User talk:Musical Linguist/Archive11

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

Your message

Oh, I see. Does he think that this account's exposure as a sock-puppet excuses or somehow cancels out his own behaviour? Odd.

How are things, by the way? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I came upon this as I've been having a looking at Crusading composer's edit history. Other than a handful of minor edits to other pages they have made over 200 aimed at Rob Steadman. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case - surely a wikipedia account should be mainly used for editing articles. I can appreciate that they feel hard done by but this seem to be pretty much the only topic they use wikipedia for - is there anything that can be done about this? It doesn't seem right that an account can exists purely to cause another user grief. Sophia^TalkTCF 00:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to think that my account has moved away from Mr Steadman and his self made article. I have bitten my tongue at seeing certain additions to his page and not edited it. I don't even look at it any more. If you look at my contributions, I have edited more than 20 articles and I have a ratio of article edits to talk edits of more than 50%. I think that speaks for itself. I will continue to respond when other editors accuse me of stalking them, but otherwise, I'm content to let it go. As far as the comment on VHJH's page which so annoys some editors - it is in context. VHJH was really vile to me. One of his least offensive strategies was to accuse me of having sock puppets, so I don't feel any sympathy at him being outed. The 'ha ha' comment is in response to his last message which was directed at me. He claimed that my efforts to rebut his snide insinuations made him laugh, hence the comment about he who laughs last is perfectly valid as a comment to end the matter. I have moved on.Crusading composer 12:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I was about to remove the ha ha, - not because I felt that it was inappropriate, but because I was asked and not told to do so and i don't want to fall out with anybody else, but you had already deleted the page. I think that that is an appropriate gesture for that particular user.Crusading composer 12:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

With hindsight, should I have asked to copy your 'message box'? Is there some kind odd wiquitette on this? It looked good and I thought that I'd try it out. As I said, I don't understand how it all works, but some things look good. My userboxes, however, aren't copied from anybody - they look that way purely by chance. If I erred, please feel free to delete the box concerned.Crusading composer 12:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please check abortion talk page

Pro-lick keeps adding a subheading [1] within one long commentary I made. He has reverted it over and over again. It is senseless. Anything you can do about this would be appreciated. Also, he keeps editing comments made by others in this section. He is editing and rearranging the input to favor his view, while denying anyone else that same opportunity. Many many thanks for your contributions. Good 19:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your work with Andrew Morrow. I had a long telephone conversation with him today. It is obvious that he needs to give it up and move on, concentrate on making a good life for himself, and quit dwelling on past wrongs. Fred Bauder 19:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your thoughtfulness and kindness

User:Musical Linguist I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your kindness in semi protecting my talk page. I am at a loss why Pig would hate me so - he has taken considerable joy in the past mocking wheelchair/disabled, and in making threats, and in truly viscious cursing and ranting. Now, after the war, and all that has happened in my life, I do not fear this foolish little man, but my grandchildren read my user page, (and thus talk page!) and are very proud of old Grandpa. I would be saddened enormously if they read something like what you were referring to, and I think you were both thoughtful, and enormously kind in acting to shield the page. God Bless...(by the way, my family is of Irish extraction, with an american indian of mixed blood tossed in!) I want to see Fair Dublin City, as Molly Malone says, before i die! Thanks again, you are just a good human being...old windy bear 01:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Best. Catholic. Banner. Ever - schrandit 21:33, 19 March 2006 (EST)

Ludmila Javorova - your revert

Hi! I think that the fact that she was ordained by Davidek is beyond reasonable doubt by now (the Czech Wiki states it without reservation, by the way, and I have not heard here in Czech Republic that somebody would deny it). The question is of course how to interpret the act and whether it could realy give LJ the sacerdotal powers.

By the way, by reverting the article you destoyed several other useful pieces of information.

Therefore, please, revert the revert and edit the text using normal editing weapons :-) if you feel need to make it even more NPOV.

Have a nice day, --Ioannes Pragensis 14:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

EffK and SeanBlack

Perhaps I don't understand the policy on banned users, but I can't see where it says that their user pages should be treated differently than those of other users. As in your post to me you seem to be suggesting that you or someone else (?) may wipe it again and protect it in that state, I have asked for more knowledgeable outside opinions at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts.

Also, could you explain what you meant by this comment: I would say that your reverting of an administrator's action has done more to hasten the day that it will be reprotected for good than than the actions of anyone else, including EffK himself. Please know that as far as I'm concerned administrators are humans like the rest of us, and also capable of mistakes and even misdemeanours. If I find an admin, as I understand it, engaging in vandalism or personal abuse I will act in just the same way I would with any editor. On the other hand, if it's demonstrated that SeanBlack, you or others have the right to blank the page then of course I'll abide by the rules and not revert it. Hence I don't see why my actions hasten it being 'reprotected for good.Bengalski 21:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Software bug and sense of humour

Was already checking it, when my screen turned orange. But thanks for pointing out. It is funny to be reverting back to a version one knows to be utterly wrong, but hey! c'est la vie! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, keep your sense of humour by all means! ;-) And don't take it to hard. I don't think your joke caused any of this current malaise. He who has ears will listen, but he who will block his ears and/or hum his own tune loud enough will only hear what he wants to hear. Aurelie, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How does one become a "qualified linguist"?

I have been interested in languages and living in different parts of multi-lingual India has given me exposure to different languages. How does one become a qualified linguist? Thanks. 203.145.180.3 07:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Its all based on what Noam Chomsky thinks of you. Good 11:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I did this degree, which has now been replaced by this one. Also, I did this, choosing modules that made it into an MEd in Applied Linguistics, rather than simply an MEd. And I did this, this, and this.

I'm sure most universities have degrees in linguistics. The Open University was particularly convenient for me, as I was already in full time employment, and didn't have any compulsory lectures to attend.

And actully, we did very little on Chomsky. The Open University course planners preferred Halliday (and so did I). AnnH ♫ 09:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I think we need outside help. These constant edit wars are not productive and behaviour on all sides deteriorates at these times. I'm not happy with the arbitrary definitions of acceptable scholarship and the marginalisation to non existence of the minority views in some cases.

Hopefully if we get everyone together with neutral observers (referees!) we can have all this out in a structured way as opposed to jamming up the talk pages/edit warring and ending up with the articles locked.

How do I go about setting up an RfC? I'd like to get it right first time if poss. Sophia^TalkTCF 14:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Tsk tsk...

Rollback is supposed to be used for vandalism. Any reason you chose to do so here? Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, LV. I use rollback for vandals and for banned editors returning anonymously or as sockpuppets. I don't use it for anything else — except for one occasion when my finger slipped, and I undid that immediately! If in doubt, check the user page, talk page, or block log of the editor I've rolled back. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 22:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Aaahhh... I see. Thanks for filling me in. As for the RfA... I don't think so. I have absolutely no need for Admin tools right now, so asking for them seems like a waste. Any truly pressing concerns I can use AN or AN/I, etc. Thanks though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Rob

Howdy. Thanks for the comments on subst; I'm prone to not using it enough but you are right that this wasn't the right situation. I didn't comment on sockpuppets until the tag was modified to say Rob hadn't edited the article, which the arbcom evidence said otherwise. Overall I'm not that concerned but I had a similar issue on another article with people not wanting their involvement known and it all got very ugly. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am very tempted to put a few lines on my own talk page regarding Mr Steadman, but I'm more inclined to report him - although my own conduct would come under scrutiny as well. I'm not going to get involved - my original intent was to remove the gush from his article - I have done that and to link his article to the TES to show what he is like - that became unnecessary when he started editing here, anyone can follow the link to his userpage and view his contributions. Rob has, himself, achieved my goals. I can now concentrate on editing some history pages.Count Of The Saxon Shore 20:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny thay Ann, as an admin, knows all about the conduct that you fear would come under scrutiny, yet has done nothing about it. A fine example of bias. The more I watch you people go at it, the less paranoid Rob seems. It seems that you have achieved his goals of vindication. Alienus 20:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Count of the Saxon Shore, I don't know on what grounds you can state that I know "all about the conduct that [he fears] would come under scrutiny." I am aware that he has been taunting another user, who has himself done a lot to lose sympathy by overreacting. If you look at all six messages that I have sent to Count of the Saxon Shore [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], you will see that I have constantly tried to persuade him to leave Rob alone. You will see also that in one of those diffs, I tell the Count: I know nothing about the background of this, and quite honestly, I'm not interested enough to try and find out. I will say, though, that your behaviour is increasing my sympathy for Rob. When you say that I have "done nothing about it", I am not sure what you think I should have done. It cost me a certain amount of time to write those messages asking him politely to stop targetting Rob. I also removed a taunt that he made to User:Vhjh after the checkuser showed him to be a sockpuppet for Rob.[8] [9] I even reverted a non-vandalism edit he made to Rob's user page while Rob was blocked, because it was obvious from Rob's remarks on his talk page that he was furious, and I felt it was slightly taking advantage of the block.[10] I feel that I have been fairly successful in encouraging him to start editing other articles and forgetting about Rob. Other than that, I don't see what I can do. There's nothing in Wikipedia policy which would allow me to block someone for constantly posting messages on the talk page of another user who has made it clear that he doesn't want them. Unlike you, he doesn't use foul language, and he doesn't attack viciously, although I did disapprove of the "ha ha". I didn't block you when you spat at me a few months ago [11] after I had politely told you that you had violated 3RR but that I wasn't going to report you [12] I don't think you have any grounds for saying that I'm showing bias, unless you can show me an example my blocking one of my opponents for behaviour similar to Count's behaviour. If I blocked him for the messages he sent to Rob, which I have absolutely no wish to do, the block would be undone by another administrator, as it would be a completely improper block. AnnH ♫ 22:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I admit that, having now read the wiki guidelines on civility, I see that my earlier behaviour was inappropriate - not my editing of Mr Steadman's page - the fact that much of it is still there sort of proves that it wasn't vandalism - but my arguments on the talk pages were inappropriate. I maintain that I was less guilty than Mr Steadman, but that's neither here nor there. The comment which alienus picked upon 'my conduct..." refers to the fact that I'd come out of any enquiry looking just as bad. BUT the point is, I am trying to put this behind me, Mr Steadman has not. I think that it is inappropriate to take advantage of the rules regarding talk pages to make comments that would be deleted if placed elsewhere. I see nothing wrong with asking Mr Steadman twice to remove the comments - My requests were polite. I have said before that I welcome any investigation into my usage - I have no sockpuppets and I have no knowledge of or made any communication with any of the other editors who have found reason to argue with Mr Steadman.Count Of The Saxon Shore 23:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would love your help.

Hi,

I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. [13] is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. —This unsigned comment was added by Nsandwich (talk • contribs) 00:58, 24 March 2006.

Hey

Thanks for noticing that I'm "Back". I wasn't around for a while because Wikipedia was starting to bring me down, but I think I can edit better now. Hope all is well with you. Chooserr 21:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Enemies all around

Well I got a nice welcome back from Alienus, and have also been threatened with being reported. And will I've only reverted twice I think I'll let it rest for the time being, but I would like you to look at the recent history of the Condom page and maybe its talk which has the reasoning why I made my edit. Please, Chooserr 22:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you've edited on the Condoms page, and I thank you for your help, but for the life of me I can't see why the section is necessary at all. Planned Parenthood isn't a religions, and shouldn't be included in that section. It is perfectly balanced with out it, because it just out lines what some religions believe. It isn't stating that they are right or wrong. Chooserr 22:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I'm also having some trouble on the starbucks page. I'm sorry to call on you so frequently but it seems that I can't edit at all without being reverted, and therefore getting into an edit war. Can you have a look at the history. Starbucks inventor removed my comment about their donations to Planned Parenthood, along with the Labor dispute section. Chooserr 22:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's days like this that I have to remind myself that there is no cabal. Alienus 06:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

subst:

Thanks for the advice, Ann. I've never quite gotten the hang of when to use subst: and when not to. Nandesuka 00:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It was the rabies...

...it affected my brain, and my judgement was off. I apologise.

My wikilife has changed since I added abortion to my watchlist. Maybe that's not so surprising. At least it feels like a more significant issue to grapple with than BC vs BCE. Thanks for the vote of confidence. You're certainly one of the editors here who makes it work and makes it worth it; thanks for that, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Change to JPII

I gather you feel it was "commentary" so am curious as to how I would go about phrasing the facts (about JPII committing acts worthy of excommunication according to traditional canon law) so as to present it in a light that would not be considered commentary. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.Grizzalo 15:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anne, I noticed that I had ommitted one word, from one of 'The Trial Of Condemnation' quotes of St. Jehanne D'Arc, that altered the meaning. I was just correcting my error, that's all. I apologise for the error in the first place. Yours Sincerely, Russell Leslie Phillips. —This unsigned comment was added by 192.117.97.131 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 26 March 2006.

Yes, it's an open proxy.

The site, Anonymouse.org, is a web-based open proxy. Ral315 (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

Done.Gator (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Celtic Park

Sorry it is not vandalism it is fact, the website address that i have put on there has various links.

Celtic Park is not 5 star, it says not to change it without a reference, there is one there so please ensure it is left alone —This unsigned comment was added by 86.140.253.251 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 27 March 2006.

I see, so this wasn't vandalism? ? ? ? AnnH ♫ 18:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Subst. template

Didn't know that...thanks! KHM03 (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply to WP:AIV comment

Re:[14] Thanks. I didn't read the big green box on the page right away, and by the time I saw it, someone had already fixed it.--acfan-Talk to me 23:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

wheels bandit

Is back again. Check AIV. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

I wanted to come by and thank you for unblocking a simultaneous block I placed on an account earlier today. I was not aware that the vandalism was much more widespread and severe than it was. Keep up the great work! --HappyCamper 23:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

the latest anon

217.33.207.195. As I mentioned on the blocking admins page, he's got 2 full archives of vandalism! nothing but vandalism! How is a 1hr block helpful? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-lick

yay me!  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Why must I repeatedly remind myself about the lack of a cabal? Why?! Alienus 22:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I give up, why? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know. Maybe it's because there is a consistent pattern of a few biased and/or incompetent admins who do all the dirty work for their compatriots. Maybe it's something else. You tell me. Alienus 02:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Care to give some specifics? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Consider your post in this section. Pro-lick is banned and you're celebrating with Ann. Not coincidentally, Ann frequently reverted Pro's insertions. Alienus 03:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I frequently celebrate when known trolls are blocked, but in this case, all I was doing was making a small joke about having noted that Pro-lick was a sock puppet. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you by any chance happen to know what a troll actually is? Alienus 17:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I imagine your question was directed at Zoe, not at me. However, I do feel that Pro-Lick's constant insertion into the abortion talk page of links to comics, or cartoons, or websites that were designed to make fun of the pro-life editors was a form of trolling. I also think that this edit with its edit summary, coming just after I had said that "death" doesn't imply personhood and that I did not feel at all uncomfortable in saying that I had recently taken antibiotics to kill an infection, was a form of trolling. It was certainly trying to make a WP:POINT. Zoe has not been in any way involved in the abortion article, as far as I can see. Nor has she been in any way involved with me. In fact, her recent message on my talk page is the first I have ever had from her, as far as I know. So your cabal remarks are quite out of place. AnnH ♫ 22:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A person that doen't listen to reason? Encarta having "death" in their definition made Pro-Lick's WikiLawyering a waste of our time. But then persisted in the disruptive behaviour despite the obvious. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank you Ann for your diligence on this matter. I had requested a Checkuser from Essjay, but had no suspects to name to move the process forward. Pro-Lick has monopolized my time and patience recently; I'm glad to have it back for more constructive endeavors. Like debating/discussing with Alienus. - RoyBoy 800 05:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

User:84.9.68.160

Hi, I beleive you blocked this user, he seems to be showing a willingness to behave and even apologized, also I do not beleive this user vandalized anything on purpose, he is just an oblivious new user. Can you please consider unblocking him?--GorillazFanAdam 02:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I am Danielle Cunio, who you kept reverting a couple months ago. I may want to talk. Well, first I'll say, good look takin care ov vandals at Christianity. Also, I am not the "NC Vandal", and don't know who that is, but whoever it is, is posting things against me. I gave up my actions here partly because I didn't like the lies against me. I was even featured at the "Vandalism in progress" for that vandal, who I know nothing about. I do live in North Carolina, though.

Anyway, have you helped anyone to convert to Christianity here. have you had anyone carry my message —This unsigned comment was added by Ievaquegs (talk • contribs) 03:55, 30 March 2006.

3RR

You warn me against breaking the 3RR then do it yourself a few minutes later? Please.Bengalski 12:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I counted and you did violate the 3RR rule again, in this instance, Ann, with the removal of Catholic from Adolf Hitler. It was just by 10 mins, too. Ofcourse, I will assume good faith and assume you lost count or track of time, and just made a mistake like you said you did last time you violated the 3RR rule (that I know of in an edit conflict). Thefoere, I will just let you know here, but won't report you (as long as you promise to be good). Also, I did re-insert the category so there is no need for you to undo your 3RR violation this time. Cheers! Giovanni33 13:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I agreed with your comments and made the suggested changes. I'm a believe in good will and think it benefits the giver as much as those who recieve it. Its a theme in the writings/novels of Victor Hugo, as you problably know, who I enjoy.Giovanni33 13:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

70.231.174.106

With your OK, I went ahead and extended the block in light of the fact that it was clear he was a sock and the IP had only been used that one day so collateral damage is very unlikely. Just wanted you to know. I'll be happy to change it back and you can feel free to undo my block if you disagree, I won't be offended. I just wanted to give you notice.Gator (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:62.25.109.194

Just to say thanks for the super-quick revert job on the Scandinavian articles that this guy edited. I've got a funny feeling that the figures he's putting in may have some value, but he's never given a source despite being asked over and over again, and never responds to his Talk page. The joys of anonymous IP's. Sigh.

I'm used to clearing up after this guy, but wasn't looking forward to sorting out fifty in one go without a mop... so thanks again! Aquilina 16:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your concerns. If he told us his source, I'm sure we'd put the figures in. I noticed the Norwegian editors had reverted him previously, however, and that population figures aren't really much use without a description of how they were calculated (based on conurbation/electoral district/borough/...) and a central unified list of all the figures. I'm happy to go and put all the figures back personally if the situation changes; until then thanks for erring on the side of caution! Aquilina 17:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Poker

He vandalised again after coming off the block so my good faith was exhausted and I indef blocked him. Thanks for the great pointers!Gator (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman AfD

I am sorry, but several administrators have commented on this user page - and all have dismissed it with 'that's just the way it is, let's just ignore it. No, that will not wash any more. He has been asked politely 3 times. I asked you what could be done - you had your chance. I don't see why other editors should pussyfoot around this man because he is so emotionally fragile that he sees everything in terms of 'friends and foes'. I am off on holiday this afternoon. When I get back on Tuesday, if there are still any references to me (no matter how subtle) I will refer the page for deletion and I will report you for abuse of privileges if you attempt to revert it. Count Of The Saxon Shore 09:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that last message seemed a little abrupt. I'm not having a go at you, I'm just cross that you reverted the edits when I'm not sure if you had the right to do so.Count Of The Saxon Shore 09:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I do suggest you look into exactly what admin duties are before you go accusing this user of abusing priveledges... you will most likely simply make a fool of yourself by referring to a non existant policy, and accomplish nothing. I don't want to see that happen, do you? --Darth Revert ^{(AKA Deskana)} (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

- Oooh, get you! ;) No nee to be so cutting, I'd already apologised for over reacting and said that I wasn't sure about it. Anyway, it looks like you are already attracting enough flak without me joining in. + Oooh, get you! ;) No need to be so cutting, I'd already apologised for over reacting and said that I wasn't sure about it. Anyway, it looks like Ann is already attracting enough flak without me joining in. —This unsigned comment was added by Count Of The Saxon Shore (talk • contribs) 19:53, 3 April 2006.

Alienus' nickers in a twist

Alienus is making threats over at the pro-life talk page. I can't believe he is an admin. He is extremely hot tempered and nasty. Please take a look. Good 23:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Any idiot can be an admin, and many are. As it happens, I'm not an admin and I don't need to be one just to get you banned like I did last time. All I have to do is warn you that WP:3RR still applies to you, and report your refusal to comply. If you take that as a threat, so be it. Speaking of which, your edit comment, about my knickers, was uncivil, which is likewise in violation of Wikipedia rules. Alienus 23:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Your knickers are still in a twist. Otherwise you would not make threats on the pro-life talk page. Good 23:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest putting both of these in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation before one of them says something to the other that could warrant a block. --GorillazFanAdam 23:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is MyDairyCow.com (a humor site about dairy cows) spam while MilkSucks.com ("a site run by PETA extolling the alleged benefits of going Dairy-free") not considered spam?

- This unsigned comment was left by Simiproject

Christos - Athlete rubbed in oil?

Hi, Sam. I've noticed the Greek babel box on your user page, and I wonder if you'd have time to take a look at this? I don't know Greek, unfortunately, but since I know that the English word athlete comes from a very similar Greek word, and since the English word chrism comes from a Greek word meaning something to do with oil or anointing, it seems unlikely that the relatively short word Christos could have the meanings "athlete" and " rubbed in oil" incorporated into it. Thanks. And by the way, last time I looked at your user page, you were sixteen, so Happy Birthday! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 16:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The Greek root is the verb χριειν (chriein or khriein) meaning "to rub on" or "to anoint". χριστος (christos with a small c) means anointed, and Χριστος (Christos with a large C) is therefore taken as Christ. It is a precise translation of the Hebrew "Messiah". They both mean "anointed one". The comment on that diff stems from the fact that Greek athletes were rubbed with oil at games, and the verb here would also have been χριειν and χριστος in an athletics context would therefore have come to mean "athlete" by understanding. However, χριειν in itself was not specific to athletics, and neither was χριστος. I hope that helps, and thanks for the birthday wishes! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Robsteadman

Please help us out here. I noticed you reverted User:Bakewell Tart's edits... he's made 6 full reverts to the page and is gaming the system by making different reverts, blanking his user talk pages, insulting me in edit summaries and on his user talk page... please help? Thanks. --Darth Revert ^{(AKA Deskana)} (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's OK, it's been handled. Phew. --Darth Revert ^{(AKA Deskana)} (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman

Hi. Can you please ask Robsteadman to remove the comment about the "lying vandal" from his user talk page? I intend to open a RfC and need at least two users asking him to remove it. Thanks. --Darth Revert ^{(AKA Deskana)} (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Your message

...has been replied to on my user talk page, and email should now be working. Note that the semiprotection and the personal atacks are on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I announced my intention to unprotect there and nobody has objected. I won't revert if you have reasons for reinstating the protection, however. --kingboyk 15:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

File:1000000eme.jpg

Another newly produced robot thanks you for your handiwork, and excuses himself while he practices his new abilities. Back in action soon! -- Hoary 11:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)