco Jose Moreno, Between Faith and Reason, 1977, 1998 Basic Principles of Politics, 1999, 2000, 2005]], |A]] ]

from the page List of publications in philosophy. I really don't know this person, nor his books. It not unlikely that this is due to my lack of knowledge of the (recent) developments in the field, but I would like to see a defence for the inclusion next to giants as Popper, Rawls and Nozick. Thanks! --Jadriaen 16:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply at User_talk:Jadriaen#Philosophers. I think we can safely delete this line from the article. Who will hit the delete key: you or me? --Jadriaen 22:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== UEFA Champions League ==

Thank you for your kind note. -- Alias Flood 18:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images and frame

All the sudden I can't get frame, or perhaps remember the 'proper syntax' for putting a frame around an image such as: Cheat_River just added. Any ideas? What's so nit-picky all the sudden? Was I just lucky before?
By the same token had an image 'over stepping' the nearby text along the top border last night. Can they take a padding (Margin is inside, yes?) command and in particular one focused on specific problematic border like a '<div style="top-border"5px">' or is using that techique nesting the image 'the part of the solution' I need condsider in personal computer (2nd image, is left justified if you take a peek.)?

Hadn't thought of 'that' to try until just now!

Thanks, FrankB 20:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See answer my talk:user_talk:fabartus#Your_message_on_Image_problems! Thanks FrankB 00:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Equivocation

Hi. I wonder if you could look at the Talk:Equivocation page. I have had a query about what had occurred to the text I submitted. It seems that I may need to do something extra, over and above what I have already done. I have been referred on to you. I hope that you can help me to unnderstand what i am to do next. Thanks (in advance) cogtrue 01:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patience Barnstar...

Here's a barnstar your admirable patience in the face of perceived incivility! Sorry for any trouble I caused you.
Happy editing,E va ^db

Export info - Gingerfiled starts debate

In the Assault Plus article, Gingerfield added ""This game is for use exclusively in Japan. The sale, export, use or operation of this game outside of Japan may be a violation of international copyright, trademark and/or other related laws subjecting the violator to legal penalties."" to this as he did to many other articles. User:MrLogic has contested my removal of this "Addition". I request your comment on Talk:Assault Plus thanks --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 16:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soraya Saga

Your changes to the article seem to conflict with one of the sorces that I used ([1]); do you have sources for your dates, etc.? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no I don't. It was basically known back in 2003 (at least in Japanese circles) that Saga was off the project, but it was just a rumor at the time. When Saga posted about it on her website, it was basically to confirm those rumors in the hopes that people would finally stop pestering her about it. When she made the announcement, many people found out about it for the first time, while others who had been following Xenosaga more closely considered it old news. Since I don't have a hard source, I guess I don't have a leg to stand on. Do what you wish.

However, the information regarding her work on FFV and FFVI, that information also came from her website. It can be confirmed here: ([2]) Druff 17:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Dance Acts and renaming

It's true that I didn't disagree that this needs to be renamed, but this is not appropriate for speedy renaming. As I said, it is inconsistent with Cat:Canadian dance music artists, and will soon become inconsistent with the rest of Cat:Dance artists by country as well. I am not nominating the entire category because I still don't think "dance music" is a sufficient descriptor. –Unint 19:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ...

... for the praise. I wouldn't have thought that my collages looked so professional. So if they give me the sack I know what I'll do. And what I wrote at Image talk:C Kaufmann 1959 1995.jpg is true of course. <KF> 22:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 11

In response to: I just encountered an odd edit conflict, and when I checked the Hostory, I found that I'd deleted your comments; I've gone through the History and tried to replace them all, but you might want to check that I've for them all (and got them right). Sorry about this. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You've recovered them all. Thanks for taking the time to put them back. No harm done! —M e ts501^talk 23:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility in Wikipedia...

Dear Mel, I'm sorry again that I seemed to get heated up over things on Kandern. This is the second time in a few weeks that I've come across as uncivil to a wikipedian. I'm still unsure as to the reason for the trouble in the other case. As an experienced editor and admin, I wondered if you had any suggestions for me on how to be more civil. Thanks a lot.--E va ^db 08:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farabi

I made some remarks on Talk:Al-Farabi, good work there! Selfinformation 17:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

two letters far from nobel prize

Did you know that there was a Greek poet Odysseas Elytis (Οδυσσέας Ελύτης) who won the Nobel Price (1979)? Poor chap died in 1995. Anyway I have to confess I did not know what Etitis meant although in Greek public schools learning ancient Greek is compulsory. Damn every kid spends five precious years in order to learn a DEAD language and in the end :

HE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT ETITIS MEANS !

greek education sucks

Μακαριοι οι μη ελπιζοντες ουτοι γαρ ουκ απογοητευθησονται ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panosfidis (talk • contribs) 22:55, 12 May 2006

God in Karma in Hinduism

Mel, I don't understand why you changed God to god. The wikipedia manual of style states that God begins with a capital letter. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents ) The reference is to God in a monotheistic sense. Please clarify. Thanks.

Raj2004 22:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Mel!

Raj2004 12:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing really good resource links from the Bellydance page?

Have you even checked out some of the links you removed??? Middle Eastern Dance is an extremly helpful site to those wanting to learn about bellydance but, everytime it's added you remove it. Amulya's site is also a good resource. Perhaps I missed this somewhere but, who put you in charge of being the almighty determiner of what's included in the external links section. From reading about you on your user profile I'd say your credentials are questionable as to what you actually know about bellydance in the first place. Could you stop removing helpful sites?

Cassandra581 21:50, 13 May 2006

Bridge Over Troubled Water

Why did you revert my name change to this article? "Over" is not a trivial word in the title, and as part of a proper noun, should be capitalized. The album cover picture on that very page supports this. Note also that a Google search reveals mostly capital "O"s. Disregarding all that, I find it rather rude of you to just revert this without even leaving me a note. That's how edit wars get started. In the meantime, I'm going to refrain from moving the page again, pending consensus. Thanks. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 05:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not meaning to be rude butting in on this conversation, but I spotted it and tend to agree with BorgHunter. I don't claim to be any sort of expert on this, so I'd tend to go with what the authors wrote on their album cover. Note that it says "Simon and Garfunkel" and "Bridge Over Troubled Water", indicating that they did indeed intend for the O to be capitalized.

What is the reasoning behind enforcing a different capitalization?

It is also worth noting that both ways are currently, untidily being used on the page. aLii 14:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at my talk page, so as not to fragment the discussion. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Fowler currently plays for Liverpool

Wikpedia style is very clearly not to link the same words repeatedly, especially when they're close together. please don't return to that style again. It's not a good defence to say that other articles commit the same error. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you must insist on changing the style (pointless edit), then at least have the courtesy to not leave a careless typo and incorrect information! aLii 10:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see from other comments here that you are either unaware of or don't care about Wikipedia style. I strongly suggest that you remedy that. I more strongly suggest that you don't revert editors who are correcting articles in line with Wikipedia style; that behaviour is likely to get you blocked from editing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said Mel, I don't care all that much about your sacred style, but what I really care about is your untidy editing. You again edited the correct information away, leaving just a blank. I guess I should thank you for correcting your sloppy typo in the end though. aLii 13:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. What's with the threats?! So no-one is allowed to disagree here? I sure as hell am allowed to revert your edits if you're the one that causes the most damage to the page. Scanning over (just one part) of your talk page shows that you also have many disagreements with people, so less of this "Holier-than-thou" "I shall have you banned!" stuff please. It isn't helpful and only futhers bad feeling.

OED question

Pegship has suggested OED or MLA style guide as quick solution to the niggle issue affecting several articles of the 'ebook vs eBook' variety. If you have either or both, please see my talk: user talk:fabartus#For_Closing_Admin:eBooks and really and especially the section below that one and see if you can resolve that issue per Pegs suggestion. Weigh & vote in on Talk:ebook too! Thanks, FrankB 14:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]