User talk:Musical Linguist

Archives

Archives for this talk page can be found here.

Sympathies

Sweetie, I am so sorry to hear the sad news! You are in my thoughts and prayers. I feel for what you must be going through - my mother passed on 16 years ago and it is a hard thing to weather. (((hug))) KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am so sorry for your loss. My mother has been ill for some time; so I'm preparing for the same storm you are weathering now. You seem strong, so I know you'll make it through. If you need cheering up, look at at this, or this. Be well, Ann. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 00:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ann, you are in my thoughts. Again please reach out and let me know if I can help you in any way. FloNight 01:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, Ann. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for your loss. You have my deepest sympathy. -Will Beback · † · 02:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I know what it is to lose a mother - you are in my thoughts Ann. Sophia 12:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ann, I am so sorry for your troubles. In sympathy, Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ann, very sorry to hear about your mother. :( Syrthiss 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ann, I am very saddened to hear of your loss.--MONGO 12:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I, too, am deeply saddened to read of your loss, Ann. May you find some small comfort in the knowledge that you and your family are in the thoughts and prayers of your friends around the world. Sarah Ewart 13:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to hear about this, Ann. I hope you're as good as can be expected under the circumstances. --Deskbanana 13:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ann, my heartfelt empathy for the pain you are in. I too have lost as you now have. Through that time, the only piece of advice that I heard that made any sense and actually helped was "You never get over it. You just get used to it". --Durin 14:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

May your mother rest in peace, Ann; I shall offer prayers for her -and for you and your family in this time of hardship. Take care,GordonWatts 16:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Take care of yourself... my thoughts are with you. Jkelly 17:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

May I offer my words of sympathy to the others here? Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Comhbhrón. I've just returned to editing after a break, or I'd have left a message sooner. Is olc liom do bhris. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for your loss ann. Cocoaguy_contribs^talk 15:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear the bad news - best wishes possible under such circumstances (User:arthurchappell

Pie Jesu Domine, dona ei requiem. Vilĉjo 00:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I just learned. I'm so sorry for your loss. Best wishes to you and the rest of your family.Giovanni33 00:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I found out not too long ago (I've been off a while) and meant to say that I'm sorry for your lose. Chooserr 04:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I just found out. I am very sorry for your loss.--Dakota 19:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

Hallo dear friend, thanks for your message. It is good to see you peeping in on Wikipedia despite your troubles. I can relate to your concerns about the house. Nonetheless, I am wishing your father all the best in his "quest". TC, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ann, I saw your message on Str's talk page. I am glad to hear you are doing okay. Best wishes, Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. I'm planning to say little more on the subject unless I'm attacked again. I have proved my point about the IRC admin channel, and many people (whose opinion matters to me) now seem to believe all I have ben saying was true. The channel is now thoroughly discredited and will never be a source of power again, and used by anyone of Wikipedian value - it is now basically finished - no one will ever believe a word that emanates from it again, no doubt a few little firecrackers will continue to pop on admins notice boards and such places but I think people can now evaluate such comments for themselves and see them for what they are dying embers of a former power base. Once again thanks for your support in this. I have appreciated it. Giano 10:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

It's nice to see you contributing again. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I came to say the same thing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As did I. I sincerely hope you are doing as well as could be expected. No need to reply - KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you. You were missed. -Will Beback · † · 01:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

RFI comment

Although personally I believe policy of '0 tolerance for civility violations' would be best for Wiki, I am also happy to give people second and third chances and assume much good faith. Dr. Dan has been warned many times, and after months of dealing with his personal attacks I am fed up. Even so, I can live with this - but apparently other valuable contributors cannot (per my comments about User:Halibutt). When created of hundreds articles and Top 168 most active writer in our project is chased off by a person who does 1 or 2 minor copyedits per week, this is something that we need to address.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ann

Thank you Ann, for your kind words and support. Your contributions and fairness have consistently made Wikipedia a better place. I wish to again convey my deepest sympathy to you, over the loss of your Mother. Dr. Dan 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about...

...this revert? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha! I cut out the "devil incarnate" bit, and the rest of the childhood section reads fine.--Shtove 23:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi, Ann. I replied to your comment regarding me at WP:AN/I. I feel very sad that I seem to have gotten on your bad side, when I've consistently tried to do what's right regarding this whole situation. I'm still committed to preventing conflict between Wikipedia and other sites, and I hope that my approach doesn't turn out to be miscalculated. I certainly value your opinion, and I'm open to hearing your thoughts. That said, I can't unknow what I know, or believe things to be true that I know to be false. I wish I thought that someone at Wikipedia understood where I'm coming from. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoe's talk page

I'm not going to undo your reversion of the anon's comments on Zoe's talk page, but I feel that (barring any history between the two that I don't know about) your characterisation of that comment as "kicking someone when they're down" or as "nasty" is grossly unfair. It reads to me like a very mild and good-faith assessment of Zoe's actions- for which she has yet to show any contrition whatsoever (unlike Jimbo and unlike Pierce, the actions of both of whom were by no means as potentially damaging as Zoe's). No-one is looking for an apology (any apology should of course go to Pierce, not to anyone else) but Zoe's hasty and severe over-reaction has been compounded by her arrogance on AN/I and her petulant response to Jimbo's comments. I think that is the point that the anon was making, and I feel it is entirely fair. Let's not get to a stage where our eyes are too blinkered to accept just and good-faith criticism just because it is directed at friends. I suspect you are right that Zoe would probably revert that edit without response or further comment- she would be wrong to do so. I do not doubt that Zoe thought she was behaving properly, but she wasn't- in exceeding her authority and making spurious and inappropriate threats she showed serious misjudgement. Pierce has learnt from this, Jimbo has learnt from this, and I think many of the rest of us have learnt from this too. It remains to be seen whether Zoe has. Badgerpatrol 13:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

cross-posted from Badgerpatrol's talk page Hello, Badgerpatrol. Regarding the question in your edit summary, Zoe has left Wikipedia. It seems that she was very badly hurt by the public rebuke which, in my view was undeserved, since (regardless of whether you agree with her reaction to Pierce's assignment or not) she was certainly acting in good faith, and had absolutely no way of knowing that the matter had been dealt with. While I'm quite happy that Jimbo put a stop to the contacting of Mr Pierce and the University, I don't think that it's a simple case of Stop=good and Leave-to-continue=bad. If Jimbo had simply posted a message saying that he had spoken to Mr Pierce on the phone, Mr Pierce had apologized and promised not to do it again, and Jimbo wanted the matter dropped, I think the matter would have been dropped. So it would certainly have been possible to put a stop to it without humiliating Zoe. Then we have to ask did humiliating and hurting Zoe bring any benefit to the encyclopaedia that would outweigh the disadvantage? I can't see that it did. While I'm not Zoe, and therefore have no obvious right to revert comments on her talk page, I do strongly believe (you'll find evidence of this if you look through my posts on user talk pages and on project pages) that people have the right to remove unwanted comments from their own pages if they wish (other than things like block notices for the duration of a block), and I have seen Zoe removing such comments before. Wikipedia, as the anon said, is not censored. But that simply means that we can't go around removing images of private parts of the body from articles on those subjects. It does not mean that we have to condone kicking someone who's down. Most decent people do not post "I-told-you-so" messages to someone who has been publicly smacked and is upset, and is leaving. Unless you actually want to cause further pain to Zoe, I would strongly urge you not to restore that comment. It's in the history if she wants to read it. I can state categorically that she would not want it left there. Musical Linguist 13:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. the orange bar lit up with your message as I was previewing this. I opened in another window in my browser. If there's anything in particular to respond to, I might reply later.

I'm aware that Zoe has left Wikipedia- seemingly not for the first time. My question went to any prior problems between this particular anon and Zoe, since that's the only possible reason I can think of to view that comment as in any way bad-faith or trolling. Let's us all hope that she sees sense and returns. Again and for the record, I entirely disagree with your mis-characterisation of that comment as kicking someone when they're down. As far as I'm concerned the matter is long finished- but any residual frustration has not been dissipated by Zoe's apparent refusual to admit that her actions were wrong. I don't agree that this comment: Note from Jimbo: Wow, this is just wildly inappropriate. I spoke to Mr. Pierce by telephone several days ago and the issue was completely resolved back then. I think Zoe's pursuit of this in this way is wildly inappropriate and should cease immediately, and that she should apologize to him for it. I very much do not approve of this kind of random hostility from Wikipedia editors is innaccurate or designed to humiliate or hurt Zoe, nor do I think a reasonable observer would have anticipated that it would have that effect; she is perhaps slightly rash and over-sensitive. You say: Then we have to ask did humiliating and hurting Zoe bring any benefit to the encyclopaedia that would outweigh the disadvantage?- whilst I disagree with your characterisation of Jimbo's comments, the easy answer is- YES. The benefit of the rebuke is to ensure that Zoe doesn't do it again. We are talking about accusing someone of criminal behaviour and academic misconduct, and attempting to precipate an investigation of said "misconduct" by an individual's employers. That is seriously, seriously over the top. Had Zoe made similar legal threats on Wiki, she may have been looking at a ban anyway. If Zoe has left the encyclopaedia permanently then that is a shame but so be it- but I think the only intent of the anon's comment (as it reads to me in that context) is to establish that she was wrong to do what she did and to seek an assurance that she won't do something like it again- justifiable, since I see no contrition in her actions whatsoever so far, although I should reiterate that I'm personally happy to let the matter drop anyway despite this- the intent of this exchange is to defend the anon's right to legitimate comment without being attacked. Badgerpatrol 13:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please do not mischaracterize my remarks. Nowhere did I say or even imply that Jimbo's remarks were "designed to humiliate or hurt Zoe". Of course they were not. My regret is that in posting his remark at AN/I, he did not make sufficient effort not to hurt or humiliate her. If you've ever read Emma, you may recall that Emma made a rather cruel joke to the village bore, and was later reprimanded by Mr Knightley. It's obvious that Emma wasn't motivated by a desire to hurt or humiliate Miss Bates; the problem was that not hurting Miss Bates was not sufficiently high on her priorities to prevent her from saying what she did. I disagree that Jimbo apologized, by the way. He softened his statement, and I appreciate that he did that. But to say he's sorry if his remarks sounded harsh is not apologizing in the sense of acknowledging some blame. ("I'm sorry your wife died" is not a confession of murder.) Nor do I feel any wish to post any "you-should-apologize-to-Zoe" messages on his page. I think too highly of him to believe that he isn't sorry that his hastily-worded public rebuke caused so much pain. And I wouldn't be surprised if he is trying to undo some of that hurt by private e-mail — though that really isn't my business, or anyone else's.

It's interesting, though, that Jimbo is generous enough not to turn up at her talk page and start posting "I hope you've learned your lesson", "I hope you'll learn something from this", "I hope you'll listen to other people in future", "I hope you won't be so arrogant again" "have you apologized to Pierce yet?" type of messages. As I believe his remark at AN/I was a once-off, hastily-written, completely uncharacteristic post from a very kind person who has always, except in this instance, shown huge respect for the dignity of other people, I do not think he would be happy with people posting that stuff on her page now. To say that some of the remarks on her page were not uncivil is to miss the point. It is unkind to add to the hurt she's feeling. It won't achieve anything. It will make it more difficult for her to come back. And if the motive of those "I-hope-you've-learned-your-lesson" posts is to make her feel some contrition, then there's even more reason to remove them, since even elementary psychology should tell you that they're likely have the exact opposite effect.

I disagree entirely with your statement that the benefit of the rebuke ensuring that Zoe "doesn't do it again" outweighs the disadvantage of hurting and humiliating her, as you fail to consider if a gentler method would also have ensured that she "doesn't do it again". A public statement (preferably immediately after his phonecall to Pierce, though it seems that he wasn't online for several days, so that may not have been possible) on AN/I saying that Pierce had apologized and had promised not to do it again, and a private e-mail to Zoe, expressing some his dissatisfaction would have been perfectly adequate. Nobody has suggested that Zoe would do it again if Jimbo had told her, nicely, that he'd prefer that such matters were left to the Foundation.

As for your concern about Zoe attempting to precipitate an investigation by Pierce's employers (if he didn't promise never again to set an assignment for his students to vandalize Wikipedia — you leave out that bit), while I certainly wouldn't have done what she did, I think that if what Pierce did was completely inoffensive, his employers would just think Zoe was a crank, and if it was something disgraceful, then it wouldn't be wrong to make them aware of it. I wouldn't want people contacting my employers, and I certainly wouldn't have contacted Pierce's, but the posts on AN/I about Zoe trying to ruin a man in the real world and get him sacked were as OTT as people say Zoe's reaction was. If I put paper in the bin instead of recycling it, and you tell my employer, it won't harm me in the least. If I molest children and you tell my employer, it will cause me serious harm, and it will serve me right. If Pierce had not refused to give an assurance to Zoe that he wouldn't do it again, or if Jimbo had informed us at AN/I that Pierce had given that assurance to him this distressing situation could have been avoided.

One final point — I notice that you suggest that my eyes "are too blinkered to accept just and good-faith criticism just because it is directed at friends". Aren't you jumping to conclusions? It's almost insulting to suggest that the only possible reason I could have for wishing to spare another human being further distress is that she's a buddy of mine. Look at the favourite quotation at the top of my talk page. (And don't bother to say that the message I removed wasn't a "taunt": King Lune would certainly have considered it unmanly to go to someone's talk page with "honest criticism" when that person is smarting from a public rebuke from the Founder.) My history on Wikipedia shows that I am totally against adding further humiliation to people who have been in some way humiliated, regardless of whether I like them or not. I try to refrain from posting on talk pages of blocked users with whom I've been in dispute. I recently asked somebody not to revert a user I had indefinitely blocked who was removing other people's comments from his talk page, as I thought, he's been blocked anyway, so let him keep a little dignity.) For the record, I know nothing about Zoe. We've never edited the same articles. Before this happened, I think I had posted twice ever on her talk page. I never checked her talk page messages. I have had a very, very limited amount of e-mail correspondence with her — relating to a user she had blocked, who had come back under a different identity, and about whom I also e-mailed other admins. This has nothing to do with supporting a friend. This has to do with the fact that not adding to someone's humiliation is apparently higher on my priorities than on yours or on 129.11/76.230's.

I not do not intend to be drawn into any further discussion about Jimbo's role in this. For one thing, I like him, and think that he generally does a great job. (His contributions show that he was not around for a few days before making that post, and that he didn't post anything else for nearly two days afterwards, so that would explain why Zoe wasn't told that the matter had been dealt with, and suggests also that he was particularly busy and just forced himself to take time to write a message to put a stop to the whole matter.) For another, I believe that lengthy discussion about his handling of this matter — or of any other — is not good for the Project. My view on Zoe is that she's hurt, and that if you can't bring yourself to post something kind, you should stay away from her talk page. Zoe is a human being; she is not a Wikipedia article that has to report all points of view. Musical Linguist 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we may have to agree to disagree then. The matter could have been handled privately- but I personally think some kind of public statement was required to make sure that this situation never arises again. I suspect the University did indeed pass the complaint off as harmless- but it need not have done. Zoe made some serious allegations [1], that the less enlightened could have taken seriously. At the very least, it potentially caused embarassment and unnecessary additional work for those who presumably have other things to do. With respect, I haven't seen anything on Zoe's talk page that could be construed as gaving the effect of adding to any "humiliation" she may be suffering. What I have seen are a few measured, good-faith edits constructively criticising Zoe's actions. The fact that Zoe has again overreacted to the situation, has posted a rather silly and obviously innaccurate statement on her user page[2], and made some unhelpful (and some might say dismissive) edits in the previous AN/I discussion (e.g. [3], [4], (especially) [5], [6]) suggests that constructive criticism and gently pointing out her mistakes may still be a useful, necessary and productive exercise. I wholeheartedly agree with protecting people from stress wherever possible, and it seems that Zoe may be quite thin-skinned (since she also seems to be a productive and generally respected editor, let's hope she eventually comes back). I don't agree with stifling legitimate debate or criticism. My only intent in this postscript to the whole sorry debate was to defend the right of others to reasoned and constructive criticism (on whatever issue and on whatever side of the given debate), the benefits of which I at least feel to be self-evident. I note that now there are a couple of comments on Zoe's talk page which I consider to be as strongly worded (if not more so) than the anon's initial comment (a quick scan indicates that these have not to date been met with the kind of attack[7] that the anon's was), just as there are numerous messages of support. That is exactly how it should be- I don't see any bad faith there. If I did see any gloating or other nastiness on there then quite frankly I would probably revert it myself (although I try to stay away from others' talk pages where possible as a simple matter of personal preference). As an aside, thank you for your well-reasoned and thoughtful responses, which stand in stark contrast to those of one or two others, sadly. All the best, Badgerpatrol 04:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Badgerpatrol here, if Zoe had been reasonable from the out set there would have been no need for Wales to step in. Still she shows no contrition, judging from the strawman (Wales supports vandals) argument she has left on her user page. Being outraged at the messengers misses the whole point. David D. (Talk) 15:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Badgerpatrol, we'll have to agree to differ on this, but I do thank you at least for keeping the discussion civil. I have never had very much contact with Zoe, and was not in any way involved in the Pierce discussion, but I can assure you that if you were upset and left Wikipedia in similar circumstances, then regardless of whether or not I liked you, and regardless of whether or not I felt that you had been in the wrong, I would certainly feel distressed at seeing people turning up at your talk page to offer unsolicited advice about not being so arrogant in future, or to hope you had learned your lesson, and I would take exactly the same approach. Regards. Musical Linguist 00:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Howdy

I sent you a snail mail...let me know via that return if you got it...thanks.--MONGO 09:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My talk

Thanks. You may want to keep a close eye on Adam Hurst (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), works similar to JONNY99P (also, the earlier-blocked JONNY89P (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)). – Chacor 15:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet user:JONNY89P to user:JONNY99P whom you blocked

Hello, I was wondering why there was a reference to also known as Jonny 89P on Jonny99P's userpage. It appears this user has two accounts and uses both to vandalize pages. You may want to block this one too. Thanks, Ronbo76 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello...

...and thank-you! I like how, even though I may have only spoken to you once, you were among those sad to see me go, and your reversion on my talk page was very nice too. Definitely a RAoK (*points to userpage*) Will ^{(talk to me)} 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly vandalism

My edit to God was not vandalism, but it was misplaced. It should have gone in the article on God in Pop Culture instead. And it's already there. But it was not vandalism because it is factually accurate information. Please remove the warning.

Thank you for removing the warning in question BuyAMountain 23:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry about the mistake. Musical Linguist 23:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

David S. Touretzky

• Thank you for reverting the vandalism on David S. Touretzky. I warned the editor/vandal on their talk page, but I did not want to revert the vandalism, obvious an attack as it was, a third time. Thanks again. Smee 09:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Elizabeth Morgan IP edits

Hi Musical Linguist,

You were picking things up faster than me yesterday with regards to the article above, so I left it; however coming in this morning and doing normal checks I found your blocks and your later bv warning. I looked back through the Elizabeth Morgan page history and saw that it's a sensitive page, but the edits being made here are of a different kind. Sure, the edits themselves are inappropriate and revertable - but the edits themselves are not in bad faith, and certainly not what I would have expected to see bans for, nor a bv. I don't know whether the 15-year old would have been able to read the message I left yesterday on that newly created account (does a permabanned user account have access to its own talk page?) but I would have hoped for more than a single warning before each of those bans, especially for something as trivial as this.

--Firien § 11:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Points taken. Thanks for the clarification :) --Firien § 13:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A star for you

input sought

In a message to several recent editors of Schiavo-related pages, I write that: Input is sought here: Talk:Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case#Edit_War_between_me_and_User:Calton.

--GordonWatts 15:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Musical Linguist, thanks for your kind comments and offer. Actually I was considering adminship for a while, so your timing is good. If you have any questions about my contributions please let me know. I can prepare my answers to the standard questions and send you a draft if you wish. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do. Thanks again, Crum375 01:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I just emailed you my draft answers - thanks again, Crum375 01:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for your trust and help. :-) Crum375 01:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Account doesn't actually exist

Oh, yes, you're right -- the actual account had a small 'm' for the last name. Thanks for catching that. Jkelly 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Joke banner

Arghhh.[8] [9] I feel about ready to add a joke message banner to my own pages, and I know how much you like 'em, so would you like one too? No, no, don't thank me, it would be a pleasure! Bishonen | talk 02:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

User: Tdalal pornboy

Hi AnnH, Please say something to User: Tdalal pornboy, because I find his user page extremely offensive, weird, perverted, inappropriate, and down-right creepy!!!! Just look at his user page, and I think you'll agree with me! Thanks! Psdubow 20:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for blocking him, I really appreciate it! Psdubow 20:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There might be more to this then we thought... Tdalal pornboy's user page was edited a lot by this IP address, 66.198.34.52, also this IP address is a vandal, it has been warned many times and I think it was even blocked once (See User talk: 66.198.34.52). Maybe Tdalal pornboy is 66.198.34.52! Tdalal pornboy could be using that IP address as a front so he can vandalize and still edit his user page when blocked. You'd should maybe talk to some of the other users and admins who have warned and blocked 66.198.34.52. I'll try and investagate it some more myself. Psdubow 21:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the kind words, your trust and support. Crum375 00:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Answer to Question

Thank you for speedy answer to that question. Should the article be nominated for deletion or a merge at this point? --Ozgod 00:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Watts, again

Gordon is back, and is going to ridiculous -- even disruptive -- lengths to justify the return of links to his personal Geocities/AOL Homepage sites at Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case. The insanely long Wikilawyering comparison of his site and the New York Times as somehow being equivalent (found at the Talk page) has to be read to be believed. He seems incapable of taking a hint from literally everyone who's commented (with the exception of Patsw (talk • contribs), who briefly resurfaced but doesn't seem to have returned after his initial foray).

Given Gordon's complete inability to understand basic guidelines, policies, or consensus, and his unflagging persistence, I have NO idea what would work, but perhaps you can take a shot at it. --Calton | Talk 07:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I'm going to leave a message a few other admins' pages, and maybe they can try figuring something out, too. --Calton | Talk 07:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've had reached my limit of his foolishness, so your input is requested at Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 13:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for the considerate explanation you left on my talk page. It is most sincerely appreciated. Vassyana 22:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, too, Ann. While, as you know, we don't share a similar POV on many matters, I must say my respect for you as an admirably fair and honest administrator has remained undiminished. I know things can get a bit heated with content disputes over controversial subjects (alas we are all human), you have always been conducted yourself with the utmost professionalism, which is the kind of quality that makes you one of my favorites admins, despite our seemingly diametrically opposed pov's. :) I hope you are feeling better, btw.Giovanni33 22:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A.J.A

The posts on Talk:Christianity have turned pretty sour. I guess you've avoided the vote (lots of people have by the look of it) as we all got fed up with them last year but if you could have a word with A.J.A. and remind him to show good faith I would appreciate it. It's pointless me approaching him as he's declared that I "hate Christians" [10] and that is all that motivates my editing. You have quite a way with people so hopefully he will listen to you. Sophia 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at Christianity - I wish I'd kept out of the vote too now as I can see it's not going to help the issue at hand or the article. Thanks also for the encouraging words - I must admit that when I posted here my thoughts were for Storm who does not deserve such disrespect as he is a dedicated and caring editor. Hopefully your good advice will be heeded. Sophia 06:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also just seen your request to Str1977 and will abide by it too as I think it's a very good idea. Sophia 07:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:170.161.64.16

Hi,

Please check out User talk:170.161.64.16.

Thanks,

Psdubow 21:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Calton

Actually, my last 3 messages were just about the WP:CN on Gordon Watts. Nothing rude, nothing unacceptable. My posts were only letting him know that his posts using someone elses words were hearsay and not helpful to the conversation ongoing. I am not trying to fight with Calton anymore, it wasn't getting anywhere. I am fighting his rudeness and incivility with my politeness and professionalism in my posts. I am not going to fight with him and I am not going to respond by flipping out, that got me nowhere. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 02:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to something he said "Butch, it's what you're good at.", which I think we know what the first word was supposed to be. But you all want me to leave him alone, fine. Honestly, it seems like Calton's actions are being defended and the people who call him on them are punished. The "commenting on everything he does" is because I, often, defend myself against his comments that are made to encite a response....and I have the WP:CN on my watchlist. But, I will let him be, he can make any comment he wants about me or anyone on anyone's talk page and I hope then he is punished, cause he sure as hell ain't now. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I am a self-imposed Wikibreak and am only adding/editing pages. Am adding to talk pages as necessary. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 20:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...I appericate that you said that I was not being rude. I seen the prod2 tag and was trying to figure out why it was there without involving (or messaging) Calton in anyway. Salad Days was going to give him a barnstar but someone beat him to it and he didn't know how to give someone a barnstar that had already been given (which regardless of Calton and I's problems, he does deserve). Salad Days made his own barnstar and replaced the prod2 tag right quick and the "problem" was taken care of. At no time was there any ill-will involved. I was only trying to help. I apologize if this has caused further problems. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 02:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your promise to Gio

More to the point, you assumed that everyone you were speaking for agreed to let you make promises on their behalf or were even aware such a promise had been made; I certainly hadn't heard of it. A.J.A. 21:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Orangemonster2k1

Don't you think, under the circumstances, that it would have been better for you not to have responded to them

Given that he a) lied about "staying away", and, b) was completely misinterpreting what I wrote: no.

Also, do you have to go after him so aggressively? While I would certainly advise him gently that it would be healthier not to keep your page on his watchlist, he is not prohibited from doing so, and his recent posts to User talk:Salad Days were not in any way abusive towards you...

"Advising him gently" seenms to have done wonders for his behavior, hasn't it? Oh, wait. So what part of the word "stalking" is giving you trouble? How, exactly, is enabling stalking the least bit helpful -- especially from one who has promised -- multiple times -- to leave me alone? How, exactly, is his monitoring of my Talk page and leaping in to react to messages there "leaving me alone"? ([11] [12] [13] [14]) How, exactly, am I incapable of dealing with amusing tags left on my Talk page?

(I had also seen and wondered about that prod tag)

And yet you did nothing. Why was that?

...so you really do not have the right to be so aggressive, demanding that he take your page off his watchlist now...

What part of the word "stalking" is giving you trouble? How, exactly, is enabling stalking the least bit helpful? He needs to stop, exactly as he's claimed to have done multiple times but has completely failed to do.

...and replacing your message on his page after he had removed it (something that is generally considered harassment)

It's called "context" when adding new messages.

You're dealing with a vulnerable user, who suffers from Aspergers and gets upset easily...

So? Wikipedia is not personal therapy, and if he can't edit without the stalking behavior, he needs a new hobby.

Your recent behaviour has been rather Gordon-ish...

Save the insulting comparisons.

But an important difference is that Gordon's posts, while they annoy a lot of people, do not show a lack of kindness.

No, they show a continued disconnect from reality and inability to understand plain English explained to him -- witness his self-serving reinterpretation of SaraEwarts comments. Again, Wikipedia is not personal therapy. And perhaps you need to have a look at this before making claims about "lack of kindness".

...and I often [emphasis mine] see evidence that you are working to improve the encyclopaedia....

Gee, thanks for the qualifier there.

If you can't control your anger, a wiki-break would be appropriate.

If you can't control the dysfunctional behavior of the wikistalker you're enabling, expect anger from its victim. He's been doing this for weeks, and it's long past the point of being acceptable. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A "disconnect from reality", an "inability to understand plain English", and pretty much calling me a liar without checking your own talk page history to see that I am right....ya know what, I'm done. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 02:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I didn't use the first two phrases to describe Orangemonster2k1 (hint: is your name "Gordon", Orangemonster2k1?), but, ironically enough, he's demonstrating that they seem to apply to him, as well. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The above, while yeah, probably not necessary, is the frustration coming out. I tried to be nice, I didn't talk to Calton, talked to Salad Days, all I was trying to do was keep his talk page from being erased. That was done in good-faith and his reaction to it brought the above comment out. I apologize for it, but you can see where my frustration is coming from. I was honestly trying to help and to be nice. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 05:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That was done in good-faith Here's the thing: I don't believe you. Notwithstanding, what part of your phrase "staying away" are you having trouble understanding? Hint: it involves actually staying away. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to use the word "lied" without very good evidence. It is possible for someone to say that he'll stay away, and then change his mind.

It's entirely helpful (as in "accurate") given the four times (now five, I see) he's made the claim and yet failed to do so. What's your threshold, then? Double digits? Triple digits? Never?

I am not enabling stalking in any way. I have already asked Orangemonster to stay away from you.

And that worked so well, didn't it?

Orangemonster tried to do something, and you were extremely abusive to him as a result.

You seem unclear on the concept of "staying away" if you're approving of him not actually staying away. See note about "enabling".

Calton, may I point out that I know a lot about what stalking means, probably a great deal more than you will ever know. And I can tell you that to use that word about Orangemonster's at worst irritating behaviour is quite frankly insulting to victims of real stalking.

I'm sorry for whatever things have happened to you, but playing the victim card in some sort of game of moral oneupmanship -- especially as it's completely unrelated -- as a way of minimizing Orangemonster's actions and telling me I'm not entitled to resent his stalking -- isn't impressing me. So you think what he does is okay, or at least tolerable? See note about "enabling".

The question is, can you edit without the aggressive behaviour?

No, the actual issue I actually raised was "Wikipedia is not personal therapy, and if he can't edit without the stalking behavior, he needs a new hobby" -- which I notice that you didn't actually address.

I don't see that the Passive-aggressive article has to do with my point that you need to try being kinder to people who annoy you.

No, it has everything to do with your claims regarding GordonWatts so-called kindness.

And how much politeness and respect did you show before it went past that stage?

Is that an attempt at justifying his actions? Because that's what it certainly sounds like. See note about "enabling". --Calton | Talk 05:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Calton....if you would please, click here. Thanks. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 05:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for removing vandalism off my page! --Nevhood 22:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your gender

Hi, Musical Linguist. Sorry about referring to you as "he". I see on your user page that you're in a category of female Wikipedians. By the way, I hope you don't mind me saying this, but your user page looks horrible in Mozilla Firefox. It's as if I have double vision. I see half the word beside the full word. What browser are you using? Thanks for trying to calm things down at the Christianity talk page the other day. Regards. ElinorD (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm using SeaMonkey (same rendering engine as Firefox) and her user page looks fine to me. —Psychonaut 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry ElinorD, I am guilty of calling Musical "he" also. Sorry Musical! - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 01:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Ann. Yes, Str1977's user page looks horrible in Firefox as well, at least on my computer. I might try downloading SeaMonkey, which I admit I had never heard of. By the way, when I look at it in Internet Explorer, it's fine. I don't intend to get frightened off by squabbles at the Christianity talk page, and anyway, they seem to have stopped for now. I am quite interested in Patrick Holford; he occasionally gives talks quite near to where I live, although I've never heard him. But the page seems to be locked at the moment. Regards. ElinorD (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Hi Musical, thank you for your message and all you have done. I owe you extra thanks for your support and trust, since you put your reputation on the line by nominating me. I'll do my best not to disappoint. Thanks again, Crum375 01:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions?

You've been very helpful and kind to me, and with the Christianity article, so I thought I would solicit you for suggestions. What would be the best way to go about spurring activity on the question of the Nicene Creed? Would it be appropriate etiquette to hit up the talk pages of the active parties and politely ask them to join in the conversation to help move towards consensus? Would a RfC on the matter be the appropriate action to take? I am looking to move the discussion forward so we can reach a consensus and move on with editing/improving the article. However, I do not wish to take actions which might be considered rude, impatient or otherwise undesirable. Any suggestions you have to offer would be greatly appreciated. Vassyana 02:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hi there! I noticed that we have been indirectly communicating with each other recently with regards to Mongo's actions and my subsequent reation. I wasn't sure if you wanted me to contact you directly or anything, so I figured I'd drop you a line to let you know that I'm always available on my talk page. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world

Well, as you mentioned, my block log now states I made some kind of veiled threat and that I was intimidating. Then, (not that it matters at this point and no need for you to address it) Lovelight came to my talkpage and posted that he is going to whoop my ass...I played around with that a bit. But since we live in a land of double standards where some admins who have clearly abused their admin tools, reliquish them knowing an arbcom case is coming and now get treated with kid gloves by arbcom while I am desysopped for far less and arbcom makes no polite overtures at all to me...I think I am about done with this nuthouse. To be honest, I have been on borrowed time on Wiki. I loathe the POV pushing trolls on the 9/11 articles. I lack direction for my typical stub work, finding myself working here and there but not really adding much of merit...no FA's are likely to come soon, though I did write over 30 stubs in the past month. Were it not for the clear vision of yourself and editors like SlimVirgin, I think I might go insane if I lingered here much longer. Quite obviously, Tyrenius and I do have a history...his capricious email to Jimbo which misrepresented that myself and a few other editors were abusing BLP policy is still fresh as far as I am concerned. Basboll knew that Tyrenius would be likely to get a rib in on me...regardless that Basboll has been told by me previously to not bring content disputes to my talkpage...yet does so anyway and goads me with his usual barrage of subtle insults. Then he proceeds crying about the injustice he has faced at the hands of the terrible MONGO...even though he is the one leaving subtle inconsiderations to begin with.--MONGO 08:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Thanks very much. Guettarda 21:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice requested

Ann, I hate to bother you, but if you can spare the time I'd much appreciate your input. See this dif. So far SlimVirgin, I, Jim62sch (with a very polite "I think perhaps that you are unaware just how aggressive your writing style is.") as well as others have tried to discuss civility and working with others with this editor, who persists in misdirection, mocking (Andrew c, one of the nicest editors I've ever worked with, used a not-the-best-choice example, and instead of answering Andrew's very valid concern, this editor's entire response was tearing that example to shreds.) Quite frankly, I don't know how to get through to this editor that verbally (textually?) abusing people is not acceptable here, he calls my every effort "name calling and accusations" - but doesn't amend his behavior nor concede that there is any possibility he has been less than civil. In short, he's been acting like a troll. In addition, he's a bit of an edit-warrior. This has become very disruptive, causing two editors to either avoid this editor or take multiple breaks due to the stress of trying to work with him. Ideas and advice would be most appreciated. If you want further details on the stress caused, I can email you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for butting in. I noticed your vote at the embryo page, so I just thought I'd take a peek. I stumbled across this comment by accident. By the way, of course, your embryology vote is fine with me. Everyone is entitled to their opinions (and I've made clear that this is not a huge deal since factual accuracy is not involved).

I would like to mention that the abuse KillerChihuahua mentions has been going more than one way. If you do decide to get involved, Ann, I very much hope you will try to honestly look at all sides fairly. KillerChihuahua omits a few details, such as Jim62sch calling me "unctuous", Andrew C. calling me a "plagiarist" and "a bully", and KillerChihuahua has done her share too (calling me a "nitpicker", a "troll", a "dick", and much else). It's fine to criticize me for my edits and my comments, but I hope they will not be viewed in isolation. Thx.Ferrylodge 03:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I assure you, one of the reasons I requested Ann's input is that she is thorough and honest. If I have erred, she will tell me: that is to my benefit, as I cannot modify or correct errors unless I am aware of them. For the record, I have indeed said you were "generally acting like a dick" - with a link to the essay on meta and a request you read it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, I did read it. And since I last commented here, KillerChihuahua has called me a "bitch." You can't make this stuff up.Ferrylodge 05:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I said you were bitching, which you are, given the common colloquial meaning of "bitching" as "complaining". Don't twist my words. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You said that I "bitch that [people] are attacking you." And what did you come to this talk page to do, KillerChihuahua?Ferrylodge 05:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

read the sectionheader. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope we both get good advice, if Ann is willing to wade into it.Ferrylodge 06:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I do hope as well that reading lessons are provided. One will note that I stated that "you remind me of..."; surely Ferrylodge, being a lawyer you're familiar with semantics and parsing, no? Ah, but perhaps that's what you pretending to do -- albeit with disingenuousness aforethought. ;)

Come to think of it, the above attempt to parse "bitching", knowing full-well that its primary meaning, as well as the only semantic inference that could be drawn from its usage in the sentence in question, was kvetching, complaining, bellyaching, grumbling, etc., indicates that you seek not to present the truth of any interaction, but rather to cast yourself (or, as a lawyer, your client) in the role of victim by twisting rather than parsing words. Alas, I've seen that movie, too. •Jim62sch• 16:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Jim, it is not civil or acceptable for you to say that another editor "reminds me" of an unctuous person, or "reminds me" of a bitch, et cetera. It should be obvious that the words "reminds me" do not give you license to then hurl whatever profanities you may please.Ferrylodge 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Squirmy

Thanks for the revert :) Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)} 02:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. Jkelly 21:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI/3RR#User:Proabivouac reported by User:ALM_scientist (Result:)

Dear Ann, I strongly believe I did not violate 3RR here. Perhaps you agree, or disagree, but either way, you seem to me somewhat of an expert on this policy, and your input will be both instructive and appreciated.Proabivouac 12:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time and insight. Your comments on the first two diffs were particular helpful - if I understand you correctly, it matters not if they are related to one another, or whether they are reverts in some technical sense, but whether they are part of an edit war. This seems to me a very wise way to apply the spirit of the law without being unduly subjective.Proabivouac 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP issue at Jim Nobles

Could use some help. Jkelly 23:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet again.

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Yet again, I am struck by your ability to enunciate exactly the right course of action to be followed in a contentious situation, and by kindness you consistently employ. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - Comments

I do not relish the idea of responding to the RfBan comments, regarding myself, Ann, because they seem to provoke a negative response, but so long as lies are posted, I feel that I reserve the right to defend myself. Also, I parsed the voting section (the 2 subsections with polls), and I was, by far, less in total word-count than my opponents, so this is objective proof that my opponents are lying about me when they allege I am too verbose and talkative. I feel that Wikipedia, as a project, is failing, due to the slacking and low morals of those editors who would perpetuate obvious lies and falsehoods -even when confronted with the objective facts. (I have not only posted less than them -since others had asked me to not post too much -but also have accepted consensus on selected issues, whether or not to my liking, so I feel I am doing my part to be a good neighbor -and then some.) I hope to ignore them -as I have, by and large, done in the last several days. Thank you once again for your objective (and truthful) analysis, not bent to the will of others, but tempered in actual truth, no matter who it offends. My feeling is that these arguments on the notice board are not only a waste of time (for all parties involved!), but it seems some are violating the rules regarding voting -not that I totally agree with this rule, but it is the rule at present.--GordonWatts 09:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Here ya go....

		The Sparky Barnstar
		For your helpfulness, for answering questions that others would just ignore, and for being there for users...I present to you the Sparky Barnstar. Congrats! - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 23:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action.

Even though I am not seeking the action against you, nonethheless, you are a party, and rules require that I notify you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts

--GordonWatts 07:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on Gordon's RfAr

Hi. I read your comment on Gordon's RfAr and I agree with much of what you wrote. However, I was curious about the final line of your post: "I’d also like the "result" to allow Gordon to edit Schiavo articles, while restricting his talk page posts, but I will bring that back to the community if this case is rejected, as I do not think that anyone who voted to allow one talk page post per day also voted to allow no article edits."

There were two remedies that dealt with restricting Gordon's editing to Schiavo-related articles.

The first remedy was "Limit to one post per day on Schiavo-related talk pages" and did not mention restricting his editing to the article page. It was supported by 12 editors (I'm not including Gordon since he imposed conditions), including yourself.

The second remedy was "Community ban from articles and talk pages related to Terri Schiavo". From my interpretation, this would prevent Gordon from editing the Schiavo-reltaed articles and talk pages entirely (not just a one edit limit). It was supported by 14 editors, including 8 who also supported the first remedy.

I was just wondering how you interpreted these remedies and their support, since it seems relevant to whether the community restrictions should be revisited should the ArbCom case be rejected. Thanks! ChazBeckett 00:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We'll find out that of which ArbCom is made -or "We'll find out what they're made of."--GordonWatts 03:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon

I appreciate that you're trying to help Gordon, because I've personally been quite shocked at some of the attempts to belittle him, but he really is making it very difficult for everyone who wants to help him. I'm sure if he had stayed out of the discussion at the community noticeboard, or had just posted a few brief, calm replies, without telling people to "chill out", arguing with them, trying to pick holes in their arguments, and then accusing them of lying, there would not have been an outcome that bans him from Schiavo articles, since all the "Gordy-boy" and "not-very-bright troll" insults would have been more visible to the community if he hadn't filled up the noticeboard with thousands of words of attempted rebuttals. I think it's also possible that the Committee might have accepted the case (though there was no reason why they would have to) if he hadn't made the evidence of other people's bad behaviour get lost in a in a forest of lengthy posts which showed no signs of wanting not to annoy people, and which showed what would be in store for them if they did accept the case! I see that you have tried to defend him. Is there any way that you could try to get him to see that his lengthy arguments are making it more not less likely that he'll be banned? I really don't think he's acting with malice, but he's making his defenders look rather foolish. ElinorD (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I will try to talk less -and delete MORE of my posts (one of the clerks has asked me to reduce my replies in size, and I shall do so -and replace them with links). HOWEVER, with all due respect, I DID remain silent for approximately 2 days during the community discussion at one point, and it only allowed lies to be posted about me. People who don't know me, don't know anything about me, never met me, etc. said a lot of things that were out-and-out false lies -and they probably did so because they liked to repeat rumours. Yes, being silent MIGHT have helped, but I had tried that for a period of about two (2) days (rough approximation, I don't remember exactly) -and it DIDN'T help, so I've been there and done that -and it did not work. Nonetheless, I WILL tentatively reduce (delete) much of my post replies in the RfArbCom -as you imply would be good.--GordonWatts 02:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ann. Calton is very upset by some of your remarks at WP:AN/I. Please take care in the future to describe other editors' actions – providing context where appropriate – without attributing specific motives to those actions. It's best to avoid any comments that can be interpreted as mindreading. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(Cross-posted from User talk:TenOfAllTrades) Hi, TenOfAllTrades. Thanks for your note. I confess to being somewhat puzzled by your request to describe actions (with context) but not ascribe motives, or to "make comments that can be interpreted as mindreading". I presume you are referring to this post, which is the only one I made, though I also posted on the ArbCom page, at the Community noticeboard, and at Gordon's page — all about the same matter. I described what happened — that Calton abused him, sneered at him, reverted him with popups (which should be kept for vandalism reverts, called him Gordy boy, accused him falsely of lying. I made absolutely no implication about Calton's motives. Nor would I wish to do so. I don't know why he treats Gordon that way. I simply know that he does, and I find it very objectionable. Calton has said, in the post above this one, that my charges are "ridiculous", "bad-faith", "wildly out-of-proportion", and "occasionally outright false". Let's have a look at some of these charges, one by one, and see if any of them can justly be called "ridiculous", "bad-faith", "wildly out-of-proportion", or "outright false".

1. I said that Calton called him Gordy boy.[15]
2. I said that Calton falsely accused him of "sneaking in" something, and of lying. [16] [17] [18] (They're diffs to show that he made the accusation. I'll provide diffs to show it was false below.)
3. I said that Calton put "revert not-very-bright troll" in an edit summary.[19]
4. I said that Calton reverted Gordon with popups.[20] [21]
5. I said that Calton abused and belittled him, and shouted at him )(with capitals).[22] [23] [24]
6. I said that Calton posted a link to a blog that ridiculed Gordon.[25]
7. I say now that Calton gloated when Gordon was blocked.[26] [27]

Okay, I think I've shown that Calton did call him Gordy-boy, did call him a "not-very-bright troll", did shout at him, abuse him, and belittle him, and did accuse Gordon of trying to sneak in a link and of lying. What I have not shown is that his accusation of Gordon trying to sneak in a link and of lying was false. So, let's have a look.

Let's imagine that User:A wants the Pope Benedict article to have a link arguing that the pope was a Nazi, and User:B wants the article not to have such a link. If the link is not in the article, and someone makes several changes, one of which is to remove the link, and User:A reverts all of those changes, right back to your last version, explaining in the edit summary that he is reverting to your last version, in that case, User:A's edit will involve restoring the link. His edit will show in the diff as being identical to yours. It will not be an attempt to sneak in the link, but one of the results of the edit will be that the link is there again.

However, if the link is not in the article, and another user makes several changes, and User:A opens your last version from the history, opens the edit box, inserts the link, writes in the edit summary that he is reverting to your last version, and presses save, the diff will show that his version is identical to yours, except that it has the link in it. In that case, it will be an attempt to "sneak it in", and it will be a lie to deny it. Is that what happened here?

The link was added to the article on 3 January, by Zenger, not by Gordon.[28] It is not a link to Gordon's site, but is to a site that he approves of. (Gordon did revert the person who reverted Zenger.[29])

On 28 January, User:71.141.252.50 made a lot of edits, including one which inserted a link to the North Country Gazette.[30] (Keep in mind that it's not Gordon's site, though it's one he likes, and that Calton doesn't. I have to agree with Calton on that.) On 29 January, Superm401 reverted to last version by Nut-meg.[31] Then Gordon reverted , saying that he was reverting to the last version from 71.141.252.50.[32] If Calton is correct in saying that Gordon was "sneaking in" the link (his "umpteenth attempt" to sneak it it),[33] then the diff will show that Gordon's version is idential to the anons except that it has the link in it. So, here is the diff. You can see for yourself. Gordon said he was reverting to the 71.141.252.50 version. And he was. The versions are identical.

Now, Calton says in his post above that I have called him a liar. I have never called him that. Nor have I even accused him of lying. I have said, and I say again, that he made a false accusation against Gordon. I do not speculate as to his motives. He accused Gordon of attempting to sneak in the link, and of dishonesty, and told him not to lie.[34] [35] [36] If you look at those diffs, I'm sure you'll agree that he did say all those things to Gordon. I hope that if you look at my arguments above, you will agree that reverting to another user's version, which happens to have a link you approve of, while stating in the edit summary that you are reverting to that version is not sneaking or dishonest, and that in that case, Calton's accusations against Gordon were false. (Of course, it's more than possible that Gordon was quite happy to be restoring to a version that had that link, but that does not justify the accusations that Calton made.)

If you can show me that Gordon did lie, and that Calton was justified in accusing him of "dishonesty" or "sneaking", or that any of the things I said that Calton did to Gordon (reverting him with popups, calling him Gordy boy, calling him a not-very-bright troll, shouting at him), he did not, in fact, do, then of course, I'll withdraw it. I repeat that I am not aware of having stated any opinion as to his motives, and I do not intend to do so. If you think I have done so, then please feel free to show me where.

As I sincerely believe that Gordon's behaviour is in part due to his being upset by Calton's behaviour towards him, and as I believe that Calton made false accusations, and as I believe that a judgment from the community which does not take these things into account would be unjust, I think it would be irresponsible for me to refrain from stating these matters clearly, on the grounds that Calton would be "very upset". I don't know if he's upset or not. It's obvious he's angry, but he has a record of being angry when people question his right to abuse problem editors. I can supply further details, if you wish. I do not believe that anything I said was unfair, and I don't believe that I have been aggressive about it. Certainly, I feel very calm :-), even though Calton has accused me on your page of "bad-faith" "attacks",[37] and has questioned my motives for trying to partially defend Gordon.[38] I'm open to suggestions as to how I could have worded my post more carefully. But I cannot accept that it would be right not to point out how badly Calton has behaved in this matter, just because it might upset him. One might just as easily say that Gordon's behaviour should not be discussed because it might upset him. Both editors have behaved badly, and it would be utterly inappropriate for the community discuss Gordon without mentioning the abuse that he has received. I believe that I am one of at least five administrators who have criticized Calton's behaviour to Gordon. For the record, the other four are yourself, Proto, Marskell, and Sarah Ewart. Anyway, although I disagree with you, I appreciate that you're trying to calm things down, and also to be fair to Gordon. Cheers. Musical Linguist 19:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, you may be thinking "Oh no, I post a brief paragraph to Ann, and I get back a dissertation! This reminds me of Gordon!" Don't think of all this as a response to you. I think that sooner or later, this matter will have to be investigated more fully, and therefore, I've spent some time sourcing my statements and finding links, etc. So I'm sorry to inflict it all on you! The noticeboard has been archived. And I won't be around much in the next few days. I just want it all down somewhere, for the record. Musical Linguist 19:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the only bit that might qualify as ascribing motives would be the bit where you state "As could be predicted, Gordon overreacted and behaved very badly, so now Calton is vindicated, and can continue to assert that he doesn't need to treat such editors with respect, because when they get banned, they prove that he's right about them." While Calton has a history of treating troubled editors rudely (link) and his response to a query about the appropriateness of his gloating ([39]) appeared to show a lack of respect, as far as I know he hasn't actually explicitly stated that he has employed the line of reasoning you described. I'd prefer to see everyone take the high road, here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If I can chime in, I'm another admin who has criticized Calton's behavior toward Gordon (if only as part of an RfC criticizing his behavior toward people he disagrees with in general). I've also been at the receiving end of a few of Gordon's angry rants, so I don't have a particular fondness for either of them. My take on this situation is that Gordon has an extremely short fuse and would have managed to be disruptive no matter who he interacted with, but Calton certainly didn't help anything by lighting that fuse. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oath versus Vow

I noticed your old comments at Talk:Vow opposing a merge here; I put the tag back thinking this was a no-brainer; the first sentence says "a vow is... an oath". Can to come back and elucidate? -- Kendrick7^talk 17:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lazarus and Dives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lazarus_and_Dives#Request_for_Comment:_Jesus_Seminar

Ann, as someone who worked on the Lazarus and Dives article, you might like to see the mess that has broken out on its talk page about how relevant a link to Jesus Seminar is. Geogre 21:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gordon...

I read your latest at Gordon's talk. Very very very well spoken. If that does not get through to him, nothing will. Best of luck. I'll be happy to support reducing to a month or even a week if there is some sign of significant behavioural improvement. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Amorrow

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stacy_Schiff&diff=106203767&oldid=106195413

As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the content of the edit itself to suggest it's Amorrow. Assigning undue weight to self-references is a mistake that many users make. So if someone's going to be presumed to be a banned user based on their IP alone, why not just indefblock the range? Or is there something going on I don't know about? --Random832 22:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting your input

The other day, I reverted an edit on Vaccine controversy, an article which is on my watchlist, but not an article I contribute to frequently. I thought it was pretty clear-cut, as the edit had been reverted twice before (not by me), but the user who'd made the edit, User:80.4.39.7, asked that I explain my reversion repeatedly. I was busy tying up the loose ends on an article overhaul I'd started earlier at the time.

I replied to 80.4.39.7, but, then, User:Ferrylodge turned up on the anon's talk page, although my dispute with 80.4.39.7 had nothing to do with Ferrylodge, nor did Ferrylodge have a history of editing the article Vaccine controversy. This is what I meant by "gate-crashing." I'm having a hard time accepting that Ferrylodge isn't trying to be confrontational, by showing up somewhere and trying to escalate a situation that doesn't involve him, but does involve me. Content disputes, I can deal with, but this, to me, has gone too far. I've tried to resolve content disputes to the best of my ability, but now I feel at my wit's end, because it's taken a distinct turn for the personal. I would greatly appreciate whatever advice you could lend or insight you could bring to the situation if you've got the time. I know this is asking a lot, so thanks in advance. -Severa (!!!) 04:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also requesting input

Please see this discussion. Thx.Ferrylodge 05:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The requested favour

But... but... <yikes>. I don't have the tact for such a job! <help> Well, OK, sure, I've watchlisted the page, but you may end up sorry you asked! <weeps> As a precaution, if I feel, uh, a great wave of, hmm, impatience <why me> engulfing me I'll just hand over to the gentler twin, OK? <kill me now> Btw, you were so great on ANI! (The Worldtraveller thing.) Bishonen | talk 15:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Acts of kindness

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		You are continually civil, kind and helpful to many editors. Please know this is noticed and truly appreciated. You help make Wikipedia a better place to be. Vassyana 10:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well wishes

I see you haven't been around much and I just wanted to say *hug* I hope you are well. Vassyana 11:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Things just aren't the same around here without either you or KillerChihuahua. I hope that you are well, or, if not, that you are well again soon. :-) -Severa (!!!) 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Loved your User Page

Hi, I am a new Wiki editor and was wondering if you don't mind my using your User Page template? And if it's okay, how can I get rid of the Admin Notes icon? Thanks:) Zondi

Institute for Optimum Nutrition

Hi, Ann. You mentioned Patrick Holford to me a while ago, and I put it on my watchlist. The article has recently been edited by User:Patrick James Holford. I have no idea if it's the same person, or even if his middle name is James, but he's certainly claiming in edit summaries to be the same person. In this edit, he changed the name of "Institute of Optimum Nutrition" to "Institute for Optimum Nutrition". Since it was wiki-linked, it made the link turn red, as there was no article with the title that he had changed it to. I looked at the article under the old title, and it gave an external link to the website. From that, I saw that the institute is indeed called Institute FOR Optimum Nutrition, so I've moved the article. I'm letting you know, because I see that you started the article. I don't know very much about it, so I don't know if it did have "of" in the title and then change its name, or if you just made a mistake. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

TU + HE

Ann, I don't agree with someone utilizing a sockpuppet and commenting on a case for community banning and thus avoiding scrutiny of other editors of his biases. You're welcome to adjust my commentary if you would like though I would prefer if you didn't. TU's behavior angers me. If he's going to be gunning for blood then he should damn well put his name to such commentary that correlates with that. As you may recall TU defended FairNBalanced's display of the hateful Allah-pig image that FnB uploaded and displayed prominently. He should own up to having done that instead of relying upon the right to vanish to hide while remaining involved through the usage of sockpuppets to cyber-lynch someone. (→Netscott) 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ann, I still don't agree with the usage of sockpuppetry to make commentary on a case where an editor is looking at being indefinitely banned. Here is the original FairNBalanced thread where TU defended FnB's hateful display with strawman arguments, etc. The right to vanish is accorded to those who've left the project. Obviously TU hasn't left the project. If he uses sockpuppets again to reinvolve himself in this nonsense and does not abide to his agreement he made with me to rely upon admins as necessary then I will make efforts to see that all of his sockpuppets are properly tagged as such and that they are indefinitely blocked with the tags prominently displaying. Policy does not allow for such puppetry. True those who are familiar with who he is are going to recognize him but other editors aren't and his biases are effectively hidden and thereby not up for scrutiny (which is very wrong). Please forgive my harsh tone but just thinking about the whole FnB case tends to rile me up. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AndiVandalBot

Dear Musical Linguist, i got a message from you saying that i had vandalised on a page about the song Laura by Scissor Sisters, this was resolved by AntiVandalBot. I have not committed andal and i would like to know why my the message was sent to my IP.