User talk:Musical Linguist/Archive16

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

GFDL

Hi, I just noticed that your explanation of vanishing diff's from the Animal Testing talk page and am just wondering about the legality of it under the GFDL? Aren't all additions supposed to be able to be attributable to the author of them? So deleting diff's is actually a breach of this copyright trail? Just a query... :) -Localzuk ^(talk) 13:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Each edit is still attributable to the person who signed it, and my note explaining the loss of a few diffs confirms that; but the difference is that some of the proof can only be seen by admins. In the case of a legal necessity, they could be undeleted, but only if it were judged that the legal implications of placing editors in danger of real life stalking was less important than the legal implications of having some slight confusion over the authorship of a few comments, when the authorship is still shown by the signatures and by my note. I suppose that's really a question for the Foundation's legal expert, not for me. I can absolutely state that it's standard practice for admins to delete a page when some malicious person posts personal information about another editor, and then to perform a selective undeletion. If nobody has edited the page since, then there's no problem, but if some people have, then all the posts up to the bad one have to be deleted, and when the good posts are restored, it looks as if they were posted by the person restoring them. People generally don't check diffs anyway, except when they want to see what has changed since their last visit to that page, and my note clarifies matters for anyone who might be puzzled. If they check a diff months later, if will generally only be for an RfC or an RfAr. Cheers, AnnH ♫ 14:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Just so you know, the user you blocked may well have now created themselves a sockpuppet with the name 'EveryClear' as the first edit seems to have been made on the testing page, refer to ForUsByUs as a colleague and has jumped in to the exact same argument as the other user did and argues in the same confrontational way. -Localzuk ^(talk) 16:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to drop a line saying (a somewhat belated) thanks for the welcome back message. JYolkowski // talk 02:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Helena Blavatsky

Do not blank pages. If you want to contest information, then discuss it

Banned user

Ok, so who is this banned user that you mention, saying I sound like him. I'm curious. I have to keep up with the latest conspiracy theories. At least I can review his edits to see just in what way I sound like him, if there is any truth to the claim.Giovanni33 08:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

User 67.185.57.48

I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-21 Dion Fortune. User 67.185.57.48 has been doing the same kinds of things on the Dion Fortune page they have been on the Blavatsky and Hitler pages. This has been going on for some time now and this user does not seem to learn despite the fact that they have been banned and warned by a total of six admins now. I would appreciate any comments you might like to add to the mediation page. Morgan Leigh 10:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, lord knows I need more admins like you trolling my user and talk page. The irony is the admin who unblocked my user:duk, was a admin who I fought with months ago. Tony Sideway, despite his bad rep, has also been fair with me. There are others, several others which have been really nice and fair. Thanks again. Travb (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm here for the same reason, so I'll post this here. Thanks for your help repairing vandalism on my page. Cheers, -Will Beback 02:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

response

User_talk:Travb/Archive_5#Various Travb (talk) 05:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

VANDALISM

Why did you vandalise my home page?Do it again and I'm telling on you for vandalism! -CAYA

Give them Warnings first. To find what warnings, go to Here °≈§→Robo°_°maeyhem←§≈°^Talk 07:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked this user for five days. The fact that CAYA finds the need to warn Ann tells you that she quite clearly is acting totally inappropriately. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 07:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Linguistics question

Hi ML; Is there a term for a pair of words that means something different from the combined meaning of the individual words? For example, "urban legend," "conspiracy theory," "flower child," or "monkey business." Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Spelling in England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, whatever, is the same.

The has been a ongiong discussion here. Could I have your comment? Myrtone

Thank you

Even better than someone totally uninvolved in 9-11 is someone who I have had serious content and policy disagreements (civilly) in the past. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks by CB Brooklyn

That edit summary isn't the worst of it, see [1] [2] [3] [4] , ect. I just decided to give him/her one last chance, and only block for the 3RR. Prodego ^talk 16:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pope Benedict

Please stopp the protection of Pope Benedict. Unregistered users want to contribute to this article, too. I created entire sections of this article, for example.You should allow everybody to edit this article. Vandals can be stopped with other tools. I created the "Dialog with Christian religions", the "Dialog with Islam" and the "Political positions" section of this article and I´m not registered.

--84.146.244.122 13:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant prose

I just saw this comment of yours on ANI, below mine, and noticed with envy how much better you said it. I wish I'd put it exactly like that! Bishonen | talk 14:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

thanks for your message

Thanks for your message. I am confused, really confused about the block, but after reading it twice, I understand. I would apologize to Kelly Martin, but under the circumstances, maybe it is better to let it drop.

Anyway, regardless, I just want to be left alone to edit. I feel bad now about the one user who I brought up all his past 3RRs in an argument, and used it against him. Now I know how he feels. Those boots will follow me for the rest of the time on wikipedia.

Thanks for your comments. If you want to reply, reply here, I will watch your page for the next day or so. I am going to archive all the comments, and take your advice and forget about it. Thats all I want to do.

I have two papers that I need to write for international affairs class, and I will use wikipedia, as i did last semester. I feel like it is the grace of God I am still on wikipedia. I had completely given up. Duk really surprised me.

Thanks for your comments. Travb (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Travb. I hope things settle down for you now. And I don't see any reason why those blocks should "follow [you] for the rest of the time on Wikipedia." If you stick to the copyright policy, and don't try to get it changed, and if you make good edits to articles, without focusing too much on any particular topic, and if you stay away from confrontation, I see no reason why all this shouldn't die down. I don't know the full extent of your dispute with Jkelly, but I can absolutely vouch for him as being not in any way vindictive, and as simply trying to ensure that Wikipedia doesn't get into any legal problems with copyrighted images — not just on your page, but on all user pages.

Anyway, don't hesitate to drop a line here if you need any help or advice. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 20:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Lazarus and Dives

Oh, Miss AnnH, would you see what you think of Lazarus and Dives? I wrote the thing, way back, so that the Vaughn Williams piece would have a lodge point, but then a person with an active interest in something he and his brethren call "soul sleep" added a strange paragraph of questionable merit. I rewrote it, soothing him along the way (so no conflict). However, then came a project of the parables of Jesus. (Hey, no one asked me...or maybe anyone...given that the whole KJV is at WikiSource and articles on verses are out by AfD. I'm not sure that the project's motives are entirely on the up and up.) However, once we had to introduce doctrine and interpretation, we had to. See what you think, eh? I've tried, now, to contextualize the parable, but doing this makes me nervous, as, first, I don't like talking about my religion, and, second, I don't think we should even be attesting interpretations as reporters, as it's simply not our job to replicate the religious encyclopedias. I'd appreciate a sane second opinion. Now, I'll wander off, mumbling. Geogre 16:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Atlant says "Thanks!"

Thank you for fixing the vandalism on my user page!

Atlant 16:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Not vandalism

Not all ips are vandals. Read it before you revert, I reverted a vandalism and you reverted it back this http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Func&diff=61548110&oldid=61484444.71.31.44.130 15:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I did read it before I reverted. You were mistaken in assuming that another IP's edit was vandalism, and therefore your removal of it was not justified, though I'm sure it was done in good faith. The edit that you reverted as vandalism was not vandalism, so I restored it. I suggest you stop worrying about that page. Func was an extremely popular administrator, and his page is still watched by many of his friends. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 15:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I probably shouldn't have used rollback, as it was treating your edit as vandalism. I apologize for that. AnnH ♫ 15:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Revealing Katefan0's personal information

Hello : - ) I saw your comment to Jaranda mentioned Katefan0. I am still deeply affected by what happened to her and the other issues coming out of WR. After thinking it over for several days, I finally decided to make a oppose comment in Simetrical's RFA. I re-read all of the related comments on WR, AN/I, Linuxbeak's RFC, Blu's Arb case, #Wikipedia chat logs and other related pages. I came to the conclusion that Simetrical brought strong biases to that situation that made him make statements and take actions that were not in the best interest of Wikipedia and the community. I'm afraid he does not have the necessary self-awareness to realize his biases. That is the only reason that I can imagine that she/he would be so dismissive of the harm done to other Wikipedia editors. Hopefully Simetrical will take it as the constructive critism that as it is intended. As a regular participant to RFA, I know that many people do not get promoted for errors that are far less serious than revealing personal information. FloNight ^talk 22:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Link

Thanks for the tip. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism at CreateBlog

I see you were having the same problems as I was with the rapid vandalism at CreateBlog. As you're an admin, I figured that you'd be able to correct me if I'm wrong: I assume it's not a violation of the Three Revert Rule if you're reverting vandalism? Agent 86 22:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of simple vandalism is excluded from 3RR. Simple vandalism is normally defined VERY strictly in the case of 3RR. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely safe reverting vandalism as many times as you can, and are to be commended for it. Reverting vandalism is exempt from 3RR, as long as it really is pure vandalism. POV edits and removal of dispute templates are often reverted as vandalism, but do not count. I've never seen vandalism moving so fast. I think I restored some twice while I was trying to take it out! If you find you need to revert a lot, you can ask for a page to be semiprotected at WP:RFPP, and you can report a vandal at WP:AIV. I'd be grateful to anyone who'd keep an eye on that article, as it's not something I know anything about. AnnH ♫ 22:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the educational comments. I had the same experience as you in inadvertently "restoring" some vandalism when trying to erradicate it. I also didn't seem to have time to go to any of the request pages or vandalism report pages, it was changing so fast. That was certainly "fun" while it lasted! Agent 86 22:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

p.s., I don't know much about the subject, either, but I now have the article on my watch list. Agent 86 22:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the s-protect on CreateBlog - things were going mad! I removed part of your reversion because a line of vandalism had sneaked into User:Agent 86's version (My edit was going to be replacing the tag I'd accidentally reverted!) Inner Earth 22:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that. I'm not sure if it was hastiness on my part or the software bug that sometimes undoes the previous edit while doing the current one. AnnH ♫ 22:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the speedy revert, I didn't catch it that fast! .ιΙ Inhuman14 Ιι.^{( talk | contrib)} 16:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Your revert on the talk of template cite web

Um, Hi! Hmmm.... I'm a bit puzzled by this revert. Why did you do that? I think that posting was fine. That anon was friendly to everyone, as far as I know... --Ligulem 23:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in my RfA!

Thanks for voting! Hello Musical Linguist/Archive16, and thanks for your support in my recent RfA. I'm pleased to announce that it passed with a final tally of (96/0/0). I was overwhelmed by all of the nice comments and votes of confidence from everyone. Thanks again, and see you around! OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality?

If you claim to adhere to a NPOV policy, how can you defend an article about a political leader and leave out his war crimes?

And Ann Coulter in undeniably Satan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Minxchaser (talk • contribs)

Vandalism - VP

Help Please. No I'm 'NOT' a vandal, Just using VP for the first time to roll back Vandalism from user:67.70.41.43 on Rage Against the Machine and Cattle. However somehow I got a warning from Talkerbot. I can only assume I'm doing some thing wrong or the bot edited fractionally before me. I don't like having vandalism warning on my page, I'm going to have a big crying session and get into a huff, now where's my hankie gone?? Richard Harvey 10:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for that:), I noted your revert to the uers second vadalism of Cattle, looking at his cintribs it seems he's in for a session, would it not be prudent to do a 12hr block on the IP, I'm not an Admin, to save some grief? Richard Harvey 10:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of vandalism, thanks for reverting my userpage. That was a weird one -- I haven't been doing any vandal-fighting for days. Oh, in case you were wondering about how the image reverting issue turned out, see Talk:Stephen Harper. Jkelly 17:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)