User talk:Musical Linguist/Archive14

Archive One Archive Two Archive Three Archive Four Archive Five Archive Six Archive Seven Archive Eight Archive Nine Archive Ten Archive Eleven Archive Twelve Archive Thirteen Archive Fourteen

Beowulf

Not my intent at all. My internet connection failed as it was loading, I think.

My Talk page

Thanks for removing some vandalism from my talk page! I didn't even realise it until 12 hours later! -- Chris Lester ^talk 08:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Important e-mail

Hi AnnH,

I just sent you an e-mail that requests immediate action. Sorry to have done this. I've posted Tom harrison as well.Timothy Usher 19:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

++++ Thanks! ++++

Thanks for reverting back to the non-vandalized form of the Luther article. I highly suspect somebody was trying to set me up to get me to violate 3RR. We seem to have folks on the Luther article who simply will not tolerate any changes to what *they* think the precise form of the article is. I've compromised any number of ways, but Slim and DoRight seem to have some sort of major axe to grind. So, anyway, thanks for the catch.

Thanks for revert to take care of vandalism

Sorry, new to Wiki. Thanks for reverting the vandalism out of the Martin Luther page. I strongly suspect somebody was trying to set me up to violate 3RR. For whatever reason, "Doright" and "Slim" have what can only be described as an obsession with the Luther page and won't allow any of us to change it significantly beyond the precise form they want to see. I can't believe this isn't some sort of Wiki policy violation. Sure poisons the well though. Anyway, thanks. --Ptmccain 21:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation

Hey,

I recently did a little work on the Confirmation Article however I'm probably not as informed as a should be, so I was wondering if you could give it a once over and maybe help add a "Catholic views" section. As I said before I don't really know what to put that would be exclusive to the Catholic Church, besides possibly the Warrior of Christ bit. Also the article barely touches on the key points (the Holy Spirt, the Seven Gifts, and Sancifying Grace). Any help you might give would be appreciated, Chooserr 07:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

POV'ing

The first quotation, "The National Government regards", supports Giovanni's POV, is 42 words long, and is in a block quotation. The "You see, it's been our misfotune" quotation challenges Giovanni's POV, is 56 words long, and is embedded in the text. Admittedly, it's not as bad as Giovanni's first attempt, which had the twelve-word quotation "I am now as before" in a block quote. At least that was fixed before the article was protected. AnnH ♫ 15:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You wrote this, yes? Um... POV'ing another word for opinion. As you must know, POV'ing (opinion) is not welcome in Wikipedia. That is why there are so many attacks on some eariler disputes I saw you post in that discussion. We only want the facts. The biggest nucklehead arguement in the discussion over there is what constitutes as opinion and what doesn't. Quite honestly, they're not even focusing on the point each of the "big three" in there are trying to get across, and because of their stubbornness, they are not listening to my points I'm trying to get across.

Compared to them, I probably know virtually nothing of Hitler. I'm there for the sake of the article and Wikipedia itself, trying to sort things out with them. What I do know, however, is arguing as a defined art form. Colonel Marksman 17:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ptmccain

Ann, I noticed you post on Ptmccain's talk page that you will consider shortening his block if you see any sign of goodwill from him. I'll respect whatever decision you make, but I'd like to ask you to take the following into account.

He has been causing a lot of disruption for around a month at Martin Luther and On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther). He arrived at the latter by blanking it six times in two days, sometimes moving the material to another article, sometimes removing it entirely. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

He has reverted the intro of Martin Luther about 30 times against six editors, and has committed at least four 3RR violations there, three of which he has been blocked for.

He has responded to criticism by twice vandalizing my user page. [7] [8]

He responded to my request for two citations on Martin Luther [9] by engaging in WP:POINT, asking for a citation for the edit that the primary purpose of an extermination camp is genocide, [10] then went to my user page and added citation requests to articles he saw I had created or edited a lot. He added two to Bernard Williams, a featured article, [11] four to Jeremiah Duggan, including one for the first sentence that Jeremiah was killed when hit by cars on a busy road, [12] a request that is offensive as well as silly, as was his death camp one, and 12 to Animal rights. [13]

He has made serious personal attacks on a number of editors, too many to mention, accusing us of being "obnoxious," "vandals," "duplicitous," "a Jewish cabal," "a gang," "agenda-driven," "obsessed," "shameful," "dishonest," and has started to ask of editors on Talk:Martin Luther that they say what their qualifications are for editing the page. Here are a few diffs witih examples of these comments, and there are plenty more. [14] [15][16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

In short, it's increasingly hard to believe that sustainable reform is likely, although as I said above, I'll respect whatever decision you make about the block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The recent Robertsteadman account...

I wanted to ping you since the answer that Robertsteadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) gave Deskana implies to me that it is Robsteadman. I told Deskana that I'm willing to be the blocker, but since you were the one who discovered the account I thought I would check with you as to your opinion. I feel your wording is leaning towards some kind of block, but figured that I don't have anything to lose by making sure. Cheers. Syrthiss 21:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, thinking about it, there are a few possibilities

1. Imposter, and should thusly be blocked (fairly likely)
2. Indefblocked user evading block, and should thusly be blocked (fairly likely)
3. Isn't actually Robsteadman, amazing coincidence that this user edits same topics and Robsteadman and has a similar name, and should not be blocked (practically impossible)

Since the user Robertsteadman (talk • contribs) wouldn't confirm or deny, I'm confident it is one of the first two scenarios and that we should block. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahem!! I think I was the one who "found" the account. Isn't there some whizzy techie way we can confirm or deny the identities? The evasive answer "confirms" it for me but I am a firm believer in [WP:AGF]]. If it can be "proved" then lets prove it. Is there any way back from being a blocked user? An apology; promise to behave; commitment to avoid specific articles? If so, then why not make the offer to the new account as it is so well operated/behaved? "Do you want to be unblocked? If so then we need X, Y and Z. Can we please have an answer in 24/48/84 hours. Thanks". If thats not possible or feasible, then 2) above fits the bill. Frelke 21:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Deskana, and for the record, I think it's more likely to be an imposter. My view is that Rob would not come back under his user name. Also, while Robertsteadman's reply to Deskana's question was not very cooperative, he didn't splutter that Deskana's question was OUTRAGEOUS. It just doesn't sound like him. I would say 1 is likely, 2 is unlikely, and 3 is practically impossible. If it's not Rob, the account should certainly be blocked because of the name. It could even be a puppet of Bakewell Tart, trying to target Rob. AnnH ♫ 21:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Ann didn't mention who found it. I just assumed it was her from her post on AN. I'm willing to submit them for RFCU if we want to be sure. FWIW, not having been a target of the original Rob I'd be willing to agf with this user if they wished to change their username and continue editing in a positive fashion...but considering how much he was harassing Deskana and others on the talkpages of the articles he was warring on, I'm not sure those effected would be so forgiving. At the moment I have him under a username block, and I'll go post it on RFCU. My apologies to Ann for using her talk page here, perhaps we should continue this back on AN. Syrthiss 21:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed as Robsteadman (I hadn't noticed before but he was signing his posts as "Robsteadman" on the Robert account). [22] Syrthiss 12:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Beowulf

Not my intent at all. My internet connection failed as it was loading, I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.140.202.1 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 18 May 2006.

GraceNote

Hi, I created the archives in good faith, please don't delete other peoples messages. Arniep 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi I still don't think you should have removed my message as I was acting in good faith. He can keep the ones I made if he wishes, but obviously he won't know I made them if you keep deleting the message. Regards Arniep 22:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a look

...at this[23].

No evidence? This is evidence.

On another subject, love these diffs[24], [25].Timothy Usher 08:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Another threat [26] ("similiar to how you've been acting")...and this [27]. This is beyond absurd. Any reasonable person looking at this can see exactly what's going on, yet nothing's been done.Timothy Usher 10:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The only thing this is evidence of is of your own parnoia. And, your right any reasonable person can see exactly what is going on here---you making more accusations based on bad faith assumptions, and one-sided selection of "evidence." Nothing is done because nothing should be done except tell you to stop being uncivil and attacking other editors. I noticed you never answered my logical questions challenging your conspiracy socket-puppet theories. This is evidence that your ostensive beliefs are in bad faith. Just think for a moment: Where were my supposed puppets when I needed them in my conflict on the Christianity page last night? Notice this is not "evidence" that they are NOT my puppets--in your book. You just have to wait for when they support me, hence your selective. Also, if MikaM were my socketpuppet, would I really use it only to go to talk and say, "I agree with Gio" several times, almost in a commical fashion? Use common sense. A user check proved no connection at the same time it proved connection to another account (my wife's), who I clearly did not want to be known was connected to me. Infact, I went out of my way to try to hide it. But a user check revealed the connections. So, if MikaM, or Kecik, were also mine, then why did it show no connection? Why is it that they edit at the same time that I have made edits, proving its not me at different locations? How is it that KH30 was shown to have his own socketpuppets, yet, none have connection to me? If KH30 is me, as you have charged, then, surely if I can hide a connection between me and him, and I equally hide a connection between him and other puppetts that have been proven to be his? I am curious if you could answer these questions. At least if you are sincere, I can see how your mind is working. Otherwise,I think you just have an agenda to discredit me based on the fact that you lose arguments with me on talk pages, so this is just an adhominin attack.Giovanni33 21:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

You seem a reasonable person. Putting Aidan aside for a moment. Surely you don't agree with Kiand's methods. You must be aware of what he does. Wallie 18:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my polite message. I tried to discuss things with you. Wallie 09:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you relaying orders as an Offical, or simply advising me as Musical Linguist? Re sniping: as they would say in Argentina, it takes two to tango. I would never go to "the Management" about him as I am not a snitch. RfCs on people are pointless in my view, as if a person is open to the findings, then they don't need an RfC in the first place. If the people are not open to the findings, then they won't act, and the problem just escalates. Wallie 11:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Heytesbury street

Thanks Ann - not even an O'Connell Street (and I wouldn't weep either), but I felt that there was enough of interest to justify a rewrite and the others more knowledgeable would have lots to add. Dlyons493 Talk 21:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Issues at Christ

First, CrazyInsane unilaterally moved Christ to Christ (title) and edited the redirect to a disambig page. After discussion, he agreed to move the article back, but he did so via cut-and-paste, which at least two editors noted violates the GFDL by separating the article from its edit history. The article was moved again, and, well, we need an admin to sort this out. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 00:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

re anon sock on "policy" proposal

Oops, sorry, should have checked. Note that FloNight didn't notify about those reasons for the revert in the edit summary, which would have warned me.

Anyway, that page being apparently a weirdo magnet, only is a further confirmation of my original assessment: the recommendations for creation of policy not being followed is a recipe for divisiveness.

So, yes, apparently the chances of this "vote" leading to consensus are currently below zero. The chances of it leading to further divisiveness are far bigger. So, I'd support breaking off the vote (that, as said, IMHO should never have started in such early stage of a proposal - the reason of that recommendation being in a guideline is not due to "stupidity" of some wikipedians before you, it probably was put there for a reason, wasn't it?)

Anyway, someone removed the "proposal" template from the page (don't know who, and it wouldn't interest me to know). I'd prefer to give the page a clear qualification. If it's no longer "proposed", well then, it should be withdrawn, e.g. by {{historical}}, or {{rejected}}. There are some other possibilities, but they would probably still be more far-fetched... I already stretched a bit by using the "historical" template instead of plain "rejected". --Francis Schonken 08:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you don't get it, do you? If this is: "Rather, it's to get some indication as to how people feel about the idea.", then, if that is done in a vote format (which, really is the least appropriate format to do that), such vote should *at least* be conforming to Wikipedia:Straw polls, e.g.: "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process." reducing "about a week" to "just a few hours", is part of the recipe for self-destruction that has been applied here. No offense taken, accidents happen.

If it's no longer a proposal, and so merely a vote that got off on the wrong foot (as a recipe for divisiveness), then, indeed, yes, people contributing to the page should be warned about that. At best, their contributions would make no difference (and: a loss of the energy put into them). But in all probability, such contributions rather have a negative effect than "no effect"... people should be warned about that even more. --Francis Schonken 09:20, 21

May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally

I notice that you study music. You might be interested in this. I had an edit war with someone about Dame Elisabeth, who people said was a racist. Being in musical circles, you probably know her quite well. Fortunately, I managed to kill that rubbish. I hate charges of racism. They are very difficult to shift. Also someone else mentioned that she was not welcomed in the US for a number of years. I mentioned that she was more than welcome elsewhere. (Their loss!) Also, I did meet her once and thought she was a beautiful, charming and friendly lady with a nice voice too. Mind you, I was only in the audience when she was singing. Wallie 11:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:64.12.116.13

Unfortunately, it's an AOL proxy, so blocks won't help. I appreciate the effort, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case on Christianity

Hi, I have taken the Christianity case over at the mediation cabal. I am reviewing the case now. -- Joebeone (Talk) 17:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for the Neutral vote. It was done too early by a friend of mine. Now Amorrow's mentioned it. Oh dear! But thanks anyway --Sunfazer | Talk 20:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I am just wondering, who is Amorrow?Giovanni33 05:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at that site again, and there is a new link added that does give out lots of personal information about your and you family. It even has your dad's phone number and address, your public statements, a website for your student reviews, etc. Certainly, you are wide open to say the least. I'll be more careful next time when dealing with that site since apparently its a place where anything goes. I'm guessing you are aware of the link with your personal info on it? Someone must have gone through a lot of effort to compile it all in one place. Scary. Giovanni33 11:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Semiprot Benedict?

Tired of the IP user vandalism. Dominick ^(TALK) 23:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for unblocking me, and I can assure you that it won't happen again. I have my e-mail accounts protected but I never thought someone would use my 'pedia account to do harm. Thanks again, and I want to appologize one more time for letting this happen. Crazynas 16:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a more detailed explanation here. Crazynas 16:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving on...

"Can we move on, please?". I note that Kiand is still patrolling Aidan's page. Or was your comment just targeted at me? If it was, that is not a good way to add to the harmony in this world. Wallie 20:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not have him on my watchlist. I now think you are showing strong bias against me. Wallie 21:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Pinoyboy:-)

I think it is possible that this user confused Wikipedia:Userpage for their userpage. That said, I am not at all sure that this person is an encyclopedia enthusiast. Jkelly 23:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

WPCD

I am conscious that apart from a couple of musical instruments Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download has very little on music but am not the person to add articles. Could you possibly tag {{WPCD}} at the top of the talk pages of important articles on music suitable for school children? Thanks --BozMo talk 09:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Opinion on Quoting a Listserv Archive

Dear Anne: I'd appreciate it if you would take a look at my comments at Talk:Martin Niemöller and tell me if my read of wikipedia policy is correct? I do not engage user Doright because he is constantly abusive. Thanks! --CTSWyneken 19:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm very sorry about the things my friend has posted. I left the room for a minute to get some water and I found him reading the messages you have sent. Once again I am very sorry.

I should have done this a while back

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I award this to Ann for all her hard work clearing up after the Easter problems. Should be a Working Woman's Barnstar of course but there isn't one! Sophia 23:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Ann,

Requested assistance with the confirmation article a while ago, but it's already been taken care of. I'm just leaving this message because I was wondering why you didn't reply, and if I'd upset you someway.

Hope all is well,

Chooserr

Hey,

Glad to hear that you aren't mad at me. I was just wondering because it seem that I offend some people here rather easily - though I am trying to be more civil and edit on less controversial articles (one exception to this is overpopulation which you might want to give a look). Other than that I think I'm staying out of trouble.

Chooserr 06:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"Removed inappropriate vandalism warning"

Thank you. It was obviously bogus, but I still felt uncomfortable touching it. --Calton | Talk 08:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Ann, thank you for reverting my talk page.--Dakota ~ 02:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar for Musical Linguist from Sunfazer

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For dealing with trolls, vandals, and anyone who tries to mess up the spirit of Wikipedia. To one of the best all-round editors.

--Sunfazer |Talk 12:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

GREAT WORK!!!

You were quick and accurate on the draw on shutting down Babelogger. I am impressed. Best, Kukini 16:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Prayers and wikibreak

Thanks, Ann! Wow, you really watch the recent changes. :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Reality check?

Do you have a minute? Can you take a look at my discussions with User:Yskyflyer, User:Travb and User:Malamockq and give me some feedback on whether I am in violation of either WP:DFTT or WP:DICK? I am beginning to suspect it must be one or the other. Jkelly 19:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User page

Looking good.--Shtove 21:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0

Sorry about that. I was investigating one of the anon contributors to Port Arthur massacre and stumbled across the story, which I thought might shed some light on the situation. I don't know either Katefan0 or the supposed journalist - just trying to help out those leaving messages of support. --Surgeonsmate 23:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[Later]Thanks for your assistance, Ann! Sorry for the inconvenience I put you to. --Surgeonsmate 23:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Still some remnants of the personal information

Xsease's contributions still contain a remnant of the personal information, so you may want to delete that from the edit history as well. Thanks for containing the situation! :) Cowman109^Talk 23:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! Happy editing. Cowman109^Talk 23:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Jordanhatch

You blocked this user about 10 days ago, and you said you would consider looking into it for an unblock. Just reminding you, as I've removed the unblock template due to the backlog. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:12 UTC (2006-05-26)

Patrick Holford

Sorry it took me so long to answer but real life (including a concert of Robert Steadman's music) has intruded on my wiki time. I think the problems with Patrick Holfors stem from the fact he is not a dietitian which is a regulated profession in the UK but a nutritionist which anyone can claim to be including me! Have a read of the Guardian article I found as it seems that these "nutritionists" are trying to be food celebs and as they don't follow standard techniques, have qualifications from their own institutes, and justify things with self-selecting dodgy surveys they are bound to be scorned by the establishment.[28] I'm wary of food supplements myself as I feel you should get all your nutrition from your diet but I do take vitamins if life is particularly hectic so I fall between ideological camps on this subject. I also subscribe to the "not too much dairy" group as I've found limiting it keeps my throat clear for playing the flute and singing. Also one of my daughters definitely doesn't tolerate too much wheat (or my dogs for that matter!) but she's not allergic. The main driver for being vegetarian were hormones and antibiotics in meat and the muck in the waters that were being fished as fish concentrate heavy metals in their systems and can't excrete them. At the time organic meat was unavailable but when it turned up in the shops I tried it out on the family and the kids hated it and I couldn't digest it. It does seem to be true that your stomach flora changes depending on your diet and it's difficult to change that. Since the kids are never ill and are very tall for their ages I guess they are eating well enough and don't worry too much about it. They have an amazingly broad diet which I personally think is the key to good nutrition - the standard joke in the family is that when we all went for lunch somewhere when my oldest was about 7 all the other kids were ordering chicken nuggets/sausages etc but she asked for a Greek salad! Anyway - I'll have a read of the talk page of the article and add my 2 pen'th. As for the abortion/breast cancer - I'm not convinced it's proven scientifically and feel the science should lead rather than the politics. I don't like to see old studies with superseded methodology being trotted out just because it suits an interest group - whether I agree with them or not. I'm no longer a member of Greenpeace as I felt they were being driven too much by ideology and getting a bit shoddy on the science backing it. Sophia 16:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Dakota ~ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!