User talk:Musical Linguist/Archive04

Archive One Archive Two Archive Three Archive Four Archive Five Archive Six Archive Seven Archive Eight Archive Nine Archive Ten

Hi there

Hi there. Every once in a while, both in the real world, as well as on wikipedia, it's nice to take a break and meet someone new. So I went out on a limb, and here I am, meeting, and greeting, someone new. I should probably mention that we share an interest in languages (albeit different ones), and it's also refreshing to see someone else spending time improving the quality of wikiEnglish. Anyway, keep up the good work!--Xiphon 11:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Bachelors

I hesitated over the apostrophe, but decided in the end that there wasn't one bachelor with lots of degrees, but many bachelors' degrees. I'm not sure enough to change it back, but are you completely happy with going for the former? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Catholicism

Hi Ann. Thank you for your very informative comments on my talk page. Despite what you said, I actually did find them interesting, as well as the associated articles. I have addressed your concerns on the Talk:Terri Schiavo page. Let me just reassure you that I meant no offence in any way. Religion is a very thorny subject - I don't think there are any two people in the world with exactly the same beliefs! Regards, Proto t c 13:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Bonjour, Ann, ca va? Thanks again for your comments. I guess what I was taught was watered down from the strict doctrine. But it's what I was taught. I personally don't have any particular Catholic leanings any more ... I went to a Catholic school because my parents wanted me to. But I did have a lot of respect for my teachers, they helped me a lot, and that's what I didn't like - the suggestion that they deliberately misled me. I understand that this is not what you meant, and so it's all just a storm in a teacup. I appreciate entirely that my interpretation doesn't match that of the Catholic Church. And, of course, that doesn't make either interpretation wrong. Thank you for courteously pointing that out.

Yes, central doctrine is a standard, but as you quoted yourself, the central doctrine of the church is not the be all and end all (in non-essentials, liberty) ... I think that's a lovely quote. Salut :) Proto t c 12:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding sensitivity

No problem, I had no clue. Just thought he was being a "wise-guy," thrust and parry kind of fooling around. Also, I didn't notice any followup to my comment at Redwolf24 so I assumed all was cool with everyone. I will definitely comment on his talk page as best I can. Thanks for keeping me in the know in your usual kind and considerate way. Are you an Angel or something? --hydnjo talk 01:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I said hey you to get his attention, not to be disrespectful. Let me know if I can be helpful in any way. --hydnjo talk 02:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Assistance needed

Dear Ann, thanks for your flattering words. If you find the time, could you please have a look into Ordination of women. User:Jayjg has a problem (see the history) with my counterpoint passage to the utilitarian argument. Maybe you can explain it better.

Also, I have a problem with the same user in regard to the article Christianity and anti-Semitism. Maybe you can be of assistance there too.

Str1977 10:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Dearest Ann, please have a look at Host desecration now. Str1977 22:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Greece

Thanks. If you haven't already, would you consider adding the article to your watchlist? There is a lot of... activity at that article that could use eyes on it. Jkelly 22:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Karl Keating

Take a look and please tell me if you think we can remove the RC-stub. I would love to be doublechecked. BTW, you have email. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 12:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thiering POV

Dear Ann, I will look into host desecration when I find the time. I already have some ideas for restructuring. There is a ongoing POV problem on the Mary Magdalene and Pesher, regarding the infamous Barbara Thiering. Maybe you, with some greater Wiki experience can have a look. It was first posted by an anon IP and now User:Dylanstephens (probably the same now registered), who just revert without saying anything. Str1977 00:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ann, for your message.

Things have developed regarding the Thiering issue. Currently, I think, the text is sufficently de-POV'ed. There remains however a profound disagreement about the final sentence in each section on the acceptance of BT's theory. IMHO, Dylan's version is way too optimistic, while I consider my current wording already as an understatment. I have also called upon User:KHM03, who might help as a theologian. Cheers (do Irish people use that word a lot, too? Str1977 11:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Oldstylecharm

I see now what he was doing. Fred Bauder 00:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Benedict XVI

Could you offer an opinion on adding the recent Gene Robinson attack on the Catholic Church to the Pope Benedict XVI article? patsw 13:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Re your post at WP:ANI

I noticed your post there, and realized that you aren't an admin. I'm know we haven't interacted all that much around the wiki (it's a pretty big place :-), but I was wondering if you were interested in being nominated. From what I've seen, your edits to articles are quite good, and your communication with other editors is excellent, especially when explaining things like Catholic doctrine. I think you would pass, too, or I wouldn't mention any of this. Just let me know. Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 22:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll keep that in mind, and an eye on this! Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Shauri

Dear Ann. I saw your message on Shauri's talkpage. Do not worry, she is well and she will be back soon:).--Wiglaf 07:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Languages...hmm...

Hallo! Ich möchte spreche ein bisschen deutsch. Ich bin ein Wikipedianer und ich lese Artikelen gern. Auf Wiedersehen!

Bonjour! Je veux parler un petit peu en Français. Je suis un Wikipédian et j'ai lu beaucoup d'articles.

Hmm...have a great day! --HappyCamper 03:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

From Dominick

I appreciate the compliment. After Karl editing HIS article, I got shamed into fixing it. It would be nice to have a way to list articles for other Catholic apoligists to cross check (not a pun), I am sure that would get to be a long list! I am pressed between editing here, various ballroom dance partners, and my paid work, I am lucky to sleep and eat. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 12:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:List of sexually active popes

You might be interested in some of the issues this small article raises on citations, "common knowledge", and appeals to the dictionary. patsw 17:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverting Your Talk Page

Hey, not a problem at all. I stumbled across it under the "edits by newbies" section and, as a rule, i check anything with a person's name when it's in that section due to the high number of attack pages that are seen there. Then, since I have "watch this page" checked by default, and my edit was reverted three minutes later, i was curious why. Then i jsut decided to take out a personal vendetta on the sockpuppet user, because i can be vengeful like that. Anyway, hope all works out and that he doesn't come back.jfg284 18:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome

Thank you for your welcome. Elliott Drabek 18:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Anne,

You might want to take a look at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire. International usage on all major English speaking medias, as well as WP Manual of Style and NCs, suggest that that page should be at Ivory Coast. I proposed that it be moved. A lot of people insist that whatever the evidence most English speakers use Côte d'Ivoire and oppose a move tooth and nail. Given your commitment to actually using professional encyclopædic standards on WP, your opinions would be more than welcome. Jtdirl(caint) 02:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Thank you so much for your welcome message! Having spent hours reading documentation, and then interacting with a few pages quite impersonally, Wikipedia didn't really feel like a warm or personal place until I received your greeting. It's all the more agreeable (dare I say "heartwarming" here?) that you did so even though, according to a comment on this talk page, you're not an admin, which I take to mean that you don't get paid (paid??) by Wikipedia but sometimes do this sort of thing anyway. Thanks again.

I'm not sure how you found me, but I originally thought from your mentioning about signing using the tildes (I did read that somewhere but forgot it) that perhaps you'd seen that I filled in my signature and time manually when I requested a name change for the page I just created (Psychological Sense of Community → Sense of community). BTW, I really think that in the alert: "your account is too new" (to move pages) the phrase "too new" should be linked to a policy statement that includes how long we have to wait; how to submit that request was the hardest thing to figure out so far (it doesn't tell you where "the Current Notices subsection" is - I was looking for a link on the page I created; all they'd have to do is add the word "below").

I have a question. (Sorry this is getting so long.) I originally assumed that the page I created, "Psychological Sense of Community," would automatically be found through re-direct if someone typed in "psychological sense of community" or "Psychological sense of community." I thought that "Sense of Community" (regardless of capitalization) *might* likewise be redirected, or at least that the "Psychological Sense of Community" page would come up first in the search results. Not only does "No page with that title exists" appear, but the pages that come up in the search results are completely unrelated, the top result highlighting only the word "of." Is the search engine simply "not that great"?

My real question: Do people normally set redirects for every likely spelling and capitalization combination that searchers might use?

Thanks in advance. And again, I'm grateful to have met a nice person. P.S., If I use the tildes, how do I create a cool signature like Xiphon's? (I can see how to do it manually.) DoctorW 08:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Second response: comments and 2 questions

Right after I posted my first response I saw that admins are editors who are given some more priveledges and responsibilities, rather than their being employees of Wikipedia. I'm still new but am learning fast. In fact I had read pretty extensively before doing any editing, so for example I had read all the pages recommended in the greeting message (which I know know is a standard form letter) except one, the Five Pillars. I'd actually seen almost all its contents on other pages, but the term "sockpuppet" was unfamiliar, so I not only found out what that was but discovered that if I get into disagreements soon I may be suspected of being one, since I have from the beginning consistently included edit summaries.

I was able to move the Sense of community page I wrote, have created several redirects, and have put up a userpage. If you have time, take a look. I'd also appreciate any comments you may have. On second thought, you should definitely make time to look at my userpage; I've just decided to add something there that you'll want to see. BTW, what page on your watchlist did I edit (enabling you to identify me as a likely newcomer)? We may have some common interest(s).

Question 2: When making a content edit to a major page (such as Psychologist or Religions, both of which have an essential problem in my opinion), to what extent is it considered good form to put up reasons first on the talk page and wait (perhaps to hear old discussion reiterated) versus simply making the edits along with arguments for it on the talk page simultaneously? Thanks! --DoctorW 23:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis unbanned

Just a heads up...you had participated in the arbitration case against JarlaxleArtemis. Linuxbeak has since unbanned him, saying that Jarlaxle had apologized. Just wanted to make sure you knew. Ral315 (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:RfA

Are you being nominated, or are you self nominating for RfA? And thank you for you kind words. Private Butcher 19:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well that's great for Gordon, and I'll be sure to keep everyone updated on how I'm doing. And, I've been looking over all your edits and what not, and I just wish to say, when you do your RfA, I will support you, I asked if you're being nominated or self-nominated, because if you were self-nominating, then I would just nominate you myself. Right now everything's fine, I have to go to classes and stuff, but I mostly just use wikipedia and work out. Some days I don't get on wikipedia though, because its pretty busy here. Private Butcher 19:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer's RFB

Musical Linguist

---

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (17/17/4) meaning that it failed, if you have any advice on how I can be a better editor or administrator please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again for your support. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

My dear, dear Ann!

How have you been, Annie!! I just posted my return message, with the intention of messaging everyone who left me their beautiful words in my absence, starting with you... and that big suprise! You have no idea how much I've missed you, Ann - I left for good right after you marvelous supporting words which brought me to tears (and that's no metaphore). You made me realise that my departure was not to be a permanent one, but that I really, really needed to gather my strengths back and return to you, my friends, better than ever. So here I am, and you won't get rid of me that easy this time!

Annie, I've spoiled you! You, hugging? :) Now that's the greatest and brightest surprise I could expect ;) You've earned, now I'll hug you back, and real tight... Rest assured this won't be the last hug you'll get from me! I swear I'll stick around for a long, long time, and it's in no small part thanks to you. Thank you for being my friend. I really means a lot to me. And for the first time without any fears - Big big hugs to you! Thanks, Annie! Shauri smile! 21:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

RE: Jarlaxle

Hi Ann!

Thanks for your note on my talk page. Jarlaxle and I have discussed a few things, and I think we have a real possibility of getting him back on track in terms of being a productive and active editor. Thanks for your encouragement! Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 00:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Your RfA...

Is now underway! What you have to do now is accept the nomination, read and answer the questions, and then place a link to the nomination on the main RfA page. And, umm, Private Butcher and I have already voted, so you better not decline this! :) Good luck! Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 02:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my mistake at User talk:Slim Virgin — too much haste, not enough care. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ann! I have just voted on your RfA. I voted "strong support" only because I didn't know there was "super support" (or is that just a joke). I'd like to use this opportunity that you are IMHO the most amicable Wikipedian I have ever encountered. And gifted with a much greater amount of patience than yours truly (Ok, I'm trying.) I know you disagree with me on this, as your message towards Shauri suggests. But I have never encountered her. Anyway, thanks for all your kindness, good luck for your RfA and ad multos annos. Str1977 19:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think he means the most amicable apart from me. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Messed up pages

Hey, I'm noticing something very strange going on. At your RfA, someone messed with Journalist's (Orin's) sig and managed to screw up the page (I fixed it). And now it has happened here. I took a look at Slim's talk and it seems that has been messed with as well. I don't know if this is malicious or a prank but isn't coincidence methinks. --hydnjo talk 23:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is pretty wide spread but not universal which makes me think that something foul is afoot. On Slim's talk for instance someone replaced </u> with <u/> which has nothing at all to do with sigs. I've fixed my talk by removing the color calls in only two out of many sigs. BTW, it looks like your RfA is going pretty smoothly. :-) --hydnjo talk 00:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, no conspiracy after all. All of the HTML boo-boos lurking around were being silently attended to by HTML Tidy unbeknownst to the folks who were making the errors such as the one on Slim's page (u/ vs /u) and all of the sig mistakes. Personally, I don't think that there should be a "silent butler" at work that way as it encourages sloppiness. It would be like a spell-checker that lets you think that your misspellings are just fine and then silently fixes the errors. Anyway, that's my rant on the subject, thanks for giving me some space here to express myself.  ;-) --hydnjo talk 04:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion at Martin Luther

Ann, you seem knowledgeable on Christian topics; would you mind having a look at a discussion going on at Talk:Martin_Luther#The_relationship_between_Luther_and_the_Jewish_people_is_the_subject_of_much_controversy. The article currently has a brief summary of a larger article, Martin Luther and Antisemitism, but it appears to me that several editors are trying to either whitewash the contents of the summary, or remove any summary at all, on various grounds which I see as spurious (e.g. we can't quote from works because that might be a copyright violation, or we shouldn't summarize at all because that will increase interest in the sub-article). I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

RFA landsliding

Hi, Ann. Good to hear from you, as always. Congratulations on your landslide RFA. I once saw a list someone keeps of the most successful RFAs ever. More than 50 support votes is spectacular, and I hope that person is still updating that list and gets yours on it.

I do consider being here a year to be something that should generally hold. But I'm well aware that probably nobody else feels that way. It looks to me like the average new admin has been here about three months. By that standard, you and I were both well overqualified at the time of our RFAs!

The "standards" page is Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards. I found that shortly before I decided to RFA myself, and then I completely lost it and couldn't find it again for a month or so. I finally tracked it down and put my thoughts on it, but they really don't fit well there and I intended at one point to make a separate page in my userspace or something.

My real feeling is this: an administrator must demonstrate a commitment to the belief that the principles of NPOV and consensus will result in a great, high-quality, unbiased encyclopedia. People who go around here claiming that the system doesn't work should never be admins. Admins should be people like you and I, who have "drunk the Kool-Aid" ([1]), people who are convinced that Wikipedia is, in general, developing into a wonderful and better and better resource as a result of its core commitments. That overwhelms all considerations of edit counts, time spent as a member, or most of the other criteria I see expressed, though certainly such a commitment may not be demonstratable in a very short time or with very few edits.

I know you have that belief, and so of course I had no problem supporting you for admin! I had just been on a Wiki-break, and when I saw you were nominated I was very glad I hadn't taken my break later or made it longer and missed the opportunity to vote for you.

While we're on the subject, congratulations for surviving the Terri Schiavo article. Good work on the recent controversy over wording for the Eucharist. (I still have a painful memory of failing an essay test in high school English over "The Hint of An Explanation" by Graham Greene because I did not know what the word "host" meant, had never encountered it, and though I had read and understood the story completely I had completely failed to notice and learn that word.) If you remember my RFA, I was questioned about a gap in my record where I did not edit (at least, not logged in), and I deliberately did not mention the fact that that happened after stress over the Terri Schiavo article for fear it would make someone worried to support me. (Of course, it also happened because of the birth of my son, so there was more than that as a reason.) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Bloom's Taxonomy

Would you happen to know where Bloom published this educational framework?

6) Evaluation 5) Synthesis 4) Analysis 3) Application 2) Comprehension 1) Knowledge

--HappyCamper 02:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Ann,

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! Regards, JoanneB 14:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

I would think it is misleading to say that a doctrine is "long standing" if it no longer stands (in many denominations). That is why I changed "Christian" to "Roman Catholic" since it still stands in that denomination. Equally, I changed "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic", which is effectively the same change - since you did not revert that change the article is now inconsistent. I believe the use of "Catholic" is unwise since it is widely (and incorrectly) understood to be synonymous with "Roman Catholic". I have not re-reverted because I don't plan to enter into a revert war, however the current state of the article cannot be acceptable to anyone. Also, why change "his" to "His". I can understand that may be convention within the Roman Catholic Church, but in this context "His" is ungrammatical and therefore, surely, unencyclopaedic. SMeeds 23:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Sorry, you are quite right, I misread your change, and you changed "His" to "his", not the other way round.

2. I disagree however with the use of the term "long standing" and would prefer the use of "traditional" as you used on my talk page, since the former implies that it still stands in all Christian denominations, which it doesn't.

3. I also disagree with the use of "Catholic" when referring to Churches which claim allegiance to the Pope. The word "Catholic" is a synonym for "Christian", as witnessed by the fact that it is used in the texts of the Church of England. The use of "Catholic Church" is clear and probably correct, but the use of "Catholic teachings" has a much wider scope.

4. The other change I referred to was that I made the text under "Overview" say "John Paul II affirmed traditional Roman Catholic teachings by opposing abortion, contraception...". Given our conversation and my suggestion above of using "traditional" I have reverted that to Catholic, though, as you suggest, it is difficult to call a policy on stem-cell research a "tradition".

SMeeds 12:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Username change

Your request has been completed. Regards — Dan | Talk 03:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please consider reading all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. Though everything you do, excluding image deletions and page history merges, is reversible, you should nevertheless be very careful with your sysop capabilities. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Good luck! — Dan | Talk 03:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ann!: Congratulations, and welcome to the admin ranks. I am pleased to see that your RfA was so successful. Congrats again! Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 04:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, that went well. :-) Heidi & Joe

Yes, congratulations, it is well deserved. Proto t c 10:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Echo echo a million times. Very deserved! Congratulations Ann! --Durin 16:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Cara Anna, felicitations pour ta election à la positition administrative. You richly deserved all of the seventy-something votes in support of you - and none of the two others ... tu felix Anna administrare. Str1977 17:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Congrats, Ms. Linguist :) Ral315 (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto! -DoctorW 00:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

A little bit late perhaps, but I was off to Venice; so: Herzlichen Glückwunsch, mes félicitations; nice to have another multi-babel admin. Might I interest you in this, to improve your German? Lectonar 15:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic church sex abuse scandal Child rapes

Hasn't gone away. Please answer re your unwarranted and mislabelled deletions. I consider it bad faith if you refuse to do so . I should not have had to come to your user page to require such answer .EffK 17:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ann answered you on Talk:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. Now, stop harrassing her. --Viriditas 10:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

User, you may post that accusation of bad faith as publicly as you wish, if you feel it so richly deserved . Doubtless you would be a real terror against child rapists as well, so well done. EffK 19:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Adminship, Luther

Congratulations on your adminship, and thanks for response regarding Luther. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks

I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA, and to congratulate you on your recent promotion. As I wrote, I was looking forward to feedback from the community, and I would like to let you know that you should please feel free to leave any further feedback for me you may have for me in the future at my Talk page. Thanks again. Jkelly 08:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

aha!

You're quite welcome, your nomination of course was a shoe-in.  ;) I look forward to seeing your work and if I can ever help somehow please do let me know. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Need some help

As you know, I'm new; I was trying to solve a problem, but didn't do it correctly, and in fact did something that needs to be undone, but I don't know how to do it or whether I even can. I have some expertise in a very narrow area of Korean studies: the Romanization of Korean. I have read all the discussion on Wikipedia related to this that I could find, and it seems there is quite a lack of such expertise, especially in understanding the historical development of systems of transliteration. I realize it may take some time to educate the relevant people involved, so in the meantime I am not "correcting" any controversial spellings. I tried to link to a page, however, that was redirected to a spelling that is not correct in either of the two Romanization systems that Wikipedia recognizes. (In fact the misspelling is not a part of any published system, but an idiosyncratic attempt by User:Acmuller to "clarify.") On the Weonhyo (misspelled) talk page, several other people point out his mistake, but apparently no one has made the correction. Since Wonhyo exists (was made a redirect), I could not move Weonhyo to Wonhyo. I tried removing the redirect from Wonhyo (so that it was an empty page), but that didn't work. I even tried the ill-advised step of moving Wonhyo to Wǒnhyo (and realized afterward that the editing history had moved with it), but of course that didn't delete Wonhyo. The correct spelling in both Romanization systems is Wonhyo, so there's simply no question about what the page should be named. Can you tell me what to do, or, if the only proper way to make the move is for an admin to do it, would you do that for me? Thanks. BTW, Congratulations on your becoming an admin. Luckily I saw your nomination during the voting period, so I was able to add my vote. (You got so many support votes I doubted you'd even know all those who voted for you.) I think people who've been around awhile may forget or may not have ever understood how significant it feels (to some of us) to be welcomed the first time; I appreciated it. So I looked at what you'd done and you certainly seemed like a good candidate to me. -DoctorW 22:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; follow-up note

Thank you for your quick response; sorry you had to undo my edit which was less than fully thought through (normally uncharacteristic for me, even if encouraged on a number of Wikipedia pages to be bold in editing).

I would not expect you or any but a very small minority of Wikipedians to have a view on the English spelling of Korean words. If you do hear from User:Acmuller, I would ask you to take a minute or two to read the talk page before you make a decision on what to do next. Of the few Wikipedians who are knowledgeable enough about this very narrow issue to comment (and the fewer number who ran across the Wonhyo page), four of them pointed out that Muller was wrong; there is no discussion of anything else on the talk page (except your comments). It looks like the page was moved to Wonhyo before at least once; I assume Muller moved it back.

BTW, do you have to be an admin to delete a page, or would there be a good way for me to do this myself if I encounter a similar situation in the future? (I was not willing to delete the history.) I have 220 edits already, and I've learned a great deal, but I'm still learning quite a bit as I go. For example - a small thing - I thought I read somewhere that using paragraphs as I am here (and as you did in your reply to me) was discouraged, but I'm much more comfortable organizing my thoughts this way. And I used the subhead because I thought it makes a new comment that's not at the bottom of a page easier to see without going to the history. Let me know if another method is preferred.

I did notice that you'd changed your username. Because I didn't see a picture at first on your redesigned user page, I thought you'd elected not to have a picture, also for greater anonymity. Since we're getting to know each other a little bit, I'll go ahead and tell you that I liked the old picture; on the other hand, perhaps you thought that now that you're an admin you had to make an extra effort to show your characteristic of humility, lest someone take offense at your letting them know you are a scholar as well as an admin. :-) -DoctorW 08:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Belated Congrats

Hey, no problem with the support, and congratulations. I'm sure you'll wield the mop well. If you need any advice any time, you know where my talk page is :) Grutness...wha? 00:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• (Very late) Congratulations from me too! NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Ditto...good luck to you and cheers on your promotion!--MONGO 08:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Congratulations, Ann. I look forward to learning as much as possible about celtic music from you. Although I'm only a neophyte, I'm a big fan of Fiona Ritchie's The Thistle & Shamrock. The Music of Ireland is truly fascinating.--Viriditas 09:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian 12:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• More congratulations; always nice to welcome another musicabilist, too. :-) (I haven't had cause to run into you much, alas, but I have seen your edits around and think your contributions have been excellent.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Sean Black RfA

Thank you very much for your support of my RfA. Thanks, in part, to you, I am now an Administrator, and I pledge to use my newfound powers for good rather than evil. Thanks again!--Sean|Black 08:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)