This user may have left Wikipedia. Musical Linguist has not edited Wikipedia since June 23, 2007. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Welcome to my talk page. If you want to ask about an edit I rolled back, please click here.
"Shame, Corin," said the King. "Never taunt a man save when he is stronger than you: then, as you please." (C. S. Lewis: The Horse and His Boy)
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.
Cuirim mo dhóchas ar snámh i mbáidin teangan faoi mar a leagfá naíonán i gcliabhán
a bheadh fite fuaite de dhuilleoga feileastraim is bitiúman agus pic bheith cuimilte lena thóin...
Ansan é a leagadh síos i measc na ngiolcach is coigeal na mban sí le taobh na habhann, féachaint n'fheaclaraís cá dtabharfaidh an sruth é, féachaint, dála Mhaoise,
an bhfóirfidh iníon Fharoinn?
When I read this poem, I can't help but to think about you, and the dark days you've had to endure. But I know, that the beauty of your spirit, and your strength, will always prevail. And I want you to know that, no matter what, you will always find in me someone to try and help the Pharaoh's daughter, for she's worth too much to let her adrift on a craddle of words.
You are worth too much for some people to realize. Never forget that. Don't let them take you down again. Bheith láidir, a dlúthchara! :)
Sorry to drag you back into this (I see you've been having a bit of a difficult time lately, my belated condolences), but Rob recently wrote this letter to The Times (at least I doubt there's another one living in Matlock). A well-meaning newbie editor has written a response - see User talk:Iceflow. I was just wondering if this was worth bringing to the attention fo the Foundation - but I wasn't sure wehre was best to start, and as you probably no the chronology of events which led to his (second) indef banning better than anyone, I thought it'd be worth running it by you first. David Underdown14:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, eminently reasonable responses as ever - although th elink you gave to your previous summary of Rob's actions seemed to be showing as a redlink on Jimbo's talkpage (where I should have thought to look in the first place) David Underdown16:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew when I posted a link to WR – any link – that it would be controversial, but I didn't want to make a bald statement without providing a reference so that people could fact-check what I had to say. Really, I think we're entirely in agreement about the conduct of stalkers in general and Wikipedia Review in particular. I felt that in this particular case the damage done was outweighed by the benefit, but I can also appreciate that others might weigh things differently, and I can certainly see both the appeal and the utility of a blanket ban on WR links.
Put it on the article talk page. If you want to do a crusade go for it but dont (a) accuse me of vandalism and (b) post a warning on my talk page that was inappropriate and didnt make much sense. I do not understand your aggressive attitude nor do I believe I have to tolerate such an unprovoked and agressive attitude when I am doing my best to make this a better encycloepdia. As an admin you should know better. Thanks, SqueakBox18:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that the HM page no longer exists hence my bafflement as to what in WW could possibly harm editors here. Before, yes, but not now. if you want to be discreet I advise you to email me as your actions were anything but discreet. And for the record I absolutely minded being outed on HM, SqueakBox18:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look here. Why were you singling me out? And why the indifference to the linkls at Daniel Brandt that I assume you knew about. I hope this whole affair is not because I oppose BADSITES, SqueakBox19:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I feel very stupid for saying this(forgive me) but you know the boxes on the sides of pages with info?XD I can't find the code to insert one. Could you direct me to one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScorchOurBodies (talk • contribs) 01:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hello! Long time no see. I saw the childishness, and wondered what to do about it. I'd finally decided to leave it, but I'm more than happy to have it removed. To think that someone opened an account just for that... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it was the first (and at the time, at least, only) edit, I assumed that that was what was going on. I suspect that it was a throwaway account. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Suing and being used": very good. My keyboard skills often lead to inadvertent litigation (and correspondents are often confused by my sending them "Bets wishes" and enclosing a sea for the return of my documents. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, ML. This was an impulse, and I don't think it cameout very well. :-( I figured semiprotection was a kind of protection of the user, though. Could you take a look? Please change it any way you like. Bishonen | talk12:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hi, Ann. This isn't at all urgent, and I don't want to pressurise you if you're busy or on a wikibreak. I started an article on the novel Come Rack! Come Rope! by Robert Hugh Benson, and when adding wikilinks for some of the characters mentioned in it, I saw that you had created a few articles on the martrys of England and Wales. Do you know if there's an article about the persecution of Catholics in England? I'm thinking of something like Elizabethan persecution of Catholics or Persecution of Catholics in England or Catholics under the Tudors or Catholics under the Tudors and Stuarts, but as you can see, they're all red links. There's a massive amount of literature on the subject — Allen, Challoner, Pollen, Bowden, Caraman, etc. I'd like to link to some such article in the lead section, but I don't know how to find an article if I have no idea what it's called!
On the same subject, I have absolutely no experience of writing an article about a novel. Making minor improvements, yes, but actually writing one, no. I'm sure that there are some guidelines for writing such articles, but I don't know where to find them. I'm sure, also, that an article about a novel should not be just a summary of the plot, and I intend to add a lot more, using books about Benson, but am not sure what a good article about a novel should have, other than a summary of the plot. I thought of giving some background information about Benson's conversion to Catholicism from Anglicanism a few years before he wrote the book, as that would be relevant. Or something about how he had preached in one of the houses (Padley) mentioned in the book shortly before writing it. At the moment, I have a section on the period covered. I'm not sure that it improves the article, but am leaving it there for the moment. I've looked at other articles about novels, and find that they often have a section on film and television adaptations (impossible in this case) and critical analysis, which sometimes seems to border on violating WP:NOR.
If you're busy, no problem. I'm not in any hurry. In fact, I'm going to be quite busy myself for the next few days. But I imagine a lot of people watch your talk page, so someone else might be able to give me an answer. What I'd like you (or anyone) to do is to:
Direct me towards some official or semi-official guideline on what's expected of an article about a book — what sort of information should be in the lead section, for example
Direct me towards some existing high-quality articles about individual books, so that I can have some models to work from.
Thank you for the e-mail (and the service, of course). Sorry I haven't responded directly, but I'll try to remember to do so tonight to answer your questions. --Calton | Talk05:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the kind note! It's good to see you around again. Hope all is well with you, too (and, yes, all is well on my end — thanks for the concern). :-) -Severa (!!!) 15:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be too blunt, but did you even bother to look at the diffs? The fellow was in fact edit-warring which, I have gleaned through experience is a blocking offense. And I seriously meant what I said in the 3RR response - you want us to understand what the new policy is, it might be more effective if you folks actually let us in on the big secrets every once in a while. Geez. Arcayne(cast a spell)18:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did I roll back to the troll?! Whoops. I could have used the rollback button to do that... -- The redfaced editor otherwise known as kingboyk20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to worry. (You don't seem to be around much, anyway.) Str1977 has posted some very helpful comments and explanations. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)13:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should I get the mop then you keep an eye on me and let me know if you think I am being too lenient or misinterpreting policy; specifically as regards NPA but anything else as well. Any response to my talkpage, please. LessHeard vanU00:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now been promoted. I would offer to you, in the spirit of reconciliation, my heartfelt sympathy for all that you have gone through and my support in the removal of personal attacks in any instance where the sysop tools prove useful. To that end I will not re-instate a link to an attack site (not page, which I would remove anyway, but site) if it were removed in a good faith edit, and nor would I unban an editor involved in these matters. I will ban such editors, following due process.
I will continue to argue for the potential of allowing WP to link to sites which include or host attack pages in exceptional circumstances until consensus provides otherwise, which I will of course abide by. I fully anticipate you will continue to argue for a policy of no linking. I also re-iterate my offer to you of informally overseeing my actions in this and other matters. Finally, thank you for participating in my RfA. I had not realised how much I immediately have to address before gaining the trust of my colleagues on Wikipedia. LessHeard vanU11:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message, no need to rush. No problem, I don't get angry with folk when they are sincere, no matter if I agree or not. LessHeard vanU12:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know just what you mean, sweetie - but don't worry for her, because I know for a fact she's fine and enjoying her life a lot, and that is what matters above anything else. Yet, inside of me, like you, I sorely miss here presence here... And not seeing you around as much as I used to doesn't help either :( Sweetie, I'll pay you an overdue visit at your mailbox later, k? There's much I wish to tell you. I hope you're having a beautiful weekend, like you deserve. Slan go foil! Love, Phaedriel - 16:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert your changes that removed these links. There is no clear consensus for their removal, or indeed the removal of any links to sites because of information that is contained in other pages than the ones linked (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Comment by JulesH, User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy, WT:NPA, in order of relevance to this particular incident). The only precedent for this is a single arbcom ruling, but there are two reasons why this is irrelevant:
the circumstances were very different:
the site in question was one with a long history of going out of its way to maliciously dig up information on multiple prominent wikipedia editors and display that information in as obnoxious a way as possible
at the time the links were removed, the information MONGO did not want available was included on the site's home page, so was easily accessible, and
the users involved in the arbcom case were deliberately inserting links to make that information visible.
In the current case, there is a single forum thread with personal information in it, and
The information is buried hundreds of comments down that thread, and is therefore rather difficul to find, and is not visible from the home page, and
there is no intent to harm Will Beback.
arbcom rulings do not create policy, and are not binding even on future arbcom rulings, let alone how the rest of us should behave.
It is, I think, quite ridiculous for the article Teresa Nielsen Hayden to exist without a link to her own web site, which is the source of much of the biographical information included in the article, just because of a small section of that site that 99.9% of visitors will never see. JulesH13:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is DennyColt really a sockpuppet? I hadn't heard of that before today, but it may explain the very sudden departure. However, shouldn't the user page have the suspected or confirmed SP template on it? Also, the account is not blocked as of now. Regards, —AldeBaer23:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They don't even know whose sock it is, or even whether it's a sock. But there is no way to find out because Checkuser isn't for fishing. As long as there is no disruption I wouldn't consider any sanctions. WooyiTalk to me?01:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation on my talk page. Frankly, I sorta feel the same thing as you do though I'm not an admin. And I do understand Gordon's strong stance on Terri Schiavo, because it was a life/death issue intertwined with partisan politics. As you can see on my userpage, I almost left Wikipedia because of those unfair things going on here.
By the way, off topic, I saw your post on Gracenotes' RFA. I understand your feelings. However, I've met him in real life and he doesn't seem to be a person that would support sites that stalk Wikipedians, so maybe please reconsider the vote. Thanks and happy editing! WooyiTalk to me?01:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what did i write in that article??????????????
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.17.137 (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2007
Thanks for your quick reaction in deleting that page and blocking that troll. I was wondering about emailing the oversight team? It's probably not urgent, since you've deleted, but I read somewhere that if something is deleted and partially restored, and then more inappropriate content is added two months later, and it's deleted and partially restored again, the stuff that was originally removed may get added back in. ElinorD(talk)14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration decision used as rationale for a block
In your warning to User:Mangoe about linking to WR, you use an arbitration decision as your policy that allows you to take such action. From what I understand, the arbitration committee doesn't exist to make policy. Any rulings they decree apply only to that particular case. Unless the Wikimedia Foundation or community consensus establishes their decision as policy, it isn't policy. In fact, the arbitration decision on linking has been removed from WP:BLOCK (not by me, I don't know who removed it, but I know who originally added it a couple of months ago). Thus, if you block based on an arbitration ruling, I'm afraid you'll be enforcing a policy that doesn't exist. CLA23:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This shows a lack of knowledge of how Wikipedia functions. Policy develops out of practice, which develops out of common sense, and one of the ways you know the practice is accepted is when the ArbCom upholds it. But quite apart from that, if someone is posting these links in a provocative manner to be disruptive (and it's hard to see how it could be anything but provocative coming from that person at this time), they can be blocked under the disruption provision of WP:BLOCK, which is left to the discretion of the blocking admin. SlimVirgin(talk)23:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the disruption provision can be used as rationale, although, of course, the receiving editor can contest that if so desired through the appropriate process. In this case, though, ML didn't use that as the rationale for warning of a block. If arbitration decisions do confirm common practice, does it say that anywhere? If it does state that somewhere in some guideline and I didn't know about it, then I'll appreciate having learned something new. CLA00:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologizing for butting in and noting that this probably isn't the best place at which to undertake a grand discussion of the broader issue, I would suggest that my understanding of the role of ArbCom and of the nature of ArbCom precedents is not quite the same as Slim's. Whilst it surely true that policy is descriptive and that ArbCom acts to interpret and apply policy (or, more broadly, to determine for what operations and understandings a consensus of the community exists and to codify such determinations), ArbCom plainly does not make policy, and so the community may always elect to change its collective mind on a given issue on which the ArbCom has rendered conclusions as to what policy and practice are (not, of course, what policy and practice ought to be) and thus to render without force any such ArbCom conclusions. On the attack sites issue, for instance, there may well (rightly or wrongly) develop a consensus amongst the communty for a view less rigid than that the ArbCom suggested in the MONGO case to command the support of the community, and any blanket proscription issued by the ArbCom would be mooted straightaway (provided, I suppose, that editors generally accepted that such a view in fact commanded the support of the community and ought to be codified as policy, their personal preferences to the contrary notwithstanding); it is only the Foundation or employees thereof, acting pursuant to directives issued by the Board, who may act to override community consensus. Joe05:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ann,
someone requested an IPA transcription of Hitler's name. I did my best [1] but my IPA knowledge is more concerned with English pronunciation. Could you, with your linguistic expertise and knowledge of German, have a look into it, comparing it with the sound file right next to it? I am particular unsure about the "-er" at the end. Cheers and bless you, Str1977(smile back)18:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all that you have done! How much love resides therein! All one's gifts are never gone: Not seen, perhaps, but stored within. Kindness is an inner sun.
Your unspent heart a message sends Of grace and sacrifice hard-won Upon which happiness depends!
For all you are, for everything you've done, for your comfort, your prayers and your support, all I can say is, I'm blessed to have you. I wish I could find the words to tell you how special you are... alas, I'll let my heart and my gratitude speak for me. You're an angel, Ann - if you forget this heretic's blasphemy ;) (j/k!) Love you, and see you at your mailbox, Phaedriel - 17:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I am currently attempting to cleanup the Institut Le Rosey article. I have noticed your past interest in the article and would like your, and others', opinions. On the article's discussion page I have listed several alumni that are not currently listed in the Le Rosey article. There are many reputable sources on the internet that can confirm their attendance, however, because of previous vandalism on the page, it seems important that there be a consensus when adding names to the alumni list. There are other issues that plague the article, such as: no school history, no information on facilities/buildings, and very little information on the curriculum/education. Please visit the article discussion page and share your opinions. Many thanks. -- AJ2420:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I figured I'd bother you since you're an admin...... I'm looking for a way to format a proper table for Years of coverage (social security) so that the list doesn't take up an ungodly amount of space. If you know where to refer me to accomplish this, it would be greatly appreciated. KV(Talk) 17:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you. MBisanztalk04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The content of this article should be copied into Contrition, then this one deleted. It's redundant to have both, and "Contrition" is clearly the better developed article already.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The content of this article should be copied into Contrition, then this one deleted. It's redundant to have both, and "Contrition" is clearly the better developed article already.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DrStrausstalk16:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
_-_Not_Too_Much_To_Carry_(1895).jpg)
