User talk:Musical Linguist/Archive13

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

Picture

Thanks for trying, Ann, but I tried and it didn't work out either, so it's not your or my computer that's causing the problem. Must be something about the picture. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

My "post" to Conrad

Yes, you're right, those spelling mistakes are quite unusual for me - I don't know what came over me. :-) Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to editing the Luther Page

Dear Ann: Good to have you here! Would you check what we say on the Pope, the papacy and the Catholic Church in this essay for NPOV? We've more or less cobbled the page together and need to do a fair bit of work on it. As you may have noticed in your vandal watch of the page, some topics have a way of coming up again and again and taking time away from that.

What I'm hoping for is to have a good balance here. I'm hoping your eyes will help with this.

Thanks!

Bob --CTSWyneken 21:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Cardinal Spellman and Episcopal Succession

Hi Ann,

Thanks for your input on that little dispute over the succession boxes on Cardinal Spellman's article.Seems like I'm the only one who thought that was a good idea.Before Patsw raised an objection, I had placed similar information on the articles for many of the American cardinals.Do you think I should take them down, too, or just leave them be?

--Coemgenus 11:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

English Wiktionary

Hello,

Is the account wikt:User:Musical Linguist your account as well, or has someone "stolen" your name over there?

--Connel MacKenzie 10:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on my RfA!

File:Danavecpurpletiger.jpg

A belated thank you to you for Supporting my RFA! I am still finding my feet as an Administrator, and so far I am enjoying the experience. I am honoured that you felt I was ready to take up this position, and wish to thank you formally! I hope I can live up to your expectations of me. In addition, I feel I owe extra thanks to you, as I have looked up to you as a sort of role model, and I appreciate your support over the whole User:Robsteadman fiasco. Thank you! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 18:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Impersonators

Thanks, Ann, for blocking the latest impersonator.Much appreciated.Timothy Usher 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Sean Black

Admin Sean Black blocked me at the behest of Anonymous editor, both accusing me falsely of violating 3RR, both refusing to provide diffs (they cannot, as they don't exist).Five editors - count 'em - ask him to substantiate his claim, and this[1] is his response.

This strikes me as a clear case of abuse of admin power, and his blanking virtual admission thereof.What can I do about this?Though I'm unblocked now, should there be any future dispute, it will be said, "he's been blocked before for 3RR."In the meantime, it's been made none so subtlely clear that bad things will happen if I'm involved in content disputes with Anonymous editor, who'd threatened me at several points to have me blocked for various unspecified violations.What can I do?Timothy Usher 20:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is the clear place to report this. Lots of admins have this on their watchlist... but be careful not to accuse people without diffs for evidence. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 20:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ann. As I said before, it was the fact that Timothy made several changes as the article was still being discussed with much disagreement and controversy, He first moved the article, and when he couldn't get that, changed all the names. He first continued reverting until the article was protected by admins, and then continued reverting to his arbitrarily changed version only 6 hours later after it was unprotected. Btw, Sean did not say 3rr, that was my mistake, it was continuing edit warring right after protection. But as I said even the 3rr policy says that reverting excessively is wrong especially in the case when disagreement was already found on the talk page. The block should have cooled him off as that's what it's for but apparently he found it necessary to continue reverting every day. I didn't revert him the next day because I was hoping he would continue discussion over the next day but the discussion on the naming didn't continue and more reverts were made by him. That was not the point of unprotection. He's made this a bigger deal then it was, when clearly he was edit warring over a version that was changed arbitrarily with many major changes. He can't change an already controversial article so much with changes that are being discussed and then expect everyone to keep the edits.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sean did indeed say 3RR02:18, 4 May 2006, because he'd made the mistake of taking your word at face value.And that's the reason you gave for the block 12:13, 3 May 2006 before it was made clear to you that you'd miscounted 12:38, 3 May 2006 and rather than admitting this and apologizing, changed the subject, amending your previous comments to add other reasons for the block that hadn't been unambiguously rebutted12:55, 3 May 2006.You and Sean should have just apologized for your error and unblocked me.

As I reverted no more than did you - indeed, you had two more reverts (as my initial edits were not reverts, and counting your latest) it's difficult to see how any observer could conclude that my reverts were "excessive" while yours were not.Similarly, you've two three on Muslim to my one two.

"I didn't revert him the next day because I was hoping he would continue discussion over the next day but the discussion on the naming didn't continue and more reverts were made by him." - Your comment suggests that I reverted from something other than your own wholesale reverts of my changes (including the many uncontroversial ones).How was I making more reverts when you weren't?Explain.

"...and then expect everyone to keep the edits." - By "everyone", you can only mean yourself, as you're the only one who's reverted.Timothy Usher 07:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for forwarding the message

I found that your message had been automatically redirected to a spam trap.I don't understand why.Thank you for forwarding the email.I appreciate it very much.— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting

Ann, thank you! It's 1800 edits. I've restored 600 or so. If you have a quick way to do the rest, please go ahead. In the meantime, I'll check out the AN/I thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for doing that. It was going to be a huge job. I've tried to install the script, but I think I'm doing something wrong. I have to paste it into my monobook, is that right? I did that, but I lost my other tabs (block, block log, and protection), so I reverted myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Ann, I'm totally confused. I see how it works with my watchlist but can't see how it relates to deleting and restoring other pages. But no worries, VofAll has kindly installed his script for me, and I think I just got it to work. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sonnet

Ann, hi.I hadn't thought about Conrad and his rewrite of "Uptown Girl" as "Admin Man" in a while.I had to put a copy of his parody version at BJAODN, because it was just too perfect.The kid's got some kind of potential, though perhaps not as an encyclopedist...

I don't know about the copyright on that sonnet, but it is a nice one.It's good to learn the word "enjambment", as well –I don't like to write a sonnet without two or three of those, and now I know what to call them.

Looking over WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:USER... I realize just how little those two pages address each other.Sorry I'm not more helpful, but I enjoyed the poetry!Wikipedia talk:User page would probably be a good place to ask. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Austen vs. Dickens

I couldn't agree with you more.Persuasion is one of my favorites (though the ending I found disappointing - I suppose she might have changed it again had she the chance?).Dicken's characters are mere puppets for his social commentary - perhaps warranted commentary, but un-novelistic.Timothy Usher 06:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR

There was no revert, however. I had added a name to a list and it was reverted on three occasions. Some time later I hid the entire list for a different reason. Homey 23:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The only way to determine who has the misunderstanding is to look at the edit history:)Homey 00:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - I wasn't as clear as I might have been had I written the comments with the assumption that a reader wasn't familiar with the edits. Please feel free to look at the edits and tell me whether you think the final edit is a 3RR violation. Homey 01:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler

Please stop edit waring and POV pushing. I know its backed by your best friend, fellow conservative Cathoilc, Str1977 But all other editors support the version you removed, which is the more balanced and well sourced version. It is the current consensus version. Please stop removing sourced material, please. We are here not to push a POV but only report who said what. I find it very disturbing that only the Catholic editors are pushing this POV by suppressing the facts of Hitlers religous beliefs, as they are being reported in by scholars in the field. I hope you realize how bad it looks like to others to see this. I understand your POV and bias but lets respect the values and rules of this encyclopedia.MikaM 03:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

May I also ask you to stop using edit summaries as a talk page. You go way beyond explaining your reason for making edits, and ask questions, make complaints, and suggest changes. In short, you treat edit summaries as a place to negotiate changes, and talk to other editors, which is not what edit summaries are intended for. Drogo Underburrow 22:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Charge

User:Musical Linguist Ann, may I remove the sock puppet charge on my personal page, as there is absolutely no evidence I made any edits as another user?Again, an IP check will confirm that I could not have made the edits, I don't know the person, but i know I was at work when those edits were posted, and have no access to wikipedia during that time.Since there is no evidence, may I remove the very insulting sock puppet note?Is this permissable since it was removed from the other users? (by the way, for Mika, it is "Catholic" not Cathoilc, I am a Catholic, which actually is latin for "universal" meaning universal church.I am not sure what "Cathoilc" is, I never knew of such a word) old windy bear 13:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Musical

Thanks for the feedback. Эйрон Кинни (t) 03:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Template

Copy/Pasting Mystic's message:

After some thought I decided to create this smiley template, as I thought most of the arguments in the talk pages are due to misinterpretaion of what is being said, hopefully these smileys will help us (at least me !!) communicate in a much more friendly manner. Hope you all will like it.

• {{smiley|1}} will produce

(Friendly smile)

• {{smiley|2}} will produce

(Confident)

• {{smiley|3}} will produce

(Mocking)

• {{smiley|4}} will produce

(Hysterical)

• {{smiley|5}} will produce

(Hurt)

• {{smiley|6}} will produce

(Very Sorry)

• {{smiley|7}} will produce

(Sleepy)

• {{smiley|8}} will produce

(You are Nive)

• {{smiley|9}} will produce

(I am not happy)

• {{smiley|0}} will produce

(No Comments)

 «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

--Aminz 04:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Cundum

Hey, I mistakenly made the destructive edit to the condom page but I reverted it at the same time as you.Please do not be so harsh on the messages you sent to suspected vandals when you do not know if it is on accident or not.Or was it a canned response from wikipedia? maybe it should be changed to say something like "please preview to make sure you do not destroy something.."

195.93.21.99.

Hi I'm part of Wiki's horror project and am trying to add stuff to discussion pages, but since I'm an AOL user I am blocked due to some vandal (Dickwittington I think the vandal's name is). Could you inform me when the block is lifted please?

It's ok about the block, I'm used to it. All part of the perils of being an AOL user. Today I come across four other IP addresses I've been blocked from also lol.

"monobook"

I too find instructions about "monobook.js" daunting.The bookmark trick is great - thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tawkerbot

That'll teach me for typing too quick and not proof reading. What I meant to say was: the user had received 2 Tawkerbot v-warnings and 4 v-warnings from me and continued on his/her merry way. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Cheers! Anger22 21:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

please

please don't vandalise my page--Ham and jelly butter 00:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the Kind Note

Hello Ann: It was pleasant to log into Wikipedia, and find the banner light up with a message from you. Truth be told, I have mostly disappeared. Wikipedia reached a point where it simply wasn't fun anymore: the stress, amount of work, and other combined factors were collected and outweighed the good. It was also starting to adversely affect other parts of my (real-space) life: schooling, music, etc.

I have often pondered returning to the project. Right now, though, I simply can't dedicate the amount of time and effort that I would like to in order to make a substantial contribution. I'm sure there has been much change here in the past few months, too.

I hope all is well with you, and that Wikipedia is still going strong. Please feel free to email me anytime (I believe you have my address), and thank you for all the kindness that you have shown. Regards, Bratsche^talk 05:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:1147332726

No problem at all.Take care. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 07:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How to link to another entry

Ann:

I created and tested an earlier message to you and it bomed out after testing, so here's another try.

I don't know whether this is the correct forum to ask this question ... but her goes anyway.

On WikiPedia, there are 3 people called John Hartley.I am writing an article which mentions John Hartley poet.How can I write John Hartley or just Hartley and make sure that it links directly to the poet?Another identical scenario:How do I write Akroyd or Edward Akroyd's and be sure that it links correctly to a new entry I've written for Halifax benefactor Edward Akroyd?

If this is the wrong place, please forgive me.

By the way, I'm thoroughly enjoying sharing stuff on my Calderdale Companion website

http://members.aol.com/calderdale/index.html

with WikiPedia.

Best wishes

Malcolm Bull

WHO: definition of abortion

http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/MSM_94_11/MSM_94_11_annexe3.en.html

Healthcare professionals have already defined, what "abortion is". No need to discuss it. You can push your personal POV further in the article, but you will not change the definition - it is not affected by your group-of-20-wikipedians consensus. ackoz 22:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have posted on your talk page regarding this, Ackoz. FYI, your attitude is hostile and not likely to further your case. Your concerns have been noted and are being discussed. Be aware that WHO is highly regarded by us, and will carry considerable weight. Rudeness is not highly regarded by us, and will gain you few friends. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I did not violate the rule. None of my edits were plain reverts as I always changed the intro more. ackoz 23:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

ROHA

ROHA's back. Check the recent history of Pizza Hut and Girls Aloud, plus Bob Dylan. --Whitholm 11:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

my contribution to the christianity page was a fact if christianity is looked upon by an atheist such as myself i therefore fail to see the vandalism

Giovanni33 using Kecik s.puppet to break WP:3RR on Adolf Hitler

1.Kecik21:58, 11 May 2006
2.Giovanni3307:05, 12 May 2006
3.Giovanni33 07:17, 12 May 2006
4.Kecik19:45, 12 May 2006Timothy Usher 19:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Completely false accusation, proven by a user check already. This is nothing but a personal attack (but not sure against me or Kecik)--objectively against both of us! You will notice the rather large time span between my reverts and when Kecik showed up. If it were my sock, why would I not use it when I needed one? Also, if I were being tricky and somehow knew a way to spoof my IP address, then why did the other editor who I didnt want to be known was connected to me, get exposed by a user check--while these proved to show no connection--all at the same time? Logically, I would not use two methods at the same time and if they were all my socks they would have all been discovered at the same time. Clearly this is a different user who does revert to my version (which Im happy about), but a different user it is. I wish this user would do more edits and establish a clear independant editing practice, but I have no connection to him, except to say I like the edits he does do! hehe Giovanni33 03:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured article help

I need some help to get Stoke-on-Trent to featured article status, it's a good article so far but I am going to get it peer reviewed. If you can help me post on my talk page. Thanks! --Sunfazer | Talk 11:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim Murphy

Since I placed the alert on AIV, User:195.93.21.104 has received another test4 for edits to another article, and now has reincluded his edit to Jim Murphy.Assuming good faith as far as possible, even if this was verifiable (which I sincerely doubt myself), this now breaks 3RR. Could you look into this case further? Aquilina 21:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Passed away

Thanks, nice to be appreciated.Only another 500 to go! Rich Farmbrough 09:57 15May 2006 (UTC).

User:Robertsteadman

This is why I didn't want the pages deleted. His contributions include Lady Manners School where the other contributors include User:Robsteadman and Matlock Mercury which is very close to Robsteadman's home world. What should happen now? Frelke 21:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ruth Kelly

Over at Ruth Kelly there is a very interesting discussion which might be of interest. Frelke 21:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

Um, why did you resort to deleting and restoring the page? It seems to have seriously messed things up in my watchlist. Furthermore it seems entirely unnecessary when simply reverting the page would have been fine. Graft 22:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What page? If this is what I think it is, it's because that site contains personal information about people, and it's not right to have information like that around in page histories if the editors that it's about don't want it. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Right, okay, sorry. I'm clearly totally wrong. My sincerest apologies. Graft 04:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Dweek

No, I'm quite aware of the situation, I just decided to go (way) out on a limb and try to assume good faith for the moment. You're probably right, though, the odds of this being some random passerby are fairly slim. I would have removed the diffs myself, but I wasn't positive whether the link was objectionable enough for that kind of thing. However, I'll defer to your judgement for both. :) --InShaneee 00:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

from Sparky

Ann - I didn't know about the stalking. But am very concerned about a POV pro-Christian bias I see. Especially in Jewish topics. - Sparky 04:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking at the updates to that website and I noticed that it no longer contains any person info about editors. So, it should be ok to post the website. Perhaps it can be reviewed by an admin to verify that so no one will get in trouble if they post it now. I find the subject and updates it gives intersting, and I agree about the pro-Christian bias, ofcourse---as I've seen it myself (but I've seen other groups with other bias). Still systematic bias of groups with the same POV dominating an article to push a POV is something that should be talked about provided its done in a civil and without any personal attack, nor against any rules or guildlines. Otherwise, it seems the real purpose is simply to silence debate of the problem, and bury the issue. Can you review the site and see if it is ok, now?Giovanni33 06:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Doubt that would do good. I just linked it originally because of the POV issue not knowing anything of the content. Suspect Ann was frightened by this stalker.- Sparky 06:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Bill of attainder

A couple of months ago, you dealt with OlympiaDiego at the Bill of attainder article.In the last few hours there's been an IP address adding a lot of information to the article, what do you think?Does this resemble the edit pattern of OlympiaDiego that occured back in March?Metros232 04:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. I never got around to thanking you for unblocking my IP yesterday and also for the statement of support on WP:AN. It feels nice to know that there are people like you always around. Thanks once again. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You're great!Appreciate the level headed comments also.Cheers -- Samir धर्म 05:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)