User talk:Musical Linguist/Archive09

Archive One Archive Two Archive Three Archive Four Archive Five Archive Six Archive Seven Archive Eight Archive Nine Archive Ten

Restoring my faith in admins

I am often frustrated by admins who choose to ignore the guidelines against using their admin powers in an editing dispute to which they are parties. I just wanted to say I appreciated finding that I'm not the only admin who refuses to do so. Glancing quickly at some of your posts on the talk pages of the users in question, you also seem very good at Wikiquette and staying cool when the editing gets hot. Your tolerance for frustration is a model for the rest of us. And although I imagine that you and I are very different in matters of political and religious beliefs, I'm glad we're working together on this encyclopedia. In summary, you rock. moink 06:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Article

I've added a section to the talk page to see if we can get a consensus on what the second paragraph should say. If enough of us then are satisfied, we can avoid endless debates with proponents of one view or another, revert with a polite reference to the discussion and be done with it. Everyone is invited to come. --CTSWyneken 14:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Message

Hi Ann, hope you're OK! --Sunfazer (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

NO

Please do not revert my edits on pages you nothing about the topic of. While I do vandalize, I occasionally do make good-faith edits, and that was one of them. Leflyman is mad because he's Catholic, and wants to feel special. Al-Kadafi 23:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

What is this - the inquisition? The only reason people agree with each other is that they are sock puppets? Just for the record I wouldn't know Gio/Belinda, Mika or Rob if I fell over them however I am married to TheShriek so we share the same IP address. We both get votes in a general election so why are we inseparable on Wikipedia? He has a much more extreme and less tolerant view on Christianity than I do so we don't always agree at home (he doesn't like the kids singing in the church choir) - therefore we will not always agree here. He doesn't edit much as he owns his own company so works stupidly long hours - it's probably just as well as I think Rob would have found a soul mate - have you never wondered why I understand Rob's POV and can translate it into less aggressive words? If you did then you probably thought we were sockpuppets and were playing "good man bad man" games. Looks like KHM03 earned his "more subtle label". SOPHIA 00:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I know how you feel, Sophia. Im similiarly upset. To me it seems their is an inquisition here against all non-Christians, or rather those who simply are tolerant enough to want to see this article be more NPOV. I resent this whitchhunt that I find very insulting. I aleady know that I've been userChecked, along with all others who dared to deviate from officially sanctioned views; but the check came up clean--that I'm no socketpuppet, yet despite this, at least with me, they keep on trying to make the case. Incredible.MikaM 02:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for checkuser on 208.54.15.129, MikaM, Freethinker99, and Kecik. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Giovanni33/BelindaGong said nothing about being married until he saw the sympathetic response to Sophia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You noticed that, too, huh? KHM03 16:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy Valentines Day!

♥ Happy Valentines Day! ♥ May your days be filled with Wikilove! - Chooserr

Hitler Revert

Why the revert on the Hitler article regarding the Volkswagen? The source I removed is a neo-Nazi site of dubious reliability, whereas the Wistrich source I replaced it with is reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bytwerk (talk • contribs) 02:47, 15 February, 2006

Answered with apology for mistake here. AnnH ^(talk) 10:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Saint Anselm

Time for another look at Talk:Anselm of Canterbury. I think the sticking point will be whether the Boswell-McGuire view of St. Anselm is a fringe view or a mainstream view, i.e. the deduction they make that the friendship language the "old school" historians saw is really a coded homosexual valentine (how appropriate for February 14) patsw 03:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad EU

I thank you, madam, for having corrected grammar upon my 'user-page'. I had not noticed that error in that "user-box."--Anglius 21:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Eulogies in Catholicism

Ann,

I just saw someone make this edit, where he claimed "'Eulogy' has a specific meaning in the RCC, which are not allowed to be given at funerals." I'm curious: what exactly is a "eulogy" according to the Catholic Church? I checked the eulogy article and didn't see anything. (Maybe you'd like to add it. :) )

Anyway, I figured you'd be a good one to ask. :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the fascinating explanation! It's impossible to be both religious and a Wikipedian without constantly running across interesting questions like that. :)

A priest also often tells the congregation that Billy is in heaven now, which is also not supposed to be part of the homily. I presume that Purgatory is not part of your faith, but for Catholics, we are not supposed to take it for granted that anyone other than a martyr or a newly-baptized person goes straight up.

No, we don't believe in Purgatory, but in our faith tradition a common concern expressed is funeral sermons that "preach them into heaven" (both within our church and without); it's not considered wrong to presume someone who was faithful to the Lord and the church was saved (while allowing for the fact that they might have privately been hypocritical), but most of the preachers I know have expressed grave concern about those who will preach as if an unbaptized or unfaithful person was absolutely, definitely saved. So this was a concern that resonated with me.

It's particularly inappropriate if the priest doesn't give a homily and Susie talks about Uncle Billy during what would have been the homily, as then it looks as if Susie is giving the homily, and blurs the distinction between the ordained priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful. (Again, that's a distinction that may not exist in your faith.)

No, but we have the same Bible, which proclaims "do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet," and "Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." May not be politically correct, but my wife and I, and most people in our church take these commands very seriously, so we'd have quite an issue with that, as well. (We wouldn't have a problem with a woman speaking at an event to honor the dead, but couldn't abide a situation where a woman was or was perceived to be preaching. Yes, horribly intolerant fossils are we. Most of Protestantism has left us behind, and we understand there are some within Catholicism who would like to as well, though we are thankful that your leadership does not. I'll probably get shot for saying all this publicly, but thought you might find it interesting.)

My mother has frequently said that when she dies, she wants me to be 100% in charge of organizing the funeral to ensure that there won't be any liturgical abuses.

I know she's grateful to have a trustworthy and religious daughter. :)

Again, thanks for all the information! Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't Feed Them

You must resist engaging Gio on the Christianity page. I don't think he is capable of stopping right now. He will insist on having the last word. Just ignore him at his point unless he is addressing the article specifically. The rest of it has to go to personal discussion pages. Cheers! Storm Rider 09:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Strom, you will see that I have resisted responding and allowed Ann to have the last word. But, Ann, I will tirelessly respond anywhere and everywhere to postings that continue to slander my good name. I will vigorously defend myself from such attacks, mischaraterizations, inuendo, half-truths, or any kind of falsehood that is injurious to my reputation. So, I suggest you limit the scope of the spreading of these negative bad faith speculations, if you do, at least correctly characterize the dispute and the facts, as wall as my Pov on the matter, or else I will insists on my right to respond to the bias with my own comments. If I don't see any further attacks, then that would be great since neigher of us need to waste more time on such things, and I could instead turn my full attention back to the quality of articles. Giovanni33 02:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus

Str1977 has done 4 reverts this morning - including what I consider vandalism - some cite the lack of extant documents not suggest.Should s/he be blocked? I am also concerned that several others are protecting the page from genuine valid verifiable fact and maintaining the article as a POV diocument. Robsteadman 12:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Rob. I haven't looked at Str1977's reverts in detail. One of them seems to be a modification of an earlier edit he made. In any case, I have never blocked anyone, from whatever POV, for slipping into a fourth revert, as such things can happen by accident. Nor have I ever asked another admin to block for such a thing. I only react when people revert over and over again, after being told that they have gone over the three. You'll notice if you look through my contributions that I have on many occasions pointed out politely to my POV opponents that they have made four reverts, but that I don't intend to do anything about it, but would like them to stop. I suggest you follow my example. It makes for a nicer atmosphere. Since I've been at Wikipedia, I have seen more 3RR violations from those who oppose my POV than from those who share it. My record of "clobbering" in all that time consists of one block, one report, and one correction of diffs with additional comments on a report filed by someone else. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 12:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A shame - it might appear a modification but is, in fact, a deliberate vandalism to try to push his/her POV. Robsteadman 12:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Be careful not to use the word vandalism for an edit that you simply disagree with. A lot of people fall into that error with the greatest sincerity, and then find to their cost that they get blocked for reverting it. Anyway, since I have recently started contributing the Jesus article, I won't be blocking you or Str1977 or anyone else for 3RR violations on that page. I don't like doing 3RR blocks anyway. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 12:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Review

AnnH,

I've been working on the oral contraceptive page of late and while being able to just keep myself from violating the 3rvt rule regarding a section I wrote concerning its effect on the unborn. Hippocrite did violate it. No one is looking t the message I wrote on the 3rvt violation page, except Colle who incidently is opposing me in many issues, so I wanted to ask you to review the incident and maybe the article all together. I hope it won't be too much trouble, but I really would appreciate it. Chooserr 01:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

POV warrior

I protest your polite request that User:Chooser be unblocked. In the last few hours he has been involved in edit wars at Abortion (pov nonsense), Jesus (violation of WP:Point), Manual vacuum aspiration, Euripides, Emergency contraception, and Condom. This behaviour should not be promoted, Chooser is wasting the time of many wikipedians in his daily Catholic campaigns.--Colle||Talk-- 03:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not suggest Choosers negative actions are in any way my responsibility. I used the word "vandalism" when I believed that it was appropriate as per wikipedia policy. I was not "uncivil" --see User_talk:Chooserr#POV_nonsense. You are continuously willing to assume good faith on the part of Chooser, please give me the same chance.--Colle||Talk-- 03:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Chooserr

Well, now he says he's quit Wikipedia. If that's the case, then I'm afraid he needed to go. Maybe he'll come back when he's older, and knows how to work with other people who don't share his world view. I'm not willing to unblock him over revert counts or any other kind of failing to see the spirit of the rule for the letters. If he comes back, the 48 hours will have done him good, I'll bet. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Leaving

I did not mean to "kick him after he's gone," only address the serious issue of personal attacks against fellow editors. But you are right of course, if he has given up editing the reminder serves no purpose --I should of thought that through, it must be getting late --Colle||Talk-- 03:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE I have re-added the NPA warning reminder, because Chooser is already back editing.--Colle||Talk-- 02:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please intervene on the Jesus and Talk:Jesus pages. I am sick and tired of the edit war going on. Between User:Robsteadman and several other Wikipedians, no valid, valuable work can be done on that page. Now everyone's making it ad hominem and has turned this into a giant personal battle. I have tried (under Wikipedian Conduct) to get him to leave the war peacefully but he has rejected my efforts.

If there is any official process I can go through beyond just contacting an admin, please let me know. --Avery W. Krouse 16:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sign

Thanks, Ann, for helping me improve my signature. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'd like but I can't see anything but a square - I presume it was a muscial key or a linguistic notation? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't change it back, unless you have something better. It is probably me and my PC's set-ups. I couldn't read the cross-out L in Woityla a while back. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Today, dear Ann, I have logged on from another computer. This gave me the oppurtunity to see for the first time (but hopefully not for the last) your new signature. And I can only say: "Very ... nicely!!" Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

On Rob and RfC

Hey there. Thank you for your prompt reply.

I definitely think there have been more than enough people who have tried very plainly to get Rob to prove his point or back off. I myself made a rather large attempt in a very polite, very rhetorically apt manner to get him to cool it but he brushed it off. I will see what happens on the subpage I made, see if anyone else seems to want to pursue an RfC and go on from there. I do appreciate your help and advice! --Avery W. Krouse 21:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is I am trying to achieve NPOV against a group of protectionists who want to push the "christian" POV. I think John1838 has a point. Robsteadman 07:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:John1838

He's now mentioned me on his userpage. What are my options? KHM03 00:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

EffK's talk page

I appreciate the heads up. No problem. And I like the signature alot! Fits the username quite well. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Elser

Hi Ann, haven't had a chance to chat with you lately. Been very busy with my job, and when I've worked on Wikipedia it seems to be going round and round in Medieval Poland-Lithuania, and the never ending historical conflicts that encompass the regions of Central and Eastern Europe. In any case Str1977 has lived up to his promise of providing some references that I requested regarding Georg Elser. He has also done a very good job in re-doing a lot of the article (I hope Giovanni doesn't spoil the broth, you know too many cooks, ya da yada), so far. I am hoping that you can edit and make sense out of some of the grammatical and syntaxical (?) structure that doesn't read too well in English. In some parts, it's great, in others there is a "Foreigness" that just doesn't make it, to an English speaking reader. I don't know Str1977 as well as you do, and maybe you can make better sense out of some of his remarks. I'm sure you are busy, there is no rush, and no one will accuse you of being a "sock puppet". Ha! When you get around to it, you will be doing English Wikipedia a favor. Hope everything else is well with you. Kind regards, Dr. Dan 02:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Chin up

Non illegitimus carborundum. Jkelly 18:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi again and can you help us a bit?

Can you help a bit in the Opus Dei article? There are some issues in the Opus Dei talk page on Introvigne's affiliation to Opus Dei.

Since it is all about neutrality and affiliation to Opus Dei, it might be best if somebody who has not been so connected with the article on Opus Dei helps in answering the issues raised by these gentlemen. Thanks, Ann. Lafem 05:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No need to act, Ann. The matter has been solved. Lafem 02:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the message, I appreciate it. Not gone, at least not yet. Almost quit last week, and I am re-thinking my involvement. My user page has said "nothing to see here" for several days - I just converted it to white on white. I think it's actually a step forward towards reinstating my user page.

It's strange how things change. When you first popped up last year as, what appeared to me to be a one-issue editor on the Terri Schiavo page, I didn't assume that you would end up as such a valuable member of the community (although I realised pretty quickly that my first impression was wrong, and from the start you were definitely one of the most pleasant and rational people on that page). You had your trial by fire, and emerged shining. I've always felt a little guilty for my first impression. As one of the many people who deeply admire Slim, I am always appreciative of how steadfast you stand with her.

Anyway, hope things are well with you in the real world. I'm off to class in a few minutes. All the best. Guettarda 16:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Francis Ledwidge and sadness

Dear Ann, I was reading our Francis Ledwidge article and, after checking what linked there, I ended up reading your userpage. I wasn't really planning to make any edits today, since I'm not quite in the mood, but I still decided to drop you a line.
Although I don't consider myself a melancholic person, I am feeling somewhat sad and reading some poetry; one of my personal shelters when I'm down. Perhaps you won't mind if I share one of my favorites with you - if I can't cheer myself up, then just maybe sending a tiny gift to a nice person may save my day.

Green ripples singing down the corn,
With blossoms dumb the path I tread,
And in the music of the morn
One with wild roses on her head.
Now, the green ripples turn to gold
And all the paths are loud with rain,
I, with desire, am growing old
And full of winter pain.

I'm sorry Ann, I don't even know why I'm telling you all this. Be happy today - you deserve it. Cheers, Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Thank you for your support. Especially thank you for the encouraging words and kindness which mean much to me.--Dakota ~ ° 00:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job

You are truly doing an excellent job cleaning up the Elser mess. As it stood, it was childish, propagandistic, and unscholarly. It was so poorly transcribed into English, that working on it is almost like translating it from a foreign language. I wish I knew how to give you a barnstar for your efforts. If I did, it would even be a rotating one, (unless you think they are too vulgar). Dr. Dan 03:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ann, for for work over at Georg Elser. Maybe you will even come up with a solution for the "education" issue that doesn't offend Giovanni. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Sending template messages to other users

Ann -- thanks for the tip! Will do. Cheers -Quasipalm 14:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert John Balestrin

I've deleted it as nonsense. Something about an unknown man, whose secret weapon was his glasses, having dabbled in the "green funnies" and developing a hatred of humanity. Perhaps that's what's happening to me. :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

When Rob is Back

Hi, Ann! Just to let you know what I've been telling the usual gang at the Jesus article:

Just a reminder: do not respond to Rob at all if he repeats old arguments or gets abusive. If he changes a consensus paragraph, revert it. Keep track of your reverts and only do it twice. If we can do this, nothing will come of it except frustration for Rob. --CTSWyneken 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk link

Ann, thanks for the talk link fix. I had seen it on my watchlist earlier but busy (work inspection their gone now). It looks much better now.--Dakota ~ ° 23:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

SUBST

I did not know about this, and will try to do it from now on. Thanks for calling it to my attention. -Colin Kimbrell 00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi! Just want to say thank you for the information about "subst'ing". Cheers! Twejoel 18:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

Yes, you're definitely right. Thanks for the info on that. Usually, I do use subst: but that time I forgot. Sometimes (well alot of times. heh.) I make mistakes on here, and I am very grateful when users help me fix these. Thanks!!! VincentGross 20:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There and back again

Hi Ann- thanks for your kind words on my talk page. I can see that the sockpuppet issues were different but at the time this all blew up I seemed to be mentioned whenever duplicitous behaviour was discussed. I'm a fairly straight forward sort of person and found that distressing.

I don't think I'm quite up to the hostile environment that currently exists on the jesus/christianity pages but I am following things. When things calm down hopefully I'll be able to usefully contribute.SOPHIA 21:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of help but since you removed the history of "socks" from TheShriek's page (belated thanks for that) hopefully in time all the rest will be forgotten. Looks like I broke my promise to myself to keep out - it was too painful to just watch. SOPHIA 22:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Fast One being pulled on Jesus talk

Quorum call. Come and vote. --CTSWyneken 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no fast one being pulled. There is an attempt to remove POV working inserted since the Feb 20th "consensus". You were given a chance to name the extant contemporaneous docuemtns that the scholars are ignoring.... and there, of course, were none. Robsteadman 07:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Talk Vote (again)

We're approaching a consensus that I think might stick. Please come and vote. --CTSWyneken 14:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

User:68.122.118.161

This user has clearly identified themselves as User:Pinktulip, so why wait until they do something bad - if that user is banned indefinitely, can't the IP be summarily banned? (Please answer here, not on my talk page - thanks!) — ciphergoth 20:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I did block the IP address for 24 hours, but I never block any IP address indefinitely, for fear of affecting innocent users. AnnH ♫ 20:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

ah, I see - thanks! Maybe put a block notice on the talk or user page to clarify that? Thanks again! — ciphergoth 21:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

R.Koot keeps deleting reference

User:R.Koot in the al-Biruni article deliberately deleted a source, in order to keep his false claims on the ethnicity of the scholar: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Biruni&diff=41605803&oldid=41605688 The source mentions him as an Arab, he deleted it, and kept claiming he's Persian. he keeps reverting and made no attempts to justify his deletions. Isn't this against Wikipedia's NPOV policy? MB 15:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if you didn't remove all instances of the word Persian in the same edit I didn't have to revert that reference as well. And see Talk:Al-Khwarizmi#Persian_again.2C_huh.3F for why Encarta calls him Arab and why that is incorrect. —Ruud 16:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You linked to al-Khwarizmi page, I'm referring to al-Biruni page, in both cases, them being Persian is disputed. Your place of birth doesn't designate your ethnicity. Your insistence to keep inserting them as Persians is affecting the factual accuracy of the article. You're inserting your POV, and sources do not agree on one ethnicity. Deleting my reference in the al-Biruni page is considered vandalism, and including disputed information to spread propaganda is against Wiki's policies, something should be done about this. MB 17:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Talk Runoff Vote

Our hopefully last vote on this paragraph is underway. --CTSWyneken 11:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you run a Sock check on User:Robeaston99 and User:Robsteadman? The contribs from the easton acct seem very peculiar and we've never seen him on the Talk:Jesus page before. I do not wish to suspect anyone of anything, but the voting procedure over there, I fear, has gone very sour. Thanks! --Avery W. Krouse 14:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The last I checked, Musical Linguist does not have the ability to run sockpuppet checks. This is not something granted to every admin. (Although it's possible she has the ability specifically and I'm unaware of it.) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

And, as I do not have or use a sock puppet, will those who are using such accusations, as they did against SOPHIA, be banned? Robsteadman 22:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Expressing suspicion of sockpuppetry is not grounds for banning. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be - particularly when the cabal of editors oin this page pulled the self same stunt against someone else who they disagreed with a few weeks back. This is a repeat just to someone else. They should be banned.As should deskana fro his vandalism of my talk page earlier this week. Robsteadman 22:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:Raisinman

Ann...you have a point. It could be that I'm a bit jumpy after the recent "sockpuppet madness" involving Giovanni33 (not that he was responsible for all of it). I'll ponder what to do and consult with Alienus, who has also been involved with the new user. The likelihood of the user being a sockpuppet is pretty high, I think, but there's little concrete evidence at this point. I'll check back a little later...thanks. KHM03 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

PS - There's also a history with the users in question (User:Kdbuffalo and esp. User:Jason Gastrich) regarding inappropriate behavior, sockpuppetry, and other violations (usually on behalf of their own brands of Christianity), which has made man folks jumpy. KHM03 13:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Q: If Ken (User:Kdbuffalo) has abandoned the "Kdbuffalo" moniker altogether (see the user page & talk page), and has adopted the "Raisinman" persona, is Raisinman still a sockpuppet? I notic ethat at WP:SOCK, it says that, "With few exceptions, users should make all their contributions from a single account." If this is the new identity he proposes to use, that's OK with me (I just wish hed be honest about it and engage the community a bit more). KHM03 21:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)