User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 29

User:Red Darwin

Aloha, Mel. I noticed you left a message on User talk:Red Darwin the other day regarding Wikipedia house style, which the user promptly ignored and removed. I left a similar message today and restored your original comment. The user appears to be using multiple accounts for whatever reason (see User talk:Iago Dali). More importantly, the user appears to be engaged in copyright violation, and I've left a comment concerning two articles on the user talk page. I'm signing off right now, but I would appreciate it if you would monitor this situation. Due to the large number of articles involved, the major changes implemented by the user(s), and the probability of multiple copyright violations, this issue may need to be escalated. Thanks in advance. --Viriditas | Talk 12:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, you may be interested in following the silly nonsense over at User talk:Marine 69-71. Do a search for your name. --Viriditas | Talk 11:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since Viriditas have brought User:Iago Dali to your attention, can you take a look at this editor's contributions, especially with regards to his very extreme trimming of articles (mostly literature). He's a somewhat belligerent figure, and I have an impossible time trying to explain things to him, with his tendency always to tangent off in speech. He thinks, for instance, all Wikipedia articles should be strive to be understandable to 12-year-olds, that most additional info are useless gossip trivia, and that he has a right to excise things liberally (very liberally). In a nutshell, he's impossible to speak to and also seem not to use talk pages at all to pre-inform people of any massive scale editing he's doing. Please let me know what you think of his inputs. Mandel 00:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alanis Morissette

Last I checked we were given the option to change content of the articles, so if you don't want me to change anything, then why give me the option?

What I am changing is either incorrect or inappropriate for an Encyclopeida entry anyway. "Friends with benefits" was NOT popularized by "Head Over Feet" but was already part of the lexicon, and the comments about Junkie that I am trying to erase are opinion, not facutal, and the quote is dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.137.124 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 25 October 2005

I see that on 25th October I left a message on User talk:64.231.137.124 about not deleting information; checking the article, the edits in question were these, and that another editor has reverted similar edits of yours twice since. You deleted three paragraphs and some other bits and pieces, with no explanation, not even an edit summary. If you want to defend your edits, you should do it at Talk:Alanis Morissette. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review?

I've seen the great amount and quality of work you're done on music articles. I've put up a request for peer review on an article to which I've made some major revisions, and even if it's not exactly your style I'd appreciate your having a look and giving some feedback. Also, if you know of any other editors who might want to suggest improvements, feel free to refer them. Thanks! --keepsleeping say what 21:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Were you still planning to contribute to this peer review? I'm eager to nominate it for Featured-Articleship but I'm hesitant until it's gotten a bit more feedback from experienced editors. Cheers. --keepsleeping say what 18:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear you were ill. I thank you for your help. --keepsleeping say what 20:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split infinitive

Split infinitive says In the present day, all reference texts of grammar deem simple split infinitives unobjectionable.. WAS 4.250 23:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USA PATRIOT Act

I've decided to copy you in on this comment that I added to Talk:USA PATRIOT Act.

I'm very sad to say that the article is next to useless. Neither the USA Act or USA PATRIOT Act detail the various clauses. There is tantalising detail here about what the Act contained: for instance, it allowed the FBI to employ translators!

I notice that the actual text of the Act itself has ten titles, each with their own important subsections. Hardly any are covered in this article. This makes it impossible for me to evaluate the criticisms levelled at the Act. I find that this is sad, especially in the light of the following sentence (from the article): "According to The Gallup Organization, the public is wary but ignorant about the USA PATRIOT Act." This article doesn't do much at all to assist with informing anyone about the scope of the Act!

Surely we can do better than this?

Ta bu shi da yu 09:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No we aren't. The full text can be found on this site, and I have made a start at USA PATRIOT Act, Title I. We need to summarise each of the ten sections. If I can start and I'm an Australian, I can't see why you can't assist :-) Please, let's get this up to scratch! It's too important to not at least try to get it started! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Karmafist

Further to your comemnt on User talk:Karmafist, about User talk:Purplefeltangel, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse of admin powers by Karmafist and related edits. Andy Mabbett 12:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for explaining your position on split infinitives in detail. I really appreciate it. I lean more in the direction of thinking it more important not to fuss over minor stuff and let editors feel a sense of contribution. I guess everyone has things they find important (for me it is sourcing). With everyone picky about different things and different subjects, there is someone for each task that needs doing, I guess. Cheers. WAS 4.250 13:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smile, Mel!

Dear Mel, I know you haven't been treated with the kindness that you deserve lately. I'll always carry you in my Wiki-heart for being the first person who took the time of welcoming me and explaining me a few basics when I was a clueless newbie, so the thought that you're taken aback saddens me. Have a huge {HUG} from me, and know that if you ever need me, you'll always have a wikifriend waiting for you at her talk page. Cheer up, Mel, and hugs! Shauri smil e ! 14:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Purplefeltangel

It was just a few admins on IRC asking what was going on. I told them to wait since Purplefeltangel is a good kid and she hasn't done any of this in bad will. Plus, i'd miss all her good cheer if she left Wikipedia ;-) Karmafist 16:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

???

what you are doing is vandalism. just because you don't like something does not mean that you can delete all the work someone else has done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.a.m.b (talk • contribs) 19:19, 26 October 2005

Who is this other editor who is worried about that as well? -L.a.m.b

Ok. Thanks for that information. :) I hope this goes right now L.a.m.b 19:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks so much . . . .

For the barnstar, and the "thusly" argument and the defending-me-on-Karmafist's talkpage, thanks. :D ♥♥purpl e feltangel ♥♥ 01:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Article

Erfan Vafaie appears to be another vanity article for speedy delete. Thanks for all your admin efforts. My heart went out to you in your recent controversy. Best wishes. WBardwin 05:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another article for speedy delete -- Blackese. Thanks again. WBardwin 04:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yet again -- Zuhkini Dee -- if you dare enter the realms of pop music again. Thanks. WBardwin 05:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Widyachacra - another possible delete. Should I continue to mess up your talk page with these litte notes? I know other admins I could bother as well? Thanks. WBardwin 02:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

D'you think that perhaps User:Iago Dali might be another incarnation of Mr Tan? They have the same editing style, and both vehemently refuse to be corrected, and they both have a grudge against you. Might be, might not. Who knows? I'd like to know your opinion. Don Diego ^(Talk) 19:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BGC/Album infobox disputes

On the suggestion of another admin, I'm preparing an RfC regarding user:BGC (formerly user:PetSounds), particularly with regard to his conduct in recent disputes. Assuming I can draft a reasonable statement, would you be willing to certify an RfC? I'm not asking for a binding commitment, but simply an indication that you believe it's appropriate to bring the dispute up to this level. Monicasdude 22:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, BGC is just an earnest guy who wants to contribute to WP. In the last few months he has learned, as all must, that one can't make fuzzy, unsourced edits or edits-against-specific-consensus. In the course of learning this lesson he ran up against Monicasdude, a guy who probably fights his own shadow when there's no one else around to fight with. They have reverted each other dozens of times and the bad blood won't end any time soon. BGC is willing to do a lot of detailed, repetitive work on music articles and it would be a shame to alienate him just to satisfy Mdude's spitefulness. In short, if you're judged by the company you keep, think thrice about keeping company with Mdude. JDG 23:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact BGC (talk · contribs) has a history of aggressive interactions with other editors, both in his present incarnation and as . I also notice that JDG (talk · contribs) is not exactly a disinterested observer, but has been involved for some time with BGC in an aggressive campaign against Monicasdude. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Aggressive campaign"... I suppose you could flip it over and express it like that. In reality it's just two people trying to cope with a dictatorial guy who uses unexplained reverts as if doing so powers a ventilator without which his lungs would fail. Reviewing your recent troubles, it seems to be a birds-of-a-feather case here. JDG 08:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Double Degree

No, I understood linkspam correctly. Using the generic concept of a double degree to hype a handful of specific programs when most institutions around the world offer them is pretty clearly linkspam. -James Howard (talk/web) 22:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am, right now, hard pressed to think of a school that doesn't offer a double degree program. The three I've attended (Miami University, University of Maryland, College Park, and University of Baltimore) all do, and these are each three different classes of institutions. Addtionally, linkspam does not need to be applied to multiple articles to be spam. Any attempt to use links for commericial gain, even if on behalf of someone else is link spam. Addtionally, my edit summary is correct. -James Howard (talk/web) 13:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not disruptive and, in fact, further enhances the encyclopia's value. For you to say otherwise shows you are not participating in good faith, and merely trying to further some agenda. -James Howard (talk/web) 23:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fancy talk link

How did you get those greek characters in your signature? Do you type thwm evey time you sign, or is there a way to automatically have "special effects" added to your signature? Sigma 03:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. Go to Special:Preferences, and you can add arbitary html code (remember to check/uncheck the raw option). Obviously, writing the html is the problem. --Maru (talk) Contribs 08:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Line

The edit in question is here. Can you provide some examples of other editors still using the line break? The Akihito article was the first article Ive come across in a very long time to use it. Where was your post at template talk? It was brought up here briefly with objection. Neither template:dab nor Template:Otheruses uses a built in line break. --Ji ang 23:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My objection to it? That is a matter of policy for the community to decide. I'm not objecting to the line per se, but I would like to see some consistency. The current policy is indent with no line. I have never seen lines commonly used along with the indent (even as an alternative format). Before late 2003, the predominant format was to add a line without the indent, but after 2003 people started widely indenting and taking out the line. I've used line breaks in the past, but been told not to [1] and been reverted for doing so. This can perhaps be brought up for discussion again either at the pump or talk:disambiguation. --Ji ang 10:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

correct (UK) punctuation

In your edit summary to Mrs Grundy, you might have said modern UK punctuation. People who can remember when Mrs. Grundy rather than Mrs Grundy was still standard in the UK are still living. Michael Hardy 20:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? OK, I'm only 49, but back in the 1920s Fowler criticised the use of the stop in abbreviations such as "Mrs.", and I've certainly seen "Mr", "Dr", "Mrs", etc., in books from the late nointeenth century. My understanding was that use of stops was somewhat haphazard until the last couple of centuries, gradually settling down into the current standards. I'm no expert on the history of punctuation, though, so any sources you can offer would be gratefully received and read with interest. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on alt.usage.english, someone posted that when he was in school in England in 1940, he was taught to write "Mrs. Jones" and "Dr. Jones" and so on, rather than "Mrs Jones" and "Dr Jones" which are now standard in England. And spelling and punctuation seem to have changed more in England in the last 80 years or so than in America; my impression is that "baptise" is now standard in England whereas 100 years ago "baptize" was often (maybe always?) used. Michael Hardy 20:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: "Baptize" is more etymologically faithful; I suspect that's why Noah Webster preferred it and his preferences are what became American conventions. Michael Hardy 20:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the 1940s there were some odd teachers around... With regard to "-ize" and -"ise", though, U.K. English has generally gone for one of two approaches (sometimes an uncomfortable combination): either use the former for verbs with the Greek root "-izein" and the latter for those without, or treat them all as reaching English through French, and making them all "-ise". "Baptize" and "baptise" are both OK, though modern U.K. usage is drifting towards always using "-ise". I've no problems with U.S. usage in cases like "baptize", but I find "analyze" and the like positively painful. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you choose ize, you have to memorize about forty exceptions, but if you choose ise, you only have to memorize "capsize". (That's why I, though living in the British Isles, choose ize; it makes me feel superior!) Hart's Rules says, "In verbs such as analyse, catalyse, paralyse, -lyse is part of the Greek stem (corresponding to the element (-lusis) and not a suffix like -ize. The spelling -yze is therefore etymologically incorrect, and must not be used, unless American printing style is being followed. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Spikings

Hi Mel, Thanks for tidying up Barry Spikings. Creating that article is one of the first things I did at Wikipedia and maybe I would have done it differently now. --SMeeds 12:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big number

Congrats on passing the big three-oh, do you now get a wiki bus-pass? :P Alf ^melmac 14:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments on Haukur's RFA

I've added some more material to my RFA. I know the discussion is overly long and hard to access at this point but I would very much appreciate if you took the time to read my most recent comments and see if they do anything to modify your opinion. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems they didn't :) Thanks anyway and keep having fun here. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crusading composer

I wonder if you might have a look at the Talk page for Robert Steadman where Crusading composer has insinuated you have a personal connection to the subject and that is why you ruled on the bad faith nomination for AfD.

Crusading composer and Bakewell Tart have been pursuing a campaign against Mr. Steadman - can nothing be done?

Vhjh 19:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a 'tell tale tit'! Can nothing be done? Will nobody think of the children? Hmmm. I'm not hinting at any impropriety, I just asked if Mel knows Mr Steadman. It's a straightforward question. Vhjh is reading too much into my words.Crusading composer 20:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You see, Mel, this is the problem! Vhjh 20:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having questioned your neutralityCrusading composer has now accused me of being Robert Steadman!! Vhjh 21:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment to Vhjh - For the record, Mel, I believe that this is a vanity article and I don't think that you have considered this. Have you seen my response to Vhjh's request for the administrators to 'look into ' me on the administrator's page? I have been reading wikipedia for a month now and I have seen other articles AfD for much less evidence. Perhaps you could tell me why you think that I should be banned? 23:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Mel, thank you for your reply. Alas, Crusading Composer is continuing to call for the Robert Steadman article to be rerefered as an AfD and accuses it of being a vanity article. He has failed to answer any questions relating to his knowledge or experience of the subject. Please see his latest (repeated rant) on the Robert Steadman discussion page. Something needs to be done. Vhjh 21:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Archive

How do I archive my user talk page and start afresh? Is it as simple as doing a regular page move from User talk:DanMS to User talk:DanMS/Archive1? Thanks. ♠DanMS 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

stileproject

hi, this is stile. please email me at stile@stileproject.com concering some false information on the stile project wiki page that was just brough to my attention.

Bachelor's degrees/Bachelors' degrees

Hi, Mel. Sorry for not getting back sooner. Things have exploded a bit on the Terri Schiavo talk page (again) – it's unquestionably the most unpleasant talk page I've seen on Wikipedia!

When I was editing Bachelor's degree, I didn't look in the history to see what edits had been made before. It's a very tricky question, and I remember wondering about it about a year ago, and being unable to find an answer in Hart's Rules, or Fowler or Eats, Shoots & Leaves. At the time, I did a google search, and using "apostrophe" + "bachelor's degrees" [2]. Of course, when you search the web, you don't know how reputable the pages you find are, but a lot of them seemed to be from universities. And there was one page, which I can't find now, giving examples like "She's very brainy; she has seventeen master's degrees" and "The university is offering fourteen new bachelor's degrees." It may not be completely logical, but I think it's standard. However, I'd feel more confident if I found it in Hart's. Actually, your edit seemed to agree with me [3], as you changed "bachelors'" to "bachelor's" in the heading, but left it in the actual section. I just made the section match the heading [4], unless you're referring to another edit of mine that I've missed.

By the way, thanks for your comments on ergative verb. I think, after all, that it won't need a stub template at all. I'm going to add a bit more to it, and I've asked some other Wikipedians who are native speakers of other languages to add some examples, if appropriate. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 12:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celine Dion

Hi Mel. How are you doing? Ive been laboriously working on the Celine Dion article, copy-editing and developing its structure and language. If its not a bother, could you take a look at it and help me, Im sure it has many faults. My dream is to get it to featured article status. Thanks in advance. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you very much for the help, much appreciated. For that, I would like to give you is :

For being one of the best editors on Wikipedia, Orane gives M.E the Editors barnstar. Good work!
For amassing over 30,000 edits, Orane gives M.E this tireless contributors barnstar. Keep up the exceptional work.

Oran e (t) (c) (@) 23:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question. Has some policy regarding the fair use of images changed? Im asking because the Kylie Minogue article was a recently featured article, and it contains images of her albums. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 00:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits on Robert Steadman

I had looked at that page over and dreaded trying to fix the style problems. Thanks for the fell swoop! :-) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting pictures

Hey! I have some pictures that I have uploaded and I'm not 100% sure are those copyrighted or not, so could you help me to delete those, cause I just don't need them. This same goes to those small album/single cover things that I did. So should I send those pics to you, or should I leave some kind of tag to those pictures that you, or someone else who can delete pictures, would do that? Thanks

--L.a.m.b 09:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hollaback Girl

Hi. User:Winnermario left me a message expressing concerns about your recent edits to the Hollaback Girl article. It seems that you removed quotes from critics about the song, and Winnermario does not understand this, as similar quotes are in place on the Cool (song) article, which is a featured article. I'm sure this is all just one big misunderstanding, so I was just wondering if you could explain the edits you made on either Talk:Hollaback Girl or Winnermario's talk page. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine ~~81.106.65.28~~ 19:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I am getting logged out every minute for some reason. Extraordinary Machine 19:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the quotes you removed do seem to focus more on the producers than what the song actually sounds like (unlike the ones in Cool (song)). Sorry about that! Also, I'll look in on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts when I can. Extraordinary Machine 21:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Just wanted to let you know your talk page header is a little crowded for 800x600 screens. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did some tweaking, carried forward your small text idea and did some padding tweaks. You likey? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summa Theologiae

My impression was tath Summa Theologica was more common in everyday speech. I've never seen a authortive book use it as Summa Theologica. I have however seen one or two other books that were simply mentioning it use Summa Theologica. I also believe that it is probably more common for the average person to use Summa Theologica because it is easier to pronounce. It really doesn't make much difference to me though. Falphin 02:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Finkelstein

Mel, would you be willing to look at some absurdly POV edits recently made to Norman Finkelstein? An anon inserted various POV claims [5], and now User:Xed and User:Vizcarra (who follows me around insulting and reverting me) have started reverting the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. He reverted it again anyway. It's surprising he continues to flount the WP:NPOV policy, not to mention the Arbitration Committee's ruling against edit-warring, of which he is apparently well aware. He even went to an unrelated article (Anti-Semitism) simply to revert me, and, though it's hard to believe, reverted in POV modifications of a direct quote. Incredible. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq

Hi Mel, would you consider reverting the recent edit Zeq (talk · contribs) has made to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ramallite, and perhaps having a word with him? He opposes Ramallite and has been posting questions and comments furiously to the main page for days, to the point where it's starting to look like trolling. I'm therefore trying to move his latest comments and questions to the talk page, but he keeps reverting me, and I think I've reverted three times already. I'm getting close to blocking him for disruption, though I'm not clear about the appropriateness of that given that I'm the nominator. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:192.206.243.9

I have reverted an edit on Francis Drake by this user (unfortunately my revert was anonymous because I was having trouble with my login). I then went to place advice on User Talk:192.206.243.9 and found s/he was a multiple offender. Indeed several people have threatened blocking. Can you suggest what action should be taken. These are cases of obvious vandalism, particularly after so many warnings. --SMeeds 15:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi, Are you Mel Etitis? I sure hope you are an administrator! I had an unpleasant conversation with SoM, another user about the image Vance_Astro.JPG. Apparently, the image's licensing wasn't the precisely the problem,(I was lead to believe that) but that the quality was... The Comic Book that Vance_Astro.JPG was scanned from, is over twenty years old.(twenty-two, to be exact.) I didn't get to make that clear, because of SoM's rather abrupt and generally nasty manner in the exchange.

Also, there was an FU from SoM. It was later clarified, equally nastily, on SoM's part that it meant Fair use UnLicensed, and in a later message was sent again as a link(WP:FU). Check my (Michael 18:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)) User Talk page for the message.[reply]

Ian Dunster looked at the image, and said there was nothing wrong with it, from his standpoint. I would appreciate the Image For Deletion tag being removed from Vance_Astro.JPG at some time in the near future...

I also apologised to SoM at the end the last message to SoM, and all parties concerned...

Assisstance would be greatly appreciated.

Michael 18:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two favours

Hi. I'm at three reverts at Greece. Please see the page history and advise. Second, more pleasantly, I just put The Waterboys up for Peer Review. Mind having a look? Jkelly 21:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for #1, it's been going on for weeks from different IPs and usernames, so, yes, it is very nice to finally get some kind of response. As for #2, I appreciate it, and look forward to your comments. Jkelly 23:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vance Astro.JPG/User:Michael Reiter

I can see your point with regard to the quality of the scan, but if there's no better alternative it would surely be better to see how this one can be improved. Does fair use preclude tidying it up?

Fixing it up wouldn't be a big problem, but At WP:CMC, we've had doubts about using OHOTMU images for a while in the first place on FU ground (not just that section, continue down).

Alternatives... I've got some GotG comics somewhere to scan (I added pics to GotG and Aleta before) and I could look for some VA pics from that if no-one else has any. - SoM 22:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pembroke College, Oxford

Hello Mel,

There is a Precedent for adding the link for the Category page of Former students of Pembroke College, Oxford to the Pembroke College, Oxford page itself.

Please See -- Magdalen College, Oxford , Balliol College, Oxford , Christ Church, Oxford , Corpus Christi College, Oxford , Somerville College, Oxford , St John's College, Oxford , Jesus College, Oxford , Trinity College, Cambridge , Pembroke College, Cambridge , King's College, Cambridge.

Thank You Michael Drew 00:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mel,

Why is it not Correct to have the link on the Page itself. Wouldn't That Just make it easier for people browsing the site to find the Category ? Michael Drew 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments on Pop Music

A Request for Comments was posted about two weeks ago on pop music issues. It states the same issues as you have stated, concerning a small number of editors claiming proprietary interests in articles and reverting edits, including MoS edits by you and others. I see that you have not endorsed it, although it mentions you as one of the editors who have tried to deal with the fancruft. I assume that this means that you have not seen it. I would suggest that you read it, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pop_music_issues . Robert McClenon 17:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Intelligent design (disambiguation)

You removed a lot of the article with the summary "MoSed." What does MoSed mean? Ben 10:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]