User talk:Musical Linguist/Archive07

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Musical Linguist. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

Travelling note

Dear Ann, though you will not be moving physically (at least not very much ;-)) I want to wish you all the best for the time you're away. And I hope and pray your mother will get better. Don't worry about your German, so far it has been spotless - not only that there weren't any errors but even all the idiomatic stuff was beyond reproach (No equivalents of "raining cats and dogs"). So once again, all the best. Str1977 21:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your support of my RfA; I appreciate your confidence. That's a well-chosen list of quotes you have on your user page. Best wishes for a happy new year, Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Hello Ann. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! :) I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. Hope you come back soon. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Mythology

Hi, Ann! Hope you're doing well with those assignments. :)

I wonder if when you come back you could take a look at the Mythology article which is currently subject to a great deal of controversy. I think that as a devout Christian with experience in working productively towards consensus in difficult issues your input would be valuable. - Haukur 23:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Your point

Hi Ann. I am sorry I haven't replied to you yet - it's been playing heavily on my conscience. I want to assure you of one thing: I am a fully committed Catholic (though a member of the Anglican Communion rather than the Roman), and I believe that what I did was not inappropriate. However, I can see how that comment could have been taken offensively. It was actually a joke based upon a Rowan Atkinson comedy, The Thin Blue Line. I now see that not everyone would have understood the reference, and have thus removed the comment. I heartily apologise if you were offended, and I spent a long time over the Christmas break meditating over whether CCW was appropriate or not. In the end, Essjay returned and it is now removed from my userspace. I actually thought Essjay had deleted the "history" page. I wrote it when I was quite upset and angry at comments from various members of the community that were aimed at Essjay rather than the page itself (though I note that you were quite definitely not among them). I have become so unclear about whether or not it is appropriate that I am withdrawing from the "membership" of CCW, though I will not support its deletion. It is one of my strongest beliefs that whether certain activities are sins is not a subject to be decided from above; rather it is a matter of conscience for the individual. I am not clear on this particular issue, and can thus not continue in good faith to be a member of the organisation. I thank you for your messages which have made this clear to me. Your messages have helped me to recognise that very Christian message that I lost sight of: "I can be wrong". Thank you for your help here.

As to the issue of "unilateralism" - I seem to be much misunderstood here. In the majority of cases, policy is correct, and should be followed. Most uses of IAR are actually abuses, of which I strongly disapprove. There are occasions, however, when the policy doesn't make sense to use, hence my opinion that ignoring rules when appropriate is a very good thing. However, most of the time it isn't.

Once again, thank you for your help.

Peace be with you.

Regards, [[Sam Korn]] 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Lexicographical issue

Cara Anna, I hope your assignments are doing well and your mother is recovering. When you return, could you please have a look at the following edit: [1].

The editor is bent on using the word "supernaturalistic" which I cannot find in any of my dictionaries and which to me seems made up. All in all, I now deem it best to delete the sentence alltogether (as it sounds like an advertisment slogan) but I first wanted to inquire your opinion on this lexicographical issue.

Cheers and Aurelie, Str1977 18:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Born again

Please take a look at the discussion going on here when you have a chance. I'm trying to work with a new editor who doesn't seem like he wants to work with me, regarding a particular link. Any help is welcome...feel free to let me know if I've acted inappropriately. If you can't find the time because of your studies, that's fine. Thanks...KHM03 01:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Religious Bias

I'm not sure that you should be bringing your relious bias into your editing.

Not all Christians are Catholic, and not all Catholics are opposed to factual observations that they find uncomfortable.

It would improve matters if you didn't delete anything containing a point of view that is not wholly laudatry of your minority faith. (posted but not signed by User:168.224.1.14)

I'm not sure what he means by "minority faith"...aren't Roman Catholics a majority of Earth's Christians? True, in America, we Protestants outnumber you, but the RCC is still the single largest denomination. At any rate, I've not noticed any "religious bias" on your part, Ann...just a sincere desire for accuracy and fairness (and proper use of the language!). I can't imagine what the anonymous user means by his post. KHM03 18:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Musical Linguist and User:EffKTrial

Yes indeed you should have been more careful to show that you had not written that of McClenon's, but it appeared that you had.I can hardly be blamed for seeing your statement as your statement.And,Yes you have shown bad faith by joining in attack on me at his earlier Rfc, another Straw man attack to deflect from the sourced truth. You were in bad faith in estimating that I have a personal grudge against this Church.And You remain in bad faith for never answering your reduction of 30 odd priests to one or was it zero in Ferns, and you remain in bad faith in not accounting for your removal(asmy POV/error) of the scandalous government deal struck with the Church for 100 million(now 900 in costs to them), and you remain in bad faith for removing the priestly rebellion , after one priest went public.By demanding source after the entire was in the media, you are denying my good faith and provoking further identification of my whereabouts.

I will clearly accept that I jumped to a natural conclusion that you wrote that which you were visible as writing. I believe all the rest shows me your bias and poor faith, which I regret you and your friends displaying. You should not have joined with them, and you should not say you know nothing of Hitler and then show otherwise by minutiae corrections. You should not whitewash the sex Abuse page, and you should still explain what gives you the right to display bad faith to me in qualifying my contribution as no more thanPOV/unsourced error . Apart from all that- I do not and did not look for you to join in the bad faith attack made on my integrity, and I suggest to you that if I remain here, which is dependant on a guilt being cast at your fellow catholic biased editors, that you will be able to renew your un-biased capacities by distancing yourself from faith-based editing policy. Go back and undo the damage you mischievously made at Sex Abuse, badly tagged, and never accounted for. Do not abuse my intentions by stating even to me that I am an anti-catholic. I source my contentions, and you and your friends rubbish this against WP principles. As to your waste of half an hour-You have contributed to my waste of more than half a year, and against clear Wikipedia principle of verifiability.In being so against the pinciple and assumption of good faith, you have joined in cabal wrong. Apart from that I am sorry, and now I equally list this under your response at my Trial. thanksEffK 20:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I regret that EffK accused you (for whatever reason) of bad faith. I think that you do understand what he is alleging about a cabal, even if there is no cabal. I tried to point out that no one is trying to silence Bengalski or Durova or NicM. Robert McClenon 20:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Christianity edit

In re this, isn't it at least as POV to state that the Christian God is God unmarked? Not criticising, just curious in an abstract policy-application way. Jkelly 23:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Helping a wikipedian

Hollow Wilerding has been blocked indefinetly and so have at least one of her sock puppets (she didn't try to hide here Identity on the puppet's page at all) but in truth I can't see anything wrong with her contributions that would warrant her blocking. She seems nice, and to have done a good job adding categories to musical pages. Could you look into this, and maybe unblock her talk page at least. Chooserr 23:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply to the above. There is a lot of conversation about this at WP:AN/I#Attempting_to_resurrect_Wikipedia_career. Jkelly 23:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: One really shouldn't believe what "she" says. "She" has never been blocked indefinitely. The user had a two week block. The user called it indefinite because the block clock resets every time "she" edits anyway. Since the user has refused to abide by the block, "she" is under "indefinite" block. Basically, this is a child who is behaving in a childish manner. Such things have happened before. At this point, the user is under a week's block for admitting to block evasion. After that week, the user will undergo RFar, most likely, but I again recommend utmost skepticism with any statements the user makes about him or herself. Geogre 02:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Stub template for anti-pope

I have recreated the {{Anti-Pope-stub}} stub. It was improperly deleted. There was no consensus behind it. I am really getting fed up at this stage with admins unilaterally deciding to overrule votes and forceably delete something that does not have a deletion consensus behind it. (I guess some people will go ballistic, but that deletion really is outrageous. And it is happening all over these days!) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If I understand the purpose of stubs correctly, it is to draw the attention of voluntary editors to article flagged with "this needs stuff added to it" (and you might be interested in editing it.)

If that's correct, the most likely voluntary editors to be drawn to edit an article on an antipope would be one with the stub {{RC-stub}}.

Labeling antipopes with the pope stub is nothing but ignorance or mischief. It's a transparent denigration of the dignity of the office.

As I understand it, the newbie reading would be using Category:Antipopes to locate the antipopes. patsw 01:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. It's taken me a few days to get caught up on this. I'm aware of the background of this issue, and I happen to be a stub-sorter, so I hope I can be of assistance. Since stubs are actually template/category pairs (fun fact:creating one doesn't automatically create the other!), and since developers have specifically asked us to avoid scads of template redirects, the stub-sorters have developed some rather specific naming conventions, which they summarily enforce with deletions. It actually makes a lot of sense, and all it takes to be convinced of that is to be familiar with the whole wikiproject, but lots of people have other things to do with their time, apparently...

Anyway, the general rule at WP:WSS is to create new stub types when we know we have at least 60 stubs to populate the corresponding category. The reason (as it seems to me) is to keep the list of stub types from unrestrained growth, which is impossible to keep track of, and the whole functioning of the stub-sorting project depends on our being able to keep track of it.

Now, there will never be 60 antipope stubs, because there haven't even been 60 antipopes, and some of them already have non-stub articles. Maybe we should make an exception to the 60-rule-of-thumb for antipopes, but there's an alternative, along lines that Ann has already suggested in more than one place: rescoping the {{Pope-stub}} to read something like: This article about a pope or a claimant to the papacy is a stub..., etc. If the message said that, would it still be a problem for those who feel that the dignity of the office is being denigrated? It seems to me like an inoffensive compromise, but I won't suppose that I speak for anyone else involved. Would it be better to just tag antipopes with {{RC-stub}} and {{Reli-bio-stub}}, which is how they're still tagged right now? (It would be cool if those so invested in the existence of Category:Antipope stubs would take the time to populate it, too.)

If we end up merging with {{Pope-stub}}, I think the appropriate process would be to first rewrite the message on {{Pope-stub}}, then move the antipope stubs in, and then finally delete the defunct templates and category. (There are two templates, and one category, labelled "Antipope" or "Anti-Pope", at my last count.)

Ann, I hope this isn't an inappropriate place to be pursuing this discussion. Just say the word, and we can adjourn elsewhere. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ann, don't be silly - you are never bothering me. Thanks for support at Christianity and for your comments and improvements on the new history section. I actually agree with what you said on ecumenism, but I wanted to get the basic job done quickly - especially since I had to use a dial-up connection yesterday evening.

Now in regard of the "anti-pope stub template" I agree: if it is properly worded so that no undue "relativist bias" creeps in, the pope and anti-pope stubs can be merged. The Pulvermachers of our time however should remain excluded.

Cheers and Aurelie, Str1977 14:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. Re the POV-section flag: I don't know how to edit these things either - well I tried to just change the colour but since I didn't find any setting on the colour I just copied over the POV-article flag and changed the word article to section. It is amazing that two flags so similar were encoded entirely differently. I don't know how to fix tables and hence the table at Kingdom of Judah still is isn't fixed. Do you know where to get professional help for that? Thanks. Str1977 14:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ann (and all). Only just found out that this was deleted (and recreated) while logging another deletion. ("Blue-links" in the deletion log rather leap out at one.) Sounds like we have an emergent consensus here -- this is a lot like the discussion it would have been more useful to have on SFD in the first instance. Regarding RC-stub (or RC-clergy-stub) vs. (a rescoped) pope-stub as destinations: the first has the merit of following the permanent categories (which has Category:Antipopes quite separate from, and not subcatted within Category:Popes); while the second would possibly be more useful for likely stub expansion purposes, as presumably students of the papacy will often have an interest in the "antis", and more so than editors of Catholicism topics generally, I'm guessing. But I'm easy either way. At any rate, as the antipope category is currently empty, and there seems to be no-one edit-warring to refill it, this will soon be "speediable" (much as I agree that the original deletion didn't have any sort of consensus). So if everyone is more-or-less happy that these stubs end up in one of the above other locations... Alai 16:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The challenge

Ahhhhhh. Well, I suppose I should welcome the competition on saints, but I'm a chicken with little confidence in my Alban Butler and Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church compared to a really active RCC scholar. Perhaps I can persuade you to chase the juicy rabbit of encyclicals? Papal bulls? Various councils not yet represented? Ok, ok...no one's Catholic enough to want to write about that stuff, I admit. Saints it is. (Now I need to go grab the fun ones before you find them! :-) ) Geogre 02:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'm left with Richard Hooker and the various weirdos of 1640-1740, when the Protestants were almost as fragmented as the 225 flavors of Baptist are now. Geogre 13:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Amelbert. That's one (dull and unknowable) one for me. :-) Geogre 15:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The conventions for saints are...mysterious. What they really are is inconsistent. Basically, a first name-only entry is preferential. If, however, the saint is not the most famous single-name-person, then we go to "Saint" and single name. If there are multiple Saint X's, then we have to make "Saint X" a disambig and give each an "Saint X of Y" format. Thus, Augustine leads to Saint Augustine of Hippo, and you get a top disambig to lead to Augustine the Lesser. In the case of full name saints, I think we're just up against the usual: most famous gets the lemma and, if there is more than one equally worthy person of a full name, the full name becomes a disambiguation.

Now, that, so far, is almost rational. Where it gets totally FUBAR is when some folks decide that Robert should be an article about the name itself rather than a disambiguation or a saint. When that happens, all bets are off. Now, you and I both know, I hope, that there should not be an article about a word in Wikipedia. That's Wiktionary territory. Encyclopedias are not about words. Lexical material belongs in lexicons. However, the name-game folks will not be swayed, will not be moved. (I had a heck of a time at Hugh and Robert trying to make them disambiguations rather than articles about "all the famous people with this first name" or "this name means Great and Noble Gemologist in Greek.")

(If you're going to flesh out some of the 40 Martyrs, I suppose that leaves me illuminating Foxe's Book of Martyrs, where all those killed during the Counter-Reformation get listed.) Geogre 00:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I should also boast that I got Margaret Clitherow, but, of course, it would be wrong to boast. I already mentioned that I have an Alban Butler and a few other calendars (each with nihil obstat), as well as scholarly works, where possible, but I'm always stymied when I hit something like Butler's chosen saint of the day for the 18th: "Chair of Saint Peter." No joke. Very strange entry, too, with lots of heroic language. (I also want to do some of my heroic latitudinarian theologians of the 17th and 18th centuries. For that matter, the semi-Pelagianism article is incorrect. Speaking as a Semi-Pelagian, I don't like the prejudice that it's just half-Julian.) (We have a big, big need at the 40 Martyrs.) Geogre 01:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

More non-controversial saints for you. I just did Leoba. There had been something there, but it had been wrong (date of death was wrong both in year and date) and stunted, leaving is with no idea of why she was a saint, or even memorable. Having access to a DNB is fantastic. Geogre 16:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Block template

Hello. It's Template:Block. Feel free to let me know, if you change something there. - Darwinek 11:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Finding articles

I think I found articles much in the same way you have, and by looking at categories to see what I find interesting. Thanks for all your help...KHM03 12:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

French Revolution persecution

Dear Ann, another editor objects to one of my edits on Christianity. The dispute is over whether to include persecution during the French Revolution. I have explained my edit here: [2]. Could you please have a look into the linguistic issue ("in Europe"): whether my version says what it wants to say, or whether Sophia's contentions are justified. Cheers and Aurelie, Str1977 12:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Terry Schiavo

Muse: I have no problems with "diagnosed as" PVS, but you simply reverted the entire lead section. My intention was to get the lead section to say why the case is notable as briefly as possible. How Schiavo got to a PVS state does not belong in the opening section. The fact that that whole thing near the end was the "Palm Sunday Compromise" does not belong in the lead section. A lot of the back-and-forth, such as 14 appeals, etc. are details. I really dislike the word "countless". It can be counted, but no one has bothered to do so.

Any thinking person just has to see that it went on for five years and they can tell that it was it was five years of agonizing struggle for both her husband and her parents. You just have to tell the reader that the tube went in and out three times and they know that some horrible struggle occurred.

You just have to then say that Gov. Bush and Pres. Bush got directly involved and THEN they will know why the story is notable. I did not make up these rules about notability. Why waste the readers time?

I love that fact that Palm Sunday Compromise has its own page, but "what happened" can be said very succinctly, so it should just be said.

Look at how short that lead section is on Elizabeth Morgan. Hideously complicated, divisive issues, but I feel the point of the opneing section should be to inform the read of why the story is notable as quickly as possible.

Also, take a look at just the lead paragraphs for Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. Seven lives lost in each case, but the story is LARGER than that, is it not? You could easily drown the two stories in engineering details, but you would miss the point.

I want you to notice one other thing: In the discussion page I said the pattern should be: "Why battle started, major participants, turning point, outcome, significance." Did you notice that my lead stopped at the outcome? I did not include the significance because I could not determine what the significance of the Schiavo story is. No meaningful legal precedents were set.

I ask you now: What was the significance? Was it that Terry Schiavo was once an intelligent and loving human being? Was it that our lives were changed in some way that we can all agree on? Was it all just a lot of political opportunism? I am sick with the fact that I honestly do not know. And THAT is the problem. If I do not know why the story is significant, how can you write the story NOW so that, five or ten years from now, a young reader will be able to read the story and say: "I understand why that was important".

I know that you have strong feelings about this story. I dare you to answer that question: how can you get someone to care ten years from now? Are you just going to turn her into a saint? You might get away with it, but you will know in your heart that you cheated. Put it in its proper historical context NOW. If you take that approach and the significance of the story does not match up with your feelings about it, then, I will feel disappointed along with you, but you have to look at the story for what it is.

P.S. Could you take a quick look at Paul Schenck for me? I grew up in Buffalo and he and his brother have been on my mind for about 20 years. -- Pinktulip 14:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

First Happy New Year ML and hope you are well!

Pink, while you state that she "simply reverted the entire lead section" it's worth noting that you simply cut the lead in half without soliciting Talk consensus and generally without edit summaries. I was going to revert myself but didn't want to do it for a second time. The significance is well-stated in the first sentence which has stood for a few months: "several high-profile court decisions and involvement by prominent politicians and interest groups." If you have more minor concerns ("countless" being wrong adjective etc.) edit those, but it doesn't follow that you can hit a contentious page suddenly, totally re-jig the lead, and not expect to be reverted. Marskell 14:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not cut, I shoved it down to form a new second section. Also, the "high-profile"-ness of the court decisions is not really the importance of the story now, is it? One a decision was made, people forgot about it the next day. It was the political struggle, not the judicial one, that dominated the national news for weeks. What is historic is that the legislative and executive branches tried to do someething. They got whacked down, and they got whacked by the judiciary, but that is almost an afterthought. The point is: they tried and they failed. That is what is notable. -- Pinktulip 15:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"diagnosed as"

Muse: I can imagine that you guys spent a lot of time coming to the compromise of "diagnosed as" for the diagnosis, but do you really thing that the reader will see the distinction? Who besides a legal physician would make such a diagnosis? Most readers will simply assume that if Wikipedia reports the diagnosis as PVS, then the diagnosis was from a human, licensed physician and take it at face value that the diagnosis could still be wrong, but also that it certainly cannot just be ignored.

I can understand what some might want that phrase included: to remind the reader that the doctor is only human. Just ask yourself: When was the last time you read a newspaper account that went somehting like: "The doctor declared the diagnosis to be XYZ, but the doctor is only human." True, but highly prejudicial. No sensible reporter would write that. The reporter (or judge) would simply determine that the physician is currently licensed by the state and that he has declared his diagnosis. Assuming, for a moment, you are the patient, you could get a second opinion, I guess, but if you are deal with doctors at all, then supposedly you are going to eventually accept a diagnosis then simply accept that you have disease XYZ.

That is my understanding of the common usage of the language. When I see "diagnosed as", I, as the reader, immmediately get suspicious. Who did the diagnosing? Were there other, different diagnoses that were simply ignored? The commmon usage is to simply accept the dianosis and accept that the disease/condition has been determined. Failing that, one should then make an effort to name and describe each physician and their differing diagnoses when trying to communicate with the reader what the status is. -- Pinktulip 15:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Randall Terry

You already know who he is, but I noticed that he is not even mentioned in the Schiavo article. Anyway, I did a bunch of data-gather (limited, pretty much, to web info). Maybe you could review him also, when you have time?

Boy, the Schencks really got me going:

Michael_Bray
Flip Benham
James Charles Kopp (I found a 42-chapter online series about him)
Elizabeth Morgan
Chuck Colson

I know it is a lot, but, I am not making demands. Just hoping to get some feedback from soneone that I know I can trust to patiently recognize the complexity of these people. -- Pinktulip 10:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Spam

There is a spam issue at Biblical inerrancy; I have warned the anonymous user repeatedly. Please take a look when you have an opportunity...thanks. KHM03 01:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC) PS - I'm not a proponent of inerrancy; I am a guy who dislikes spam!

Sock

Also, be aware of User:Matthew Cunio. Just a heads up. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry. Now there are a few pairs of eyes looking out for Cunio socks. Regarding RfA, I just didn't feel right. I might accept in a month or so, but I have too much anger to accept right now. Thanks though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

AOL IP block

Hi. User:Curps blocked 207.200.116.66 for a few days. However, it's an AOL IP address used by many and now I'm blocked and I didn't vandalize anything. Can you help? --Wiggins2 07:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC

As always, I was glad to see your name pop up on my talk page. Since Oldwindybear I think feels quite embarrassed by the whole affair, it might just be best to delete it. Thank you for paying attention!! I am eternally grateful. Also, I enjoyed reading about your nutritionist; I'd never heard of candidasis, but it sounds terrible! Best and good luck with the nutrition regime · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 17:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong link

Thanks, Ann. I'm hopeless with diffs. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

True Faith ...

... is a wonderful New Order song, Ann, but this vandalism on Christianity is certainly annoying. Is it time for protecting? Or Semi - as these sockpuppets spring up only on short terms? Str1977 15:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK Arbitration

Thank you. I similarly don't understand why the arbitrators keep the case open, but perhaps it is because they are preoccupied by the election. As to his demands that the RfAr accept arbitration against User:Str1977 and User:Robert McClenon, the ArbCom always has the authority to act against any party, and to make anyone a party to a case. Robert McClenon 21:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If the ArbCom has a reason for keeping the record open, I would like them to grant a temporary injunction. Robert McClenon 21:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Allowed to die

I noticed another page with the phrase "allowed to die". Sun Hudson. I can see your point about the phrase being POV. Tell me: what phrase should we use? I am thinking of starting a list: "Patients who were allowed to die" but, obviously, that cannot be the title. -- Pinktulip 05:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppet?

Please look into User:38.114.145.148 when you can. Thanks. KHM03 13:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ann. My IP address is [[User:64.121.40.153|. I never denied otherwise. I have always had the same IP address--one and only. Any other IP address would not be me since I've never used a different PC to edit here. I have already agreed to log in (the times my IP address shows instead of my name is due to not being log on).

I do not know why I seem to have been accused of having more than one account. A diversionary tactic, that is a sign of desperation? hehe I looked at your links and I only see that I said the same things Im saying here: that I only have one account and one IP address. Not loggin in does not mean I have two accounts, since its the same IP address, right? KHM03 lumped me together with another user, Belinda. I denied that I was someone else (any IP address other than 64.121.40.153), stating I have only one account. How is this possibly interpreted as a denial that my own IP address is mine? The other user I was being lumped with has a different IP address. Can you clarify what about this needs clarification since I've already stated this? Giovanni33 18:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears I have been blocked from making any further edits. This was right after I made some edits to addressing points in the talk page in goodwill on my part, not to do any reverts (except the Historical Chart, which no one disputs). Yet, looks like I have been blocked as a result anyway. Giovanni33 19:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK Case

The ArbCom has gone into voting on EffK. The current vote is 4-0 to ban him for one year. There is now starting to be useful discussion on Talk: Enabling Act about restructuring the articles on the Nazi ascension now that they are not being soapboxed. Robert McClenon 12:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

Good to see you back editing again. Hope schoolwork is going well. Grad school is fun, no? :-) Antandrus (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael Schiavo's engagment

Michael Schiavo identified Jodi Centonze as his financée in the obituary of his mother, Clara, in July 1997. It was published in a local Pennsylavania newspaper. Terri Schiavo, Michael's wife, was not mentioned. patsw 02:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks — better a belated welcome than none. I like your new User name, incidentally; singing in tongues? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. KHM03 22:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

My "return"

Thanks! I wasn't really away for more than a day or two after leaving the message on my talk page (although I was away for longer amounts of time before). Once I log in, it seems that there's always something to be done, and one thing leads to another... JYolkowski // talk 23:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

LV

Yes, sorry I didn't get your message earlier because I was occupied elsewhere. There are many sides to me, I know (maybe I should add to my "Pentecost" box ;-)) ... and sometimes I have to delve in memories. *Sigh* In fact, I was wondering whether you would comment ever since I put her on my "likes section". Now you have and I see that you don't "approve". Never mind, you don't have to. And believe me, in real life she isn't that scary, though it's been a while. Cheers, Str1977 10:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My warning to Pinktulip

I understand, I struck my warning with an explanation on his/her talk page with what happened.--Adam ^(talk) 15:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

HELLO

Hello. --Conrad-14 year old socialist 20:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No idea what Wv etc mean. But yes, i will stick to the rules. Glad to note that you can use a semi colon correctly. You are one of few. --Comrade Conrad 20:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

One might say Goodbye

I answered yr letter below it. I cannot remember the very good reason I had for deleting the previous one, but I trust myself.EffK 10:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

regarding Sam Korns message

I took the message down immediately after posting it, as I realized I hadn't heard his side of the story. BUT!!! I should say that I still think it is ALWAYS innappropriate for an administrator or ANY AUTHORITY figure to ask a fifteen year old if he "enjoyed getting drunk last night". Now I admit that after finding out that Sam himself was sixteen, I realized it was all in good fun, but still he is an administrator. I cant imagine any parent thinking that it would be appropriate for another authority figure(teacher, coach, babysitter, scout troop leader) to be joking about a minor getting wasted. I admit I should appologize for being wrong, but I will say now that I think I did the right thing by being alert against internet predetors rather than "assume he meant nothing by it" as apparently the rest of the people reading it did.Pickelbarrel 18:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)