User talk:Musical Linguist/Archive15

Archive One Archive Two Archive Three Archive Four Archive Five Archive Six Archive Seven Archive Eight Archive Nine Archive Ten Archive Eleven Archive Twelve Archive Thirteen Archive Fourteen Archive Fifteen Archive Sixteen Archive Seventeen Archive Eighteen Archive Nineteen Archive Twenty

Is the Stalker still bothering you?
I removed the link but strongly protest the strong pro-Christian POV I see - but you never answered me. Just curious as to why you think BC and AD is not POV especially on Jewish topics? - Sparky 15:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply - I have no respect for stalkers. My gripe - is specifically that BC and AD are POV if one is not Christian. It is also disrespectful when one is talking of historical figures who were never Christian. EG - Solomon. - Sparky 17:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You've been truffled by Charlie
Charlie has given you some of his famous Solid chocolate truffles! Chocolate truffles taste good, help moods, promote WikiLove and hopefully make your day better. Hope you find the truffles to be tasty, and make sure you enjoy them with a nice tall glass of milk (they're rich)! ''I had seen you on WP:AN a few times, and before you changed your user page I had noticed that you had a few tasty recipies. I was wondering if you would be interested in trading. I waited so I could post my truffle recipe here (External as I wasn't sure about releasing under GDFL yet). In any case, have a good day!'' --Charli e ( @CIRL 05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Spicynugget
Check out the Jesus and Christianity pages and talk pages - could this be a User:Jason Gastrich sock? I'm not quite sure what to do in these situations. Sophia 08:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

RfC at Opus Dei
Hi Ann, kindly find some time to give your comments at the Opus Dei article. We need an objective third party opinion of somebody who knows the non-negotiable Wikipedia NPOV policy. Thanks! Thomas S. Major 04:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You might like...
Hi Ann,

I thought you might get a good laugh: http://thoseshirts.com/roe.html Jkister 06:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for the smiley. I needed that. The loss has saddened me greatly. I will send you another message later.-- Dakota ~ 16:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested Page Move
I cannot move this page because what I want to move it to already exists. I want to move Nuit to Nut (goddess) for the express reason "Nuit is not found in Egyptian naming, the hieroglyphs spell Nut, not Nuit. Transfer to proper naming scheme." It was improperly named and I discussed on the talk page the fact that the hieroglyphs used say "Nut" or literally, "nwt", not "Nuit". I have not seen the spelling Nuit used outside of Thelema, and have seen Nut used constantly, including the only citation which backs up the preexistent hieroglyphs.

KV 07:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help :)
 * KV 17:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. The logical follow-up to this is to move Nuit (Thelema) to Nuit. I have already updated all the Egyptian articles to point at Nut (goddess), so this will not cause any problems. I tried to move but since it didn't point at the article to be moved I couldn't. I've listed Nuit for speedy delete so the move can be done, but thought maybe you could expedite. -999 22:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Your vandalism of my comments
Please stop removing comments without permission, this is against policy. --Col. Hauler 14:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not in the least. See WP:RPA. A guideline can't be against policy. I'm not the only administrator who is removing your personal attacks. I suggest you stop, or you may be blocked for disruption. AnnH ♫ 14:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! --Bhadani 14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and same to you! Jkelly 01:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Boothy443
Since the talk page has been archived but there are no links to the archives you may not have noticed that Boothy443 is already on personal attack parole. See Requests_for_arbitration/Boothy443. I tried adding links to the archives back in, but Boothy443 reverted me. Is it appropriate to add this block to the block log on the RfA? &mdash;Jnk [ talk ] 02:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Anonymous editor on 3RR
I was curious whether you might offer an opinion on my most recent comments on 3RR regarding Anonymous editor, who has (once again) demonstrably lied in his defense. It is beginning to look as if he is uniquely above the law.Timothy Usher 21:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Removing the personal attack is great, would it be to much to ask to check the attacks he left on other pages? Thanks again. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 17:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you also look at Requests_for_CheckUser Its gotten out of hand to the point where I too am being accused of being a sockpuppet because I wouldnt answer a users accusations. -- zero faults undefined  17:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User page
Thanks for your help with the category bit on my user page. Chooserr 21:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ann
Dear Ann, first allow me to thank you for removing that silly vandalism off my page; and second (and more important), did you get the email I sent you yesterday? I'm not sure whether or not the Wikimail is working properly... Cheers,  P h a e d r i e l ♥  tell me   - 12:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work
Saw you reverting and then blocking a user on Mary Magdelene and wanted to say thanks for all the work you're doing :) Inner Earth 15:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Censoring other editors comments on talk pages
I would like ot know why you are censorship my statments on SV's talk page. When I gave up on answering someone with my own assessment of the situation which was being reverted as I guess it could be interpreted to be presenting a negative assessement of SV's leaving (which I stand by), I then simply wanted to endorse the comment that the talk page of another section that stated the talk page was of limited value because of the censoring. But, you removed that as well. Note that there is no way to even possibly interpret this comment as any kind of taunt. I feel this is blatant and unjust censorship, which I disdain, and I ask you to justify your action. My message, you censored:


 * "I stated my view, responding to your comment below about when I think for sure SV will be back in full action but it was suppressed and reverted. I asked why but there was no answer, just another revert. This underscores the message of this section in regards to silencing any voices, opinions that state a view with commentary that can be interpreted as negative. I don't have any agenda as im not anti or pro SV, but I do have a view on the incident. Its sad that not all views are tolerated, and does make this talk page of limited value as a result. This comment will probably be removed as well per the pattern. If you support my view, Bhandani, I hope you will restore this if and when its removed. Giovanni33 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Giovanni33 17:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my allged vandalims
I hope you are really the person to speak to, but you said you would look into this. I did blank the page twice indeed, but that was only after a person who is not part of this mediation left a long rant there that was full of slander and misrepresntation (in other words, her usual style). The mediation attempt was pointless from the beginning, but I most certainly will not allow such dishonest and harassing rants to stay on a page where they don't belong. The user who made the vandal alert was also less than honest, presenting himself as sombody who wished to help, only to report me (completely inappropriately) as a vandal, which is definitely not what I am. -- AlexR 09:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What I did was definitely not vandalism, since that b....es comments don't belong there. But given that you threaten me with blocking, there seems to be little I can do if you decide that I have to either let them slander me and do nothing or let the slander me and get blocked. Great. Thank you very much for making clear what kind of people were at a time able to become admins here. -- AlexR 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AlexR
Thanks for responding to my VIP call. The user appears to be a good editor (certainly an impressive edit history) who has put alot of time into wikipedia. I'm not sure whether the current, well, "tone?" he uses has been around throughout that time but I won't stop hoping we can reach some sort of amicable conclusion on the cisgender page... However dim prospects look... I don't think any more admin intervention is needed at this time, especially given the user claims to be abandoning the debate, but I hope I can stay in touch with you if circumstances don't improve. :/ Usrnme h8er 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Amibidhrohi
Ann, thanks for having a word with him about his vandalism to my user page. Since then, I've asked him not to engage in personal attacks, . His response defends his prior attack and is itself palpably incivil . Additionally, he shows no remorse for the user page shenannigans. He's already blocked for 3RR - might you consider extending it for personal attacks and incivility?Timothy Usher 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Civil
civil1 Al  06:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Template changed to link. AnnH ♫ 20:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings. If you're unsure as to why you were warned, ask. In this case, the warning refers to your uncivil (and inaccurate) remarks about me on AN/I. Thank you for understanding. Al 18:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Any particular reason you're removing this warning? Al  19:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe she read it - and thinks you are uncivil by keep putting it there. You might be better of providing a diff or something rather than putting a template warning - which everybody by now knows you put there so effect accomplished. Agathoclea 19:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, I was referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=56984785&oldid=56984284

Now, I'd like her to either acknowledge that she was uncivil and inaccurate, or explain why she thinks she wasn't. This is not unreasonable. Al 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I thought it was a rather civil approach to the matter. As for accuracy I'd need to check the background of every diff Ann provided but as a whole it looks she made a good faith assessment of the situation. Surely you might argue with that assessment, but I think that is normal in a situation where people see things differently. What matters is that those differences get resolved in a civil manner. And - if not really relevant - people might even agree to differ in views about something. Agathoclea 19:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call "vandalism" a good-faith description of my actions. Nor would I call her attempt to shift he focus away from Chooserr to me "civil". Al 20:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The above link (referring to green-highlighted text) shows that ML is capable of a robust assessment of a complex series of small WP abuses. No incivility there. The mystery is how she can be so thorough and still find time to go to work on a Saturday morning. The onus is on Al to point out an example of the incivility, and all examples of relevant inaccuracy ie. refer to particular passages, rather than express indignation over a description of "vandalism" and a "shift of focus". Perhaps the incivility template should be countered with a fit-of-pique template.--Shtove 20:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I did point out a specific inaccuracy on the ANI page. It would be helpful if you did full research before drawing conclusions. Al 21:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I did post in that thread and even followed your references. Ann and I have had our differences and will have again. Nevertheless I can't see how the above link proves any un-civility. Your further edits made the impression of attacking the person, rather than disproving her assessment. As this is an encyclopedia facts are more important than intentions anyway so please give the subject some peace - there are other matters worth fighting for. Agathoclea 22:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Agathoclea. Al posted the link as if it explained everything. The best way to make a case is to keep to specific points, backed up by specific evidence. It's not down to others to hunt these things down.--Shtove 22:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this speaks for itself, so I'll stop speaking. Al 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop following me
Seriously. dont revert me cos your mad tat i can legally get your christianity deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andy5190 (talk • contribs).

Christianity
It seems that, at least twice, you removed the AfD tag placed on the Christianity article by user Andy5190. Now, while I may not have agreed with his placing of said AfD tag, as I am sure you are aware removing it is a violation of Wikipedia policy. It is considered vandalism. The proper response would be to vote on the AfD page, which is what you should have done. Thanks. ---Charles 05:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You are in error. Christianity has been identified as a core subject, which means any attempt to delete it is a violation of WP:POINT. Musical Linguist would have been well within her purvue had she blocked Andy5190 the second time the Afd notice was placed on the article (assuming she'd warned the user after the first placement of the spurious Afd notice.) KillerChihuahua?!? 13:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Cross-posted from KillerChihuahua and User talk:Musical Linguist: But, did she place such a warning? I honestly do not know.  And it seems there should be some process for removing the AfD notice other than a reversion which offers no explanation.  I think that making the AfD in the first place was an attempt at harassment on the part of a user who is intent upon being a disruption.  But, there has to be some kind of conversation about the issue, yes? ---Charles 16:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No. I'm not a religious person by any means, so I can hope I can offer an outside view here. Can you imagine a present-day enyclopedia without an article on Christianity?! It is one of the most fundamental core subjects of the current age (as is Islam). We delete articles because they are about non-notable topics or have other issues which can only be addressed by deletion. Even if it were a horribly POV piece, Christianity is just not going to be deleted. Therefore, any nomination is a violation of WP:POINT at best and vandalism at worse, it's as simple as that. --kingboyk 17:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly did not agree with the AfD, and it became apparent that it was not made in good faith. To me, the issue was that she removed the tags without any kind of discussion or explanation.  Now, it has been made clear to me that this was not necessary.  --Charles 19:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It was wrong for me to post either the POV warning or the AFD. I still insist that I was not trying to cause "disruption" or "vandalise" the page. I was angry, and I had found a loophole. I apologize to all involved. I hope you can understand. Andy Blak 20:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Unrequested discussion page revert
I noticed, in going through my discussion page history, that you decided to do some editing, unbeknownst to me. Though I'm always pleased to see admins doing their job, this was one case where the message re: a vote on a George W. Bush article was of interest to me. Thanks for keeping a close eye on Wikipedia. It shows :) --Michaelk 09:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice
Please see my talk page, and the archive. --Sunholm(talk)  16:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding User:spicynugget
Hello,

User:Spicynugget is making what I believe to be inaccurate or disruptive edits to List of anthropologists (repeatedly adding a non anthropologist named Mark Andrew Ritchie to the list). You may also wish to take a look at this creation of his Mark Andrew Ritchie.

Maybe I tried to engage this user the wrong way, but he does not seem to respond to requests for evidence of his assertions. You've dealt with him in the past, so perhaps you wouldn't mind keeping an eye on him.

Apologies if this is the wrong channel for this sort of thing--first time I've ever felt I needed to do this.--Birdmessenger 19:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR
May I ask why that clarification does not appear on the 3RR page? If it's not part of the official policy, I'm not certain we can legitimately ban someone under its auspices. CJCurrie 21:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Email
Hey, I've got a question. What did you want to email me about? I can't thing what it might be and I'm really curious. It's not important if it's not important (if that makes sense). Thanks! Dan --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Not
No problem :) Pecher Talk 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Appreciated
Thank you for your kind vote of confidence, Ann. I guess you and I are both teachers, and can appreciate how much teaching and learning goes on here, and how different those dynamics are from those of a battle or a debate - or at least how different one hopes they are. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Cool Cat/Explanation
Err? What was that about? -- Cat out 20:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I owe you an explanation. Sorry for any inconvenience or shock. The edit from the anon which you reverted yourself earlier today as vandalism contained personal information about someone who has been a victim of serious harassment, so I removed it from the history. Your page has now been restored. (It's a nice page, by the way.) See here for further information. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I wasnt in shock, just the audio alert "Warning! User talk:Cool Cat has been deleted!" got me curious.. :) I actualy never noticed the personal info :P
 * All I have to say is, carry on. :)
 * -- Cat out 20:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Mormons & Christianity
Hello, I wanted to catch up on our conversation from last week on the Christianity article. I agree with you that classifying Mormons as Christians depends on the definition as you pointed out on the discussion page. Of course, I favor a definition that would most closely align with 1st century Christianity: a belief in Christ as the Savior, the Son of God, that was born of a virgin Mary, lived a perfect life free from sin, submitted to the crucifixtion and died only to rise again on the third day. However, if we are to limit Christianity to only those accepting the creeds of the 4th century and after, then Mormons would not belong; they are not part of the Orthodox Christian "tree", but rather restorationists. I might add that I strongly dislike disqualifying any person or group from being called Christian. It is better to stick with labels that do not attempt to judge a personal relatioinship with God. For that reason, I am comfortable with, "Mormons are not part of the Historic Christian church". At times orthodox seems acceptable, but my contention is that orthodox to what? 4th century creeds, then yes. 1st century Christianity, then no.

I do think that we have talked about this before and come to an understanding or an agreement to disagree maybe. I was trying to limit COgden's focus on the article. He has a bright mind and is LDS. I know him from the Mormon articles and have a high degree of respect for him.

I always appreciate your edits and comments. Thanks for being there. Storm Rider (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Help requested for Emancipation
An editor (User:FredrickS) is currently insisting on what appears (to me and others) to be a problematic entry on the Emancipation disambiguation page (diff). His argument boils down to the fact that people use "emancipation" in conjuction with "political", and since in his opinion proportional representation clearly provides more "emancipation", obviously a link to proportional representation is needed on the disambig page (complete with mini-essay). I've tried to attract additional editors to the page, but I thought it might also be useful to ask one or two admins to comment on the situation and perhaps convince him that this isn't just "censorship" etc. by myself or others. I've also suggested that creation of an NPOV page such as "emacipation (political)" would be the proper starting point, with no success. Thanks, - David Oberst 17:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks
Appreciate the fix. My goodness, you're quick. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection of userpage
Thanks. I'll unprotect it again in a second. I would suspect that it is User:4.19.93.2, who has complained of my refusal to unblock several trolling usernames (e.g. Can sleep, clown won't eat me) and protecting the talk page when they don't take no for an answer to the unblock request. Since it's a single IP they get half a dozen usernames per day before they run out... Same happened yesterday and stopped after half a dozen tries, probably the same person who has now taken to doing loads of minor edits to my talk page at the moment.. --pgk( talk ) 16:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A request
Hello Musical Linguist,

I have a request. Could you please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi#Some_evidences_that_the_article_is_still_disputed

The question is whether "Jewish Encyclopedia" could be cited in wikipedia (Pecher argues that it is outdated). Your input is appreciated.

Thanks,--Aminz 08:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the revert on my user page. You seem to be my guardian angel recently. Thanks a lot. :-D --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thought For The Day
"It is an easy thing to tell a lie, but it is difficult to support the lie after it is told." Thomas Paine 17:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

About User:Dolgo Xwost
Do not remove other people's comments on my talk page.--Dark Tichondrias

If you remove other user's comments from my page again, I will consider it vandalism.--Dark Tichondrias


 * If the comments are obvious trolling, it is normal practice to revert them. If you wish to re-revert them and keep them on your page, then fine, but don't go accusing people of vandalism for it. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 07:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They were removed as per WP:RPA - Ali-oops&#9997; 07:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm grateful for the removal of this silly comment. --Runcorn 21:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler in the New York Times
Hey, look at this.Timothy Usher 09:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion request
Please can you delete all revisions from my userpage from 26th April through to 19th June 2006, please! --Sunholm(talk)  18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)