User talk:Musical Linguist/Archive08

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

Post at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/EffK concerning software "glitch"
Dear Ann, thanks for your post over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/EffK. I can confirm your memory quotes. I posted Ben that I neither ask for nor expect an apology. I am content if he believe mes that I didn't mean to delete the tags. I added an explanation of the "glitch" that caused this:
 * Formerly, when you were looking at a diff between two edits and clicked on "edit this page" the current version was opened for editing. But recently this appearently was changed - now the page that opens is the version in the right column (the after-version of the diff). If you now edit the opened page and save it all the following edits are reverted. That is what happened in my case. Str1977 19:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Institut Le Rosey
It's hard for me to be consistent in my vandal warnings. If I've just hit someone with a 3, I take it easy on the next one, even though they may be equally deserving. There's no sense or good nature to it, I'm afraid.

Interesting that you taught there. I've considered on pages like this just deleting entirely the list of alumnui, then demanding citations for any that people would add back. In the case of Skull and Bones I've thought about breaking out the list to its own page, though that would probably not be appropriate here.

I'll add to my watch list the pages you mention. I've been reading some Byzantine history, so maybe there will be a chance to cross-link some things. Do you follow the page on Pope Pius XII? There's been some activity there recently. Best, Tom Harrison Talk 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Cafeteria Catholicism
For me, the entire concept of Cafeteria Catholicism is insulting. (Note that the article beings "Cafeteria Catholic is a derogatory term...") If by it we mean Catholics who do not believe the entirety of the Magisterium's teaching to be true, then we are speaking about the majority of North American Catholics. (I don't know what the situation is like in Ireland, but most families I saw at Mass growing up, my own included, had about two children, and unlike the Protestant couple in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, I doubt that they've "had sexual intercourse twice".

I am trying to be as objective as possible here. But I spent seventeen years in the Roman Catholic Church faithfully adhering to its teachings on the nature of the Eucharist, purgatory, Mary, the Deuterocanonical books of Scripture, etc. I was an Indult Catholic, in fact! But because I could not accept that marriage was an inherently heterosexual sacrament, that a penis is necessary equipment to personify Christ during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, or that the Holy Father could speak free from error in matters of faith and morals (in this I share in common the beliefs of the Church prior to 1870), I was essentially given to understand that I was no longer welcome. I continue to admire groups like DignityUSA who work for change while still in full communion with the Holy See, but that is not my vocation.

Now with the Instruction that even celibate gay men are not permitted into the priesthood, I have had to offer my vocation elsewhere. (I always told my father that I thought he'd be an excellent permanent deacon. Now he is ineligible, as he "supports...gay culture"). So I am trying not to have an axe to grind. But when I hear the Primate of Canada saying that children of same-sex couples won't be baptized (which is not only offensive from a queer standpoint, but has no basis in Catholic moral or sacramental theology) it is difficult to ignore the feelings of having been wronged.

I have considered ceasing to edit articles that deal with homosexuality in Roman Catholicism. That is what I did with the RC portion of the Ordination of women article, as it was too emotionally charged for me. In the Homosexuality and Christianity article, I may stick to editing parts related to Anglicanism.

Your point about the Vatican not being a denomination is valid. I am quite content if we can state something to the effective of how the RC teaching is that homogenital acts are sinful, and mention how gay and lesbian Catholics handle this in the internal forum (Dignity, etc.)

Regards,

Carolynparrishfan 15:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Byzantium pusher
Dear Ann, I am afraid that semi-protection might be needed at Early Christianity, because of an Anon IP constantly pushing his Byzantium POV (namely that it is POV to call the Empire of Theodosius the "Roman Empire"). Aurelie! Str1977 23:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Section for formatting
Keep up the good work! Jkelly 00:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on the RFR poll
Hi, Musical Linguist, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.

Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You ...
... read Str1977's thoughts and they are yo... mine. Thanks for correcting my blunder. Str1977 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Safe Sex"
I wasn't sure if you'd be on any time soon so I wanted to ask you what you how you feel about my most recently reverted change to Safe Sex in which I put quotation marks around the words "safe sex", but not around the ones safer sex. It is a term and on the Condom talk page it is plainly stated by a supporter of the term that it isn't accurate....That's why it should be treated as the "War on Christmas" in my view. Chooserr 23:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ann
I don't want to be blocked, but no one seems to care about the rules. I point out IPs who've repeatedly reverted an article (6 or 7 times) and I can't fix it. Wikipedia is stressing me out, and there is no one here to help get the facts straight. Can you please do something about it. If you look at my user contribs you will find my problem very quickly. Please help, Chooserr 01:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All that
But, how'll you be able to answer the three points, if I'm gone ? They were - the deal( down to 25 million+10 for counselling- and now up on the state side to was it 1.35 billion?), the little rebellion, and the 29(31) number. Presume yr all well... EffK 10:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, thank you for your kind welcome :) I'm currently trying to find out how to report this ip, on the vandal pages. I didn't revert the article, but just removed the additions, since I was afraid of accidentally deleting other people's additions, but I hope I got them all. The changes in the other articles by this user is sometimes very subtle, so it's hard to spot it. Is there some way to just remove the changes made by one user, but also keep later changes? And again, thank you

Sorry, I just read about the tilde-stamp, and realized you wouldn't know it was from me antabus 13:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism problems
Greetings. I hope that you can help with a user who has been deleting huge chunks of content without discussion and despite requests and cautions that doing so is a violation of Wikipeida policy. I have tried to get User:Brya to at least explain reasons for deleting whole paragraphs from articles such as xylem, but have found that I can't get an explanation most of the time. Each time I or other users add content, Brya steps in and deletes huge chunks of it. Brya seems to be taking the position of ownership of certain articles, and responds to other edits with deprecating remarks, or even outright insults. Can you help? --EncycloPetey 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Klempen
Maybe I used the wrong verb, you may correct it. My dictionary said (or maybe Google :-) that derive is what I mean and f.e. not build or construct. Do you understand me ? The 'm' is only a little correction because you can't speak very good in German (brings you to speak each Syllable for its own). -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 21:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

An answer would be nice... -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 19:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Template Substitution
Ah yes, so I see. Sorry about that (I'm still new here, and I'm sure I missed some other important information), but I'll start doing that straightaway. Thanks! -- Saaber 23:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Martyrs and their daughters
Hey, sorry about reverting on Margaret Roper. If you feel strongly that the martyr tag ought not be there, I won't revert. I made my case for her inclusion on the talk page (twice, as it appears). I look at category tags as being, "This information pertains to and is part of the study of X," and so I thought of Margaret, who is known to history really only in terms of her father's execution, as being a part and parcel of the story of his martyrdom.

I did another saint the other day, but I didn't even want to mention it. It was Monan. Not much to say about that one, as he probably didn't exist. (I just read today that Saint Ursula was demoted! Wow.  There was slim evidence for her, but compared to Monan she was perfectly documented.  Then again, there's no real cult around Monan, and there was a big one for Ursula.)

I'm looking forward to reading your new entry in the 40 Martyrs. Geogre 02:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Guess which page...
I'm going to bug you about? PinkTulip has rather unilaterally removed the entire medical history from TS in favour of a subpage. I find the due emphasis on the page is now incredibly skewed and I also find myself unable to get through to him properly. Your input would be welcome, though I know this page can be a real drag. Cheers, Marskell 11:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thanks for the warning, Ann. ;-o

Another thing: is an indulgences in AD/CE edit warring considered vandalism? Over at Historicity of Jesus there are two guys (now joing forces) constantly reverting it and getting their opponent into trouble in regard to 3RR. I have argued that reverting vandalism does not fall under the 3RR. Am I right? Str1977 18:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Ann,

Thanks for leaving a message at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sudar. I am restrained from posting/updating articles by Wikipedia by sheer ignorance of the processes. Any guidance would help.

Thanks, Sudar

Nada
I meant Wp:CIV and the other one. I going to go and have lucnch now. From what i have heard it will be an outstanding lunch; it involves CEOs of big companies and a flash restaurant. It could be my lucky break. --Comrade Socialist Jesus (13) 21:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project
Hi, my name is Federico (alias Pain) and I am creating a section for nominating th best user page, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the project.

The project has just started, and we need help to spread the word and ameliorate it.

Votes_for_best_User_page

Best regards, Federico Pistono  ✆   ✍  00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for correcting my mistake - the article i remain proud of most - and getting up to FA status - is Samantha Smith. PMA 01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

EffK
For your information: EffK attempted to delete all of his previous posts (after months of flooding talk pages with them) with an edit summary of something like 'rm criminalized'. Str1977 thought that this was vandalism, and requested admin assistance. EffK has been blocked for 48 hours for blanking vandalism. There is a motion to close in the RfAr. If approved, that will subject him to a 365-day ban. My own guess is that the Arbcom will not close the case that soon, and that he may come off of block and try something equally bizarre again.

Also, maybe this will show his defenders, such as Sam Spade and Bengalski, that he really is disruptive. We shall see. Robert McClenon 01:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That fateful "scary" quote
Hi Ann. I think that one will live to haunt me! What I was trying (badly) to express was that the process of trying to reply to three simultaneous editors who agree (and can type a lot faster than me!) is scary when you are new. There is such a lot to learn about wikipedia and your own ability to identify and express your views that I'm afraid I'll always look on the early weeks of an editors life (mine especially!) as the "teenage" weeks (I speak as the mother of two with a third coming up soon!). At that time the new editor (just like teenagers) does not need another editor telling them they are wrong but that someone understands how they are feeling and why they may be taking things the wrong way (an important distinction). The observations I made on the RT page deliberately did not name you or give a link and if you read the post properly I said I thought (genuinely) that the RT page gave rise to misunderstandings - not that I thought you had wilfully mislead another editor. Again I should have made it clearer that when you are very new (as I and the other editors were at the time) you still haven't got the idea that even wikipedia project pages are up for grabs by anyone as in the non-wikipeadia world this is unheard of.

I always meant to clarify this with both you and Str1977 (who also left me a nice message about this) but there never seems to be enough time in the day to do all the edits that I'd like. Let me assure you that I also consider you, Str1977 and KHM03 to be serious thoughtful editors and I will never disagree with you just to prove a point. If ever I clash - such as the french revolution issue - it will be due to a genuine inability to understand. At the time I put this down to your POV but I spent alot of time trying to understand why you all made the points you did. Eventually I realised that I was coming from a very POV point myself as well without even realising it. I define people by what they say and do - they can call themselves anything they want but it's how they behave that counts in my book. This, I didn't realise at the time is a very humanist POV (I knew about the humanists but have never described myself as one as it almost seems like an anti-religion religion to me). Christians that commit crimes or, as is my POV is the case of the church before the french revolution, stand by while people suffer and starve do not follow what Jesus is said to have taught and therefore in my book are not genuine. The arguments that you seemed to put forward (please correct me if I'm wrong) see the individual and the church they are a member of as one and the same in some circumstances. Therefore persecution of the one is identical to persecution of the other. This POV is not uniquely Catholic in nature but was never emphasised in my protestant background so was new to me. At least you knew your POV and could explain it - I was unaware of mine so could not! I am always prepared in any discussion to accept that I am wrong and as you all agreed with each other (and we were making no progress) I decided I needed to go away and think which is what I have done. I still disagree with the inclusion of that example of persecution but for very different referenceable reasons which, when everything calms down a bit, I will put on the talk page.

I'm trying to move on from those bewildering POV, what on earth are all these WP:ABC rules and why does everybody think I'm wrong days! I hope I can ease other editors in gently as they often have a core of very interesting stuff. Gio has, in MHO made the christianity pages more interesting and complete and I admire the patience that the established editors have shown him. The more diverse the editorship of these pages, the less chance there is of someone completely upsetting things as most views will have been discussed already and balanced as much as possible.

The only agenda I will hold my hands up to is the need to streamline and properly categorise data to save duplication and ease follow up by the interested reader - a legacy of my data base administraitor days! Other than that I try to live by Jesus' commandments to love thy neighbour and one another, whether I believe he existed or not as they are the rules I would like other people to adopt. A society based on these values would be tolerant and caring and that is how I would like to live and the sort of world I would like my children to grow up in. When people adopt for and against stances they often "throw the baby out with the bath water" so to speak and will see nothing of value in another persons view. This is such a shame as progress and toleration cannot come this way.

Sorry for filling up your talk page but I have been feeling the need to explain myself as not subscribing to any faith it can look suspicious or strange if you suddenly agree with someone (I think I took Str1977 aback on the Transubstantiation article). The only way I can think to describe myself is as "genuinely well meaning" and I don't think there is a userbox for that one! I shall ask Str1977 to read this too. SOPHIA 14:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I need to correct a misunderstanding - I have 3 children and am not pregnant - two are teenagers and one will be soon - hence the "coming up soon comment". SOPHIA 08:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Diverse
Chere amie, yes, it was you I was referring to.

Yes, it was quite busy but it got me my first barnstar as well. Still, apple turnover is more delicous. Thanks for the "test3" advice. Actually I don't have a problem with EffL's explanation for his name change as well, but I don't think that cookie loss explains all of them, especially not those switching to completely different names. I guess he lost Flamekeeper through Cookie loss, and then signed up as "Fiamekeeper", which he might have lost through Cookie loss as well (as your observations indicate). Then he signed up as "Corecticus", but after a few days didn't like the name and switched to "Famekeeper". He didn't lose the cookie for that but found out across this link, which caused him to adopt the name "PureSoupS". And then he left for Wikiinfo and as he came back chose "EffK", maybe becaue during his hiatus he indeed lost the Soup cookie.

I agree with you on his editing habits - he is only interested in political and social issues in regard to the Church and certainly not Theology or Devotions. I always thought he had a rather legalistic approach to Christianity, constantly (mis)quoting canon law etc.

Re your user box problem: it is funny that I can read the ['] in the first instance on my talk page in, but not in the second (I only get a square ). In your userbox I only get a square too. I tried what to described and yes, it messed up. I also noticed that the two brackets are of different sizes. I don't know what to do (since I am no less a "thief" than you are), but if you can see the velar nasal I would keep it as it is. Or maybe, look for a fitting symbol.

Can you take a look at Terri Schiavo. I don't know whether Pinktulip can be trusted. Have a look and tell me what you think about the "bitch" issue.

Speaking of bitch, I wanted to send you a mail to clarify a few things (I think you know whom I am talking about), but I can't get my head round to it (But I will in time). And I promise: no more surprises (I think).

I also wanted to send you a sheet of music and I will do so shortly. What instrument do you play? I unfortunately play no instrument, as my hands will not move in concord as they should.

Aurelie! Str1977 19:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

could you try and avoid placing range blocks on sharedips?
thnx--64.12.116.195 18:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox format
Unfortunately I am even worse. All I do is copy someone else's. Because I have laid out magazines I have an idea of how I want something to look in terms of graphics, but I achieve that simply by using someone else's. Sorry I can't be more helpful. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 00:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Flat Adolf
Please bring your tuning fork to the intro to Adolf Hitler - the mighty Str1977 seems satisfied with the way it reads.--shtove 02:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning. You have a 3RR violation
Hi Ann. I just wanted put you on notice with this warning incase you are not aware it. You blocked me for the violation and claimed you seldom revert yourself, which I disputed. Here I present evidence where, as is usual, you revert back to Str1977's version. I also note that there is no case made for this version while the other side has made a case and has asked that the disagreements be worked outinstead of edit warring. There is no response yet on the talk page for days about this dispute from your side that wants this version. I suggest you stop edit warring, and ask that those who support your side (seems to be only Str1977),at least make their case instead of blindly reverting, along with you following him, which suggests a possible meat puppet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38385983&oldid=38384074

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38403075&oldid=38400630

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38507904&oldid=38507249

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38510080&oldid=38510031

Thanks. Giovanni33 21:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

E-mail
Ann, I'd be glad to discus with you via E-mail. My E-mail address should be accessible to you (and everyone else) because when I look on my preferences it shows my E-mail address. Mind giving it a second go. Chooserr 01:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...It wasn't ticked :) Chooserr 01:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Marskell has crossed the line
Ann: User:Marskell does not like some of the Categorizations I have done for Category:Terri Schiavo tonight and he has declared that he is now going to perform the destructive act of undoing my work. He is just doing as act of vengence and I know that you see the evil in his plans. Perhaps you can stop him. -- Pinktulip 14:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * One way to read his Karl Popper quote is that he would prefer that our ignorance be infinite. -- Pinktulip 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

EffK Closed
The ArbCom has closed the EffK case. He is banned for one year from Wikipedia. He is banned from editing articles on the Catholic Church. He can be blocked from any articles that he disrupts. Robert McClenon 18:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Side Comment
In response to your correct statement that he was sincere in what he posted, I add that that is what is wrong with using the Kantian categorical imperative as the sufficient rule of ethics. The categorical imperative forbids insincere or hypocritical actions, but it provides very little check on hurtful, hateful, or harmful actions (at least not without a higher-level analysis).

The greatest literary work in German that addresses ethics is not by Kant. It was not originally written in German, but is a translation. It is Luther's translation of the Bible. However, it is a translation of a work that was originally written by Jewish writers, so that German anti-Semites wanted some other basis for ethics. Yuck. Robert McClenon 18:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ...
... for that delicious cucumber. Mmh! Maybe one day I will have assembled an entire meal. Str1977 09:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Radio Maryja
Ann -- I stumbled across this editing dispute when one of the participants requested protection at WP:RFP, which I frequently monitor. Both editors had run afoul of 3RR, and so I blocked them both, hoping that a little tough love would bring them back to the table ready to negotiate instead of edit warring. But it seems that the edit warring has begun again today, with very little discussion. I am reluctant to protect the article because in the final analysis, it is two editors who can't see eye to eye, and I'm loathe to protect and possibly stifle other legitimate edits over their personal conflict. Yet, the article in its current state of flux isn't really providing a useful resource to anyone. The reason I'm writing you is because apparently this Polish radio station is of a Catholic persuasion. I thought that, since you are familiar with the church, it might be something you would care to look in on and possibly mediate on an informal basis. If not, it's no big deal, but I figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks either way. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Article move
Dear Ann, I can assure you that I love cucumbers. Not everything that is green is poisonous ;-)

But why I am writing is this. Are you, as an administratrix, familiar with the moving articles in situations where us mere mortals cannot proceed? If so, could you please have a look the blunder I made:

I accidently moved Ernst Ludwig, Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine to Louis, Grand Duke of Hesse. I actually wanted to move it to Ernest Louis, Grand Duke of Hesse, but the system wouldn't let me and told me to talk to an administrator.

So if you're still on-line, maybe you can help.

Cheers, Str1977 00:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for solving my problem.

"I am content", as Shylock/Edward Lionheart says in Theatre of Horror. I don't know if you know that movie.

Indeed, I find green beans utterly offensive, ranging right next to Brussels Sprouts. But "de gustibus ..."

As for needing your help again tonight. No thanks, I am going to bed now.

Good night and Aurelie! Str1977 01:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal info posted again.
Just a heads up- some personal info was posted for a while at the Administrators' noticeboard - see the deleted edits on the history tab. Ral315 (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

More 3RR vios from Robsteadman
Please see the Jesus page and block User:Robsteadman for completely destroying the 3RR rule with now more than 7 or 8 reverts. You correctly blocked before adn were RIGHT. Please do so again.Gator (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sock
Add User:69.107.21.3 to the list of possible Gio/Balinda/Mika sockpuppets. KHM03 00:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Hello! I see that you were on a wikibreak and have returned to the project. Welcome back! If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome back! -- KHM03 22:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you seen this? KHM03 23:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw that. I'll be interested to see how it all turns out.  KHM03 13:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Amorrow/Pinktulip
Please use Template:Pinktulip (created by me) on any anon IPs this vandal uses. You're a very good admin, keep the good work up! --Sunfazer (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did
Hallo my dear Linguist, yes I did miss you.

I even have a task for you, regarding this edit - I deemed it necessary to consistently apply either plural and singular and I opted for the singular as the sentence started with "each". Am I right in this conclusion or should it be the plural?

1 + 1 = 1 ? Well, this is either a theological equation (I only say Chalcedon) or it is a personal matter. I say no more. But since you are referring to my mathematical abilities, I begin to wonder where I have blundered. Maybe it is the issue I have raised just befóre, involving two brazen women?

I am more than willing to give EffK another chance by unprotecting his talk page. I never wanted to cut off communications. It's just that he was repeating his accusations all over again, as if he suddenly had substituted Ludwig Kaas and Pius XII for me. Go ahead, unprotect him and reprimand him of your conditions.

Cheers and Aurelie, Str1977 00:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's surprising that as soon as Gio and Balinda are blocked, Kecik reappears. It's gard to believe that there's no connection.  KHM03 20:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think that User:Trollwatcher and User:John1838 are identical, and may be Gio/Balinda/etc. KHM03 20:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Should I put a "possible sock puppet" template on these articles? I'm not a sysop or anything...just wondering what was best.  KHM03 20:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Freethinker99 claims that Belinda is Gio's wife. Just FYI.  KHM03 02:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also...make no mistake - - Kecik and Mika are Gio. Same edits...same articles...same debates...Jesus, Christianity, Homosexuality and Christianity, Early Christianity, and Adolf Hitler (?!). There's no question.  KHM03 02:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And now FionaS. KHM03 11:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you know this, but a user with expertise can edit from a number of IP addresses. User:Kdbuffalo has made a career out of it.  Gio may be all of these identities.  KHM03 12:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)