User talk:Mel Etitis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deeptrivia (talk | contribs) at 21:16, 1 March 2006 (→Indian Philosophy Template: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates
Archived talk

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8
Archive 9
Archive 11
Archive 10
Archive 12
Archive 13
Archive 14
Archive 15

Archive 16
Archive 17
Archive 18
Archive 19
Archive 20
Archive 21
Archive 22
Archive 23
Archive 24
Archive 25
Archive 26
Archive 27
Archive 28
Archive 29
Archive 30

Archive 31
Archive 32
Archive 33

Significant milestones
10,000th edit: 25 iv 05

15,000th edit: 12 vi 05
10,000th edit on an article: 17 vii 05
20,000th edit: 27 vii 05
25,000th edit: 31 viii 05
15,000th edit on an article: 8 ix 05
30,000th edit: 29 x 05
20,000th edit on an article: 16 i 06
35,000th edit: 18 ii 06

Admin-related actions
blocks

(last twelve blocks)
page protections & unprotections

Pages I often cite



Trust (album) revert

I'm not sure why you reverted my bots edit there, can you have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Stars_to_text (the link on the bots home page describing the bot's job) Thanks! Tawker 13:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just found your comment on the project page, so far you are the only (admin at least) editor who has started reverting. I figured anyone who needed an explaination would be able to see its talk page, apparently this wasn't the case. I also didn't see any talk page messages so you might assume I was a little confused as to why it was being reverted. I have stopped the job for now, I should point out that aprox of the ratings (the ones in templates have already been converted to text. This request was on Bot requests for the last 13 days, nobody posted any objections there either so still not totally suprised on your "in private" - where would you suggest posting it Tawker 13:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as an attack, I was just a little puzzled as to why you would post on AN without a talk page message first. I'm going to make a post on Village Pump as I believe some have already been changed and we need to reach a decision one way or another. Tawker 14:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I think AN is a good place to post alongside the talk page (I personally don't monitor AN besides the odd vandalism revert, IRC works a lot faster for me. I've posted it on the Village Pump @ [1] if we reach a consensus to keep the star ratings I will start looking at how to replace all of the already replaced text to images. Tawker 15:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One little question, did you use admin revert all or did you do individual reverts. It doesn't appear that anyone put a block on but there were a few subst: edits beforehand and I was wondering if I need to re-do those. Thanks! Tawker 15:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if the consensus is to keep the images in some way shape or form I'll set the bot to revert the edits it made that were not reverted. Tawker 18:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

"Earnt" isn't a word Mel. It's a common spelling mistake. --Ian Pitchford 19:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using a UK dictionary and Wikipedia's list of common spelling mistakes.
It's here Mel: Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings. I've been working through it for some time.

removing content

Dear friend, could you please tell WHEN I have removed content from WikiEn? Give me some examples, please. 83.165.139.109 19:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Your approach with Asian fetish was effective in restoring peace and a measure of sanity to a formerly beleagured article. Thanks. Of course, the troll problem will likely continue ad infinitum. We will all need to keep repeating the mantrum "don't feed the trolls..." Sunray 02:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altporn

Sorry, I'm a newb.. but we used to have a link in Altporn and you deleted it.

It doesn't seem too fair that 2 or 3 sites get the honor of being in the entry.

There are only a handful of these sites, how can I get my site mentioned there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgrant (talk • contribs) 12:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confucianist temples (reprise)

Wow, you go through talk pages like most people go through their underwear!

I was just wondering why you removed the Temple of Literature in Hanoi from the category "Confucianism". The Van Mieu is a classic Confucianist temple, as much as any Confucianist temple in China, including the name Van Mieu/文庙, meaning Temple of Culture/Literature. I notice that the temple in Qufu is also not assigned to Confucianism, although the article on Yushima Seido is, but only because I put it there :) --Ok, I've checked out a Buddhist temple, and it was assigned to the category "Buddhist Temples". Could there be a need to start a new category on "Confucianist temples"?

The reason I am asking is because it seems to me that Confucian temples are a legitimate and important, although overlooked, aspect of Confucianism. In fact, the temples help make it clear in a concrete sense how Confucianism was implemented as a 'state religion', not merely as an abstract set of principles. Bathrobe 12:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you start a new category? (It may be a rather small category, until writing articles about Confucian temples catches on!)

Bathrobe 13:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation in song titles

Hi Mel! I was wondering if you could give me a list of all words that should not be capitalised in song titles, so I know exactly where to move pages for future reference. Thanks in advance! Extraordinary Machine 16:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think I understand it now. In regards to Time after Time (Cyndi Lauper song), are subordinate conjuctions not supposed to be capitalised? Anyway, thanks again. Extraordinary Machine 18:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mel Etitis. Similar to what Extraordinary Machine asked you (concerning "after"), is the word "of" always uncapitalised regardless of the context? You see, I was working on a non-Wikipedia project for a professor and he noted that "of" should have been capitalised. The project was titled "It's of You and I", however, he explained that I was incorrect because of something referred to as "technical terms". I attempted to research the subject but failed to retrieve any documented material. I am currently quite upset and would like to know if you could tell me which version of the word "of" (capitalised or uncapitalised) is correct? —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had pondered the thought myself, but there is nothing special about the title. It simply refers to two people (unoriginally known as "You" and "I"), which, had they possessed names, could have been: "It's of Eternal Equinox and Mel Etitis". Otherwise, I don't believe there is anything within the subject that should allow the use of a capital "o" in "of". —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Thanks for your help, professor. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

Am I wrong about Energy Vamp's?

Has a scientific study proven they can drain people?

132.241.245.49 09:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vamp

"No Psychic Vampire has ever been able to prove their abilities via scientic testing", though better than the earlier version that you tried to insert, is uncited (see WP:CITE). There is no indication that testing has been carried out; if you have information on this (which can be cited), please add it. Of course I think that belief in psychic vampires is on a level with belief in alien abductions, demonic possession, and intelligent design, but we have standards for articles that must be met."

Stop confusing me with your logic! ;)

I may have to call Penn & Teller about this subject. lol

132.241.245.49 09:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation?

Hello Mel.

My post to philosophy talk-pages is start to conversation my thinking-method. I cannot start conversation on it if that document is not allowed to read there?

Presentation of that method must see before anybody cannot thought it.

It is a new philosophy thinking-method to see our nature-world.

But if yours opinion it that it is not allowed, then it is okey for me.

But, but? Still i wonder your opinion?

br.Heikki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heikki (talk • contribs) 12:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image;heitaitee.jpg

Hei.

Smaller one is ok. Others two can delete.

br.Heikki.

sorry. Im a new user.

I think that if i do new wiki-page of that my new thinking method? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heikki (talk • contribs) 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Gingerfield rocks/sockpuppets.

I decided to discuss this matter here, after seeing the last "conversation" between you and Gingerfield rocks.

I can't help but notice how User:Gingerfield rocks still makes exactly the same edits as User:209.172.115.34, uses very similar "arguments", but, and that's the most interesting part, uses a perfectly converse style when replying, e.g. User:209.172.115.34 appears ready willing to discuss , while User:Gingerfield rocks ALWAYS writes in bold, and uses one-sentence replies such as "How the bloody hell am I vandalizing it?" (used at least 3 times), and "I checked X, it is/it's not Y" (X and Y whatever the context might be) and the phrase "How the bloody hell..." has appeared on User_talk:193.164.112.20, a suspected (confirmed?) sockpuppet of Gingerfield rocks. Same arguments as Gingerfield and User:209.172.115.34, in general, but User:209.172.115.34 appears (or tries to appear) more refined than them. Also, the "Check Dragon Saber's ending" argument appears under all three users' "argumentation".

By reading WP:SOCK, this deliberate usage of converse styles is often indicative of sockpuppetry (also notice how those three users never interact between them, despite their common "goals and aspirations"). Well...just wanted to clarify those facts, hope they help grasping the big picture :-/ EpiVictor 17:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MoS

Thanks for the comment. I'm just going out, so I'll check when I get back in. Rich Farmbrough. 18:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28headings%29#Standard_headings_and_ordering (I'm going to be late now!) Rich Farmbrough. 18:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well "Wikipedia's community-editing leads to prompt correction of such oversights." is certainly dubious at best, there are at least 8,600 "External link" sections with more than one link! I'll concentrate on those, and a bunch of other things for now. Rich Farmbrough. 23:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for gatecrashing, I was feeling a bit downtrodden! Rich Farmbrough. 23:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Craig

1. Ok, thank you very much regarding the afd withdrawal for me. I appreciate it. 2. Ok, I accept that Joe Craig is a novelist, in the contemporary publishing sense of novels. I was thinking more from the perspective of literature, which I don't think Joe Craig would fit Bwithh 19:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Leo correction?

Why did you remove my additions to the Ted Leo article? He does appear on that DVD, and that is the correct title. It is available on Amazon.com as well as other places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.239.216.106 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As this IP address has been used only to leave this question, and as a number of different edits on the article have been from various IP adddresses, I can't know which edit you're talking about I'm afraid. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the ones from: 22:10, 17 February 2006 199.43.32.68 (→DVDs/videos), which you removed saying "rm obscure addition (might belong here, but needs explaining, & correct title))". I added the title and description: "-* Burn To Shine 01: Washington DC 01.14.2004 (January 2005), Label:Trixie. Ted plays one song solo, in a house that is burned down after the performance. He is also featured on the DVD cover." to the DVDs/Vidoes section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.138.48.16 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside style (use of his first name, spacing, capitals, etc.), the DVD title looks odd, the fact that he's on the cover is surely irrelevant (if it's his picture) and to be expected (if it's his name).
In fact I've just Googled it, and the title is wrong; it's Burn to Shine 01: Washington DC [2]. If you add it with the correct name, etc., I can tidy up any formatting problems. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wrote the title exactly as it's listed by Amazon. And it is in fact his picture on the cover.

  1. Please "sign" your messages (by using four tildes: ~~~~).
  2. Amazon, like many such sites, have an automated system for taking titles, authors/artists, etc. from their sources, and that often goes wrong (usually because the original source has the information presented non-standardly). It's best to go by the title given on the label's own site here, especially as the date is given in a way that many people (including me) find peculiar. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for trying to contribute positively to a project. 4.239.147.12 10:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zhuangzi

The mediation case on Zhuangzi has been accepted. Please tell me your side of the issue, as objectively as possible, preferrably in a concise format. Thanks, hopefully I can help. Karmafist 12:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George robb

Would you mind contacting the contributor of George robb to see if he wants a copy to keep for himself? It was a pretty long article. Gazpacho 10:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qplaze

Hello Mel, I am new in Wikipedia, so maybe will ask stupid questions:) Could you explain why my article about Qplaze marked as NPOV?

Best regards, Anton — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonAntropov (talk • contribs) 10:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mel, Regarding copyrights for Qplaze article, we have rights for this text and agree to publish it to wikipedia. You could verify this send mail to gik(at)qplaze.com or to admin(at)qplaze.com

Wrong understandig.

Hei, Mel. I understood this forum function wrong. I believe that there can represent new theoryes and ideas also(like GNU-free). Sorry. You can remove my user-log in pages and all other text. Sorry again.--Heikki 13:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Khuê_Văn_Các.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I looked at Image:Khuê Văn Các.jpg and reclassified the image, does that seem ok to you how it is tagged now? Orphanbot isn't actually concerned with orphans at all, it delinks images that have been tagged as not having a source by image tagging people. Kinda a scary name when you look at it that way :) Anyway, I hope that clears it up, if you don't think that new tag is appropriate feel free to change it etc :D - cohesion★talk 07:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I don't run the bot though, that other sub-page is Carnildo who runs it, the system we have for responding to tags the bot sends out is new, previously Carnildo had to do it all. Did it seem smooth to you? I don't know, it's sort of weird bouncing around 3 talk pages, I'm not sure how to make it easier though :\ - cohesion★talk 18:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zartonk Daily Newspaper

As my edit summary said, it doesn't appear to me to need copyediting, the English is perfectly good, and I can't see what can be wikified on it as there is not enough there to need sections. Can you explain what needs doing to the article? Kcordina 09:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement didn't sound rude, but English is my first language, and I work as an legal attorney in that Language, so I think, generally, my command of English is good. Fair point about the dates not being in wiki-format, you are quite right. I still fail to see what the problem is with the previous version, other than, perhaps, the addition of a 'the' prior to name. However, the new version is not clear whether it is the paper or the party that is based in the Lebanon. Kcordina 12:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"(and I'm biting back witty comments about lawyers' English)" - We always know what we mean ;-) Kcordina 13:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Karma

With regard to the Karma article:

You may be right about neutrality. In that case I suggest you remove the copy-edit tag and replace it with a POV tag. My edits merely addressed grammar, spelling, and style, and did not make any attempt to change tone, neutrality, or content. Putting the right tag on the article makes sure it gets flagged for the appropriate kind of editing and also that readers are alerted with regard to neutrality or lack thereof.

I haven't changed the tag myself because I don't like reverting back and forth. If you agree, please put in the switch to the POV tag yourself; if not, don't.

Splitpeasoup 19:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensional Analysis Copyvio

Hello - The recent history of the Dimensional analysis article is this:

  1. Some user named Patdw screwed up everything by moving the entire article to Huntley's Analysis which is just wrong. Also moved the talk page. Then took the contents of a copyrighted article by "Patrick Williford" and inserted it into the Dimensional analysis article. My suspicion is that Patdw and Patrick Williford are the same person, although there is no user page for Patdw.
  2. You added a copyvio tag, and rightly so, given the information at hand.

I am going to restore the Dimensional analysis article to its original state (pre-Patdw), including the talk page. I understand that technically this is bad practice, removing a copyvio tag, but the copyvio will no longer hold. I hope this is ok with you, please let me know if it is not. I will leave a message at Patdw's talk page explaining the situation, and hopefully we can resolve any differences of opinion a bit more slowly. PAR 00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of Confucius

The characters I added to the article("欞星門") were Traditional Chinese characters[3]. And the reason I removed "孔夫子" was that it does not have a simplified form and hence it is redundant to show it twice. It was my bad that I did not explain this in my edit summary. Thanks. 199.111.230.195 05:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a comment/suggestion about Traditional and Simplified characters on the discussion page for Temple of Confucius.

Bathrobe 06:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vesti la giubba [oppure/or] Veste la giubba...

...it depends on the "2d person: you" or the "polite you". Io parlo italiano, anche te? Tanti auguri dal Belgio. Stephan KŒNIG 16:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Aahhhhh, ok: I see: these both titles are as good as each other...Ouk elabon polin alla gar elpis éphè kaka???? Can't write it in real Greek writing: if you could provide me the good Greek characters, I'll be able to write the sentence in good (ancient) Greek. :-) Stephan KŒNIG 19:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am not...

...probably misleaded, sorry :-) Stephan KŒNIG 00:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolution within the form

Perhaps you may vote on this. OR, contains reference to Aristotle. Pavel Vozenilek 01:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could also take look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westology. Neither original, nor research but claims some link to Michel Foucault. Thanks for the participation. Pavel Vozenilek 14:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Adam Pascal

Hello, I know you left this message over six months ago, but I've been dormant since then, and figured I would respond.

What does "originating the role" mean? I take it that he didn't write it, so doesn't it just mean (in plain English) being the first person to play it? If it doesn't just mean that, could what it does mean be explained in the article? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

In theater terms, "originating a role" means being first to play the role. I should have made that clear when I initially made the article - and will do on now. Thank you! Noday16 16:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Bagha Jatin==

Hi! Where is the temp page where the article older version of Bagha Jatin has been copied? I can try to inprove it and then verify from you whether the article is decent enough.I admit the article is purple , even , rosy !! However, it was also full of great information on revolutionaries which is otherwise difficult to gather.Thank you.--Dwaipayanc 19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

again regarding Bagha Jatin

Hi! Basically,the original article was rosy.But the original writer (Dr.Prithwin Mukherjee) is an authority of the subject .You can check out his bibliography at [4] He has some books on the revolutionaries|revolutionaries like Aurobindo Ghosh and Bagha Jatin.Basically he is a senior citizen and not adept at using Wikipedia that needs some technical experience.I just hoped that he himself would try to make the article neutral, helped by minor technical correction by us.Anyway, could you please let me know where is the temp page of the original article situated (I am too not great in the technicalities of Wikipedia :) ). Bye and thank you.--Dwaipayanc 19:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh! that was the original one!! That was awful.I did not see that.Anyway, that can hardly be salvaged. I will try with the form that you reverted i.e. that was present just a few minutes earlier before you reverted it.Bye, and thanks.;) --Dwaipayanc 19:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, that was bad , I mean the temper-show.Anyway, I am still shocked the real original version !! It cannot be maintained.Anyway,lets see what can be done with the penultimate version.--Dwaipayanc 20:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can move the penultimate version to a temp page that would be great.Because the real original version is unworkable.While the just past version (the one that was existent before the last edition by you) can be worked upon.If you can, please do this favor. And please let me know where you are creating this new temp page. Thank a LOT.--Dwaipayanc 20:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Adam Pascal

I understand what you are saying, but I've personally never heard it referred to as anything other than "originating". I edited the page to a more theatrical-correct version.

Yes, it's horribly written

The NoZe Brotherhood. I've tried to clean it up some. No guarantees it wont be reverted back. 68.39.174.238 07:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jami

I notice that you have thoroughly desexualized the article on Jami, one of the greatest defenders and celebrators of male love in Persian poetry, and god knows there has been no dearth of such. May I ask you why you would do such a thing? Haiduc 15:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References on Bagha Jatin

Hi! Thank you for moving the intermediate version to a temp page. I have started working on it.I have collected many references for the claims made in the article and listed the references here. However,i do not know how to associate references with lines in the body of the article.For example, in printed media, we use superscripts in the body of the article and at the end provide references accordingly.How to do same in Wikipedia? I hope to collect more refences so that the allegation of bias against the article can be fought.However,the language of the article needs more work! Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 15:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:JohnDavies

Mel,

Thanks for moving the page about me to a more appropriate place(!) Sorry I got the protocol wrong - I have only made a couple of previous entries to wikipedia. I noticed there was an entry about me when I searched on my name so I thought I would add some detail.

JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDavies (talk • contribs) 16:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry

Hi, I didn't know if you would read my comments over on the other page, but I wanted to let you know that I am sorry for doing that wrong and I did not mean to enter it too many times. I was just trying to take into considerations all the various ways people might write it in and didn't think it would matter because they would not run into it unless they did a specific search on it. Can you please inform me of the proper proceedure for adding the website so it is searchable on wikipedia? Thanks. Nikki

p.s if this is not the right place to put this then please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkicraft (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

autobios...

I will certainly stay and contribute, no problem.

One thing I don't understand - I searched on my name and found several entries inclusing one about me rather than others with the same name. So I added some infomraiton - I didn't think I had *started* the entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDavies (talk • contribs) 16:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

autobios

Ah! I think I see what's going on. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Davies there was a brief mention of me (from whom I don't know). Then *I* indeed created the page you moved. So someone created the disambiguation page mentioning me but there was no separate (individual) page mentioning me(?)

Sorry to take up your time with this - I will shut up now ;-)

When did Craft create the superfluous pages?

I couldn't find the superfluous pages in Nikkicraft's edit history. Do you remember when she created them? -MichaelBluejay

Indian Philosophy Template

I added the categories Indian Philosophy and Philosophy to the Indian Philosophy template, so that articles on which this template is used get added automatically to these categories. Is this not the right way to do it? Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I think it makes perfect sense. Editors can always manually add more appropriate categories. Cheers :) deeptrivia (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Adam Pascal

"Originating a Role" is used in reference to original Broadway cast members all across Wikipedia. Until you change them all, this one stays. Noday16 22:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maitland Jones, Jr.

Dear Mel,

Thank you for editing the Maitland Jones, Jr. page. We was my professor, and he is retiring at the end of this year. My gift to him is this webpage.

I do have a question about content. In his own webpage, he makes a point of recognizing his former students.

http://www.princeton.edu/~mjjr/

Would it be possible to keep this section in the wikipedia article?

Cheers, Stacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smac02155 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mel_Etitis&oldid=41802073"