User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 43

Maitland Jones, Jr image

Mel Etitis

Thanks for the message. I've confirmed that Maitland Jones, Jr is the image copyright holder; he grants use. Doesn't this mean that it is OK to use the image in wikipedia? Thanks, Smac02155 19:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)smac02155[reply]

Favour

Mel, I was wondering if you could keep an eye on 200.138.194.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and perhaps have a word with him/her on their talk page? (S)he's repeatedly making edits to song and album articles in violation of the Manual of Style (see [1] for example), despite countless explanations, requests and warnings from myself. I've reported the situation at WP:AN twice (see here and here), but absolutely nothing's been done about it. Meanwhile, this user is completely ignoring my messages and continuing to edit articles away from the MoS guidelines, often reverting me whenever I undo his/her edits and explain again what is wrong with them. So far the only person to express concern about his/her behaviour is myself; if another editor weighed in, it might convince him/her that the MoS is important (and that I'm not just kicking up a fuss over nothing). Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 14:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maitland Jones, Jr image

Ok, I have written permission from the author/owner of the photograph. Pls see below Here's the tag that I *think* I need to apply; the only question is how.

{pd-self}}—Public Domain.

Does it get slipped into the text under the "edit this page" section. I ask because I appear to be doing this incorrectly.

Please advise. Thanks, Smac02155 14:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)SC[reply]

maitland jones, jr wrote: >> Hey Mait >> >> Could I get written permission to use your photo from your website? >> Replying to this email is sufficient. >> >> Thanks, >> Stacy > > which one? anything I took is fine with me - the jazz images (way under jazznights) may have copyrights. > > m

MJJr photo

It's me again. There a lot of copyright tag choices. I also found the descriptions to be a bit...non-intuitive. For a newbie, it's a little difficult to ascertain the intentions amid the one-line descriptions.

To wrap my head around the conventions specific to Wikipedia, I looked up the tags that are used on photos in wikipedia pages dedicated to professors.

{{Fair use in}}
{{PD-retouched-user}} I photoshopped the original, which was lacking.
{{CopyrightedFreeUse}} MJ's former student took the photo; MJ recieved the copy. He should own it as he is the subject, and he did not sign a release form. I think.
{{NoRightsReserved}}
{{Promophoto}}

I see no discernable pattern. Which would you recommend?

Smac02155 21:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

referrings

you know, i kinda thought about that one and decided to go along with it. referring does have two r's, but now in retrospect the word 'reference' is what it should be. not sure if i should pull an arm hair for that one, but i'll do if anyways ;) good catch. JoeBot 19:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism procedures

I'm new to Wikipedia and am writing to ask your advice about how best to deal with the continuing deletions and reversions on the Erya article. In a case like this, is it better to use warning templates as described on Wikipedia: Vandalism or to ask for Admin intervention? Thanks. Keahapana 20:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: 'earnt'

"Earnt" is the simple past of "earn" — a perfectly legitimate form, used widely in the U.K. I've had this discussion before, and it's getting tiring. If Wiktionary doesn't think it's a word, so much the worse for Wiktionary. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that 'earnt' is used widely in spoken UK English, but that's not enough for me: a lot of people would say "we was" but that's not correct either. 'Earnt' is not in the dictionaries I've checked (Cambridge, dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster) so I maintain that while it exists in spoken English, it's not correct and shouldn't be used.

Still, we can agree to disagree if you're happy with your opinion. Rjwilmsi 22:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLUM SYKES

Thanks for your advice re dates. Didn't quite understand this before. Still don't quite get why a link to the date of a reference is important, but happy to go along with this. Best wishes.--IXIA 17:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal line

Hi. I wanted to ask about the horizontal line under the hatnote at Paul Simon that I removed a few days ago. I read the discussion at WP:HN an noticed that you are a proponent of using the line. It seems to me from the guide to layout and from many prominent and featured articles that the general consensus is to not use the line. You are a much more experienced editor than I am though, so I wanted to know whether there is something special about this article that I missed that makes the line necessary. Thanks. Jon Stockton 21:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plum Sykes

OK, thanks. (Incidentally, it's not that important, but what is your objection to "It girl"?!)--IXIA 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollywood usage was undoubtedly the original one - c1927 of Clara Bow. But in more recent times it's been applied to various people who have been thought "stylish" - eg some of those, such as Tara Palmer-Tomkinson and Amanda de Cadenet, mentioned in the W article. Certainly there are plenty of refs to Sykes heing one such - which of course raises the point that such an assertion should referenced. I'll consider. (Fascinating the interest that these not over important points generate!) All the best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IXIA (talk • contribs) .

Re:Iqbal

Hi Mel - would you care to elaborate what exact copyediting work is necessary on Muhammad Iqbal? Your insight would be valuable at Wikipedia:Peer review/Muhammad Iqbal/archive1. However, I'm taking down the copyedit sign because this article is in an FA drive and I and others will fix all such problems with the article. And might I add, that the version prior to my edits was "COPYVIO" - most sections were cut/paste from Iqbal academy site. Rama's Arrow 22:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Mel,

I am Manas. I don't think you would be tracking the names of people whose edits you remove or revert (:) hence I would introduce myself here.

I was working on the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_answers_to_the_problem_of_evil and more particularly I had written http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_answers_to_the_problem_of_evil&oldid=56100080. The latter was reverted by you with the comment that it was a personal essay.

I fully agree with you. I am very new to wikipedia and I come from the blogging world where the writing style is more like personal essays. My mistakes on wikipedia are more out of habit than intentional (or with ulterior motives).

I would like to change these habits for sure. Can I expect some help from you (a teacher)? I would like to be a rather long term (serious) contributor to Wikipedia. Can I request you to tell me the kind of mistakes I made OR some tips for better wikipedia contribution (in terms of content and style)?

--User:Manasgarg

New guy here

Hi! I'm editing a section under Ninja. I tried to put a link to 'Raven' but upon clicking it, it redirected me to the article on the bird. How do I put a link to the proper disambiguation (in this case, Raven is a character in the fighting game, Tekken) ? Meanwhile, I used this instead: Raven.

Velen117 User: talk:Velen117

Thanks

Thanks Mel. I'll take up your advice and stick to smaller edits for sometime.

Regards, Manas 10:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you! Velen117Velen117

Sigma Nu

Thats the way my lead book has it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schultz4434 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 2 June 2006

New Anti-Semitism mediation

Mel, how are things going on this front? The article has been protected for weeks (months?) now and everyone who is going to make a statement on the mediation page has done so. When can we expect to hear back from you?Homey 13:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I see that you are doing hard work to protect Harun Yahya's page from vandalism. Zahid 19:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose (bandleader)

Should be "major discovery". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IXIA (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 June 2006

Question

Mel: Did you understand the category, "Working Groups," under Keith Jarrett? I didn't and took the liberty of deleting it. If I missed something, please let me know. I also just organized the categories alphabetically, which is the wikipedia format as I understand it. Thanks. PAWiki 21:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbophobia / anti-Serbism

Hi, I'd be grateful if you would take a look at the recent edit conflict about the moving/renaming of this page. I'm asking you because you were dealing it with it some time ago. IMO, a highly inappropriate page move has been made, and I've violated a wiki rule by ignorance, while trying to undo it. --85.187.44.131 17:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC) (alias Anonymous44)[reply]

What did you mean by link-farming? The article was not spam, as far as I understand it. ( http://www.mediekritik.nu/?946 Ekots vinklade nyheter], an article in Mediekritik, in Swedish)E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see your point but we have external links to German, French, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Serbian, Macedonian and Albanian, so what harm does the swedish article do? E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 21:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we should ask the people who added the links, I guess. Aside the Spanish article, I have no way to understand the rest without babelfish or similar tools. Thanks, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 21:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the Spanish article simply says "serbofobia" but in the context of "de serbofobia nada" (No serbophobia at all), which is hardly a reference. I objected to the removal of the Swedish article because this one has been added by a Swedish user who is quite well-versed on former Yugoslavia issues, so I assume he knew what he was doing. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 22:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no problem at all. I perfectly understood what you meant. I think we really need a debate on the sources and references used on the article. Checking the Spanish one, I get the idea someone has been just googling for the word Serbofobia with no sort of editorial perspective in mind, not even understanding the meaning of the rest of the article. I think I will remove it myself. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AID

Hello,

As a fellow editor of Shania Twain related articles, you may have noticed the main article isn't up to par with several other artist's pages. That's why I'm asking you to help it's nomination for an Article Improvement Drive, all you have to do is simply vote for it. If you would like to help, just vote here.

Thanks, Thankyoubaby 05:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testing

Just testing your leave-a-message system. -Velen117 11:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lao Wai

Hi Mel, thanks for allowing me the chance to explain my comment on the above user's talk page. First of all, I think perhaps you should reread what I wrote. Personally, my phrasing of:

"Just a small reminder to be a little more civil in your edits. Some users may deem that as a personal attack and if done repeatedly could result in a ban. Thanks in advance"

to my mind hardly equates to your interpretation of

"warn[ing] Lao Wai against incivility in an edit summary, mentioning the threat of blocking"

I said "Some users may deem that as a personal attack and if done repeatedly could result in a ban. Thanks in advance" - that is certainly not a threat and I believe very civil. Secondly, I looked at his history and he certainly could be more civil in his summaries (for another example see

here). Please let me know your thoughts having read my reply, and thanks again. - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 13:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category organization

Hi, Mel. You may be right that there is no consensus on the ordering of categories. But if you review most of the biographies, I've found that they generally appear alphabetically, which sort of makes sense, in my view. PAWiki 18:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli apartheid (phrase)

Mel, can you please look at Israeli apartheid (phrase) and the related debate. The article has just survived an AFD yet Jayjg is proposing to merge the article with another Apartheid outside of South Africa though he did not propose this during the AFD itself. The merger is an attempt IMHO to bury any reference linking apartheid and Israel. There is also an attempt to edit the article and poison the well by giving priority to usage of the term by neo-Nazis (who have used it once or twice) while suppressing mention of it being used by people like Desmond Tutu or by Jewish Israeli politicians. Homey 18:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the "phrase" is clearly a political epithet (and the article name now refelct this) the best would be to move it to: Political_epithet in the letter "I" . Zeq 21:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amherst5282 (talk · contribs)

I've reported Amherst5282 (talk · contribs) for violation of 3RR on her talk page, fyi. Ardenn 20:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Laozi...

Sorry, but I missed the chance to respond on the appropriate page before the discussion was closed, and I am very frustrated with its results. I went through the archive, and I saw no real evidence other than hearsay by a load of pinyin-pushers. The fact that so many people support "Lao Tzu" because they have heard of it more, while almost all of the (roughly equal number of) "Laozi" advocates claim that Wikipedia needs some sort of consistency in romanization. Would you like us to move "Canon Inc." to "Kiyanon" because it conforms better to the Hepburn spelling of its original Japanese name? See Talk:Hoichi the Earless for a similar dilemma. The English-language web pages of Chinese scholars are not an adequate reflection of the most common way to do things in English. elvenscout742 18:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that none of the references you give are sources specifically devoted to him - only "encyclopedias of philosophy" and the like. Each one of the Internet sources you mention (the only ones I can check right now) gives the Wade-Giles version in parentheses, in order to explain it to those who are more familiar with that version, the implication being that they only used Hanyu Pinyin for consistency's sake (or to force the PRC's new "standard" on the Western world), and if they had used Wade-Giles as the standardthey would not have needed to give Hanyu Pinyin the same treatment. Also, most copies of the Tao Te Ching (note spelling) that I have seen use "Lao Tzu", and those books are more reliable as scholarly works that are specific to the subject. I am not trying to push my POV here. One of the first places I heard of him was The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell (which is still widely read today), and that actually uses "Lao-tse" or something like that. elvenscout742 10:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A British affection?

re: Talk:Tacitus#Use_of_the_term_.27Knight.27 Can you lend us your experience on this niggle. Thanks // FrankB 18:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-linking from quotes discussion

Hi there. I've added a comment to the discussion here about Wiki-linking from quotes. As someone who has posted to this discussion, I'd appreciate any comments you might have. Thanks. Carcharoth 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mumble Bumble article

Whats youre problem, you keep getting it wrong and edit my corrections?

Annoying as hell...

Want to put and edit and seem clever to obtain a star, at least check your facts first, dumbass

So check it again, get it right and correct it, watch an episode and read the credits?

I know because I created THE Mumblebumble and it was certainly not Radical Sheep something.... friends of yours?

And the cartoons were produced by A film under Egmont Imagination in Denmark and CINAR in Canada

Fix it and fix it good

I am Christian Skjott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.162.59 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 7 June 2006

Dee C. Lee

Hi, I am wondering why you keep removing the citation for Lee's appearence in Rabbit Fever from the article. This is the closest thing we have to a citation for the whole artilce and I don't understand the rationale for removing it. I have also removed the assertion that the song See the Day was written by Lee, this song needs a proper citation as it seems to be unclear who actually wrote it. In fact the whole article lacks any proper verification, the bibliography section contains a book, but it is unclear what information in the article is derived from the book and what is not. Alun 16:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I linked number one to a page that shows all the number one singles for 1980, and "Going Underground" is on the list, so it's a reasonable link. If you make an edit I would appreciate it if you left your reasons on the talk page so others can understand them. If you think the link to the page displaying the number one singles for 1980 is an Easter Egg link then I'm happy for it to be changed. I am aware that what I one person thinks is an obvious link is not necessarily obvious to another. If you explain your reasoning on the talk page then it can help to achieve consensus, just changing it back constantly looks like you want to start an edit war, and these are just pointless. I think that it is not good wikiquette to make changes without explaining why on the talk page of an article. I also think that the usual place and format for a citation is in a references section, personally I prefer to use the Wikipedia:Footnotes format, just leaving references open in a references section means that it is not clear which references apply to which assertions in the article. If you have a look at how and where to cite sources, all four of the suggestions are in line citation styles, so the citation in the text points to the source that verifies it. I also don't understand why a mention of The Jam, Going Underground and charts should not point to the respective wikipedia articles, especially in the case of the charts as this is a colloquialism that may not be recognised by all readers. I asked for a citation for her D.O.B and citizenship because it has not been verified and both have been different in the past, it is perfectly acceptable to request proper verifiability, I would still like to verify that the song See the Day was actually written by her. I am quite baffled as to why an admin does not seem to want to use the recomended citation styles. Alun 05:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did agree that the link to number one could be misleading, and said so earlier, I had already conceded that you were correct. As the charts mention is specifically about the UK singles charts (or did "Going Underground" enter another chart at no. one?) I don't really see how it is misleading, but I don't see it as particularly important, it's just more informative if readers can click the link to see that it is this chart the article is refering to. I do think that your edit summary was misleading tidied does not really state what it was you did, you may as well have left it blank. Given that it must have been apparent to you that the article had been modified several times over a few days I do not think it would have been much to ask to give an explanation on the talk page (where I had in fact requested clarification, which you ignored, in breach of proper wikiquette), I did not suggest that you post on the talk page for every edit you make. The reference number did not redirect to the top of the page, but on short articles the references section is always above the bottom of the page, so it does not direct down properly. If there was a problem, then it would have been with the correct working of the <ref> function, and not with anything I did. The <ref> function automatically directs to the correct reference, please see the footnotes how-to. I think verifiability is a the most important policy on wikipedia, otherwise it is nothing but a collection of things people think are true, it is also perfectly acceptable to request verifiability from editors who have made unsupported edits. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, but I cannot but feel that you are being counter productive by not engaging in proper discussion on the talk page when other editors request it. Alun 13:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been very frustrated with Wikipedia because of people just randomly reverting changes with no explaination. They're worse then vandals in that vandalism is obvious. Do people get credit for just makeing a lot of noise around here? It would seem so. AbstractClass 18:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confucianism

Hi you reverted my edit to the confucianism article made with my IP address 67.76.228.3. I'm just wondering why? AbstractClass 18:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date warring

I said you are date warring, not edit warring. This is against policy, and you should be aware of this. Now that you have reverted again, it could be called an edit war. You are welcome to make the other changes again, but please do not violate the policy against date warring. It's there for a reason. This article used AD / BC before it used BCE. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only reverted your date changes. It is incorrect to say you made it consistent, because you changed every single date from BC to BCE, there was no BCE before. This is a violation of the ceasefire of the date wars, and I am going to revert. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careless Love

As the MoS specificall rules out piping in most cases for dab pages (and as your piping simnply repeated the link title), I don't understand your edit. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says here to use piping "to italicize or quote the title portion of an article whose name consists of both a title and a clarifier; for instance Harvey (film) or "School" (song)." The album should be italicized, the song should be in quotes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oneness University

I saw you made an edit to Oneness University way back in April 2006. A sweeping revision has been made to the article, and I think that a sensible balance needs to be found. I'm not sure whether some reversion of the change is necessary, and could use some advice! Thanks Inner Earth 16:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the comments below (& checking the relevent website obv.), I've put a copyvio tag on the article. Inner Earth 17:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About article

Hello Mel Etitis,

If I understand correctly you are somehwat of an administrator on this wikipedia page. I see that you have edited some on "oneness university" article. Please see latest changes by me and what I wrote in discussion room (if it is still there by the time you see this).

I do not think it is so fair that a page can be "anti" or "pro". In this case, I do not understand how it can be a cult, because I was there only for a course (which I felt helped me) and then I went back to my ordinary life (and country) and I am not part of anything, and nobody is forcing me to think or do anything or making me do something against my will. It is so for many others who have gone through courses there also.

For example, if I would look up some author or some music record, I do not want to read about "This book is the best in the world, everyone should read it etc.". I also don't want to read about "this music album sucked, he stole everything from... the musician is a fraud.." etc.

I think the wikipedia should be very factual, and not leaning towards different opinions. People should look up something and get information about it, and then decide for themselves what they think of it. So if I look up oneness university, I don't want people's opinions if it is good or bad for them, I want to see what it is, get information about it, then I am capable myself of coming to conclusions. Do you get what I'm saying?

Please contact me at sirahah@gmail.com if you have anything to say. I think the presentation now is much more fair though, and not too pro or too anti.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

This arbitration case is closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Wish I Was a Punk Rocker (With Flowers in My Hair)

Hi, you've been quoted at Talk:I Wish I Was a Punk Rocker (with Flowers in My Hair) as an expert on this: The above song was orignally titled with a big 'w' for 'with'; it was moved to little 'w' per 'prespositions are not capitalized. However, I would argue that, as we start a new parenthases, we need a new capitalization (even if its not necessairily required gramtically). Thoughts? --Robdurbar 23:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Spirit

When I played Dragon Spirit in MAME, my dragon was allowed to take 2 hits before the 3rd one finally took him down. And some of the release dates ARE incorrect - case in point, it says 10/1984 for Grobda but Grobda's own ending screen says "This game is presented by Namco, 1st Nov. 1984." Pac-Man765 08:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying behaviour from User:200.138.194.254

Mel, I'd like to ask you a favour. Over at User talk:Extraordinary Machine, we've been discussing the above IP, which is being used to make a lot of edits. A number of the edits are good. Some other number are strange; shifting around markup without any obvious benefit. Some other number are bad, in that they edit articles away from the WP:MOS. The IP basically never uses Talk pages, or responds to concerns. There's no clear-cut justification for a block, but it is frustrating User:Extraordinary Machine's cleanup attempts. I thought that you would have advice on how to proceed, since you have spent a lot of time cleaning up contra-MoS edits in the past. Jkelly 17:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Pantheism

Mel, your opinion would be uniquely valued in this debate - I could go either way, and will trust your input. BD2412 T 04:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that settles it for me - Cheers! BD2412 T 15:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Irvin

I note that you reverted the merge of Walter Irvin into Groveland Four. But there is almost no biographical information provided in the Irvin article about anything in his life other than the Groveland Four case. Are you planning to expand the Irvin article? Mwelch 19:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help on the TM page

Hi Mel-

I believe you are an admin, and am asking for some help on the Transcendental Meditation page.

Lately we have had an unregistered user who has been doing massive edits to the page, including, but not limited to: without consensus, creating a separate page for all things critical of TM, and moving them there; not signing page comments and/or signing them incorrectly!; and now I believe the same editor is editing under another anonymous IP address.

At one point he/she was editing two separate versions of the article transcendental meditation and Transcendental Meditation at the same time (though this problem has now been fixed)

His/her latest shenanigans include linking to mad magazine, and rewriting an introductory paragraph that took almost 2 months of nasty fighting over to get to a somewhat neutral place.

Would you be willing to protect the page so that only registered users could edit it? What I am wanting is some accountability... for all of this person's edits to at least be organized under one user?

thanks! Sethie 23:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion:References to The Prisoner in popular culture

I'm contacting you re: this AfD, because I think you may have some valuable things to say in the discussion, since you participated in the talk page for Wikipedia:Trivia. I look forward to your input. I've been trying to get a debate or discussion going, but one person in particular objects to that :-(. I'd like to see fewer "delete per" and "keep per" arguments and get a more meaningful discussion out of this, getting as close to a consensus as is humanly possible. Thanks. Erik the Rude 23:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garden

You have a very beautiful garden, very beautiful indeed !!!

I'd like your take on this

I've been 'bugged' by my hot button issue of the default skin hiding categories from the user for around two months, and this related thing punched the button pretty much dead center as the same point has been nagging at me as is made by the originator. Seems to me a VP listing ought be made on both, as it were, by at least a mention 'synopsis' with link, and the common debate on kept this page. This seems preferable, as both VP:Technical and VP:policy are certainly apropo venues for a link posting, and I think we've all seen some of the bad effects of the current trend. This point made by the originator is sparse, but on point and imho, important. By keeping the discussion there, it can be similarly referenced on other BB's (Meta for one), and there are a few others. I'm much too focused on wikiEditing to keep up with all the discussion forums, so where should it go, should it be given a seperate venue (Yet another 'proposed guideline'!), or what? In sum, seems to me the 'Internal links' section with such a category template would solve both problems with minimal edit dislocation.

My confidence is high that a structural problem in presentation is present under current standards (editorial guidelines), but my crystal ball shattered some years back <g>, so I can't measure it's severity there and it's hard to gauge it's exact magnitude using anything but inductive reasoning. Personally, I rarely visit the nether regions of a web-page, and admittedly tend to attribute that to other 'oldsters' as well. I guess the key question is: If one is reading casually, what reason have they, 'our customer-readers' for looking lower down past the references? Advice? Best regards! // FrankB 15:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Grammar School

Mel, you may be aware that I set up this page as one of my first acts on Wikipedia. Someone recently made some edits which I have reverted. I am assuming good faith, but have nevertheless reverted them for a number of reasons, some of which I have mentioned here. I am bringing it to your attention because I have referred to you in my note (without mentioning you directly). I hope I have acted reasonably on this. I wanted you to know just in case I have to bring you in at some stage. Thanks SMeeds 18:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking SMeeds 22:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Laozi...

First of all, I must apologise for the lateness, but I had determined to take a small break from this topic. I am back now.

Secondly, when I say "reliability", I am not questioning the correctness of either system - I know well that they are both so. I meant that those sources may not give a reliable representation of the most common spelling in English.

When I pointed out that your references were not specialised works, I meant to imply that they likely use one system of romanization for convenience's sake, and do not (as we are specifically told to on Wikipedia) use the most common English spelling. Specialised sources are better for this purpose, and (in this case) that individual article on Wikipedia should function as one of those. elvenscout742 22:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]