User talk:Musical Linguist/Archive10

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

re: Deleting and protecting
Good evening. I asked the question because two or even three recreations could reasonably be considered the newbie learning curve. To a new user, a deletion can appear to be a database glitch. New users frequently repost pages in ignorance of our policies. Deleted page protection doesn't generally get applied unless there's a fairly strong pattern of repeated recreations in the face of explicit warnings not to continue. I didn't see any evidence that those warnings had been made. In egregious cases, that's not necessary since we don't want to feed the trolls but that has to be balanced against not biting newbies. I was hoping for more evidence about the communications leading up to the protection. Rossami (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comments requested
I'd like your thoughts on a brainstorm I've tried to articulate here: User:Leifern/Adminwatch idea. And feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 16:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible Nomination for Adminship
Ann, I've been asked if I would mind being nominated for adminship. Any thoughts or advice for me? --CTSWyneken 17:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope you appericated the humor in my last revision to talk: hitler



Ztsmart 17:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: To Musical Linguist
Hey, I noticed you commented on my talk page a long time ago...lol, and I just wanted to say hi...

Cheers,

Jfritzyb

PS I was wondering if you could help me with my picture? I've uploaded it but the picture is a no-show when I try to put it on my "User Page"...what's wrong?

(And you can find all this on my "User Page.")

-- Ok...thanks, I see it too...

Jfritzyb

FYI
I've requested a "checkuser" for Raisinman/Kdbuffalo. They've both edited Jesus lately and we may be looking at a possible violation of WP:3RR. I think it's important for Rob, Gio, SOPHIA, et al to see that we treat Christians with possible violations in the same manner as we treat folks of other faiths. I haven't asked for any action to be taken other than a checkuser. KHM03 22:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I engaged the email. Thanks!  KHM03 22:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I did it, and tried it again. Perhaps the software bugs are affecting things.  I'll try again a bit later.  KHM03 00:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Welcome back
I'm glad you're back, and hope all is well with you. Don't bother to reply if you're not feeling well. I've always appreciated your courtesty to others, so I was sorry when I read your farewell message. Best wishes, and do take things easy. :-) AnnH ♫ 23:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My dear Ann: Thank you so much; I am truly honoured to be welcomed by a Wikipedian whom I respect as much as you almost immediately after I restored the contents of my user page. Alas, I could not say that all is quite well with my state of mind at the moment, but I am confident that I am indeed returning to normal operation gradually. I initially left Wikipedia in a low point during one of my depressive downswings, when I was feeling much worse, and have later come to realise how thoroughly out-of-order that was of me. A number of people were counting on me to continue my work relating to dispute resolution whom I let down, and indeed it was quite wrong of me to choose to abandon those with whom I have developed rapport during my time on Wikipedia - as it was with my melodramatic leaving message, which I feel may have been better served by simply not editing versus verbal self-immolation. Well, at least with wikisuicide, one gets to resurrect oneself! I look forward to working with you, and indeed others on Wikipedia, once again, and I believe that the month's break has refreshed my outlook somewhat. Once again, thank you, and my very best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Need some help!
Hey!

I just created a new article...and remembered that I was supposed to do something after writing it...I think it was something about making a note in the changelog about it--or something to that affect...

My article: Sundar Selveraj

-- JJ 01:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Account deletion...
Just thought I'd let you know that I'm deleting my account...(I noticed you were an admin...)


 * Grins*

-- JJ 01:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

For God so loved Catholics
We're having a discussion on Talk:Jesus about Roman Catholic doctrine and John 3:16. I thought it might help to hear from an actual Catholic. ;) Arch O. LaTalk TCF  02:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

RTS
I have my suspicions as to who this is - even without a checkuser (I'm sure you do too). Looks like he hasn't got the sense I credited him with so you'll get no grief from me if you come down on him like a ton of bricks. SOPHIA 18:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I'm wrong - the connection has been denied. SOPHIA 19:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Are RTS and NPOV77 new socks of an old friend, known to have used socks in the past? KHM03 23:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Has anyone requested a WP:RCU? Hate to do that...WP:AGF and all...but Gio, Robsteadman, and now Kdbuffalo have presented some real issues.  KHM03 00:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Christianity
I've left a note on RTS's user talk. I'm hoping this dispute can be resolved in a more sensible way than 3RR blocks. Any way you can help with that would be appreciated of course. :) j o s h  b u d d y talk 18:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ann, I see that telepathy is working. Str1977 (smile back) 19:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI
I've requested a "checkuser" for Raisinman/Kdbuffalo. They've both edited Jesus lately and we may be looking at a possible violation of WP:3RR. I think it's important for Rob, Gio, SOPHIA, et al to see that we treat Christians with possible violations in the same manner as we treat folks of other faiths. I haven't asked for any action to be taken other than a checkuser. KHM03 22:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I engaged the email. Thanks!  KHM03 22:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You may want to keep an eye out for User:Dr Pickle. Dr Pickle is Bob Pickle, a Protestant fundamentalist given to adding in anti-Catholic conspiracy theories on websites. He has been trying to link his website to Vicarius Filii Dei and rewrite the article to suggest that that mytical title is real. He has been one of the internet's promoters of the ridiculous theory. Clearly he sees Wikipedia has another source to push his Catholic-bashing ("the Pope is the antichrist") viewpoint. Keep an eye out. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 01:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Cookie
Closest I could find. If anyone thinks a different award would better suit, please feel free to edit this. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)



George H. W. Bush
Ann, in trying out the recent changes patrol schtick, I noticed the elder Bush is being heavily vandalised. Is this the sort of page an Admin might semi-block for a week? --CTSWyneken 22:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I'm doing the RC Patrol thing and trying to get a sense for what admins will do in certain situations. You never know if my friends will succeed in getting me elected to be one. --CTSWyneken 02:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Musical Linguist
My name is Rowland Croucher, and I'm new to 'editing' Wikipedia

You're the 'pro' and I'm wondering if you can help me with your understanding of the distinction between 'spam' and legitimate helpfulness

Our website (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/) is, broadly, 'progressive Christian' (rather than say, fundamentalist or purely liberal, though there are articles there which reflect those views), and saw 9,000+ unique visitors read material there yesterday

In my other life I'm a counselor-for-clergy.

Thanks! (And I love Ireland: stayed with Doug Gresham, C S Lewis' stepson, there).

Re: Welcome
Thank you for the warm welcome.

82.161.79.30 Used for Vandalism
Stumbling on to the Kaftka page, I noticed vandalism in progress from this IP. You may want to watch it, since a prior vandalism warning is posted on its talk page. Bob --CTSWyneken 10:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

?
What did i say? Inanna 10:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, doesn't matter :) Inanna 11:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Friends
Friends who knew you before your elevation will be there for you should you be forced to rejoin ordinary mortals. I hope you'll do the same for us. I sense my time will come before yours does. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

E-mail
Hi Ann, did you get my e-mail? Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Signature
Thanks, Ann. KHM03 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How'd you get the music notes on your signature? Are there other symbols we could use?  KHM03 (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Ann, Fang Aili reminded me that you had filled out an article name on a vandal warning I did. Thanks. I have warnings 1-5 on my tool bar and t2-bv have that popup box. I appreciate what you did and Fang Aili pointing it out to me. Take care.-- Dakota ~   °  22:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks and abuse
Is this reasonable?

David Underdown's contributions on [] - although I have had discussions with this person on other fora the claim that I used sockpuppets there (as here) is false. Can this be removed please? Robsteadman 19:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've amended my original comment to something I can more easily substantiate. Unfortunatley the BBC used to delete posts to their boards after a while, and have since changed to an entirely new system, so it would be his word against mine (and others) David Underdown 11:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If you do, can you also then remove the claim on Robsteadman's own talk page that I have been stlking him on another website? Same thing really!Crusading composer 16:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Yep, that is definitely vandalism. All of User:209.12.51.206's edits have been vandlaism - he's been inserting "Lee and Logan" into all the picture captions and main article space, if you look through the history. Anyway, thanks for keeping an eye out! СПУТНИК ССС Р 13:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Academic and ecclesiastical titles
Dear Ann, could you please have a look into Malachi Martin. I did a much needed overhaul of this article. However, I don't know whether his titles "The Reverend Dr. Father ..." are properly included, whether they are all needed. It seems quite clumsy to me. Also, if you know about his historian brother, maybe you can include his full name as a wiki-link. Thanks and Aurelie, Str1977 (smile back) 14:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

OWL-FEELS
I personally know nothing about Enviroknot either, except that he's been banned. So, when two of his three edits are vandalisms, and the third is a claim that he's Enviroknot, I don't really care if it's true - it just gives me a wonderful excuse to ban him. He's obviously a vandal, claiming (I doubt he is) to be Enviroknot simply accelerated it. --Golbez 23:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Charles Alexander of Lorraine
Dear Ann, again I have to ask for your assistance. Could you please move Prince Charles of Lorraine to the more descriptive Charles Alexander of Lorraine, which currently is a redirect to the disambig page Charles of Lorraine. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 10:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Mmmh! To misquote the Emperor Diocletian: "Would but you could see the pancakes I made with my hands at ..., you would then never think of urging such an attempt." I can only say: "Bon appetit!" and "Kowalski!" Str1977 (smile back) 10:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the revert of my talk page. Strange guy. Any idea where that came from? Guettarda 15:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Gianna Jessen
You recently referenced Gianna Jessen in one of your posts.

Why is the article being considered for deletion? It seems in fact and non-POV to me. No info on the talk page.. Jkister 17:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Username
Thanks for your help. Yes, that was the work of the same editor who has been causing oither trouble. Spoofing usernames is one of his usual tricks. -Will Beback 05:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

str1977 reverts
there have been more than 3 reverts by str today:

04:48, March 14, 2006 Str1977 m (rv mental illness outburts) 04:56, March 14, 2006 Str1977 (rvv) 05:49, March 14, 2006 Str1977 (see talk) (Essentially a revert) 09:16, March 14, 2006 Str1977 m (rvv) 10:55, March 14, 2006 Str1977 (rm nonsense) 12:14, March 14, 2006 Str1977 (this section is about the beliefs common to all Christians - your historical observations are off-topic (and actually inaccurate)) 12:19, March 14, 2006 Str1977 m (rv false additions)

that makes 7 reverts in less than 8 hours?! The same day? I trust this will be quickly remedied by you.

KV 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that the reverts are reverting different pieces of information...some a mistranslation of "Christ", others a mini-battle over the Abrahamic stuff. I'm not saying there is or is not a violation of WP:3RR (I don't know the rule that well), but just thought I'd add this for clarity.  KHM03 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would have thought that if Ann hadn't shown me that partial reverts count. I've only reverted twice, and oddly, one of those was in accordance with an earlier revert by Str.  The other I explained and had reverted back by Str.  Then checking the history, I noticed that there were so many reverts by him.....  Otherwise, I could go and revert each of those two areas reverted on me again... the first one twice more, and the second a full 3 times.....


 * KV 18:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, King Vegita. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you trust this will be quickly remedied by me. Do you mean that you want me to block Str1977 or that you want me to undo his reverts? If the former, please be aware that I have a policy of not blocking for 3RR unless it's done in absolute defiance of several warnings. As an administrator, I have only once ever blocked person for 3RR. I am prepared to do it when I see that the person is aware, and refuses to stop. For example, if you put in your edit summary, when reverting Johnny, "Johnny, that was your seventh revert. I'm going to report the next" and Johnny reverts an eighth time, then I would almost certainly block, though even then, I wouldn't have to. The policy says that an administrator may block, not that he must block. Other administrators may be stricter, and they are within their rights, but while I'm comfortable blocking vandals, stalkers, abusers, and sockpuppets, I don't really like blocking for what could be an accidental slip into a fourth revert, or a misunderstanding of the policy, e.g. thinking that partial reverts were okay.

I feel a similar way about reporting. I've been at Wkipedia for nearly a year, and have seen those who oppose me on article content breaking 3RR on numerous occasions, but have only reported it three times. And in fact, the three, Giovanni33, MikaM and RTS, were given numerous warnings, and were not reported until I had explained the rules, overlooked earlier violations, asked them to stop, reminded them of their reverts, and finally become convinced that they had no intention of stopping, unless they got blocked. I always start by telling people that they have violated the rule but that I'm not going to report them unless they persist. Even after Giovanni returned from his block and violated the rule again at another page, I told him that I wasn't going to report him. In fact, if you actually mean me to block Str1977, I'm puzzled that you'd ask me to, when I know that you have read (since you've responded to) several posts I've made about problems with Giovanni and his newly-registered supporters, who revert for him. In several of those posts, I have pointed out that I generally don't block or report for 3RR, but that I make an exception if someone continues to do it after very many warnings. Surely you don't want me to treat Str1977 with less indulgence that I treated Giovanni the time that he reverted eleven times and I didn't report him?

Anyway, while I have written the preceding two paragraphs just to make it clear that I very seldom report for 3RR, and have only once blocked for it, I wouldn't want anyone to think that my long response meant that I accept the accuracy of your accusation against Str. He has, indeed, as you say, reverted seven times. However, if you read the policy page, you'll see that self reverts and reverting of vandalism don't count. You may notice that I sometimes revert manually, with an edit summary such as "Rv POV additions", while on other occasions I use my administrator button, getting an automaticl edit summary of "reverted edits by X to last version by Y". I only do that for vandalism, or for pure silliness &mdash; never for edits where I simply disagree about content (no matter how strongly I might disagree). Four of Str1977's seven reverts were ones where I wouldn't have hesitated to use rollback &mdash; christians are smelly people, christians are smelly, God is a cooter, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=43742252&oldid=43741671 Athlete rubbed in oil. . . Please do not change this].

You may not have looked at his reverts before coming to my talk page, but it's always a good idea to look carefully at the evidence before making a complaint. I think you'd find it very hard to get an administrator who would count those four as contributing to the number of reverts that count in a 3RR case.

I'm glad to see that you respect the 3RR rule, but I'm afraid you're mistaken in this particular case. And even if you weren't I wouldn't block someone without warning. You'll have to admit that Giovanni, Belinda, MikaM, Kecik, and RTS were given numerous warnings. They were reported and blocked only when it was obvious that they were simply defying the rule and intended to continue. I honestly don't think they would have been tolerated for so long on any other article without being reported. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 22:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I figured you would give him a 1 day block or a warning, or something. I don't know much about the 3 revert rule, and it's application admittedly.  I do believe that Giovanni and RTS were treated to leniently as well however.... if they've been around to know the rule for sure, then action should be taken, imo.  I suppose my first revert wouldn't count then since it was the same as one of STR's that you wouldn't count.  I was falsely under the impression that 3RR was strict and applied to all reverts on a page.  I know more for the future.


 * KV 07:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, King Vegita. Because I knew other people read my talk page, I gave a fairly lengthy account of my own policy towards reporting and blocking people, and only dealt briefly with the actual reverts that Str1977 carried out. The main point is that under no circumstances can the reverting of vandalism be counted as contributing to the number of reverts leading to a block. We don't give people blocks for reverting vandalim; we give them barnstars. Regarding your first revert, it wasn't quite the same as Str1977's revert. I personally wouldn't count it, but another administrator might. It's sometimes hard to distinguish between a not-so-good edit and mild vandalism. However, the version that Str1977 reverted had "Please do not change this" in addition to the bit about athletes and oil. So the version he reverted was worse than the one you reverted: visible instructions to future editors are clearly improper, and don't fit into the category of disputes over choice of wording or over POV of content

Anyway, if I were to block Str1977 for yesterday's reverts, I would be treating him unfairly, I would be making a fool of myself, the block would be undone by another administrator, and I'd probably be reprimanded. Added to that, since I am far more lenient about 3RR than many administrators, and never block unless someone is told he has already made four reverts, and then proceeds to make a fifth one, and since I have on numerous occasions told my "opponents" that they had violated the rule but that I wasn't going to report them, it would be rather unfair to expect me to block someone I consider as a friend without any warnings. My block log shows 115 blocks; only one of them is for 3RR, and it was an editor with whom I had had no prior encounter, and who, despite warnings, had gone well beyond a possible accidental slipping into a fourth revert.

Apart from revertion of vandalism and reverting of one's own edits, the rule does apply to all reverts. With regard to vandalism, POV-pushing does not count as vandalism, and therefore cannot be reverted a fourth time. Some editors have been blocked because they reverted POV four times, claiming, perhaps sincerely, that it was vandalism. In practice, reverting of silly edits, even if they are not intentional vandalism, are generally not counted. For example, if in the article about Ireland, someone inserted, "It's the best country in the world", and you reverted it, it's most unlikely that any administrator would could that as one of your reverts. However, people who "game the system" by constantly making their fourth revert after 24 hours and three minutes can also be blocked, and people with a history of blocks for edit warring could be blocked for making just three reverts. It's unlikely to happen to someone who hasn't been blocked before, though.

To sum up &mdash; Str1977 did not violate the rule, and if he had done so I would not have blocked him since we work on the same article. Also, I reserve the right to treat my friends with as much leniency as I treat my opponents. By the way, as far as I know, Str1977 has never reported any of his opponents for 3RR, although he has caught them; and the only time I've ever known KHM03 to do so, he had given warnings beforehand, and specifically requested that this editor be given an official warning rather than a block. The Christians on the Christianity article are actually quite a nice bunch of people, contrary to what you might think! Anyway, thanks for acknowledging that Giovanni33 and RTS were treated leniently. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 23:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Query the friendship criterion, but one practical point: vandal-reverts ought to be made quickly, otherwise difficulties may arise with intervening edits that are valid.--shtove 00:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You query the friendship criterion? You mean that you think I should report or block a friend for making four reverts when I haven't done so with an opponent who made eight? If so, I disagree strongly. You possibly haven't been following the Christianity article and related articles, where new editors, after repeated warnings, did five reverts, six reverts, eleven reverts, four reverts, and just went on and on and on, despite polite messages, lengthy explanations of policy, pleadings, etc. Obviously, to be fair, I should treat people similarly, but your comment suggests that I should treat friends more harshly. If you read my remarks again, you'll see that I'm simply reserving the right to treat my friends with the same amount of leniency: I didn't say "with more leniency". Bear in mind, though, that an administrator is under absolutely no obligation to block for 3RR; he may do so, if, according to his judgment, there is a need for it. I've only ever made one 3RR block, and I was on Wikipedia for ten months before I ever reported for it. (And believe me, I have seen many instances of it.) Only last month, an editor whom I like, and who has the same POV was blocked (though not by me) for edit warring, and wanted me to block the person who had reverted him four times, and who does not share my POV. I refused to do so, saying that I was not the strictest of admins concerning 3RR, and would normally only block if I was quite sure that the violation couldn't be an accident. In any case, this is purely hypothetical, since Str1977 didn't violate the rule. AnnH ♫ 01:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Your message re User:Jtdirl
Re your message on my Talk page. User:Jtdirl posted his personal details, calling himself James Duffy here. And, he posted here that he has a Ph.D. I'm not revealing anything, all I'm doing is quoting him. Quoting what a Wikipedia editor says of himself on his Talk Page is public information available on Google and elsewhere and is not a "blockable offense." Further, I in fact politely asked him for clarifications for his actions as a Administrator on my talk page here to which he never replied. I therefore posted the same questions to his talk page but he deleted my legitimate questions here, questions about his actions as a Wikipedia:Administrator which he in fact is obliged to answer as an Adminstrator who used the powers entrusted to him. I then asked him to support further claims that he made here on my talk page and you improperly removed them based on your mistaken claim I revealed personal info. May I suggest, it would be not only proper but Policy for you to reinsert both sets of questions which User:Jtdirl is in fact required to answer. Thank you.

- Ted Wilkes 21:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Do my 18,888+ edits and 679 new articles created on Wikipedia in the past 121/2 months lead to a logical conclusion that my posting conduct is "not just an ostensible reason for making a post with what you claim to be his name"? And, in fact a Administrator is responsible for his conduct and cannot make unsubstantiated assertions accompanied by a threat. My questions are certainly most reasonable requests on a serious issue where an Administrator made threats based on unsupported claims. I will be pleased to reinsert my questions without his claimed real name as you have suggested. Thank you. - 22:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that when a Wikipedia editor makes claims to academic qualifications that affect the decisions of others, i.e. appointing them a Wikipedia Adminstrator, then it is very important. Too, User:Jtdirl has intervened in certain articles claiming to be an "academic" and inserting his opinion as an academic that caused others to yield to his "academic" assertion. I would think that type of editing action certainly justifies a request that the person substantiate their claim of being an "academic." - Ted Wilkes 22:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I reposted my questions to User talk:Jtdirl but he deleted them here again. It appears Wikipedia Administrator Jtdirl has special Admin powers: He can say anything he wants, block people without explanation and if asked to explain can delerte their question. He appears to have a major problem with Civility as seen here where he calls other editors work "nonsense" and "garbage" and adds that: "Sometimes the low standards on Wikipedia give me the creeps."

Today, he continued, insulting others here on the Diana, Princess of Wales Revision as of 00:50, March 15, 2006. His edit comment calls another editor's work "rubbish", saying: "Making accurate YET again. Who keeps adding in this rubbish???"

What do you suggest be done? hank you. - Ted Wilkes 13:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jessen
see my talk page for a response. cheers. Newyorktimescrossword 03:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jehovahs Witnesses controversial issues
Greetings, I visited this article and discovered it has been coopted by JW's. They seem to be working to ensure that nothing controversial is allowed to be posted. Someone posted a brief statement that the JW's are anti-Catholic. They deleted it and said we couldn't even quote a JW source to prove it, so basically good luck finding a source they won't delete as POV. I don't know who is in charge, but please let them know this article needs to be taken over by a non-JW. Thanks. —This unsigned comment was added by Cestusdei (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 March 2006.

Charles Dickens
How can you dislike Charles Dickens. That's like saying 'I hate Bono. If you say that in Africa and in Ireland, people would not care about Charles Dickens, that would care that your not alive! GO BLUE EAGLES —This unsigned comment was added by 203.173.29.33 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 16 March 2006.

I don't dispute that he was a great writer, but I dislike his focus on the darker, uglier side of human nature. No doubt he did great work in bringing injustice, poverty, and cruelty to general attention. Nevertheless, while I enjoy reading sad books (George Eliot, Elizabeth Gaskell, etc.), I don't like reading ugly books, even if they have greatness. And no matter how sad Shakespeare's tragedies are, one doesn't feel depressed and discouraged after reading them. AnnH ♫ 10:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I found "Romeo and Juliet" to be pretty depressing. But, hey...that's just me!  KHM03 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, have you ever seen the old film version of "Great Expectations", made in the 1930s or 1940s? It changed the ending to make it a happy, victorious ending...and it was horrible.  KHM03 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd never find Shakespeare depressing, though I admit I don't read the nastier plays like Titus Andronicus. The point is that no matter how sad you might feel about Cordelia's death, or Ophelia's madness, or the injustice done to Desdemona, you never end up feeling that life is ugly and that man is a rather sordid species. I do feel that way with Dickens, who seems to focus a lot on things like cruelty to orphans. If I ever do agree to read a Dickens, it will be A Tale of Two Cities. I saw a film of Great Expectations when I was a little girl, and was frightened by the fire that killed Miss Havisham. I couldn't go to sleep afterwards. I don't know what version it was. I love the Laurence Olivier film of Pride and Prejudice. AnnH ♫ 01:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

bonnie and clyde and blocking socks of Pig
AnnH Thanks for blocking Pig's newest sock and deleting his latest viscious attack on me. I have not quite figured out why he hates me so badly - but he definately does! Thanks for the block. No question it is pig! old windy bear 18:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

AnnH People like you make the world brighter for being in it. thanks from an old beat up vet who appreciates your kindness!old windy bear 19:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

AnnH Thanks for blocking Pig's newest sock, which, as you probably noticed, he signed my name to, though his internet address gave him away! Thanks, good morning, and have a wonderful day! :)old windy bear 11:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Question on "Vicarius Filii Dei"
Greetings. I noticed that you reverted a page, claiming "pov." Why was that? Jtdirl has been the one pushing a particular view rather than just the facts. A case in point is how he wants the wording to say that there is no primary source document when I have posted a scanned copy of just such an offical RCC document.

I've gradually gotten more specific regarding the inaccuracies I've found in the article, but I've gotten no comments in the talk page from Jtdirl as of late. Still, he wants to maintain their accuracy wihtout making any attempt at verification.

Am I doing something wrong? --DrPickle 23:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Vicarius Filii Dei, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Block conflicts
Yes, I've got this little thing that beeps when something like that happens. — Mar. 17, '06 [02:00] <freakofnurxture|[ talk ]>

Rebuttal to your comment on my page
Actually, part of the abortion debate IS when the fetus is considered living. The reason this is part of the debate is because nobody has qualms about "killing" a non-living thing (unless it has sentimental value somehow), but if it is living, then it crosses into one's moral boundaries about the idea of taking life. This portion of the debate is actually a precursor to many of the debates about conditions regarding whether it is moral to abort a fetus.

To further the point of why this is a debate, living mammals are typically composed of multiple cells. Is a human cell by itself living? If a human cell is not living, would you have any qualms about killing it? If it is, then would you have qualms about killing any part of the matter that exists in a cell? (which is scientifically known to be non-living on it's own)

The "Right to life" and "human rights" that you mentioned is a common argument. I took a Morality and Justice course about a year ago. There were various debates on abortion.

I'm readding my part if I can find it for this reason.

EDIT: I'll put that on the Talk page instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tertertee (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 March 2006.