User talk:Fiddleback

Thomas Allery

A response has been left on Thomas Allery's discussion page. Dewarw 14:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haec dies

Thanks for fixing the Latin in the Haec dies on my talk page! I can't believe I had that mistake for so long ... :) Appreciate your work on Anglican church music, the mass, and composers, by the way. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Nazir-Ali

Re: His Lordship's "identifying as Christian" at age 15, so say the various biographical items on the Anglican Communion and the Diocese of Rochester websites, together with background information in various books and articles he has written. His mother, I believe, remained Muslim. In any case, it is not at all contentious; the issue arose when he was shortlisted for Archbishop of Canterbury and various naysayers in the Church of England were trying to make a thing of his having at one stage dallied with Roman Catholicism before he settled on the Church of Pakistan as his denomination of choice. Yes of course Pakistanis are very denominational: it IS, after all, strictly speaking a capital offence for a Muslim to apostise. But things would have been somewhat more easygoing as to Sharia in the 1950s and Nazir-Ali senior would have chosen to become Christian before 1947.Masalai 09:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any sense that he 'dallied' with Roman Catholicism. He was brought up in that denomination (which accounts for the majority of Pakistani Christians) and switched to the Church of Pakistan later. Fiddleback 21:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony caesar

Please see my comment on Talk:Anthony caesar. David Underdown 12:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Hi Fiddleback,

You began using a second account on the English Wikipedia, Matthaeus Tomlinson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), on 29 December. Please look at our policy on running sockpuppet accounts. While it can be all right to use a second account in a limited set of circumstances, my concern with the second account is that you are using it for ethnic edit-warring and personal attacks -- indeed, as of this writing, that is all it has done. Your other account has behaved perfectly nicely, and made a lot of good contributions. Normally I'd block the bad one and leave you a warning, but since I've been involved in a content dispute with you I'm not going to do it. See this thread where I asked the opinion of another administrator I respect. Please make sure you understand the sockpuppetry policy, and I request that you refrain from further personal attacks (such as accusing me of "perpetuating Nazism", which you did with the sockpuppet account). Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked User:Matthaeus_Tomlinson as a personal-attacks-only, alternate account. As Antandrus suggested above, please do have a look at Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppet accounts. If you have any questions, please let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock-auto|1=82.36.94.228|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Matthaeus Tomlinson". The reason given for Matthaeus Tomlinson's block is: "Personal attacks or [[WP:Harassment|haras|3=Gwen Gale|4=1264065}}

I should like to explain that the sock-puppetry was entirely unintentional. As I explained, Matthaeus Tomlinson is an account I use on Latin Vicipaedia. I was editing the page there on Mendelssohn and referred to the English simply to get some links. It was there that I saw something which I regarded as inaccurate information and which I removed. I am sorry that I did not log in properly - in fact I was surprised to see that I came up as Matthaeus Tomlinson. I do not believe I have made personal attacks against Antandrus, and I have been rather surprised by the intemperate tone of his replies which may have raised the heat of the exchange. I have conversed with him far moe cordially and constructively in the past. The question of Mendelssohn's identity is clearly one that he feels very strongly about. I also feel very strongly about unnecessary ethnic labelling, especially where, as in this case, the subject did not wish to bear that label. I am not happy to have upset Antandrus and ask him to accept my apology. I think he may have misread my motives however. This may be an American v. European cultural clash, and I would like him to respect my own viewpoint as a reasonable one.

I should also add that this computer is the sole one in a house of 6 users, so I cannot be responsible for all the edits from this IP address.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 82.36.94.228 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Gwen Gale (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've lifted the autoblock, which means any user other than User:Matthaeus Tomlinson should be able to edit from your computer. As to your content dispute with other editors, you will need to give reliable sources and gather consensus for any disputed edits you wish to make. Please be civil, assume good faith and don't make personal attacks: Comment only on sources and edits, not on editors or what you think editors may have in mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you editing my archive?

The only reason I even saw these edits was because I had a hunch you might be logging in either as "Fiddleback" or "Matthaeus Tomlinson". Why don't you stick to one account? If you want me to see an edit, put it on my current talk page. Even better, put your arguments on the talk page to the article in question so other editors can see them. If, as you believe, there is no consensus on the issue of Mendelssohn's Jewishness, we can't debate it on User talk pages -- no one will see the debate. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]