User talk:Mel Etitis

Please click here to leave me a new message.

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 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40	Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46
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 25,000th edit on an article: 10 iv 06 40,000th edit: 11 iv 06 45,000th edit: 2 i 07
Admin-related actions
blocks (last twelve blocks) page protections & unprotections

Useful links

Pages I often cite

Quotation marks

Thanks for sorting me out over those quotation marks.Phase4 12:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recommendations on the Benjamin M. Emanuel debate

Hello again, looking at your response to my post (now in your archive section) I see that you make recommendations for me:

“I suggest that you look a little more carefully at the article history.”

When I followed your advice I saw that you reverted away the edits I made deleting the information from blogs.

I had done so citing such wiki-standards as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Biographies_of_living_persons

(Emphasis added) "Biographical claims about living people need special care because of the effect they could have on someone's life, and because they could have legal consequences. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately and do not move it to the talk page."

I deleted the poorly sourced contentious material on 19:31, 10 January 2007 but in little over an hour they were reverted back in by you at 20:38, 10 January 2007. And then you told me on my user-talk page to "stop...deleting large swathes of text". I also noted in the history page that you were an early contributor to the article that included the blog statements at 10:33, 7 January 2007 and 10:29, 7 January 2007. A fact you don’t mention in the AfD discussion.

You wrote on my talk that I must have "some personal or political axe to grind with regard to the articles on this family". I knew that you were referring to my editing out any poorly sourced contentious material asserting an association with Irgun on the wiki-pages of his sons. So I looked at the history pages there and you had edited those as well. I saw not only did you allow poorly sourced contentious material to stand in an article (such as the sentence "was a member of the Irgun, a radical Zionist paramilitary organization" on the Ari Emanuel page which you edited on 10:35, 7 January 2007) but you inserted it yourself on the Rahm Emanuel page on 19:47, 9 January 2007 writing that "Benjamin M. Emanuel, was a member of the Irgun, a radical Zionist paramilitary organization". You neglected to put in a source for that claim, perhaps you could tell me which blog you were citing, was it the one that blames 9/11 on the Jews or the one that asserts his father was a professional assassin without any evidence?

Your other notable recommendation for me is “I suggest that you calm down, stop spluttering, and start thinking.” I’m sorry if you think I’m not being calm, would it help if I used emoticons or a different font? Perhaps you could point out where I am “emitting or making sporadic spitting or popping sounds” and becoming the very definition of spluttering (a fun word I must say, nice to see its still in usage – I’m trying to encourage the use of the word “nifty” myself). When you say “start thinking” you obviously must be saying “start thinking faster” because obviously I could not type if I couldn't think. If that is what your saying then I apologize for my slowness, it seems I can only think about a few things at a time and right now I just keep thinking about the standards for libel and wondering if you violated any of them with your unreferenced post to the Rahm Emanuel’s page, and your reverts reinserting the poorly sourced contentious material on Benjamin M. Emanuel’s article. Sorry to be so slow. Stay nifty :-)

Wowaconia 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Mel Etitis, as per the points you placed on my talk page, first I agree that it is a mistake on my part to use the word slander when it is technically libel.

I do disagree with your claim that “The article doesn't declare that he's an assassin.” The article cited the bloggers belief that Benjamin M. Emanuel “participated in the assasination of Swedish diplomat Folke Bernadotte in 1948” and by doing added credence to those claims which would otherwise have no credence whatsoever. The blogger was neither reliable nor notable and adding skeptical caveats around his comments does not issue a blanket licensee to use such claims. His comments should never have been included in the article at all as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability

(emphasis added) “Sources of dubious reliability: In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s).”

In other words, by your argument I could use my birth name and publish a blog that claimed Jimbo Wales was a murderer and then as Wowaconia I could go to the Jimbo Wales page and write “While the author of JimboWatch.com is not noted for keeping track of his sources, he declared his certainty that Jimbo Wales was the true killer of Nicole Brown Simpson, others remain skeptical.” I do not believe your claims follow the wiki-standards.

I agree that my comments became emotional, because I became frustrated that you an Admin. inserted an unreferenced claim into the US Rep Rahm Emanuel page on 19:47, 9 January 2007 that "Benjamin M. Emanuel, was a member of the Irgun, a radical Zionist paramilitary organization" and then began defending those claims on the page of his father. You also claimed that I had “some personal or political axe to grind with regard to the articles on this family” and then you declared on the AfD discussion that I have “some sort of problem with the articles on members of this family, which seem to involve protecting a politician against what he sees as negative facts. he shouldn't be allowed to get his way on this”. The only way I can extend any kind of good faith to your actions in this is to assume negligence instead of maliciousness, perhaps you didn’t read the blogs you were defending. But then I still am left wondering why you made that edit on the Rahm Emanuel page without citing anything, not even those anti-Semitic blogs.

I hereby in the spirit of good faith request that you instruct me on why my running perception that your post to the Rahm Emanuel page was libel is mistaken. I hereby admit that the knowledge of this action has colored my perception of you during this debate and await the reasoning that will counter such impressions.

--Wowaconia 20:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just read your response on my talk-page and I think you misunderstand my request. I am saying that my perception of you was biased because of your edit on the Rahm Emanuel page [that is documented here] and with full knowledge of that edit, I made, perhaps wrongly, the conclusion that all your actions were an effort to assert the truth of that edit on the Rahm page. I had believed that this is what was driving you to defend the blogged material on his father's page which was presumably the source for your edit on the Rahm page. Please explain why you made the edit to the Rahm page and failed to use any sources when you did so. That one edit is what makes me wonder if you committed libel and then felt compelled to defended libelous blogs to support that first act of libel. If you can just explain the real reason for that one edit than I can re-adjust my perceptions. The question is on that one edit.--Wowaconia 21:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reinserting contentious material originally posted by an unsigned IP is still called an edit and an addition, and still requires a reason for doing so. If I replace deleted vandalism I would still be called a vandal. If someone replaces deleted libel they are still responsible for their edit. I would prefer to think that you did not commit libel, but I don't know what your motive for insuring this claim was included in his page was. Why did you choose to reinsert this contentious material that was without any reliable source?--Wowaconia 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that my questions are badly expressed. Please explain your motivation for reposting the unsourced claim on Rahm Emanuel's site that his father "was a member of the Irgun, a radical Zionist paramilitary organization".--Wowaconia 23:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Okay, so I'll spare you the copy-and-paste thanks! Appreciate your kind words... The Rambling Man 19:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Kindi peer review

Hi there.

I noticed on the talk page of al-Kindi that you contributed significantly to the article in the past, and on your user page you mention that you are well-qualified in philosophy. For that reason, I would greatly appreciate it if you participated in the peer-reviewing of the article, especially those sections which deal with philosophical thought.

Thankyou in advance,

Alexander.Hainy 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Jameson and WP:DATE

Deepest condolences for your losing the will to live. I thoroughly sympathize. However, it seems to have been caused by removing the commas between "month day, year". Our Manual of Style section on Dates uses those commas. Is there something I missed? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange: I looked at WP:DATE, and can find a dozen examples of using the comma, but not a single one of not using it. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense now, thanks. Carry on. I think I saw your will to live somewhere - could it have rolled under the couch? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boggart

lol (now, there's an abbreviation I've never used, but it's hard to sincerely convey amusement otherwise) - I'm sorry you got dragged into arguing about boggarts. I've explained the issue (in excessive detail) to causesobad on his talk page, and have fixed the subject on the article in question (since its placement there was poor anyway). So hopefully, there won't be any issue about that anymore. Thanks for your input! Michaelsanders 21:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy again

Hello again. I do understand the deep emotional pain that you would undergo if you were to go near the philosophy page again. I do understand that. You did some sterling work in the past and I even archived a talk page where you held out splendidly. But I am feeling pain now. Not so much pain, more the kind of feeling when so many people disagree with you that you perhaps begin to question your own reason or abilities. All I ask is you drop by the Philosophy talk page, and look at my contributions then at the attacks on me, and let me know on my talk page if I really am going insane. If so, I will seek professional help of a non-philosophical kind. Best - Dbuckner 10:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Sorry. However, I will not be seeking psychiatric help at least, so, thank you for trying. One benefit of this has that it forced me to trawl the depths of my library for definitions of philosophy, and so I am a little wiser as to what, say, Arnauld thought of philosophy. And thanks once again for trying. If I am every in Oxford I will buy you a pint of Guinness. If I knew who you were, of course. Best Dbuckner 17:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Papas

Hi! I wonder, what exactly do you want to stress by saying that Irene Papas is a Greek-born and not a Greek? Greetings! Sthenel 13:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She was born in Greece, her mother-tongue is Greek, she is of Greek ancestry, she votes in Greece (she has the greek citizenship). So, if she is not Greek what is she? Please you should change it! By the way "Greek-born" means "born in Greece by non Greeks", it doesn't match to her. Sthenel 14:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but "something-born" is used like this "She is American-born to Greek parents" to stress the birthplace and the origin when they are different. Irene Papas was said to be candidate for the Municipality of Athens but she changed her mind finally. That means that she has the greek citizenship. Sthenel 15:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk:Rantshole

I blanked the page because I have had enough, and I certainly did not want to welcome this person to Wikipedia. If you look at my sub-page at User:RolandR/Vandalism, you will see that this was yet the latest in an ongoing campaign of stalking, harassment and abuse against me. Over the past couple of months, this person has created dozens of ids -- many of them deliberately ridiculing my name -- purely for the purpose of posting his scatological and pornographic abuse of me on to scores of Wikipedia pages. As soon as one user id is blocked, he creates another. Since he is apparently using an anonymiser, Wikipedia appears unable to put a stop to this obsessive behaviour. I can guarantee that he will be back, in less than 24 hours, using another offensive id and posting more abuse. RolandR 21:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Yes, I am a moron. I'll go and correct my mistake now. Sorry! Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]