User talk:Musical Linguist/Archive18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

Contents 1 christianity 2 DRV re RfC 3 Whoops! 4 Thanks 5 Wikiproject Narnia 6 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict 7 Content dispute? 8 MikaM 9 Irish articles 10 Have a cookie! 11 You've got a Thank you card! 12 A smile for you... 13 Thank you 14 IP Block of 85.234.150.65 15 Proposal 16 IP block of 69.248.76.129 17 Giovanni33/Professor33/NeoOne/CleanSocks 18 Where are the sock accounts? 19 Gio 20 User:Nathanrdotcom 21 Thank you. 22 User talk:Jeyler 23 RE: Your stalking warning to Arniep 24 Request for Administrative comment 25 WikiProject Musicians 26 Koala nut 27 Removing a comment on my talk page 28 User:Science3456 29 Barnstar 30 Go raibh maith agat! 31 Thank you 32 Thanks Ann 33 Note 34 3RR accident 35 Thanks 36 Editing IP ban 37 Gnostic golf 38 Millingo 39 Thanks 40 Thx

christianity

I am not aware how to self revert however I encourage you to read the discussion at length. I cannot afford to devote my day to ludicrus assertions that all christians believe in an apocalypse. This is therefore the only grounds he gives for editing the article. I also elaborated on your view that the oral word christian could've been used earlier, see discussion and passage from book. Also see alteration, the derived name for the religion itself used in 112-115. I have gone out of my way to be factual and objective however Star continually edits the material with hollow reasoning. I ask you to come in my defense and to keep a watchful eye on the christian, he is continually altering objective content and appealing to various fallacies, unfortunately it seems I can point this out and refute them, he still changes the articles. Please help. Biblical1 10:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I will revert but this is based on being blocked rather than logic, as my controversy should be stated. I question the integrity of one who willingly blocks a new user when the objectivity of an article is @ stake.

I must go now and I do not understand how to edit the page from the prior version. I've simply been having to manually redo everything by opening the page and erasing it.

You in essence threaten to ban me over a logic controversy, the ban being for violation of fixing the violation of another. I sincerely question your motifs, it would do you well to rever to the discussion again. If you alter the controversy yourself you must explain while doing so. I have done my best to follow wikipedia policy, banning a member while encouraging a violator is not the mark of man looking to fufill policy.

I have also counted three reverts, the other one was cleaning up errors. I sincerely question your motifs once again, you were altering the christianity article earlier relevant to oral tradition. This view was included in the new meaning and then you become an administrator who bans members for reverting pages to their proper format. I sincerely hope *i* am the only victim thus far and you have already banned many violators.

It is not my goal to debate with you. I feel perhaps you are more frusterated over discovering the history of christianity and its relevant apocalyptic views rather than my editing of the controversy. You threaten to ban me for reverting the faulty logic of str1977 who himself has reverted numerous times. Then I browse your interest and see this :Catholic theology and lives of saints . How is this an administrator whose primary goal is fairness, when I am keeping policy and you are threatening me to ban me if i do not eliminate the controversy. I will not eliminate it. If you ban me I will simply record your name and state the relevant facts. It does not take an educated man to realize one who bans individuals fixing articles on christianity with interests in catholicism is not using fairness as his/her priamry goal.

I would also like to explain it is not my goal to unravel your motivations for banning me. You must understand I have worked hard to keep the page objective and provide facts.. even offering information to others in the discussion.. only to have the article vandalized.. me revert it and explain.. vandalized again.. me revert and explain.. vandalized again without explantation.. me revert.. and then you message me asking to change it all. You can see how I can be frusterated and question your reasoning.

DRV re RfC

Thanks for the info on the DRV relating to the MONGO RfC - I've changed my opinion accordingly. It's very irritating not to be able to read the deleted page when commenting on DRV. --David Mestel^(Talk) 11:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoops!

Sorry for the revert collission on Love. I was trying to delete the vandalism for the IP, and accidentally restored the POV vandalism! My bad! (fixed now) --Jaysweet 15:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for sprotecting the Toraka article. I nominated it for AfD since it appears to be a hoax and is unsourced. However, I botched the initial AfD and stupidly AfD'ed its history page. I tagged the two relevant articles for speedy delete [1] [2]. Can you delete them? I'm not having the best of luck with AfDs. Sigh. -- Gogo Dodo 23:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Re your message: Thanks for deleting those two pages. I really don't know much about Toraka either. I just stumbled upon it doing RC patrolling. I'm sort of familiar with the video game series, but that's about it. As for your questions about the possible vandals... Hard to say about Wesker002 (talk · contribs). He seems to have stopped so leaving unblocked seems fine. Tundra X (talk · contribs) does not appear to be a vandal, just an enthusiastic fan of the game. He did create the page, but appears to have done so in good faith. Looking at his other edits, he doesn't feel like an obvious hoax creator. -- Gogo Dodo 23:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Narnia

Hello, I noticed that you edited an article related to The Chronicles of Narnia. I thought you may be interested in knowing that there is a Wikiproject working to improve articles about Narnia, your help would be greatly appreciated. Please consider joining WikiProject Narnia. Thank You!

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Hi ML. After you mistakingly deleted the article its history is missing! Please see this [3]. -- Szvest 18:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ML. I appreciate that. Cheers -- Szvest 19:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute?

Hi Ann, thanks for your detailed message on my talk page. I think we may partly be dealing with a question of semantics. I use the term "content dispute" because I use that term for anything that is not a clear-cut legal or policy issue. I am getting the feeling you might like to use that phrase more selectively. However, I don't know a better phrase to use.
Your Hitler/Beetle example is different from this case now only because you did not revert multiple times, but also because Ed has stated that his objection to these images is not so much about the legality of their use, but rather his philosophical view that they are not needed and should be removed. Policy gives editors the right to work together to decide if an image contributes sufficiently to the article to justify its use. However, Ed is on a mission to remove lots of images from multiple pages. He is not a regular contributor to those pages, and he does not engage in discussion on the article Talk pages. He just wants to enforce his philosphical view on the rest of us. That is wrong.
We can come up with a different name for what he is doing if you would like, but whatever we call it, he can't continue to swoop in and try to enforce his will against the consensus already established at these articles. Johntex\^talk 16:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

MikaM

Ma cheri, I note that MikaM has edited tonight and she has removed that socketpuppet label. I just wanted to let you know incase you wanted to restore that label. I'm sure you will get around to it but I'd thought to help you with this notice, ma cherie. :)Giovanni33 08:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How nice to be addressed with the same term of endearment that NeoOne used. Not only do puppets show similarities to puppeteers, but puppeteers show similarities to puppets. However, you should consider that if I'm as devout as you frequently claim, then I probably would not welcome terms of endearment from married men, even when discrepancies between their statements on Wikipedia and their statements on their friendster profile that they link to from their user page show a certain amount of confusion over their marital status. Perhaps you should update it before the people that you're trying to convince see it. AnnH ♫ 08:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha... magic. Of course that is just a total coincidence, Giovanni? --Lord Deskana (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No my young admin. Tis not magic, nor coincidence but planning. The force is not strong with you.Giovanni33 08:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly why I used it, and exactly the response I anticipated (I noted now Neo copied "hehe" on purpose so I thougt it fitting to copy him. Does not life imitate art as art imitates life? And, yes it is nice of me. I am the personification of niceness!Ofcourse the record will show that I never used the term before until I read what NeoOne wrote, and you seemed to ban him right afterwards. I guess you did, infact, not welcome such terms of endearment. Perhaps it is better recived from moi? hehe And, regarding marriage. Marriage is only a legal construct, not an institution that need to be held in deference. I am married to truth, justice, and the best attributes of the potencials of humanity. Conservative insitutions, marriage included, need to go into the trash bin of history. If I partake in such institutions such as marriage, I assure you, its for pragmatic reasons alone. My statments in my friendster profile is consistent with all my statments here, including my state of being married to, who you would declare, is nothing but a socket-puppet.Giovanni33 08:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice plan Giovanni. Especially when there's a discussion about banning you going on. --Lord Deskana (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

But, ofcourse. That is your plan and desire, is it not? If you can't kill the message you killl the messenger. Nothing surprising there. Ban me for objecting to a false label on my own page alleging untruths? Talk about injury added to insult. But, its good to see in the clear the real goal and motive here. Truth and honesty is always refreshing.Giovanni33 09:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish articles

Would you help me get Wicklow and Drogheda peer-reviewed, and maybe as featured article candidates?? --TheM62Manchester 19:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a cookie!

• Ok, I didn't actually place an image of a cookie here, in light of the current discussions about images and copyrights and whatnot. :) But I did want to let you know that I really liked the simple, clean design of your user page. Everything is intuitive and obvious. And it fits on a single screen, unlike mine. Anyway, I came, I saw, I liked, I non-cookied. And I made a note to come back when I get around to improving mine. P.S. Good news, no cookie=no crumbs ;)  — MrDolomite | Talk 19:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got a Thank you card!

A smile for you...

Michael 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

IP Block of 85.234.150.65

Hi, I've checked your request of 85.234.150.65 at The open proxy project. I can tell you that most definetly it is not an open proxy, or if it is, it's a super-dooper, magnseium-induced mega high anonymity one, but theres more chance it's the former :). Thanks for ur alert. --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 08:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I suggest you check the AN/I. You will see that civility and PA blocks are issued in non-extreme cases and are often punitive, contrary to the policy. Complaining about this will bring a bunch of "stop wikilawyering" shouts. There is a very nice sounding policy (let's all be kind to each other, walk away from a dispute, etc.) but admins' consensus on how to block to do is quite different. That justifies my proposal. Either change the policies (say: you will be blocked for any, even dubious extreme personal attack), and "if you misbehave, we will punish you with a block" or act in accordance with them. Policies say honey and admins have the whip. Ackoz 11:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

IP block of 69.248.76.129

I noticed that you blocked 69.248.76.129 (talk · contribs) for 4 days. I do have rather serious reservations about the IPs edits, but many of the edits do involve dates available through google searches. It seems possible the user may be editing in good faith, or (somewhat more likely) making a WP:POINT about lack of documentation for these dates. It is disruptive editing, but 4 days seems a bit harsh. I've put your talk page on watchlist if you want to respond here. Gimmetrow 17:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I very seldom block vandals for that long, but this particular vandalism was continued on different occasions (indicating that the person didn't change IP every time s/he logged on), and I consider that particular kind of vandalism to be particularly harmful to Wikipedia. I'll leave a message on the user's talk page indicating that a promise not to continue might lead to a shortening in the block length. AnnH ♫ 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is extremely annoying behaviour, but wanted to avoid biting a newbie.

Could you also have a look at Mike Matas when you have a chance? I saw this on a recent change and put prod and notability tags on it, which were deleted immediately. I hope the editors improve it, but it just looks like a userpage to me. Gimmetrow 18:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33/Professor33/NeoOne/CleanSocks

I have now confirmed via CheckUser that Professor33, NeoOne, and CleanSocks are all sockpuppets of Giovanni33. I've posted to that effect on WP:AN/I. You might want to move those sockpuppets from the category "suspected" to the category "confirmed". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure! Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Where are the sock accounts?

Interestingly...none of Gio's sock/meatpuppets have come to the rescue. If I perma block the socks, does that permablock Gio...I suppose it does.--MONGO 05:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know, Starbucks is closed. He'll be back soon enough, I'd wager.Timothy Usher 05:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I left a comment at AN/I...hopefully, Gio will essentially promise to be good from here on out.--MONGO 07:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Gio

Thanks for that Ann, but I'm actually not an admin. I did read the links, though, and I found them quite fascinating. I find your patience in dealing with this whole issue astonishing! Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the multiple edits. In my humble, non-admin opinion, I feel there needs to be a condition that he not make personal commentary about other editors. I find some of his characterisations of you and your motives to be quite defamatory. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Ann. I really appreciate your comments. I have commented on AN/I before, but I misunderstood your original message (I thought you were trying to muster an admin consensus). I will have another look at it and might make a comment later. You have a good memory; I had forgotten about my involvement with the Count! Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Nathanrdotcom

Do you have links or evidence to support that his block was upheld by "senior" wikipedians? I can find no precendent for an outside email being used to support an indef block. Especially when there are no links or copies of said email and no warnings were given prior. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This request has been cleared up for JonnyBGood by others-- anyway, Nathan basically demonstrated himself why he was banned, on his website. Ashibaka tock 01:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

I'd like to thank you for your remarks that you added to my talk page. There was no excuse for me getting angry with the people who didn't like my comments on the DeWitt deletion page. Frankly, I will leave the warnings on my talk page until I eventually clear the page. I have never backed up all the messages and don't really want to now. So as long as I don't have to save every message I've ever gotten I will be happy. Thanks again for clarifying what Wikipedia policy is on the matters. Dwain 14:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Jeyler

Thanks for that, Ann. Much appreciated. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your alliance consisting of Sarah, Tyrenius, Dodo and yourself won the first battle, but the war has just begun. This is Chess not checkers, one must think before they make their next move.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeyler (talk • contribs)

Hi. This is a very strange comment. If it is not a joke that I'm not getting, please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Jkelly 23:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Your stalking warning to Arniep

You gave user Arniep this warning on stalking:

"Arniep, I saw the thread at Wikipedia talk:List of banned users and I want to warn you very, very strongly about following people around and showing up at pages they edit. There is a precedent for blocking people who do this, and I'll have absolutely no hesitation in imposing a block if I see that this is happening. I haven't looked into SlimVirgin's claims, and I knew nothing about it until now, but I note that you don't deny it; you claim justification in following her around. Please keep in mind that the user contributions link is intended for cases where you revert clear vandalism, usually from an anon or from a newly-registered user, and you reasonably suspect that that user may have vandalized other articles. You can also use it if you post a question to someone, and want to check if he has been online since. It is not intended for the purposes of stalking people with whom you have a dispute or with whom you disagree on article content. If you continue this pattern of showing up at a page that SlimVirgin has just edited, you will be blocked. I hope it won't come to that. AnnH ♫ 19:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)"

I don't know if it matters, but I actually quit participating in Wikipedia because I got tired of being stalked by Arniep and he/she would not respond to any attempts to communicate through civil channels or per Wikipedia guidelines. He/she would just attack and stalk. FYI Icemountain2 00:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Administrative comment

Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#User:King_Vegita

I have been attacked for vandalism by a Wikibully, the accusor has responded with violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT. The biggest chunk of text is his outright violation of WP:CIVIL, and I want to make sure an admin reads it. Please check it out.

He has also been reported for 3RR, which he is attempting to dodge, despite being blocked twice for it prior.

KV(Talk) 21:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Musicians

A collaboration is currently underway to establish guidelines for musician and band pages. You input is welcome here.--Esprit15d 20:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Koala nut

sorry i didn't make it on purpose, was redirected from caffeine article, got tricked :( was going to delete but forgot

can you give me a barnstar i dont want my page empty ~~Signature, Zexarious —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zexarious (talk • contribs) 23:16, 2 September 2006.

Removing a comment on my talk page

Thank you for doing so [4], although don't you think I would be better off not missing out on such an amusing comment? :) --A Sunshade Lust 23:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Science3456

I reblocked User:Science3456. He is a very persistent vandal (see User:R. Koot/Science3456). —Ruud 20:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		great work Jeffklib 09:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Go raibh maith agat!

hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Good to see your signature again, Ann. You're right, I should just become an admin and then I wouldn't have to post flaming threads on my talk demanding an unblock night after night :). Though I've rather liked not being one, I think it will be soon. Thx for the unblock. Marskell 20:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ann

Hey Ann, I hope you're having a good semi-break and getting all your work done. Thankyou so much for supporting my RFA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. You actually welcomed me when I first got an account last year. Having the support of the first 'pedian I had contact with was particularly valued. Thankyou for that. :) And please tell me if you see me stuff anything up! Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Note

A request was made on WP:CVU relating to Wikipedia:Vandalism. I have protected the latter page in an earlier version to ward off a revert war; since you edited it recently, please take a look at the current situation. Thank you. >Radiant< 00:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have objected to: the edit starting the war, to the edit war itself and to the block. See my comments [here].--Blue Tie 04:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR accident

Hi Ann. I made a mistake and violated the 3RR rule. It was accidental but with my record I'm afraid that I may get blocked again, maybe for a long time. I wish I had been given the chance to self-revert but wasn't. As someone who knows that these accidents can happen, and given my genuine and sincere desire to follow all rules, maybe you can help me in this situation to that I'm not blocked (or if I am not too long?). Since my own catharthis of sorts after your helpful intervention in my case, I have grown to admire and respect you as an admin. Thanks for listening.Giovanni33 07:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting (and blocking) the vandal on my user page. See you around!--MrFish^{Go Fish} 16:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing IP ban

Hello. My name is Patrick Gephart, I am a sixteen year old High School student at Angola High Schoool. I noticed a few messages warning that this IP should not edit any more articles or else will be banned from doing so - one of these messages came from you. This IP that I am currently on is a <b>high school library IP</b>. This single computer I am on is used by somewhere near thirty students a day, and for all I know, every computer in this school (a total of somewhere around 150 at LEAST), uses the same IP. I could be wrong - each computer could possibly use a different IP. If they do, sorry. I don't know myself. So, your warnings are pretty much not being read by anyone, and the people who edited Wikipedia unreasonably are *probably* just high-school idiots who think it's funny or something. I do not condone thier behavior, and I apologize for the work you and other Wikipedia administrators had to do to correct these mistakes. I recommend that you block Angola High School's IP address(es) from editing Wikipedia. If it's one of those high-school idiots, they don't need to edit it; and if it's someone who has a reason to edit it, they can find a different computer to edit it on. I do NOT know the IP that the school is on, and have NO idea how to check the IP of the school. However, the message you sent me (which I post below) says "USER TALK: IP ########", which may be the school's IP, the individual PC's IP, or your IP. I have no idea. So please forgive the idiot high schoolers who did that. REPOST: MESSAGE: "User talk:165.139.22.67 Warning Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Ginkgo, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. AnnH ♫ 13:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)" You can message me (ManualSearch) if you want to discuss this. My email is ManualSearch@yahoo.com, and I'd rather you sent me messages there. Thanks. - Patrick Gephart

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ManualSearch (talk • contribs) 16:41, 25 September 2006.

Gnostic golf

Dear Ann, I think your wording should be all right. Describing gnostic beliefs is quite difficult as they endorsed a variety of beliefs. I am not completely happy with the "spiritual Christ indwelling in Jesus" as it covers only one brand of Gnostics, while others simply believed Jesus to be a spirit. But that is a problem pre-existing your edit which is perfectly fine. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Millingo

Thanks, Ann. I should have known better than to trust reports given on a certain German radio programme. They had a piece on this this morning and said "priests" and I mistakenly trusted them. Thanks for the correction, Miss. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. --Aminz 09:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thx

As always. Marskell 22:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried not to swear this time ;). Marskell 22:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)