User talk:Melsaran/Archive Sep 2007

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Why no article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talk • contribs) 14:20, 15 August 2007

Sorry, you shouldn't ask that question to me. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO and [1]. The article is currently protected against recreation. Melsaran 12:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Melsaran, please take this as constructive. It should be re-creation, as recreational use of Encyclopædia Dramatica is still permitted ;). I was going to comment on that Talk page and drifted over here. I noticed that you're a near-native English speaker. You are indeed, and you're English is infinitely better than my Dutch. (And sometimes I don't talk the English too good neither.)

BTW, The question was asked of you or, perhaps, directed to you. (Again, not to be the grammar fascist and all.) — X ile 16:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Talk

Lol, yes, I forgot the hyphen :) oops. Feel free to correct any and all grammar mistakes I make (well, don't edit my comments, but point me to it), it's an old habit of mine as well. Cheers! Melsaran 17:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi Melsaran, I noticed that you have concerns because on six AFD's I failed to add more than a "vote." I hope you would review ALL of my AFD votes to determine if those votes were the norm or the exception. To aid you in doing so, I've copied the past 6 weeks worth onto one document.Balloonman 05:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I will look at that again. Melsaran 10:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I reconsidered my comment, and supported. Good luck with your RfA! Melsaran 12:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Melsaran, I appreciate the reconsideration and the support.Balloonman 12:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the prompt response on your RfA. Kamryn · Talk 12:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I see why you are opposing, and I can fully understand it. Thank you for your comment :-) Melsaran 12:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tom O'Connor

OK, sorry about that. 216.194.3.221 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Heh, I thought you'd appreciate a chance to answer that question, and was asking it myself. Got an edit conflict and you'd asked it to yourself :)

I hope that everything works out with that, I know it can be a pain when an old, stupid mistake won't be left to die. SamBC(talk) 22:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope so too. It was a while ago, and I didn't want people to pile-on oppose for something that's long been solved and forgotten. Thanks for your comment, I really appreciate it :) Melsaran 22:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Spells in Harry potter

It is currently under a deletion review. Therequiembellishere 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Left a comment. Melsaran 23:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Your request for adminship

Hello Melsaran, sorry about your RfA; that was a huge shame. Just so you know, I fixed this for you. I sincerely hope you will run again at some stage. :) Maybe next time I'll co-nominate or something. :) Acalamari 23:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Please try again soon. Politics rule 23:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, too bad. I'm disappointed by the fact that many people judged me only on a particular incident from several months ago that has long been solved and forgotten and not on my general contribution history, but there's nothing I can do about that, I guess. I'll continue contributing to Wikipedia and maybe retry in a few months. Thanks to everyone who supported me. Melsaran 23:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Melsaran. I'm sorry the RFA failed. Whenever you feel like having another shot, give me an email. I will nominate again :) Cheers, and I hope you are not too disheartened. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, really. I'll get over it, don't worry :) I sent you an email. Melsaran 00:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just like to add my own commiserations/disappointment. Trying to stick to policy and a months-old mistake are clearly heinous crimes ;) but I assume you took it in good part, as you withdrew. Keep up the good work anyway! SamBC(talk) 01:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello there

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a community has been started for ya =D. Kwsn(Ni!) 19:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Waah! I was just busy writing it! Now I'll have to merge it :) Melsaran 19:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For helping create Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a community, an incredible essay, I award you the What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar. Happy editing! Boricuaeddie 21:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That made my day. You had your input in the essay as well, so let's continue expanding it together :) Melsaran 21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Diplomatic way to deal with newbie editor

The person who keeps deleting the sourced info on the Live Earth article appears to be a very new editor. Only joined a few hours ago. In just his/her first 90 minutes on Wikipedia he/she has deleted the same content twice. The content is not original research, is well-sourced with 4 reputable sources which describe the lineage of the concerts accurately. How do you suggest we prevent this content being deleted? One does not want to deter a newcomer. But perhaps this person is misunderstanding the way things work in the Wikipedia community. Davidpatrick 23:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I welcomed the editor, and left them a message (see User talk:Lea Faka#Live Earth). I hope they'll understand it and discuss the matter. Melsaran 23:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Very well handled! Davidpatrick 00:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Guitarist

Template:Infobox Guitarist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Kudret abi 06:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC templates

I have no idea why they are in the category for cleanup; if it bothers you, feel free to remove them. >Radiant< 08:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, will do so. Melsaran 09:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hi Melsaran. The other images were not being used in articles, so I didn't feel the need. Neil ム 11:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But I have now restored them. Could I ask why you wanted me to restore those images? Neil ム 11:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I saw that those images weren't restored yet, so I thought that you had overlooked them when your restored the rest of your images. No big deal. Melsaran 11:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really

FYI, there exists no guideline that asserts that discussions may not be closed early. >Radiant< 13:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen one somewhere. Still, I think that discussion is a good thing, and there is absolutely no reason to keep per WP:SNOW when there's substantial debate going on. Let the nomination run its course unless it is totally pointless (in this case, it wasn't). Melsaran 13:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, SNOW tends to be pointless when there is no substantial debate going on. It all depends on the heat-vs-light factor. >Radiant< 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I found it. See here. Melsaran 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: BJAODN

I think so, certainly; while the Committee traditionally avoids ruling on "content", this applies only to things which are related to the content of the encyclopedia, and does not extend to something which is completely divorced from it. Kirill 20:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's agree to differ then and see what the rest of the Committee and involved parties think. Melsaran 20:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

re: Vita Food Products

I was wondering if you could expand more on your decision to reject my post the other day...I feel that I was very objective and followed the same format as other articles on companies... you obviously felt that it was an advertisement and was wondering if you could be a little more helpful and point out what I would need to change and I would be more than glad to change that...as for your comment on the herring maven, you say that it is a foreign word...the word maven is already in wikipedia, sorry but I think that it is ridiculous that you could put this as a sufficient reason. The term herring maven is purely an american phrase that was a derivative of a foreign word. Sorry if this comes off as scathing, but I would just like some more clarification...thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Itsmetonywonder (talk • contribs) 21:03, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not an advertising service, but an encyclopaedia. That is why you need to cite reliable sources in each entry; to establish the notability of the subject, and to verify the facts. Your article merely provided information about Vita Food Products as a company and its various brands, but did not explain why the subject is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Please see the notability guidelines at WP:CORP, and don't hesitate to ask me if you have any more questions! Melsaran 21:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response...can I counter with then asking why Hellman's is in wikipedia then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellmans —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Itsmetonywonder (talk • contribs) 21:12, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

The Hellmans article cites several independent third-party sources. Yes, the sourcing is a little feeble, but the article does assert notability (being a brand of Unilever and all). I'm not an expert on the subject, so I'm not sure on this, maybe this is not notable either, I don't know. Sometimes "other crap exists", and we just haven't deleted it yet. Still, if you can find multiple reliable third-party sources about the Vita Food company, feel free to rewrite the article and cite them :-) Melsaran 21:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: BJAODN

Thank your very much :) To be honest I'm currently on a extended wikibreak (heh, with only limited success as you can see) - my "normal" user is User:CharonX, though if and when I'll return to my normal edit-niveau is another question (being IP has allowed me to cut down on a lot of stress coming from my watchlist and all that; besides, I do spend a bit less time on WP, and more on my diploma-thesis, which in itself is "very good"(tm)) Best Wishes! 84.145.240.58 21:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:This Christmas.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:This Christmas.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone blanked the page and replaced it with a nonsense tracklist, I restored the page, thanks bot :) Melsaran 11:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

re: the RfD for Assburger

Good afternoon, Melsaran. I had to overturn your speedy-deletion of this redirect and re-open the debate. Speedy-deletions may not be used when there has been a prior full discussion which was closed as anything other than "delete". In this case, the page history showed that there was an RfD discussion closed on 2 Feb 07 by JLaTondre as "keep". I believe the debate is on the 23 Jan RfD page. I could not find any evidence of a subsequent RfD or Deletion Review which overturned that decision.

Thanks. Rossami (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry! I had no idea that there was a prior RfD. I thought that "assburger" was an obvious prank on the word "asperger", and could be deleted as pure vandalism. I did not delete the redirect by the way, I merely tagged it. Melsaran 18:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Once the page history was deleted, that would have been a hard detail to catch. Honestly, we're lucky that even the page history had a record of the rfd discussion. Sometimes we're not as good at documenting decisions as we should be. I knew to look mostly because I remembered the debate from the last time. Have a good morning. Rossami (talk)

RfD nomination of Template:Efd-notice

I have nominated Template:Efd-notice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 00:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Efd-top

I have nominated Template:Efd-top (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Efd-bottom

I have nominated Template:Efd-bottom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 00:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Template messages!! My favorite :-p!!! ~ Wikihermit 00:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles

I reverted your change from guideline to policy; please get consensus or other justification before making such a change, especially since this was originally a style guideline and makes little sense as a policy. --Coredesat 01:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no, the change has consensus, because this shouldn't be treated with "the occasional exception", but if you insist on it, I'll discuss it with you. And by the way, I said "feel free to revert and discuss", so I was entirely justified in changing the tag. Melsaran 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 34	20 August 2007	About the Signpost

Bad Jokes, Deletion Nonsense, and an arbitration case	WikiScanner tool creates "minor public relations disasters" for scores of organizations
WikiWorld comic: "Tomcat and Bobcat"	News and notes: Wikimania '08, 200 x 100, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

G'day again!

I see you've had a change of identity! (Thought you could avoid me, did you?)
I received a new joke which immediately made me think of you.
I trust that all is well in your part of the world. (Reply by email if you prefer.)
Best wishes, Pdfpdf 11:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Pdfpdf 14:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't have the time to reply yet. I read the page, brilliant :)

And yes, I changed my name a while ago. Fortunately you could still find me! Melsaran 14:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought you'd like it. I'm glad to hear you did. Pdfpdf 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Goku and DragonBall

I'll admit you're an expert on this, could you see if the new hatnote at that Goku (DBZ) article and see if it is correct? Son Goku (disambiguation) will be moved to Son Goku in accords to a discussion. And recently, DragonBall redirected to Dragon Ball and I changed it to target Freescale DragonBall because I've never seen the Japanese manga/anime series titled DRAGONBALL (well, I could be wrong anyway, albeit google search doesn't help much). What hatnotes need fixing here? Lord Sesshomaru 16:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No idea, I don't know anything about Dragon Ball or animes in general. You will have to discuss it with the other editors of those articles, or perhaps at the talk page of the relevant WikiProject. Melsaran 14:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

On another occurrence, I can't get the Kazuma Yagami redirect to work. How'd you do it for Sakura Haruno (Wandaba Style)? Lord Sesshomaru 19:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Melsaran 19:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How did you obtain those anchors? I'm about to create a Kazuma (Kaze no Stigma) as well so it would be nice to know. Lord Sesshomaru 20:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just place <span id="foobar"></span> at the place in the article you want to redirect to, and then create a redirect with #REDIRECT [[Articlename#foobar]]. Melsaran 20:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

about 3RR

user Vonones who is in a pure anti-turkic personality attack the "turkic history" pages of wikipedia, (see the Huns page), he is an armenian user and hate all the turkish people(he always edit with no written source). he uses 3RR rule throug to his nationalist and racist ideals. how can i stop him? thanks.--hakozen 03:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know this user and am not involved in this dispute. I suggest that you bring it to WP:ANI or WP:WQA. Melsaran 13:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Heya

Caroline Chisholm School - I notice that this was from created from a request at articles for creation... yet there are no sources! I thought that this was a criteria... what happened here? As it is, it's likely to be deleted on AFD almost immediately. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I was really on the fence when I saw that submission at AFC. I did some googling and found several reliable sources (BBC, etc), so I thought that it was worth a try to submit the article and source it later (I tagged it with {{unrefart}} myself). The article did assert notability. Melsaran 20:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Count Dracula

What I said would happen about this article when the hatnotes were removed has happened and neither you or Sessomuru have done anything to prevent it. Colin4C 20:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ehm, what? Melsaran 20:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Chisholm School

Hi, you will wish to know that an article that you created is being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Chisholm School where you may wish to comment. TerriersFan 22:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Uw-unsourced1

Made a partial change back to your change of Template:Uw-unsourced1. If my rationale is not clear please drop me a note. Jeepday (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks kinda redundant to the link to Wikipedia:Citing sources in the second sentence to me. Melsaran 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The link is redundant, but the as you can see from the comment at User_talk:Jeepday#Sources it is taken as less offensive if you don't assume the editor is unaware of policy. I would be open to going to Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace and trying to work out a rewording on {{Uw-unsourced1}}. Do you want to try and reword the whole thing? Jeepday (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Response

I see what you meant. My apologies, it was a misunderstanding. I've now deleted the page.--Jersey Devil 00:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay, no big deal. Note that I didn't comment on the page itself or the MfD debate, I merely saw that it was created by a banned user, so tagged it. Melsaran 00:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Mail

Hey, you have Wikipedia email. Hope this didn't disturb you, and that you have a restful break. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw it and replied, don't worry, Gmail Notifier does its job quite well :) Melsaran 11:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thought so

So bringing up the fact Jimbo made his fortune on porn, and funded Wikipedia through that money, is taboo, even on talk pages? Ah, the joy of freedom of information. --203.70.88.91 13:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fashion icon

Hi! As far as I remember, I have not once reverted or replaced any of his deletions after you told me not to. You see, you told me not to at 12:13 my time (I think that's UTC+1), and the last time I replaced deleted stuff - rather than adding anything new - was 287 minutes earlier, here. Please check things before saying them. 3RR doesn't apply because I have not reverted! Awaiting your reply, Rambutan (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This looks like edit-warring over someone's talk page, even though your edits weren't strictly reverts. Please cut it, this will only aggravate the issue further and won't accomplish anything. I wouldn't want to see you blocked for edit warring again. I recommend that you file a "Wikiquette Alert" instead. Melsaran 14:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe that revert- and edit-warring are one and the same thing, where Alice removes a comment, Bob replaces it, Alice removes it, and it's yet again reinstated by Bob, which prompts Alice to remove it. I didn't do that. They were all different comments, each and every one!--Rambutan (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they were, but that doesn't really matter here. You know that posting those messages will only get him more angry and that they will solve nothing. And you can still be blocked for edit warring when you didn't revert. Please, try dispute resolution instead. Melsaran 14:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette complaint. BTW, it's not edit warring, since it doesn't match my excellently-written explanatory sketch above. I know it'll make her annoyed, yes, but no more annoyed than her attitude makes me. It's not warring of any sort. It's her talkpage and she can do what she wants.--Rambutan (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

So, let's stop annoying each other then, and let's return to editing! Melsaran 14:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Also, by filing the complaint I have to notify her; I did and she deleted it. Would you talk to her, since she presumably has no idea that the Wikiquette complaint exists, since it was unread.--Rambutan (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you have to notify the person you complain about, you notified her, and she reverted it, so you did what you had to do. I'll examine this thing more thoroughly and respond to the WQA. Melsaran 14:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. By the way, I didn't realise you were Salaskan!--Rambutan (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I was already wondering why you were talking to me as if I were a stranger! :) How did you find out it was me? Melsaran 14:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've watchlisted your talkpage, so I saw your edit to your userpage changing your [[m: name.--Rambutan (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Parker

My recent edits to Christopher Parker were referenced, as I included a link at the bottom of the page, and yet you told me it was unreferenced. I notice you also removed the links at the bottom of the page - Willowridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willowridge (talk • contribs) 16:23, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, but an encyclopaedia, and does not report on rumours. The article stated "in November 2004 Parker hit the headlines in the UK because it was revealed he had attempted suicide by slashing his wrists, over rumours (but only rumours, don't draw false conclusions) he was a homosexual". That is an obvious violation of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Unless the subject has confirmed the statements and it appears in reliable third-party sources, we cannot include this in the article. Melsaran 16:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

So even newspapers/tabloids are not considered reliable sources of information, as several mentioned reports of Parker being gay? --Willowridge —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:01, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

"Reports of someone being gay" aren't included in an encyclopaedia. We are not a tabloid. Only when he confirms it himself, we may include it in the article. See WP:BLP. Melsaran 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reliable sources of information are ones that the Wikipedia Authorities deem acceptable. Anything else, regardless what, where, or who, is obviously biased, unreliable, and NPOV.--59.104.92.169 17:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, please do not make baseless accusations. Melsaran 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Citation cleanup

I've recently created a userbox for members of the WikiProject above - hope you like it! Onnaghar ^{tl ! co} 13:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I promptly put in on my userpage. Melsaran 13:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thx for lowercase user template !!

hAl 15:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no problem, I saw you were annoyed by the MediaWiki limitations with regard to capitalisations and I remembered that template from somewhere ;) Melsaran 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Careful

Erm - this sort of thing [2] isn't a great idea btw. Reverting arbitrators on ArbCom pages doesn't tend to go down well. I suspect you didn't realise James_F edits as User:Jdforrester. No harm done but I wouldn't go making a habit of it ;) ... WjBscribe 15:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ehm, yes, I did realise that was James, but you shouldn't edit others' comments at all, even not when you're an arbitrator. Users in good standing and arbitrators can make mistakes as well. Melsaran 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OK - then I think your edit was simply wrong. (1) ArbCom exercise a high degree of ownership over RfArb pages - that's necesssary for the process to work - never revert an Arb's edit to an ArbCom page and (2) friends sometimes correct each other's spelling quite legitimately. Let people object to the editing of their posts themselves - there are some people who I would rather didn't correct my spelling and others I would be very glad if they did - I reserve the right to decide myself who can edit my posts. Please just accept the advice, you aren't going to win friends if you keep doing that sort of thing. WjBscribe 18:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure – I'm not going to start an edit war or anything about this, I just felt that it wasn't right of James to edit the comment. No big deal, as long as FloNight doesn't complain there won't be any problems. Thanks for your comment here, by the way. Melsaran 19:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It has begun

It has begin. I hope you are still in! -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 35	27 August 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Helicopter parent"	News and notes: Court case, BJAODN, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:User-hp-project

You tagged Template:User-hp-project with an rfd tag and a comment of This redirect has been listed on RfD; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 4#Template:User-.. However, you never actually included this redirect in that nomination. Could you please list this if you still feel it should be deleted or remove the tag? Thanks. -- JLaTondre 03:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes – sorry for forgetting to list it! Obviously, it should have been listed as well, I just forgot to do so. I guess this can be deleted as G6 (maintenance), though, because the consensus was to delete all User- redirects. Melsaran 17:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Clactorn expansion 1824

Hi, Sorry for the misleading edit title, I wanted to do this discretely, I had trouble with a user, and decided on a WP:DNFT strategy. I still havent read what was written on my talk page, however, I did read the [3]&[4], I'm very grateful for the diplomatic and statesman like manor you handled the issue, hopefully it will be permanently resolved Elvis Fish 17:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope so too :) Melsaran 17:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

TLA

I happened across this by accident; to date, it's the most amusing thing I've read on WP. I particularly like:

• Very few of the abbreviations described as "three-letter acronyms" are in fact acronyms
• The number of possible three-letter abbreviations using the 26 letters of the alphabet is 26 × 26 × 26 = 17,576. According to the Jargon File, a journalist once asked hacker Paul Boutin what he thought the biggest problem in computing in the 1990s would be. Paul's straight-faced response was, "There are only 17,000 three-letter acronyms."
• In English, WWW is the longest possible TLA to pronounce, requiring nine syllables. The author Douglas Adams remarked "The World Wide Web is the only thing I know of whose shortened form takes three times longer to say than what it's short for."

Cheers, Pdfpdf 14:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice! Quite informative indeed. I didn't know that acronyms were different from abbreviations. Melsaran 15:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Been a while

Don't know what to do about this undid edit. Melsaran/Archive Sep 2007, is it WP:NAMB, WP:RELATED, or is it both that allow me to remove it there? I feel that user needs a warning about undo revisions (one can only undo without an explanation is it were vandalism, in this case, I obviously did not vandalize). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at IPSOS's edits, this person is adding hatnotes in places unnecessarily. Please fix this and let him know of WP:HAT & WP:UNDO. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done Melsaran 22:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying

The broken link on my user page (I was wondering where to find it) and the CSD criterion. Good job! Wikidemo 18:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for copy-editing the CSD page (it's a lot less wordy now). Melsaran 18:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hatnote

I'm sorry, but I disagree. There are several types of magic, and a disambiguation is absolutely necessary. I view your removal as vandalism, and will continue to restore it. Template me all you want. IPSOS (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't use any template. Also, accusing a fellow editor of vandalism is incivil and completely unnecessary. Indeed, there are several types of magic, but someone who looks for Magic (illusion) doesn't need a hatnote pointing them to Magic, because Magic does not redirect there. See WP:NAMB. Melsaran 09:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith 3RR reports

Please don't make bad faith 3RR reports. The first edit you list was not a revert, it was in fact my very first edit to the page. It's not a wise idea to attempt to force your view over a clear consensus against you on the talk page, as it appears you have been doing for some time. IPSOS (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a reversion, you reverted the edit where someone added the section, namely [5]. Partial reverts also count, according to WP:3RR. Melsaran 14:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What, in December 2005? Not gonna fly. IPSOS (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Removals of content are generally reverts. Melsaran 14:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of process to override a clear consensus for change is a much more disruptive violation of policy. IPSOS (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not abusing any process, if there are serious objections to a removal you have to discuss it on the talk page, period. I agreed to a compromise. Melsaran 14:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

For some strange reason, I had a dream that it was going to fail. If it is deleted, have a happy career on Wikipedia, which i will have nothing to do with. --Alien joe 17:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to RfA Question

Hello, just dropping a note to say I've replied to your Question 4. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Responded at the RFA. Melsaran 14:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nederlands

Hi. I changed your edit to this redirect page, and as what you had done was actually correct, I wanted to explain (briefly) why I changed it. It is simply because "Nederlands" seems nearly always on the English Wikipedia to be used as a mistake for Netherlands, rather than in its proper meaning of "Dutch". (I have just gone through and changed all these, so I know this to be so).

I changed the redirect page to reflect this, but am having second thoughts - it makes sense, at least from my point of view, but it is not strictly accurate. So if you want to change it back to what you had, I won't object. I was concerned though to give you an explanation so that you didn't think it was just vandalism on my part. HeartofaDog 00:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, yes. I was surprised to see so many occurrences of "Nederlands" in the meaning of "Netherlands". However, the redirect is still not really correct, because Nederlands can mean a lot of things, but not Netherlands (that's Nederland). Perhaps it would be useful redirect it to Dutch and add something like

"Nederlands" redirects here. For the country, see Netherlands.

at the top, to reduce confusion? Melsaran 14:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:BLP

WP:BLP applies to all pages at Wikipedia. "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page." I asked about this at AN:BLP on an unrelated issue and got this reply, with which I agree. The comments constituted wholly unsupported and defamatory allegations about an editor (whose real name is listed on his user page, by the way). Comments about an editor's on-Wiki conduct are fair game in an RfA. These went far beyond. -- But|seriously|folks  02:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You on IRC

Hi Melsaran. I have noticed that yesterday your IRC client was joining you into #wikipedia-en and then leaving the channel again, and each time showing off your IP address (well, not IP address, but details about your ISP or something), because your IRC nickname is not cloaked. I thought I'd just let you know. If you need some help setting up a cloak, feel free to reply to this message. Sebi _[talk] 05:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the tip! I figured out how to request one, the meta page is quite handy. They say it may take a week to process, though, I hope it'll be fast. Melsaran 14:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, from the depths of my heart, for you great co-nom. I just hope that I can use the administrative tools to everyone's advantage. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, nicely done, you even reached #13 on WP:100! And again sorry I was a bit late :) Melsaran 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

	File:Hersfold.JPG	Thanks...
	Thank you for showing your support for me in my recent RfA. Unfortunately, I was unable to earn the required consensus and did not succeed. I do hope to put in another request in a few months, once I have improved upon the concerns addressed by the rest of the participants. Your expressed trust in me will definitely help me reach that goal. Thank you again, and happy editing! Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

John George Haigh

• Please Melsaran feel free to take the time to read articles before editing. You may find out such fascinating facts as Haigh and John Bodkin Adams did indeed have major similarities: a) they were both serial killers b) they were from the same minority Christian sect, the Plymouth Brethren. Thank you in advance.Malick78 16:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't consider those similarities sufficient for a "see also", as they are not directly related. They can both be listed on the Plymouth Brethren page though. Melsaran 16:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Two serial killers from the same small sect isn't a notable similarity? I presume you are joking. If not, how about it being notable enough to be mentioned in "Stranger in Blood: The case files on Dr John Bodkin Adams", Pamela Cullen, 2007. In fact it covers a couple of pages. Do you assent to its inclusion now?Malick78 21:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Improper modification of post

At the DRV of User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War, you modified my post. Your actions were improper. Please do not modify the posts of others as you did at the DRV of User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What!? That must have been done in error! I never modify others' posts. My sincere apologies. I must have accidentally removed that link when I copypasted it. Again, sorry! Melsaran 19:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, it just seemed targeted. I'm glad to hear it was merely a mistake. No worries! : ) -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry

apparently I'm really not experienced in these kinda pages, took my chances and proved to be unsuccessful. In any case, internet slang does include (at least according to many irc channels' members, me included) YH as a short for Yayhooray.com; and just felt like giving my two cents. If you feel my "contribution" is not right, in any way, please feel free to discard it at will. Sorry again for any inconveniences I may have caused, and promise I won't ever try to add a thing to this site's content/ at least not without previous consent. :(

Just for curiosity's sake, how was I supposed to post the change correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallaathrad (talk • contribs) 06:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's okay! Everyone may make mistakes. Please do not be disappointed, we encourage you to be bold in editing articles. That list tried to maintain high standards of verifiability by adding a source for every entry, and unfortunately, I could not find a source for your addition. Thanks anyway, we appreciate your contributions! Melsaran 14:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

1st thought was, "My god, that was quick!"

But yes. I do a lot of review of disputes and stuff of that nature... arbcom casework, dispute and block reviews, xFD, and so on.

If something has to be done, one does it... but no need to heat up the atmosphere. Articles get deleted, but one can save the markup of an exceptionally good (but inappropriate) article for its creator. And so on.

Nice to meet you anyhow, and catch up another time :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My first thought was: "WHAT!?" when I saw on my watchlist that you added 11121kb to the talk page. Really, we need more people like you who are willing to delve into the complications of issues like this and who can arrive at a constructive solution. I hope Rambutan will do something with the advice you gave him. He is a well-meaning editor, but sometimes he just feels that he is right and others are not and that he has to prove it. Again, thanks, and I hope I'll see you again :) Melsaran 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's IPSOS

He won't stop, the discussion is still occurring in Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Propose removal of WP:NAMB and yet he adds those superfluous disambiuations at Magic (illusion)‎ and Magic (paranormal)‎ before a consensus is reached. In case he reverts all of my edits, including the use of WP:UNDO again without providing an explanation and calls our warnings "trolling", see [6], [7], can you just revert him and then I'll report him at WP:3RR once he breaks that rule? If needed, WP:AN/I should serve also. Any additional thoughts Melsaran/Archive Sep 2007? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'll refrain from removing those hatnotes and engaging in pointless edit wars until we reach a consensus at the WP:HATNOTE talk page. It's not really fair to edit-war 2 vs 1 and then report him for 3RR while we were also edit-warring rather than discussing the matter. Melsaran 20:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So should we allow him to add any dabs he wants for the time being? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, but what will we accomplish by edit-warring? That's not how we resolve editing disputes. Let's just see how the discussion goes. Melsaran 20:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 36	3 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
WikiScanner tool expands, poses public relations problems for Dutch royal family	WikiWorld comic: "George P. Burdell"
News and notes: Fundraiser, Wikimania 2008, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 05:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. Edison 15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible agreement

I let the dabs for IPSOS stay, but were his edits here & here correct? I'm sorry for bothering you with this, just that you once told me disambiguations go above any templates, even maintenance ones. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that, actually. Placing them above the cleanup tags is more consistent, but it looks a little awkward. I always thought that hatnotes go above any template, but upon further review of WP:HATNOTE#Placement, it isn't very clear on this. Take it up on the talk page, I'd say. Melsaran 16:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I assumed any templates also included maintenance ones. I won't push it further. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, here goes!!

23:06, 16 August 2007

Porcupine

Thanks very much for your continued support - you're a great guy!--Rambutan (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Melsaran 17:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Alien joe

You warned IP adress 151.205.246.92 about removing content from my talk page. Don't worry, it was me, but I forgot to log on. Thank you for warning though. --Alien joe 19:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I had no way to tell whether it was you or a vandal/page blanker, so I reverted it just to be sure. Remove the contents (while logged in) if you wish. Melsaran 05:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 37	10 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
An interview with Jimbo Wales	WikiWorld comic: "Godwin's Law"
News and notes: 2,000,000, Finnish ArbCom, statistics, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 20:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		¡Hola! thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, no opposes, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:ITSWELLSOURCED

A redirect you just created is already up for deletion (see discussion). I'm curious to see you opinions on this, given the short amount of time between the creation and deletion. Best regards, - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 02:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooops

Thanks! [8] Thought I'd checked all my links, but no. --barneca (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Your RFA is actually the best self-nom I've seen in a looooong time :) good luck with it! Melsaran 15:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart

I know your work is well-meaning, but please leave the tag in place. This was established with an admin as a means of trying to protect a page that has recently seen a spate of vandalism. FWIW Bzuk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzuk (talk • contribs) 15:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand (and agree with) where Bzuk is coming from but I disagree with him about the tag. If the page is not in truth semi-protected, displaying the tag could do more sundry harm than good. Thanks for noticing the page wasn't protected, I thought it was. All the best. Gwen Gale 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If the article is really vandalised a lot, you can request protection at WP:RFPP. We shouldn't mislead anons by adding a tag that says "this article has been semi-protected" while it actually hasn't. I don't think a vandal will really care; they will just press the edit button and see whether they can edit the page or not. Melsaran 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your take on it. The vandalism tends to come in waves, like when she seasonally comes up in learning modules in sundry English-speaking school systems here and there worldwide. There are quiet spells too. Gwen Gale 15:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Signature

On the signature thing - I do clearly say at the top that all unsigned comments are for the chop...--Rambutan (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this user seemed to have made a typo (only the timestamp appeared), and adding an "{{unsigned}}" template would have been faster than removing the comment. It isn't forbidden to remove unsigned comments, but it isn't really a courteous approach either. Unsigned comments are really annoying, agreed, but removing them altogether isn't the best way to react to them. Melsaran 17:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Issue with Rambutan

What when somebody calls me a dick. Look at my user talk page ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, both of you should really try to resume editing and forget the issue. Baiting each other isn't going to resolve it. I see that you two have discontinued edit warring though, I appreciate that. Melsaran 18:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for intervening. I am 95% civil but when I feel work that I am is doing is important and it goes down the afd route unjustly wihtout the nominator evne willing to discuss it with me it is kind of frustrating. I'm trying to build an encylopedia of the highest depth and quality. Given time ther eis no reason why these shouldn't have fuller articles. I call it planting the seeds for sowing and most have congratulated me for my work on here. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that you're editing in good faith and I appreciate your article work. I understand why you disagreed with Rambutan's AFD nominations, but you should attempt to keep your cool even when you feel annoyed, and this can be pretty difficult. I hope this is resolved now. :-) Melsaran 18:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing RfA questions

I don't think you should have removed these questions without discussing it the editors involved. It is discourteous to both the people who asked the questions and the candidate who took the time to answer. Please consider restoring the questions. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 17:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

These questions were absolutely unacceptable and highly inappropriate to ask on an RFA, and I will continue removing them. RFA is not to determine whether a candidate is a pedophile. Melsaran 18:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Frimley Green F.C.

Ok, it maybe getting a little silly now, but why am I not allowed to add the club badge to the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamgk1 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, that was a mistake. Sorry for reverting your edit. Please be a little more careful in future, though; you may click "show preview" to see what the page will look like. Melsaran 12:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Vinko Mandl

Was I unreasonable in asking him to not remove the auto and coi tags? He appears to be ignoring them. Spryde 12:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not. Apparently the editor didn't understand the COI warning; he seems to have stopped removing the tags from the article, though. Melsaran 12:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not... Spryde 12:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I gave him another warning. Melsaran 12:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Toevoegen van Armada Contect

Beste Melsaran,

Kunnen jullie ons meer uitleg geven waarom de tekst/sources niet geaccepteerd worden van Armada Music. Ik heb deze namelijk zojuist toegevoegd maar de comment wordt geweigerd!

Alvast bedankt,

thijs@armadamusic.nl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.73.160.114 (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, your submission to Wikipedia:Articles for creation didn't include any reliable secondary sources. You will need to add those sources to the article so that we can verify the contents and to establish the notability of the subject. Melsaran 15:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

hi

What was commercial in my screamo edit? can't i put the source link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.29.100 (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I reverted your edits because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a place to post your personal opinion about screamos and to add links to your website. Please be a little more cautious in future. Melsaran 17:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar; it was a pleasant surprise. Cheers! Precious Roy 05:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You deserved it. Keep up the good work at AFC! Melsaran 15:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet

The tubes are being neglected. Nearly every IETF protocol is not under the purview of an WP, and they plainly require some coordination - Most are unsourced messes or simple summaries of RFCs. Would you have any interest in formally joining up to help us coordinate some initial fixes? MrZaius^talk 13:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, yes, that's be a good idea. We have lots of WikiProjects about technology- and internet-related things, but not even a more general WikiProject about the internet itself. This could serve as a parent for WikiProject Internet culture, and as a child for WikiProject Computer networking. Count me in. Melsaran 13:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ass/Arse

Originally posted on User talk:Mike R:

WP:ENGVAR says: If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it (my emphasis). I did provide a clear reason for the edit, so why revert it? Melsaran (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Melsaran, I don't think the reason you gave for changing "ass" to "arse" in Leck mich im Arsch is sufficient grounds for altering the style of English that the article was originally written in. Your selective quote from the MoS omitted the important clause "...on the basis of strong national ties to the topic". I don't believe that your stated reason of "avoiding ambiguity" is what the MoS meant by "reasons for changing it". Would you change "tire" to "tyre" in an article because "tire outside of America means 'to become fatigued', but a tyre is a tyre everywhere"? Mike R 14:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

One shouldn't arbitrarily change from one spelling to another simply because one prefers a certain spelling. However, in this case there were solid grounds for changing it, because "ass" is ambigious and "arse" isn't. Could you tell me what's the benefit of using "ass" instead of "arse"? Melsaran 14:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason for retaining "ass" rather than "arse" is that the article was originally written in American English. I know you have your opinion on the matter, but I think you'll find that any attempts to change the style of English used in an article will be reverted by various established Wikipedians, unless done for a reason allowed for by the Manual of Style. That "ass" has other meanings and "arse" does not is not one such reason. Mike R 21:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that the article was originally written in American English, and there is no point in changing it without a reason. However, "ass" is ambigious, and "arse" isn't, so why would you prefer "ass"? I don't get it. Melsaran 22:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Falsely sourced?

You removed an entry from List of Internet slang phrases (which by the way is 50% balony / original creations) that has a reference right here: http://acronymattic.com/results.aspx?q=tokbrofl

Other slang phrases on the list either have a false source or were made up on-the-fly. 72.188.221.142 15:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It cited The Acronym Finder as a source, while it is actually included in The Acronym Attic (which is linked to from The Acronym Finder). All submissions to The Acronym Finder are reviewed, and as such it is a fairly reliable source, but anyone can submit to The Acronym Attic and the submissions there are not reviewed[9], as such, it is not a reliable source (just like Urban Dictionary). Melsaran 15:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and Bash.org reviews all submissions it receives. The credibility of a website is not directly related to the fact that it may or may not review its content. I am curious as to who decides what is a reliable source? Is it one of those "concensus by the few" situations as well?72.188.221.142 15:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the list contains a lot of original research and that it ought to be pruned sometime, but the user in question cited The Acronym Finder as a source, while it wasn't the actual source. User-created databases with no oversight are by definition unreliable; please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for our policies on this. For the record, we decide what a "reliable source" is by discussing it at the talk page or WP:RSN and gaining a consensus. Melsaran 16:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What about this policy that is not being enforced? All other policies that concern an article in question become irrelevant if the article itself goes against an established policy. 72.188.221.142 16:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy relates to verifiability; however, if you feel that the list is inappropriate for Wikipedia, feel free to nominate it for deletion (be aware that it has twice been nominated for the same reason, though[10][11]). Melsaran 16:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

They are always going to fight tooth and nail to have their articles survive through the test of time, and shrug off any, obviously feeble, attempts in vain to have their articles properly removed. An administrator (above the age of 12) should simply delete the article on the grounds that it goes against this website's very policies. How is that an unreasonable conclusion? 72.188.221.142 17:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If you claim that it goes against the website's policies, then try to convince others that it does. If there is no Wikipedia:Consensus to delete the article, we can't have one administrator unilaterally decide to delete it anyway. Melsaran 17:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There is precedent of Wikipedia administrators removing content, even against the consensus... 72.188.221.142 17:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

trivia

compelling? perhaps not. it does, however convey exasperation over having the template text change every other day, without improvement. it was indeed fine the way it was, in that wp:trivia as referred to in the template, encompasses most contingencies and uses quite well. --emerson7 | Talk 16:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the "template text changes every other day" isn't sufficient reason to revert a valid change to the template. Please tell me how "trivia sections are discouraged" (trivia means matters or things that are very unimportant and is a subjective word) is a better wording than "poorly organised and lack context" (which is accurate, because that's exactly what's wrong with trivia sections and because it explains what must be done with them in a concise manner). Melsaran 16:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

again, it was fine the way it was is valid. although i suppose i could have stated it: your edits didn't make it better, and your argument is weak. but i thought the former was much more diplomatic. the template is merely a means for tagging the offence. the policy as stated in wp:trivia spells it out. --emerson7 | Talk 17:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So I have to wonder... Why was it "fine the way it was", why didn't my edits make it better and why is my argument "weak"? Melsaran 17:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

your version:

previous to your version:

your version stresses organisation and context without specifically addressing the problem of 'trivia sections' leaving one to think that perhaps a simple sprucing up might fix the problem. your argument over the ambiguity of definition of trivia doesn't take into account that the term is defined by policy in any number of mos guides on the subject. in my opinion, the version you support is far more ambiguous. --emerson7 | Talk 18:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Tibet

Wondering why Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture is still at the afd clinic? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea – I'd say be bold, ignore all rules and close it yourself (the article doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted). Or ask Rambutan nicely to withdraw the nom. Melsaran 19:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

I was going to finish up the rest of the things I had to do (which I just did) when I noticed that you added the entry to Template:ArbComOpenTasks. Thanks! - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

{{Talkback}}

Sorry for seeming a bit WP:OWNish, but it just looked bad. Have a look now... I think you'll like it. Misschien ok iets voor NL? — Edokter • Talk • 21:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The current version is perfect, the image is better than the previous one, actually. (See the interwikis ;-)) Melsaran 21:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Races and Breast sizes

Hello :) Is it any chance for you to explain the Human race towards the size of the breasts, thanks Nick10000 10:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ehm, what? Melsaran 10:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Shakespear metal

Fair enough - pages like that are a little frustrating, though, as one knows they should go, but they don't fit neatly into any particularly category of speedy. I think a lot of editors would whack it with a nonsense tag, and pray for a liberal attitude to be taken to the interpretation of "patent nonsense"! Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 14:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it is pretty annoying that many of these made up articles can't be speedily deleted. Frequently, someone quickly nominates it for AFD, and an admin passes by, ignores all rules and deletes the article anyway. Melsaran 14:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedie

Hello, I see you put a speedie on http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=North_point_high&action=history, but I found a website and although the current article stuff is bad, it is a school, and I thought all schools are notable? (Note; i'm new to this) Phgao 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the website; http://www.ccboe.com/northpoint/ Phgao 15:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It was speedily deleted before, see [12], and schools are eligible for A7, as extensively discussed at WT:CSD. If you would remove the nonsense/vanity from this article, it would say "North Point High is a school in Waldorf, MD", which does not assert its notability. Melsaran 15:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes ok, I see! Then I will readd the tag. Thanks! Phgao 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Advertisement

No, fair enough. The templates you added should be more helpful to whoever is interested in the page. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fag Bangle

In what way does it differ from the term Fag hag which has an article? Its a term that is used in popular culture and used on both shows that have been mentioned. It is also written about in the press. see [13] I realise it may not be your perticular cup of tea but i feel that it should be included. it is a new article which i created so that others could edit and add to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fagbangle (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I nominated your article for deletion because I don't think that the cultural significance of the term is big enough to warrant a separate encyclopedia article. It arguably couldn't be expanded much beyond a dictionary definition. Also, there were no reliable sources presented in the article that established the notability of the subject, and I couldn't find any of them on Google. Please read WP:NEO and consider whether this is really worth an article. Cheers, Melsaran 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Your question to me

I've replied on my talk page. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Escondido high school

Noticed your report at WP:AIV. For the record, high schools are generally considered notable for our purposes, and generally not appropriate for speedy deletion. - Philippe | Talk 22:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur, educational institutes are considered inherently notable. I should be grateful if you would remove the warnings from User talk:Lynn0218, as the report has been removed from AIV. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 22:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My report wasn't about the creation of the page, but about the removal of the speedy deletion tags. Seeing as he created the page, he was not allowed to remove the tag (as I pointed out on his talk page). Note that schools are not considered inherently notable, it was proposed on WT:CSD to exclude schools from A7 but it was rejected. Melsaran 22:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not willing to block someone for removing a tag that was inappropriate. Sure, I'd rather they had taken another route, but... - Philippe | Talk 23:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But could you please point out how this article asserted notability? It was extensively discussed that high schools are eligible for speedy deletion under A7. Melsaran 23:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeshu and Yeshua (name)

Are these two dabs really needed per WP:HATNOTES? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The one at Yeshu looks fine, could perhaps be improved by using {{distinguish}}. I'm not so sure about the one at Yeshua (name), it looks a bit excessive to me but I don't know anything about Judaism/Christianity, so it could be appropriate. Melsaran 07:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And this will be brief, is the Makaveli hatnote reference at Tupac Shakur useful BTW? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is useful; Machiavelli (disambiguation) lists things and people named "Machiavelli", and there is (afaik) no other person (nick)named Makaveli. Melsaran 07:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:Esperanza

Thank you for informing me about this. I have changed the short-cut. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I forgot all about the barnstar you gave me, so here is a belated thank you. — Edokter • Talk • 16:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Melsaran/People who should be admins

I was hoping I'd be on here :P Just out of interest, does the list display your personal opinion (ie. you support these people), or is it more of a global "they've done the work, they deserve the tools" thing? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Both, probably. I feel that the current standards for RFA are way too high and I decided to make a short list of people I might (co-)nominate in future. Obviously, there are only users on it who I'd support, but it's mostly just a list of some experienced editors who aren't admins yet but definitely deserve to be :) Melsaran 23:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

/me removed self. H₂O 23:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

*sniff* Melsaran 23:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

:( RfA is just too brutal. H₂O 23:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OK Melsaran, thanks for answering that. I was curious because there were some people on there who, despite experience and whatnot, I just wouldn't support at the moment. But things change, as we all know. By the way, I added you to the list :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi, all the articles I nominated or prodded had been {{unreferenced}} tagged for over 15 months.--Rambutan (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not a reason for deletion per se. For instance, the article on the historical British party was obviously about a notable subject, there is absolutely no question to that, and it was well-written, it just didn't cite its sources. Yes, references are important, but it's not true that all articles that don't cite any references are by definition OR and need to be deleted. Melsaran 19:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Regarding this comment of yours at RfA, in what way is it being "blown out of proportion"? --Agüeybaná 20:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the candidate was a civil and experienced editor, who had one minor incident two months ago. Many people were opposing over that single incident, while he didn't make any actual personal attacks during that incident, he just lost his cool for a second and made one slightly unconstructive remark during Boricuaeddie's RFA, that's it. I don't feel that the candidate is unsuitable as an administrator because of that one comment, hence my assertion that it is "blown out of proportion". Melsaran 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if he did it once, he can certainly do it again. I'm just saying that he should wait some more time and solve more conflicts to demonstrate that the incident won't be repeated. --Agüeybaná 20:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, what did he say exactly? "I do not believe this user has the emotional stability to be an admin", and "I want nothing further to do with you". That's not a nice thing to say, yes, but it's not a personal attack either. I don't feel it is so troubling that I would oppose his RFA for it. Melsaran 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you read my comments? He said far worser things; things I would classify as racism, although I'm sure he didn't mean them that way. --Agüeybaná 20:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read his emails, so I cannot judge by that. I'm judging only by what I've seen from him on wiki. Melsaran 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 38	17 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon	WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Block template

I was about to leave {{UsernameHardBlocked}} on User talk:Ihatethatbitch, whom I had just blocked and I was edit conflicted by you adding the same template. It was only a few moments earlier that I had issued the block. In the future, it's best to let the blocking admin leave the template, so there is no confusion about who issued the block. Thanks. Leebo ^T/C 14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I thought you forgot to add the template to his talk page so I did it for you :) although it may have been better to wait a few minutes. Sorry! Melsaran 14:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiclub

Hey. Regarding this discussion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiclub, I gave it some thought throughout work today. I still believe I wasn't completely wrong in the assertion of WP:CSD#G1, but I admit I may have gotten carried away, especially given the kind response you gave me. I just want to clarify views here, instead of in an XFD discussion page. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 00:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Your reasoning is much better than mine, assuming its vagueness. I've modified my argument based on that.

I'm using the moment to ask you to look at this: User:Mtmelendez/Wikipedia CNRs. Tell me what you think of it and what we should do, if anything. Thanks. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 15:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Responded at the MFD. And for the CNR page; there's a better alternative. See User:Interiot/Reports/cross-namespace redirects. It lists every single one of them (well, as of April 2007, so there may be some newly created CNRs that are not included in the list). I think it would be better to work from there :) Melsaran 15:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I can only question its reliability, since it's been almost 6 months since the last update, and User:Interiot has been missing lately. But I agree it's a much more complete list. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 15:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"The attack site"

I asked the same question (look at my contribs), it was answered and then I blanked the section. Still in da history though. Milto LOL pia 16:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Melsaran 14:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)