User talk:Musical Linguist/Archive02

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

Signature
To put the superscript on the word "(talk)" only, move the first "sup" tag along until it's right before the parenthesis in "(talk)". I fiddled with my signature to demonstrate roughly how it looks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I hope you're no longer having serious trouble. Please contact me again if I can help. I must confess I have had my eye on (too many) other things since we last chatted. --Tony Sidaway Talk 13:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Insults, etc.
Ann, inviting you to contribute to this discussion of insults, etc. of public figures in the Village Pump patsw 01:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for catching my grammatical faux pases
Thanks for catching my minor errors, in which I didn't notice that the word "Schindler" was really a proper noun, a plural one, but not possesive. I must have been careless. Thx again.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

no surprise
I think there were several hours up to the RFC being deleted that I was out dealing with the real world, so I didn't see a lot of stuff that got put in there, I'm sure. (An annoyance that deleting teh RFC removes the entire history for teh page, but oh well). In any event, I would not be surprised to hear you supported me. You always try to be fair, to do the right thing, and to make a good article for wikipedia. Despite completely different points of view, we at least have that in common. I thank you for your vote/support. FuelWagon 23:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Feedback needed. I'm asking for a vote on "euthanasia" claims
Ann, I counted Pat's vote as "1/2" a vote, and yours as one vote, as I recall, in the Schiavo talk page, regarding my claim of a slim concensus regarding mentioning euthanasia. Please come on over and formally weight in. Thx,--GordonWattsDotCom 18:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Styles
Hi Ann, Given the endless debate/rows etc over styles I've been thinking as to what is the best way to come up with a consensus solution. Styles have to be in an article, but using them upfront is, I think, a mistake and highly controversial. I've designed a series of templates which I think might solve the problem. There are specific templates for UK monarchs, Austrian monarchs, popes, presidents, Scottish monarchs and HRHs. (I've protected them all, temporarily, because I want people to discuss them in principle rather than battle over content and design right now.) I've used a purple banner because it is a suitable royal colour and is also distinctive. They are eyecatching enough to keep some of the pro-styles people happy; one of their fears seemed to be that styles would be buried. But by not being used they are neutral enough to be factual without appearing to be promotional. I'd very much like your views. I'm going to put them on a couple of user pages and ask for a reaction. There needs to be a calm debate on them this time. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

spelling
I never realized what a horrible speller I am. Thanks for the cleanup. I think Wolfson actually spells "Schindler" in his report as "Shindler", which was some of the problem, but I know I still drop a 'c' now and then. Anyway, thanks for cleaning up my mess. Will try harder next time. FuelWagon 20:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI
After a few days, I feel that the unhealthiness of having pages protected for more than a few days outweighs concerns of vandalism, unless the amount of vandalism can't be handled by simply reverting (typically this would be many dozens of incidents a day IMHO). Zscout370's been protecting and unprotecting the page off and on so it's kind of hard to test whether vandalism is still a problem but we'll see how things go. JYolkowski // talk 22:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"Simple formulation" section of NPOV page
(I hope nobody objects rearranging Jtdirl's "styles" templates above)

Just to invite you to have a look at this Draft for a new version of the "A simple formulation" section - intended to replace Neutral_point_of_view. I'd be glad to hear your comments! --Francis Schonken 07:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Old RFCs
Hi Ann!

Well, from what I remember, the problem wasn't with adding to an old RFC. The problem was that this user (now banned) was adding to an RFC and making it seem like Tony Sidaway was endorsing his view. There were also other things that this user was doing that made his actions a bit dubious. There isn't anything wrong with adding to an old RFC, as far as I know. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:27, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Pope in Synagoge
Hi Ann, thanks for your post.

I'm glad that you missed me (I'm sure a certain other user did not miss me). Well, where have I been? I visited a certain city in the Rhineland - me and one million other people including Benedict XVI.

As for the Synagoge visits: it was always said that JPII was the first pope to visit a synagoge since St. Peter. Which would make Benedict the third after Peter and JP. I don't know if the claim that JP's visit was the first is actually (verifiably) true but it his visit certainly has been the first in a very long time. If the wording I posted seems ambigious to you (since I'm only a German, so non-native speaker), please correct it accordingly.

Don't worry I will stay though I also am quite busy right now. But I will stay.

Str1977 19:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Help needed at Fac
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo

Firesorm here. Need help.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Notanerd
Thanks about this whole strange occurence. I've never heard of the guy although he might be the same anon IP who was bringing trouble to me and User:Rdsmith4. Jobe 6  18:38, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Order of precedence
The order of precedence succession boxes should really be removed. Several people complained and the user who was putting them in stopped, but they are still there in most cases. (Incidentally, the order for women is The Queen, Camilla, Anne, Sophie, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, etc. &mdash; most of the precedence articles on Wikipedia seem to need major overhauls...) Proteus (Talk) 22:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm so glad you've ridded us of these awful boxes. Astrotrain 17:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer's RFA
Thanks for your support on my RFA. Jtkiefer T - 05:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

precedence box
Sorry I did not get back to you earlier. (I lost a draft reply due to a browser crash!) I'm afraid I know little about the precedence rules re men and women in the Royal Family, so I can't be of any assistence. Apologies. Fear ÉIREANN \(caint) 18:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Terri
"Quickly" perusing your Wiki-world is a little overwhelming. NPOV is an oxymoron so any attempts at it are futile. Even in the simple presentation of fact we can persuade a reader through voice, phrasing and tense. Most importantly it is the selection of presented fact that creates POV. I'll be more removed and voiceless in presenting any fact in the future.

Veni Vidi Vichi

Paul (This message was added by Allofme at 03:24, 31 August 2005.)

Offending Page!
Hello Ann,

I am offended by that page. In fact, I get very disappointed by a lot of things on Wikipedia. I have been greatly surprised by some of the things I have found here. Sometimes, I want to totally disassociate from this so-called encyclopedia, but realize that it gets spread all over the internet. When I notice something that particularly gets my goat I try to correct it or challenge it.

I'm not even sure what a Wikipedia page is and why can't it be voted on to be deleted?

Dwain 22:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ann, your voice is needed in re Schiavo Fac
Ann, I would like you to come on over to the Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo page and weigh in on the issue. While actual vote count may (or may not?) be important in getting Terri Schiavo as a Featured Article Candidate (Fac), your voice would be helpful -and I hope you support the candacy.

Thx!--GordonWattsDotCom 09:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Christianity
Hi Ann. You were criticising me earlier for being anonynmous, so i have gained a user account, and have added a section to your comments on the Christianity talk page. Regards, Dave


 * Hi, Dave. Thanks for your message. I don't recall criticizing anyone for being anonymous. If I did, then I was wrong to do so, as Wikipedia welcomes edits from registered and unregistered users. Since I don't know which anonymous editor you were, I can't recall the "criticism". It's possible that I referred in the talk page to the edits from the "anonymous user", or that I sent a standard message to your (IP address) talk page, inviting you to register. Whatever the case, I'm sure it wasn't intended as a criticism. Anyway, I'm glad you've registered, as it makes it easier to keep track of edits from registered users and to discuss possible improvements or disagreements on the talk page of articles. And by the way, you can sign your name by putting four tildes like this ~ at the end of your entries in article talk pages (also called "discussion" pages), and user talk pages. It will expand into your user name (with a link to your user page), and the date. Welcome to Wikipedia, but please don't think you weren't welcome before you registered. AnnH (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, welcome, but I add that it is even easier to sign your name: You click on the icon to the immediate right of the "W" with a red circle around it. It produces THIS: " --~ ". By adding the two dash things, it makes your signature more complete, by having little "seperator dashes," however, it is easier to simply click the icon than it is to type in all four tildae marks.-- GordonWattsDotCom 17:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII
I started an RfC on Pope Pius XII. You are invited to comment. patsw 23:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC
Thank you for visiting the revenge Request for Comments against me. That Request for Comments was filed against me as revenge because I had filed two Request for Comments against either one or two extreme POV pushers. Since you live in a different nation of the Former British Empire than I do, you probably have no POV about the article in question, so that you might either be a neutral view or entirely uninterested. There was an ongoing edit war about whether to include two unfavable incidents in the article on US Senator Ted Kennedy. These were, in my view, of no importance, but I was willing to try to discuss them. (They were not the Chappaquidick incident, which is well discussed, in which a woman drowned in his car.) Some of us tried to determine what was consensus, which we thought was against the inclusion. There were personal attacks.

The reason that I say that there were two Requests for Comments against one or two POV pushers is that one is signed-in and one is anonymous from various addresses. I think that they are two different editors, but I don't know that the anon is not a sockpuppet.

Campaigning for signatures on Requests for Comments or on consensus polls is ugly, so I am not doing that. However, the revenge RfC against me was a response to Requests for comment/Agiantman and Requests for comment/24.147.97.230. Robert McClenon 14:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Thank you
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GordonWattsDotCom&diff=22581530&oldid=22576370#Congratulations

You're welcome, and thank you for acknowleding.

PS, that was sly to insert your message between two other ones, instead of posting to the bottom, but I saw it: I look at the diffs to see the "differences." You don't miss a thing!--GordonWattsDotCom 00:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

RE: your post on my page.
RE: your post on my page.

The simple answer to your question is to experiment with the code in my page, using Occam's Razor by eliminating the elements in the code that don't do what you want. The actual answer may be that the code does not allow that.

You see, I saw that code on some user page, I forget where, and changed a few things around. Here, let me see it I can figure it out; it may take a few edit revisions:

Is or, should I say, "are" this / these link(s) a/some wikipedia link(s)? Ok, it seems I found it by taking my own advice. PS: Please invesigate the code, and notice the way the division class attribute makes a hard line break and seperates the word "Is" from the rest of the sentence -and, in like manner, another "Hard break" occurs after the link, which makes the "...a wikipedia link" section go on the next line. Click and enjoy! --GordonWattsDotCom 21:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your tip of putting my own page "user" page on my watchlist, however, I beat you to the punch: I already have it on my watchlist (I would have eventually noticed if given enough time), but you get the last laugh: I have not checked my watchlist completely today because I am working my way up it now, looking at oldest entries first. I'm addressing Wagon's concerns he made in his edit comments, and you know that will keep me busy. I watch ALL my pages (including image uploads --some ANON tried to nominate one of my pics for deletion because it was not directly apparent why it was important) -yup, I watch ALL my pages, just in case of vandalism as you suggest. Thx again. Later.-- GordonWattsDotCom 23:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Persecution
Dear Ann, please have a look at the persecution sections at Christianity. I have tried to make the 2nd half less POV'ed up and more accurate. What do you think? Str1977 20:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Shameful page
Hi. I have just added a comment at Catholic Church of Wikipedia (the talk page). I read your comment to other user and thought I could tell you about my edit. 212.22.33.223 15:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

your help is needed @ Schiavo
your help is needed at:

Talk:Terri_Schiavo and also at Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo

both are time-sensitive issues; could you come and vote. Come and vote, please...?--GordonWattsDotCom 07:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Ann, Please support my request for adminship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I got your message. Thank you for weighing in. "...and I'm sorry if by awarding you a barnstar for the trouble you took in photographing Terri Schiavo's grave I gave you the false impression that I would be likely to support a request for adminship" Yes, you did surprise me, but you must do what you think is right; Even though I think I am qualified for admin, I could be wrong: Maybe the standards are too low?? ~ In fact, I do think the standards should be raised -even higher than the others think: I think editors should post at least their picture, name, and email address, and possibly more, like I've done. (You see my telephone number and postal mailing address -yes, I live here -people, please don't come and beat me up in my sleep!)


 * I respectfully dissent with your position; However, I respect your no vote more than those votes of the others (however well-intentioned) because you have (1) taken the time to know me and (2) look at the facts fairly, with respect to the person. (Much to their credit, some of the others who voted against me were not disrespectful, but either they didn't apply the current "no big deal" policy set down -and still policy --or they didn't dig for all the facts; please note, Ann, that the three others who know me well -they all voted for me: Myself, Uncle Ed, and Patsw; The people who voted against me ALL don't know me at all -except in a superficial manner; e.g., they saw some post, and many times misquoted and thus misunderstood.)


 * "Sorry, Gordon. I'm glad others voted for you. I hope you'll stay around. I could conceivably support you next time if you: don't renominate yourself for at least nine months..." I am unlikely to run again if I lose this time, so I may not "renominate myself," but I will in all likelihood accept the offer to reactivate my nomination, as bureaucrat Dan Smith has offered.


 * Oops -I got a new message and am responding to it in another window. I think I was finished; Talk later. Thank you again for your input.--GordonWatts 03:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

James the Rage replies
Hi Ann, thank you for your message, and I appreciate your courteous tone. I understand what you are saying, and have read all the rules you directed me to.

I appreciate the NOO rule, but isn't there a clear difference between quoting from the Bible and conducting research? Perhaps the comments surrounding the research could be regarded as too POV, in which case, we could just leave the quotes.

I think it would work best if we could all work to find common ground on the issue, rather than simply delete it. I've tried my best to do so on the talk page, and I feel your approach has been most productive. Plus, I also have to note, that if I have broken the 3 revert rule, then surely Str1977 has also on some of the other issues we were engaging on?

Thanks a lot, Jamestherage 13:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Ann...have you ever considered being an administrator? I think you would excel at it. I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested and I'm certain there would be a lot of support. KHM03 23:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ann, a word of caution in considering an RfA for yourself: I've been studying RfA patterns and have observed that nominees with less than 2,000 edits fail more than half the time. As soon as they reach 2,000 edits, the success rate climbs from 48% to 83%. For more information on this, have a look at User:Durin/Admin nominee charts. All the best, --Durin 21:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits at the Opus Dei page
Hi Ann, thanks for your edits at the Opus Dei article. I am glad to know there is a kind person who is keeping watch over it and helping it to improve. Please feel free to continue editing. I would like it to become a feature article, if possible on October 2, the foundation day of Opus Dei. But it will need more thinking through. Thanks again. Lafem 03:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks made against you.
An IP address has been making personal attacks against you on your user page and user talk page. One of these edits included an edit summary that posted what was supposedly your address and phone number. A few users and myself asked one of the developers, User:Tim Starling, to remove the address from the edit summary, which he did. But the IP, which has since been indefinitely blocked (it was changed to a 1 week block), also posted some cryptic information that included a reference to letter bombs. This user said that he was a former piano student of yours, who was angry with you for "making him feel worthless". It might be just a disgruntled person you know (possibly taught), who is taking out his anger on your Wikipedia account, and has no real plans to do anything of the sort. It might also be another WP user who dislikes you, and looked up your information on your user page. In any event, I wouldn't worry about it; it's probably just an empty threat. This is just a notice of what's happened; if you have any questions, please feel free to reply on my talk page, or here. Ral 315  03:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. The reason I initially blocked indefinitely was that I thought it was an open proxy (apparently it is used for normal purposes as well).   Ral  315  23:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Opus Dei article for featured article status
Hi Ann, I saw the edits you made at the Opus Dei article. Thanks a lot. Can you help check if it is ready to be nominated as a featured article? I'd appreciate any feedback. You can write me at my user page Thomas S. Major or at the talk page of the Opus Dei article Talk:Opus Dei. Thomas S. Major 07:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack
Don't think we've run into each other before but I was just surfing and came across this site: http://byebyeann.blogspot.com/.

I googled the name and came across your page here at Wikipedia. Thought I'd better let you know. You may want to look into it. Thanks a lot, Sarah. SarahPhelpsjr 11:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know if I've met you before, Gordon but I don't think it really has anything to do with you. The post is about Ann, not you, Gordon. I do have to say I'm a little bit concerned that with some of the weirdos out there (I should know there are enough on my campus, lol!) that people are posting so much personal information online.SarahPhelpsjr 11:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This poster is imitating me; I did not post this offensive attack, and Ann, while she didn't vote for me, was very informative and helpful. Harumph! Some people with blogs have too much time on their hand; PS: You should post to talk to, but I'll reply here, as I've seen this post on the user page.-- GordonWatts 11:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Update; I've managed to find my old blogger account and respond, disclaiming this funny, but offensive garbage!--GordonWatts 11:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've contacted Blogger customer support; hopefully we can get this shut down as soon as possible.  Ral  315  17:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Blog
Hi Ann, I wrote to Blogger about the blog, as I believe others did too, and it now seems to have been deleted, which is something. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Your 2¢ sought: Much positive feedback for Schiavo FA-nom
Your 2¢ sought: The Terri Schiavo  Featured Article nomination has made much progress and has received much positive feedback, including some from Mark (AKA  &rarr; Raul654 ), the FA-editor:  Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo. As one of the esteemed editors in that vein, I'd like you to review the FA-nom and throw in your 2¢-worth. Thx.-- GordonWatts 15:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

personal dispute
Ann, if you have a dispute with me, you take it up with me. If you have a dispute with me because of my interaction with someone else, that's for someone else to deal with. I have always done my best to treat you with respect around the Terri Schiavo article. But if you silently begrudge me because of some interaction I had with someone else, you say nothing at the time, then come back to me months later, then there isn't really anything I can do about it. What Ed did was a misuse of admin priveledges and inappropriate as mediator. That hasn't been resolved as far as I'm concerned, and it is a dispute between Ed and I. You need to deal with whatever personal disputes you have with me with me and any disputes between me and someone else isn't your dispute. I have never insulted you that I can ever recall. If I did, I would appologize. But I will not apologize to you for something I may or may not have done to someone else. Ed blocked ME without good reason. Ed violated NPA against ME. He has never apologized. He has never admitted he broke policy. He has never admitted he misused his priveledges. That dispute lays between Ed and me. FuelWagon 17:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Ruth and Verity
Thank you for the additions to my user page, they're great! :) Func( t, c, @,) 02:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Final decision reached
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis 2 case. &rarr;Raul654 17:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)