User talk:Musical Linguist/Archive12

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Musical Linguist. 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

I am tired of the nonsense and am getting more and more concerned about the stalker - I would like my account deleted so that this person is unable to contact me via WP any longer. I would like my user page blanked, my talk page blanked and the name removed from WP. I realise any editing I have done remains. I would appreciate this happeniong as a matter of urgency. Thank you. Robsteadman 21:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

...oh, and my archives and bin too please! Robsteadman 21:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm not really sure that 66.53.232.143 deserved a {{bv}}... it was the IP's only edit, and it could've been a mistake or a test. I was about to give him/her a {{test1a}} or maybe a {{test2a}}, but you beat me to the warning. Just thought I'd share my two cents.

Hbackman 23:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just installed godmode-light, and I clicked the rollback button next to your name as a test, not thinking it would start rolling back without prompting me. If I messed anything else up, tell me. TheJabberwock 19:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: this edit - True, but he can register a new account. However, I have blocked his /16 for an hour, and put instructions on Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Blu Aardvark so that others can do the same. Also, I've put in a request for a a few more tools to deal with vandals who do log-in-log-out vandalism. Raul654 07:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

For the signature tip. --BozMo talk 09:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I never knew that it worked that way, I always thought that reblocking worked both ways, as in you could both shorten and lengthen a block. Many thanks for pointing that out. Cheers Banez 13:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This hasn't been officially filed yet, but if you would like to offer comments or suggestions on User:Jakew/Alienus_RFC, I'm sure they'd be welcome. Nandesuka 13:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vandal reverts - I feel like a real wikipedian now! I saw your comments on KHM03's page about holy days - a female pope - now there's a thought! Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 16:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The only female Pope I know of was Pope Joan; but I thought she was a myth? archola (talk · contribs)

I should explain - Ann was speculating on what she would change if she were pope (if I were Christian I would say her ideas made very good sense). Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 16:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See abortion talk page. I hope you will adopt with the exception of the word "nonviable".____G_o_o_d____

Trying for a cabal? Maybe we should count you, Ann and Chooserr as a total of ONE vote, eh? Alienus 07:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

For reverting vandalism to my talk page and I appreciate the semi-protect as well for now.--MONGO 09:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi ML! That's cool. The original conversation with the guy (before I knew who it was) was pretty weird so I'm glad to see it gone. He later left me another message under a different sock that was reverted before I saw it. Looking at the edit history, it appears to be a ramble about catching HIV from urine stains (perhaps a reference to my sexuality?). Needless to say, I gave up reading it after about 6 words!

Thanks for getting rid of the earlier one! As it was (originally) a conversation about the rights and wrongs of CSD-A7, I didn't want to expunge it myself. Cheers ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You also removed a comment from my user talk page. Thank you for taking the time to apply the policy set by Jimbo. Nevertheless, I'm raising one minor linguistic gripe: There's no reason to use a hyphen in the phrase "indefinitely banned user". I mention it only because it's a pet peeve of mine and you may (alas) have many other occasions to use the phrase. (The singular they also bugs me but I see you're on guard against that one.) JamesMLane t c 03:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You've got mail. — Apr. 10, '06 [16:32] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Happy birthday ;) Raul654 00:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Happy Happy! Cheers, -Will Beback 03:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Happy wiki-b! · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 05:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll sing along. Jkelly 05:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy birthday and best wishes now and always.--Dakota ~ ° 06:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Belatedly...congrats! KHM03 (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My kids all have April birthdays. We are in birthday overload. Happy birthday!____G_o_o_d____

Pro-lick never stops with his childishness. Please take a look. ____G_o_o_d____ 22:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just joking about the abortion thing, I wanted to see how long it would take to be changed. Sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GregaR89 (talk • contribs) .

Well please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If you truly intended only to see how long it would take to get changed, couldn't you have chosen some text a little less controversial? Try the sandbox. --Darth Revert ^{(AKA Deskana)} (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome you and I will be looking forward to hearing from you.--Dakota ~ ° 01:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not the first time, and I'm sure it wont be the last. Especially on busy pages. I have to go, so please keep an eye on the whole ungodly mess for me if you're able. I mean the edit war thing, not Wikipedia in general ;) Proto||type 16:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that many top-level articles, like Christianity, are often in terrible shape, often containing weird emphasis and poorly-structured prose, and normal Wikipedia procedure is often not helpful when there are dozens of editors passing through in a week. I wonder if it would be an improvement if we were to insist that such articles closely follow the lead sections of their daughter articles, perhaps even by transcluding them. The effect might be to make things even more disjointed, but I'm tempted to try a sandbox experiment with some of the worst headaches, just to see what I get. Jkelly 19:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm new at this, so I am still a bit careful. You are probably right that the user should be blocked indefinitely. Is there anything else I should do when I block this guy indefinitely other than unblock, reblock indefinitely, put {{Indefblockeduser}} on the user page and protect it? Kusma (討論) 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, protection seems unusual. As I said, I am new at this and still learning... Kusma (討論) 22:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked indefinitely (and left the template). Thanks for the instructions! I feel a bit like a beginner again, and really appreciate your help and comments! Kusma (討論) 22:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You are invited to help remove POV phrasing from the article. Alienus is pushing. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have some time, could you please check out these edits[1] [2]? They are well-sourced, but I'm not entirely sure whether this fully/correctly sums up the Catholic POV. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 11:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you please erase this link from User talk:Arsath as he added it to KHM03's talk page again. I've reverted it and explained yet again why he shouldn't do this. Thanks. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 08:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Best Wishes to you and yours. BTW, was it you who changed the Piano user template from P-3, to the nice keyboard? Dr. Dan 15:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

File:Cristo Velázquez lou2.jpg

I was wondering... do you think I should nominate myself for adminship? I get frustrated when fighting vandals that I can't block them myself and hate waiting around on WP:AIV so I'm thinking perhaps I should nominate myself... what do you think? I'd appreciate your opinion on this. Thanks. --Darth Deskana (Darth Talk) 17:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Partial-birth abortion. ____G_o_o_d____ 12:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC) I ask you to intervene. JzG, an admin is abusing his position to keep facts from mainstream sources out of an article that he himself is editing. Not only is his position an untenable violation of NPOV, but he is making threats to block me. First he stated that I had no sources and did not talk, so he blocked me for a day. I then came back with oodles of great info and mainstream sources or POV sources that counter other POV sources - and tons of talk. But that is still not enough. He is reduced to using my POV - which I never hide - as a strawman. Can you tell I am frustrated? Thanks. Cheers. ____G_o_o_d____ 22:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if others are having this problem, but perhaps you could look into it. For some reason, my Watchlist looks as follows:

(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Christianity; 00:22 . . King Vegita (Talk | contribs) (→Cease and desist!)

(diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever; 00:17 . . Kendrick7 (Talk | contribs) (→Wording - Clarify missing link)

(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Christianity; 00:01 . . King Vegita (Talk | contribs) (→Cease and desist!)

There are two Christianities....... and I'm not sure why..... I saw originally a post by someone else on the talk page, I checked it out, and noticed I didn't sign my comment, so I signed it which is why they're 21 minutes apart....... an odd thing, I thought an administrator might be able to figure out.

KV 05:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As an admin you should know better than to introduce POV based original research. Agathoclea 09:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like you to give me your current position on this messy situation. Andrew c and I want to move ahead here. If you support Andrew c's version can we please implement it and then debate/discuss which definition should come first. Or are you holding out for them to be switched? I don't mind SlimVirgin's version if this remains a stalemate; but Andrew c's version is better in many respects. It would be smoother if you made the call and implementation, but I'm willing to take the hit if it comes down to it. The straw poll became a farce as I knew it would; and I'm starting to feel inflexible on this issue. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I had blocked that anon, and was about to leave a message on his/her talk page, but you beat me to it! Thanks, anyway. :-) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm aware of the background and did some of the deletions/blocking relating to that incident. I also saw Essjays comment earlier, hadn't realised it went back that far so the toolserver was still current enough to see the deletes. --pgk^(talk) 22:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the support of my RfA. I'd also appreciate it if you'd look in on my talk record from time to time and advise if you think I'm behaving appropriately. I tend to controversial topics, and, it is wise to engage in introspection from time to time when you have opportunity to criticize others and I do.

I appreaciated your ideas of what I might do to meet the basic critism of lack of project editing on my part. I'm not sure I want to spend the little time I have across a range of pages, since it would mean sacrificing reasearch and footnoting time -- the thing I can best contribute. (If wiki is to be of any use to my college students, that is.) --CTSWyneken 15:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on the Welcome Wagon, trying to greet new users in a few idle moments. Do you know of a project page to provide templates or gather greetings? This would be a good place for me to work, perhaps create one if there is not one. --CTSWyneken 15:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for Wikipedia:Welcoming committee. There are a great many Wikiprojects out there... I've thought up ideas for Wikiprojects before only to find out that such a Wikiproject exists and I hadn't realised! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 17:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ann

Someone has restarted the Robsteadman page. I'm not sure what to do.

How far did you get with it?

I stiil think this is a much better way to do it. I am willing to do it if you do not want to, but I am not sure abt the protocols here?

P.S. How/why is your Talk page protected? Frelke 08:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This account left a message on the Talk:Jesus page (where the doubleblue stuff has come up), but user:SOPHIA suspects that it's an imposter. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 09:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had an e-mail from Rob stating that it isn't him. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 10:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I did ask for this account to be permently deleted at the beginning of April and was told that it would be by you. It seems you didn't do this as was requested. why not?

It now seems that someone else has been editing using the account because the edits on April 20th and April 23rd are not by me and I am amazed that user: Deskana would want my talk page unprotected - why could that be? he said so he can contact me, but, over 24 hours later, he hasn't. I notice that this dishonest and disreputable editor has self-nominated to be an Admin - my final act on WP will be to oppose such a ludicrous suggestion.

Now, could someone now PLEASE permanently delete it. Robsteadman 19:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know that Robsteadman was blocked for personal attacks and trolling, mainly centred around my RfA. --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 20:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should your account be deleted? Frelke 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've complete the sockpuppet check on RFCU. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What has been with all the vandalism at my userpage. I've been gone for almost 4 months for personal reasons. The vandalism problem seems to be worse, so I guess I'll come back for a little while and do things. Quentin Pierce 20:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ann:

I've reached my self-imposed 2RR on Martin Luther. We have some blanking there, it seems. Could you look in and revert if it already hasn't been done? Thanks! Bob

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CTSWyneken (talk • contribs) 25 April 2006 (UTC)

When immediately after "Ancient Egyptian" Str keeps changing Resurrection to "view of the afterlife". I had cited specifically where Budge, a devout Christian and eminent Egyptologist had called it "Resurrection" with a capital R and all, and compared it to the Christian belief. It is most certainly, factually, "Resurrection". Str, without reading up on the issue and debating it, simply denies that and replaces it with "view of the afterlife" which is not what is being talked about and is not what the citation I gave supports. Is there anything you can do to stop this senseless edit warring?

KV 11:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a more formal thanks for your advice and vote: Thank you for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk

Thanks for dealing with the Jim Duffy (author) nonsense. It is becoming tedious at this stage dealing with this rubbish. I guess my work dealing with trolls and vandals just triggers off this rubbish. If I remove it, they scream "look at the proof. He is editing his own page." If I don't, they say "People aren't supposed to edit the page. Obviously he is Jim Duffy and can't edit it". I can't win. lol FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well that's interesting. This IP address edited the Robert Steadman article today, and also signed my email address up to some porographic material. The email I receieved from the website was a confirmation email to make sure I signed up myself. The IP address that signed me up to the pornographic site (which was noted in the email) can be located to Nottingham using this website... and the Robert Steadman article states User:Robsteadman works for the Nottingham LEA? Very curious indeed... though only idle speculation, of course. (By the way, I never get spam to this email address. This is the first time I've ever received such an email to this address).

I can't imagine any reason why he'd wish to vandalise an article on himself, and it seems like behaivour that is inconsistent with the way he acted before being blocked. He never vandalised anything (to my recollection). Mayhaps he was correct to be worried about being impersonated. Not that that excuses his violations of policies, but still. Just gets you thinking...

I don't expect a response to this or anything... just thought you might be interested. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Or it could be some schoolkid who having seen mine and Robsteadman's discussion thought they'd vandalise their teacher's article and sign someone who had a conflict with him up to porn. I guess I'm not really sure what I think. PS: Why is your page semiprotected? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Analyising the message header of the emails he sent me indicates that the computer he sends me emails from has the IP address 86.137.71.178. Now I really don't know what to think. Sorry to bother you with my rambling. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi - why did you delete my vandalism report even though it was >1 day old? I have a job to do during the day and I don't have time to sit here constantly monitoring this vandal, ready to pounce within a couple of hours of their vandalism. They have an obvious track record of doing it, going back over a week. Moreover, it is "sly" vandalism whereby the user is not adding obvious nonsense, but nonsense that could be misconstrued as fact. I'm fed up of having to clear up after them and I'm slightly annoyed given my efforts that you aren't doing anything about it. You are prepared to let them strike again? Gsd2000 23:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

ps I'm talking about 71.146.133.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Gsd2000 00:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

IPs are not always used by the same person. I would probably block a registered user with a lot of vandalism, even if I found it a day later. But the purpose of blocking IPs is to make sure that that particular user is forced even temporarily to stop vandalizing. There's no point in blocking that address eighteen hours after the last edit, when a completely different person could be using that IP. In fact, it says at WP:AIV not to report vandalism that's older than two hours. Thanks for the work you do reporting and reverting, anyway. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 00:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but FYI the pattern of edits (content changes and types of article altered - all historical) make it very obvious that this IP is a static one, used by one user. Gsd2000 00:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Feedback please. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Feedback please for Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph#Version_5.2, key difference is mention of non-viability. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)