Misplaced Pages

User talk:Mel Etitis

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 38.112.194.37 (talk) at 02:27, 15 June 2005 (81.91.192.220 vandalism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:27, 15 June 2005 by 38.112.194.37 (talk) (81.91.192.220 vandalism)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Please click here to leave me a new message.
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

Useful links


Censorship info.

Thanks again -- "Refactoring" -- sometimes the most difficult thing about Misplaced Pages is determining what people have named things. Your expertise is appreciated. WBardwin 15:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clearing the air

I'm not sure exactly where we stand with each other, having disagreed on my actions on the Persia article, so I thought I'd just discuss the situation with you and try to clear the air. This was brought about after seeing your comment about me on User talk:SlimVirgin.

I really have no preference regarding the use of BC/AD or BCE/CE, but don't like the arguments for the enforcement of either one. My involvement in the article, as I've tried to explain, was merely about reverting the article to the choice of the original author and thus before the change that sparked the war. I see that as the best solution to an edit dispute – it existed in that state for a long time before someone changed it. I have no problem with it being changed, just that it was clearly an ongoing dispute and the article had to be protected. I was the one trying to help out, re-adding lost changes and trying to initiate talks. Obviously I can understand your view that I was editorially involved, but I don't see it that way – my presence was an attempt at mediation. You may still disagree, and that's fine by me, but I fear that it has discoloured your view of my actions elsewhere. The recent problem with Jtdirl being an example, and your comment to SlimVirgin being another.

Regarding that comment, I have very little to do with AN/3RR. Looking up the page I saw that you had blocked quite a few people and I didn't look any further than that. I assumed, therefore, that you'd done perhaps more than you have. Do please note that my comment wasn't intended as negative about you (in fact, quite the reverse as I didn't really want to see you blocked but saw no way out of it) and I apologise if you took it that way.

Basically, I'm hoping that further meetings between us won't be influenced by differing views on previous topics. violet/riga (t) 17:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Childishness

I have no gripe with you save for your petty attempts to harass other editors. Knock it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Harass other editors" = ask them to provide copyright details for up-loaded images, and remove images from article when they refuse. An interesting definition. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About Pakistani Leaders

Well, I didn´t notice the mistake about their term in office, I will try to fix them in each of one of them Thanks for noticing this. BTW, I was going to ask your opinion about deleting (or mixing it with East Pakistan) the article about East Bengal (province) since the info is practically the same. Thanks Messhermit 20:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Hello once again. This time, I was going to ask your opinion about reorganizing the hole Pakistan article, since in the way that its now, it's realy confusing. I was going to expand the Pakistan article in the Spanish Misplaced Pages, but I found myself completely unable to understand it at various points. I would be really helpfully if we can work to clean it a little bit. Also, there are some articles related to pakistanis leaders (Presidents and Prime Ministers) that have a lot of POV in it. I would try to clean things around, but most likely some of those articles could be deleted. Anyways, thanks for the help with East Bengal. Messhermit 05:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Parenthetical Citation

On Suharto's entry, the bit you listed as "comment out obscurity" was a parenthetical citation of an article ("Tapol Troubles") in a 1999 edition of Inside Indonesia. Please see the "References" section of that page.--Daniel 03:54, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

User Ted Wilkes

User:Ted Wilkes is still accusing me of "vandalism" simply for inserting additional information in some Misplaced Pages articles, which seems to be not in line with this user's personal opinion. He is still accusing me of "deliberate misinformation", "unfounded statements and outright fabrication", "distortions" and even of a "disinformation campaign". See, for instance, Talk:Nick Adams. He also calls me a liar. See Talk:Elvis Presley. As everybody can see, all my additional contributions are verified and supported by several independent sources cited on the discussion pages. In my opinion, it his high time to put this user in his place and tell him that he should stop accusing me of "misinformation" and "outright fabrication" until such times as he actually shows that something I have written is wrong. – 80.141.xxx.xxx

I've contacted him. You have also called him a vandal, and the same strictures apply. Neither of you is vandalising Misplaced Pages, and it's not acceptable to makes such personal attacks in talk pages or edit summaries.
It is a great pity that, instead of presenting facts as I do, User:Ted Wilkes is still continuing to accuse me of "vandalism", "fabrication", "fraud", etc. See Talk:Nick Adams. He calls my contributions to this discussion page "nothing but ramblings and with zero defense of their vandalism and 'fraudulently doctored text'." This is not in order and I really think we must defend against this sort of user who totally, and repeatedly, refuses to follow the netiquette code of conduct and the Misplaced Pages guidelines on at least three discussion pages. Significantly, Ted Wilkes seems to be identical with users NightCrawler and JillandJack who are, or were, under a Misplaced Pages hard ban. See also User:DW.
When signing, by the way, you need to use four tildes, without the "nowiki" tags (those are used in explanations, so that the tildes show up rather than the writer's signature). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for this information. 80.141.195.138 17:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are you constantly re-changing my edits?

Why are you contantly re-changing my edits? Isn't Misplaced Pages supposed to be objective? I'm only attempting to increase this objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IlluSionS667 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removing links to the Nazis, KKKK, etc., from Supremacism articles isn't adding objectivity, it's the usual white supremacist vandalism that we get here occasionally. I don't know who you are, though I expect we'll find out, but you should know that you won't be allowed to get away with it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The links I removed referred to "write nationalist" websites, while they were put in the "white supremacist" section. None applied to the definition of "white supermacist" as defined on WIKIPEDIA. This website makes a clear distinction between the two. How is this vandalism? How is this not adding objectivity? Perhaps rather than deleting the links, you should transfer them. Some of the links (such as Skadi) don't even technically belong in the "write nationalist" section, by the way, but that's acceptable as this applies to forums that do contain "white nationalist" members. IlluSionS667
  • I was told that[REDACTED] is a website where objectivity is treasured. If deleting links that do not apply to the subject those links are supposed to apply to, is regarded as "vandalism", than I seriously question that supposed premise of objectivity IlluSionS667

Thanks

Hallo. I'm watching the new page about Nowy Sacz, right now. I think about Misplaced Pages it's a brillant idea. Good job.

--Rysiekzklanu 19:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)Rysiekzklanu

With regards to the atheism article

Here is my justification on the discussion page of the correction I had made to the article, which you conveniently glossed over while reverting to an old, incorrect edit.

"An illiterate (or biased) contributor misquoted the Larson-Witham 1996 study (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html) as stating that 93% of all natural scientists rejected or disbelieved god, thus attempting to support his opinion that there had been a momentous decline of religious belief in the scientific community between 1914 and 1996. In fact, the linked study clearly states that among randomly selected natural scientists, that percentage has only marginally increased, from 58% to 60.7% in the past century. The 93% number refers to a completely unrelated sample of "leading scientists" of National Academy of Sciences surveyed members, who were questioned by mail in a different study in 1998, and among whom only 50% agreed to answer. Misplaced Pages's relevant entry in "the relationship between religion and science" article also makes a good point wrt this study by stating that "the phrasing of the question could be criticized as presenting an overly narrow definition of God. The survey among NAS scientists was conducted via mail and had a low and perhaps statistically biased return rate of 50%." In any case, regardless of the merits of the 1998 NAS survey, the statement regarding the 1914-1996 studies, as found in the previous version of this article, is clearly fraudulent and I am revising it to reflect the truth. Feel free to reincorporate the 1998 study as you see fit (WITHOUT disguising it as something it is not)."

In response to your reverting to the previous misrepresentation of the survey with nary a rebuttal, I got a bit angry and answered thus..

"MELETITIS, have you been reduced to vandalism? I made a correction to the fraudulent misrepresentation of the 1996 Larson-Witham study while referencing the relevant article, and you responded by reverting to the old fallacious misquote? Are you joking? The study clearly states that, when using the 1914 method of inquiry, the results of the survey were identical in 1996 to those of 1914 (58% vs 60.17%). This is why Misplaced Pages is useless for anything but the most non-controversial matter, in my humble opinion. Kids with too much spare time in their hands will systematically vandalize corrections "just because", without answering to the comments and concerns of those who made them in the first place."

I believe a simple proof-read of the survey in question justifies my corrections. If you want to distort facts in order to support your opinion, feel free to do so, as that seems to be the "beauty" of Misplaced Pages (the one with the most spare time wins?). I have to say, though, I've come to expect more from an editor, and I'd love to be proven wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.70.194.23 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You posted (09:50, 12 Jun 2005) insulting comments on my Talk page that I have removed. Personal insults violate official' Misplaced Pages policy as specified in Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Please refrain from inserting a personal attack. Thank you. Cheers. Ted Wilkes 14:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I asked User:Ted Wilkes to remove all his personal attacks against me from the discussion pages. As a reply, he has written on his Talk page, "I stand by my words that you are a vandal as defined by Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. I made no personal attack on you of any kind..." He even invites me "to immediately take this matter to the administration". I think it's high time to permanently ban this user from the Misplaced Pages community, as he repeatedly called me a liar, constantly accused me of "fraud", "deliberate misinformation", "unfounded statements and outright fabrication", "distortions", a "disinformation campaign" etc. and refuses to discuss the additional information I included on the discussion pages. 80.141.196.241 15:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
May I ask you for comment on this page: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ted Wilkes. Thanks. 80.141.225.96 18:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nathaniel Eaton (quotations)

"Quotations There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.)."

I assume you're saying that Colonial American English words are "non-English" words per se.

Down a bit further ...

"Quotation marks With quotation marks , we split the difference between American and British usage. Though not a rigid rule, we use the "double quotes" for most quotations—they are easier to read on the screen—and use 'single quotes' for "quotations 'within' quotations"

Also ...

You don't like schoolmaster? I think its necessary to understand that there's a difference between a "master" and a "schoolmaster"; some people on the open Internet have been trying to say that Nathaniel Eaton was some sort of "slave master" or something, which is far from true. "Schoolmaster" is just the title the English gave to such "professors".

WB2 06:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some unclosed VfD debates

Hi Mel!

I have found a couple of incomplete VfDs Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Kornica and Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Cardak, both by the same user, and both arguing that they are non-notable villages. I could finish the process and list them, but my guess is that a real place will garner about 20 "keep all real villages" votes. There is absolutely no way I can see these being deleted and from WP:GVFD: "Incomplete nominations may be discarded or ignored." I considered putting {{delete}}-tags on the nominations, but what do you think? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lee Kuan Yew

I would be happy if you can give us a reply concerning the "Harry" in soon, or at least schedule a dateline to affirm User:Huaiwei, User:Khaosworks and me concerning the "Harry" issue. Thanks.

Mr Tan 12:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you please see my message at Talk:Tsushima Islands first?

Mr Tan 12:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted because you reverted too fast; and everything is not ready yet. Please do not counter-revert. Sort out things first. I do not want confusions. Or you are creating trouble out of nothing.

Mr Tan 12:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan and Tsushima Strait

  • I see from Tans talk page that you have had some 'exasperating' clashes with the the gentleman. I wonder if you would be so kind (I'm new to Wikipolitics, only recently making substantial changes) to look in on my TALKS with him on Tsushima Strait and tender me some advice. Here are quick links My talk (Article 11) and His Talk (Article 85). Reverting will probably escallate the situation, so I left that for another. (I don't know how short of a Ctrl-A... Ctrl-V cut and paste, but this has cost (a lot of) time I could have been researching or writing.) Part of me wonders if I should show him a Polack is far more stubborn than an any Chinaman that ever lived, but THAT would be juvenile. He does seem to bring one's blood pressure up - like dealing with my teens! Specific input on: How to Revert, How to Cry Vandal, and How to Ask for intervention, et al would be appreciated. Private comments on email are fine.
    • Just blot this out so it has a short shelf life: 'Glops'... Thanks Frank Fabartus 14:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see you intervened - Thanks, I just now filed a request for protection to go along with the matter I added to the RfC. Another admin suggested a graphic improvement, that can be explored once I get my teens out of bed... I'll sic him on that first thing. Where does one request map support - I need more for the military artys than this idiocy. Thanks again. Fabartus 17:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • Check out the Tsushima Strait article now... and the talk for desert! . At least I learned how to upload pictures... the days not a total waste! Fabartus 22:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, what is the big fuss? I only made two reverts, and explained that bad maps can be misleading. Now you have corrected them, Thanks. But what is the matter? I am satisfied, you are satisfied. Why spur the big fuss?

Mr Tan 13:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan wrote this morning and mentioned that he's only a kid - 14-15 y.o., so I wrote him back, made nice and think I'll suggest he work together on some stuff with my two boys. They both need practice writing. I'm going to offer to send him a CDROM I got a few years ago on Middle School Grammer, which of course my guys are too good to bother with. Could make for an interesting summer! Thanks fer holdin me hand, BUT Take the age thing under advisement! I know it's not fair having to raise someone else's kid, but at least it's out in the open and we can be good citizens of the world village. Should help your blood pressure when dealing with him, at least. Something I saw on JBell's talk (Would really be condescending otherwise) makes me think he knew or suspected the kids age. See the entry about reading this and that English classic. It's huge, you can't miss it. Thanks again - stay in touch. I'm amazed at how many edits I've made in arty-space in two weeks! Fabartus 21:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Almost forgot - what can I do on Tsushima Islands to help? I see the copyedit tag, but there are so many reverts I didn't look hard. How about I suggest my son Jon take a look. He's been a bilophile since about age five, and should be a decent copy editer for overt gaffs and awkward grammer and construction. (Jon's reluctantly agreeing - course YOU may end up arguing with BOTH of them. LOL) Fabartus 21:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3RR/Albert Einstein

Hi - if you're around, could you please jot over to Albert Einstein and WP:AN/3RR? There is a highly disruptive user which has done about half a dozen reverts so far, is way out of line, and no administrators seem to have yet noticed my posts about it to AN. (I chose you because I know you to be a straight arrow fellow, and because it looks like you had done a few very recent edits and might be online) --Fastfission 19:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I was getting a little frustrated there; they had been warned, were clearly being purposely disruptive; etc. etc., but I couldn't seem to get anybody's attention (even though it was clear that some admins had been to the 3RR page after I put up that notion, after it was seconded by another editor). But such is how things are, sometimes! Thank you again. --Fastfission 01:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber

While your status as an Admin is noted, protecting known vandals and persecuting users is highly inappropriate. I and my friends have spent the better part of a day tracking down Yuber's vandalism and serial reversions. We hope this is resolved quickly.

This guy has a serious multi-personality disorder. It's obvious to everyone that he's using multiple proxies to connect and edit. I would recommend that all of his IP's are banned because he's not fooling anybody.Yuber 22:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
He's certainly not foolong me. If I see any more disruptive edits, personal attacks, and vandalism from this person, I'll block the IP addresses concerned. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal and Tsushima Islands

Noo...Sorry, I didn't mean it. It must be an edit conflict that I wasn't aware, looking at the time clash stated.

I need your co-operation--you reverted first, but I counter revert to tell you to tell you to make the mark and stop reverting, so that we can settle down to discuss. But you have an attitude of forcing people to make the mark every time, yet it is your doubts that you want to inquire. To me, that is rude and inappropriate for an admin.

Also, why ask for a revert if you have no questions or doubts on Talk:Tsushima Islands? You say to me that "Your attitude at the moment seems to be that you'll simply make the same wholesale edit repeatedly, changing parts of it once the rel;evant mistakes have been pointed out at least two or three times. That's not a productive, nor a collaborative approach.", but your attitude match the above description stated. All I want is attention, but how come simply cannot get the facts right into one's mind? If you object, say so directly. Don't blast it at other people in anyway you like.

Mr Tan 03:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • He left the above gibberish on my talk too. I thought he might be responding to you! Found out he'd also remove that map from the Battle of Tsushima, which is the horse I rode in on back at the turn of the month. Now we'll do up a map for that too. At least I know how to generate and upload one now - I guess that's a gain for the day! Fabartus 04:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that I generally only understand about a third of what he's saying, and even that third is often only because it's interminably repeated. This is the last week of term, and once it's out of the way I'm going to get the Request for Arbitration sorted out; I'm afraid that it's the only way forward. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll join! I'll join! JMBell° 12:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why didn't you tell me what you do not understand? And also, what is your intention for arbitration? I cannot understand your reverts in the first place--yet you do not want to tell me that where you do not understand. And I am not ready for arbitration---you must get everything right first.

I'm afraid you are making matters bad to worse---You must tell me, no matter how bad it may be, your doubts and grudges. I do not want any reservations concerning this field.

Mr Tan 12:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot

I commented to Yuber that I find the revert war over Enviroknot's userpage to be pretty ridiculous. Sometimes I wish I could just unilaterally protect the page to stop this stupid war, but I know I shouldn't. I think the best course of action would be to definitively link Enviroknot with KaintheScion (I'm actually convinced that they're separate people), or to open a new ArbCom case against Enviroknot. Like I said, the revert war is getting ludicrous. Ingoolemo  06:19, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

My 2c is that they are probably friends, maybe schoolmates. Even so, fighting over the userpage doesn't actually resolve the problems we have with either. Grace Note 23:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islam pages

Mel, this is just to draw your attention to the request for help I've posted at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Trouble on Islam pages. Sockpuppetry, anon IPs, lots of personal attacks. The situation's getting out of hand. Any ideas would be appreciated. SlimVirgin 08:07, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Clive Stafford-Smith

Hi Mel - was just wondering, it seems that you deleted the article on Clive Stafford-Smith a few weeks ago. It looks like it had reasonable content, and I couldn't find any vfd or reason for deletion. Any problems if I restore him? Worldtraveller 12:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Screw that. What could possess anyone to delete that article? Undeleting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't remember deleting it, though it may have been because it was in this state , and I was in too much of a hurry to check the history. Sorry. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No hassle. I only noticed this on your talk page because he's in the news again and WorldTraveller's edit summary consisted of the man's name. Sorry about blowing up like that but this guy is seriously notable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Songtsen Gampo

Hello,

The reason why I moved the article is because of an agreement made with User:Nathan hill on Talk:Tibet. The debate was weather to use the more common method of transliterating Tibetan script to English or using Wylie transliteration. The agreement was that Wylie would not be the default. And since the Wylie spelling is Srong-brtsan sgam-po, that is why I moved the page.

Here is the text from that page:

I am against Nathan's system because he, in an effort to spread his method of spelling has been removing the most common way of transliterating Tibetan into English in various articles. He doesn't even bother to put the most common way in parenthesis. People aren't going to know what the hell he's trying to say because he acts like everyone uses his system of transliteration. I suggest we should use both methods, with the "normal" way as the default and have Wylie in parenthesis. It's not really a debate of which way is "right", it is a matter of using the more common method. As you have probably noticed, Misplaced Pages tends to go with the spelling of things that are more common. The "correct" way to spell Tchaikovsky should be Chaikovsky. We spell it "ch," as in Chekov the author, Chernobyl the nuclear site, Chomsky the linguist, etc. However, people will be confused with that if we change the Tchaikovsky page and start spelling it Chaikovsky. Dbus-gtsang has only 492 Google hits. U-Tsang has 6,280. To everyone: We should try to change as many of Nathan Hill's contributions as we can in which he replaced various spellings with the Wylie system and also the contributions of this IP, which is probably Hill's Please led me know what you all think so we can get started right away. ---User:Hottentot
Certainly the usual English term, where there is one, should be used. I don't have any objection to adding Wylie in parenthesis (though maybe not on all occasions). Mark 02:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I tell you what, henceforth when I write or change an article in Misplaced Pages I will not remove any transliteration that already appear there. However, in new content I will use Wylie because I have no way of knowing how else to spell things. I would like to agree with Xavier and suggest that the Tournadre system be the default 'easy' system when the term in question has not become common enough to have an accepted English transliteration, this would of course require however that others use the Tournadre system and not simply write Tibetan as the spirit moves them. --Nathan hill 15:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
p.s. I still feel a need to emphasize that the Wylie system is in no way 'my' system, and in fact it is used in all English language academic publications about Tibet. --Nathan hill 15:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree — and my orietalist colleague agrees with you too. I find the approach taken by Hottento to be difficult to understand. Shouldn't this be taken up more widely? Switching from Wylie like this will have the effect of downgrading Misplaced Pages in the eyes of those in the know. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot

Why is it useful, Mel? I can see the use if the two voted together but otherwise, I just think it gives people something to concentrate on rather than making an encylopaedia. It's the behaviour that is the problem, not whether one user is two, or two are one. I also think the principles of assuming good faith and allowing users to have their pages the way they want are much more important than facilitating a witchhunt, even when the witches are as unpleasant as Enviroknot and ElKabong. Grace Note 23:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dashes and dates

Can I ask why you changed em-dashes into en-dashes throughout the Lockerbie article? It's normal to use em-dashes as sentence punctuation, and our style manual supports this. If there is a good reason for doing it, would you mind sharing it so that I can change them elsewhere. If not, can I ask you to change them back? Grace Note 23:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you've just posted one reference to one book, which is a manual for typesetting. I should point out that we are not setting type, Mel, and even if we were, it's not particularly common to use en-dashes pace Rees (Americans almost never do, tending to use instead an unspaced em-dash). I work in publishing and I'd say that it's sometimes used, sometimes not (of course, it will depend on the typeface as much as anything else). I gave you our own Manual of Style, which says to use em-dashes (as does our article on the dash). So "unanimous" is not quite right, is it? Grace Note 23:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After a quick jifty online, I found this. I don't keep CMS at home but I think it's clear from this that it doesn't endorse an en-dash as text-breaking punctuation -- it uses them for number ranges and adjectival phrases with open compounds. CMS is the American copyeditor's bible. There isn't really an English equivalent. Hart's Rules for this kind of thing, I suppose. I'll leave it to you to consult yours to see what it has to say. Grace Note 00:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

81.91.192.220 vandalism

The IP (81.91.192.220) is part of the TOR network, acting as an anonymous proxy. Check out http://tor.eff.org/ for more details. The IP I'm posting from is also part of that network. // anonymous :)

User talk:Mel Etitis Add topic