User talk:Musical Linguist/Archive17

Archive One Archive Two Archive Three Archive Four Archive Five Archive Six Archive Seven Archive Eight Archive Nine Archive Ten Archive Eleven Archive Twelve Archive Thirteen Archive Fourteen Archive Fifteen Archive Sixteen Archive Seventeen Archive Eighteen Archive Nineteen Archive Twenty

Question of process

Hello. There have been a couple of changes in procedures since I went inactive several months ago, and I've just come upon a situation where I'm not sure what the proper course of action should be. Concerning User talk:Tradealoan, should I use {{prod}} or AfD? Thank you. SWAdair 08:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hydnjo's response to the blocking proposal

I thank one and all - Jarandal, Antandrus, Titoxd, Xaosflux, TenOfAllTrades, mboverload, PseudoSudo, Knowledge Seeker, Haukurth, Deathphoenix, Zzyzx11, Tyrenius, Zscout370, AnnH, Rick Block, Tyrenius (again), Zscout370 (again) and NoSeptember for your support.

To Jeffrey O. Gustafson who initiated this block request I ask why? We have had no interaction until now so how do you come to this requested action at WP:AN? Did you come across my account during your own research or are you acting as a proxy for another admin/user with whom I've caused to be angry with me? In reviewing your contributions I see no such "letter of the law" before now and so I feel singled out by you and I have no clue as to why - that to me is most disturbing. If you've come to this action on your own then should I be always wary of another admin challenging the legitimacy of my account?

For TenOfAllTrades who advised me not to worry and Rick who made me laugh I give special thanks, you've helped me to not take this so personally. And to Jeff, thanks for being courteous in informing me of your action and for letting me feel that your heart wasn't for blocking me.
Except for my one explanation above, I haven't edited for a few days now so as to allow y'all to comment about this based on my history of contribution rather than my reaction to it.

I wanted to say all of this before it all goes to archive heaven. I still have a lingering concern that this may arise again and don't want to go through WP life looking over my shoulder or worrying that I might piss-off some admin and cause another inquiry about the legitimacy of my account. If any of you who have been so gracious as to take the time to support me here have any suggestions to prevent such an action, please drop your thoughts on my talk or by email.

Finally, on a personal note to all, I never ever expected so much supportive response from all of you. I know that I've been moody at times and have spoken in ways that I have regretted the next day. I hoped otherwise but it seemed that those unfortunate responses might end up being my legacy as they were the foremost in my mind. And so far as this being a "role account", I think that I'll let the descriptions of AnnH and NoSeptember (both above) stand as the most intuitive descriptions of this account. My (and our) warmest regards to all of you for your understanding and outward support for the continuation of hydnjo's user account and future contributions. Again, my delighted and humble thanks :-) --hydnjo talk 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

addendum: Jeff, I was confused at the outset in that I wasn't aware of the "role account" policy and then after becoming aware I was frustrated that I had made so many edits which could mislead someone to the conclusion that my account was a role account. I'm sorry that in my zeal to understand your actions that I posed the possibility that you were acting at someone else's behest. I have no evidence of that and it was improper of me to even mention that such a bizarre conspiracy was possible. I find myself guilty of "blaming the messenger" and posting an inappropriate comment about your motivation.

As for my account, I want to state that it is not a role account and I apologize for leaving the impression that it is one. "hydnjo" is the signature that I commonly use for much of my correspondence and thought it to be appropriate when I first started my WP account. The portmanteau is an acknowledgment of our shared existence and not an indication that Heidi and I share in editing at WP.

I thank you for your courtesy in informing me at the outset of the discussion at WP:AN and for your compliments about my contributions. The comments in my response were made in the shadow of my own frustration with my having left a trail of edits that could easily be construed as having come from either Heidi or myself. I sincerely apologize to you for making any suggestion as to your motivation in bringing up a legitimate policy question. You have a genuine concern for the orderly behavior of our editors and I thank you for initiating this discussion and providing me the opportunity to explain the nature of my account. --hydnjo talk 19:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Some questions.

Finally, someone I can contact.

I've left some links that seem to have been removed.

Most of the work I link to is my own. It uses varifiable sources, etc. I am in fact on the public record with these issues.

This is not for "spamming purposes" or web rankings. I already outrank Wikipedia on these subjects at Google, etc. (Google Bristol Virginia or Sullivan County Tennessee, I'm around #3 or #4)

The links already approved are in fact biased. They are a sales pitch promoting certain aspects of the community while ignoring others.

But I'll be glad to directly edit the main body. In Bristol Virginia for example they brag about their fiber optic system, but have failed to mention this was missusing government economic development grants for CATV, that it left the electric company $64 million in debt, and services have been refused to residents that got no service before. They overbuilt existing private sector services. This is documented in the press.

So give me some feedback on this. It's not neutral as already presented.

Regards, lewis@sullivan-county.com

Me again : )

Need some help, but be assured I'll follow all Wiki rules.

Regards, lewis@sullivan-county.com

Still learning this thing. : )

Need some help, but be assured I'll follow all Wiki rules.

Regards, lewis@sullivan-county.com

lloflinLloflin 05:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes

I've reconsidered, and removed it. Thank you for your intervention. JuniorJetKaptain 12:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

For the label, that is, ma cherie. heheNeoOne 00:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Hendrickson

Hi Ann, you helped on this article by blocking an abusive user. They're back today.....and still reverting. I need help/guidance/direction because this seems to be headed for a challenge....can you point me in the right direction? Thanks NickBurns 01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your CheckUser request - NeoOne, Kecik, MikaM, Deuteronomy2000

Hi Ann. Many of these editors cannot be checked, but some still can. As before, Professor33 is likely a sockpuppet of Giovanni33, and NeoOne is without doubt a sockpuppet of Professor33. Kecik and MikaM could be sockpuppets of Giovanni33, but the CheckUser evidence is inconclusive. Deuteronomy2000 is a sockpuppet of a different editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say there is no issue with you blocking NeoOne, since he is a sockpuppet of a banned sockpuppet. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert To Los Lonely Boys

Just wondering why you reverted the edit by 209.212.80.94 --Ortzinator 00:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Because of this from the same IP around the same time. Please also see here. If you think the edit was good, feel free to reinstate it. AnnH ♫ 07:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Little Woodham

Instead if protecting the page why not let those of us who can produce a properly presente page to actually do that and block thoise who break 3RR and stalk? user: Neuropean is a blatnat sockpuppet, POV warrior and is contiunually out of make a point. Get him away from this afticle for 48 hours and we could actually turn it intop a readable and intelliegent afticle.Robertsteadman 22:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I resent all of the above. Please take a look at my archive pages. Akll my edits on this article have improved it - Robertsteadman has added nothing of value to the article, he merely wants to make me jump through hoops on every single article I have edited. Stop him now.Neuropean 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

perhaps you couldd also protect Redcoats (Butlins) which the same vandal, sockpuppet, POV warrior, etc. is not allowing genuine editing to happen on. The article is poorly sourced, poorly written, poorly linked...... but, hey, you;ve bnlocked one article that people want to imrpove despite nonsense of the vandal user: Neuropean. Robertsteadman 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Robert would be well advised to stay away from articles that Neuropean is editing. People have been blocked for wikistalking in the past, and looking through the contributions of both editors, I see a definite pattern of Robertsteadman appearing on articles that Neuropean has edited or created. I might add that two other users have noticed a pattern of Robert showing up on articles that they had just edited. I will reply on Robert's page shortly. The page protection was an alternative to blocking. I don't want to block anyone over this childish behaviour. AnnH ♫ 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down. Have you any evidence that any editor other than me has tried to edit the article? No! Merely barking out orders and putting tags on is not productive editing. I have notified you that continued harrassment is affecting my health. You obviously dopn't seem to care.Neuropean 22:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You usee that tactic before. Argle and I could have sorted out your poorly written article - a shame you got the article protected. And so quickly..... Robertsteadman 22:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please close my account

Ann, I'm sitting here, it's half past eleven. I sat down a couple of hours ago to add some edits before playing some games. I'm still here. It hasn't been fun. I'm feeling flushed, annoyed and to be honest, a little bit angry. Every move I make is watched and pounced upon. If I act passively, he cranks up the irritation. If i react, he tries to make me look like a criminal, calling me a sockpuppet, troll and vandal. If I respond in kind, he accuses me of libel and threatens police action for stalking. What's the point of carrying on when it's not entertaining but actually making me feel worse? I know that Steadman will gloat at his 'victory' and cross another 'enemy' off his list, but I'm not that bothered. I'm the bigger man here, he comes across as a quite sad figure actually. Petty point scoring. If he chooses to be seen and remembered as Robert Steadman, his music's not bad but have you seen the way he behaves on Wikipedia? , well, that's up to him. And, as for Wikipedia, if you choose to let this ort of thing continue for weeks, well you can keep it.Neuropean 22:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick question on Administrator intervention edit comment:

I'm new to this, what is meant by "71.195.112.193 stopped hours ago. NOT EMPTY"? I can't figure it out. Thanks in advance. --Bobak 00:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Special:Contributions/71.195.112.193, you'll see the time of his/her last vandalism or last edit. We never block IPs hours after they stop vandalizing, because if the IP is a dynamic one, or if it's a shared one (perhaps from a public library) the person affected by the block may not be the person who carried out the vandalism. When admins go through the IPs or usernames that have been reported, they remove each one with an edit summary saying something like, "blocked", "already blocked", "seems to have stopped", "doesn't seem to be vandalism" etc., and end the edit summary with "List not empty" while there are still some cases that haven't been dealt with, or "List empty" if they've just removed the last username. That means that other admins who have WP:AIV on their watchlists will know if they're needed to deal with the backlog, or if it has all been taken care of. Hope that helps. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 00:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the moment to explain that out. Much appreciated. --Bobak 14:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Neuropean

Hi MuicalLinguist. I apologise if you know some or all of this and for my lack of links. I will provide a proper write-up of all of this and a lot more shortly if required but please understand this is fairly urgent. I'm asking you not to freeze Neuropean's account and to take any reasonable action you can that might persuade him to come back. Neuropean isn't entirely innocent but over the past few weeks RobertSteadman has been harrasing this user. Looking at N's edit history over the last 4 days I can see 4 articles that Neuropean began to edit that Rob began to edit shortly afterwards. His summaries and discussion frequently call him a vandal, complain of his poor standards of editing and actually call him a stalker (an allegation for which I see no evidence). Ever since Neuro nominated one of Rob's articles for deletion Rob seems to have conceived a dislike of him that I've rarely seen matched elsewhere on Wikipedia, recently embarking on a fairly baseless RfI. I really don't understand why something hasn't been done already. Thank you. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 07:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I just noticed what you left on Rob's userpage and it seems you do know what's been going on. Anyway the request still stands - if you don't indefinitely block Neuropean's account as he asks and assure him that action can be taken against Rob if he commits further harrassment it might not be too late. It would be such a shame to see an editor whose article contributions appear to have been made almost entirely in good faith driven away by a stalker. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 07:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi I'm sorry for wasting your time. I came to this after a day of not editing and over 48 hours of travelling and not sleeping. When I returned and saw what happened I didn't investigate properly and see that you'd already asked Neuropean to stay. I posted something quickly on your talk page and went to sleep. I'm fairly new here but I've never seen such uncivilised behaviour and I find it worrying that it seems to have been successful in its aims. Best. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 12:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I also feel bad - I noticed what was going on and I thought about leaving Rob a message saying something to the effect of "you need to back off" and I didn't but at the same time I became increasingly annoyed that no one else was doing that (stupid I know). Anyway I think this shouldn't be the end of the matter and I'm glad you're doing something so thank you. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not drag me into this. I am not proud of how the Robsteadman affair ended. The matter was closed when he changed his username and started a new account. You should have left it protected as you promised. If there are problems with Steadmans recent activities you should focus on them. I have been trying to put this affair behind me for the last few months. I would rather you reprotect those pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Count Of The Saxon Shore (talk • contribs) 03:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC).

Ann

Thanks for that. I thought it was my birthday when I logged in this morning. There are also 4 talk archives that could do with restoration, if that is at all possible. /Bin, /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3 and /Archive4. You have made me a very happy man.Frelke 06:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ann I am not coming back but I do have an opinion.

• I don't hate or even strongly dislike Robert Steadman, I dislike some of the quite unpleasant things he has said about me, but I am sure that he could say the same. He certainly shares a lot of my likes (films, Tv etc) and if we were not 'arguing' on the internet we might get along.
• I am going to remove all internet chat and forums from my favourites. I have lost all appetite for these as I am too easily baited. I do have depression (it's not a manipulative ploy) and I should have more sense than to participate in activities that exarcebate the situation.
• I am upset by what happened but I'll get over it. Robert Steadman is very opinionated and very stubborn but that is no reason to block him. I'm sure that he realises that he went a little too far. As far as I can tell, Wiki isn't about 'punishment' or 'revenge'. I could have done with some help a couple of days ago, but blocking him now would be of no help.
• As for me, with hindsight, I wouldn't have AfDd his cats article - although I wasn't the only one who suggested it. By all means put a warning on his page that if he does this again he might be blocked but this is a case of 'bolting the stable door......'. I am happy to have my account closed and let it go. As I said, I can do without the stress.
• Bearing in mind that Frelke and yourself have a 'history' with Steadman, I'd let this one go.

I have been surprised by just how much tolerance other editors and administrators have for personal attacks compared to their prompt and heavy handed actions regarding minor technical irregularities.09:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Neuropean 09:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus bear in mind that there are a lot of people both in and outside wiki that would take a lot of pleasure in seeing Rob being blocked again. I'd be inclined to give Rob the benefit just to ensure that he doesn't lose face.Neuropean 09:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and this is definitely goodbye. I am removing wiki from my favourites and I am definitely going to resist temptation to check on my contributions or make more edits on the regular occasions that I use Wiki for reference purposes. But please bear in mind what I said above, take actions that might help others but be charitable. Bye, nice knowing you all.Neuropean 09:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Neuropean, I agree with you that administrators should have less tolerance for personal attacks. I believe I have been quite sensitive towards Rob in ensuring that he didn't "lose face". I have constantly removed notices of his former identity and his sockpuppets from the Robert Steadman talk page, as I felt that it wouldn't be nice for him if someone looked up the article as a composer and then discovered that he had used sockpuppets and had been banned for extremely childish, hysterical, and downright nasty personal attacks. I disagree with you that Rob realizes that he went too far. He has never given any indication of realizing that he was wrong about anything. My main interest at this stage is in ensuring that this does not happen again. I am in the middle of a report for WP:ANI at the moment, and will post it later today. I should have done something sooner, and I apologize for that failure. I respect your decision to leave, but hope that if you ever want to come back under a new name (staying away from Rob), you will have a more peaceful and rewarding experience. And finally, I wish you all the best in your personal life. Take care. AnnH ♫ 09:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ann, I can see from your talk page that you're busy so thank you for putting a lot of work into this. Hopefully you've saved many other people from suffering what Neuropean suffered. It's just a shame it feels so much like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Again thanks.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ann, I have asterisked the comment in question? Is that ok or should I just delete the line ? Frelke 08:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that I said that I wouldn't edit here again but I feel quite strongly that an indefinite ban isn't appropriate here.

• Robert isn't a vandal out to disrupt, he is just very opinionated and stubborn. Yes, he can be quite rude at times, but my experiences on Wiki lead me to believe that abruptness is not an uncommon feature. His problem has been that he is looking for cabals and conspiracies and, to a very small extent, he has been justified in this.
• Has he said sorry? Yes he has. Is he likely to do this again soon? No, I don't think so. I know for a fact that he can change for the better.
• He has only really overstepped the mark with me and I suppose I am a red rag to abull to him (although he sees me everywhere, even when it is not me. I have promised never to post on any forum where he is a member, so future suspicion shouldn't be a problem. I feel that if I hadn't AfD'd his article, he would have continued in his 'ways' but not gone OTT, so I would rather not see him blocked.
• I object in the strongest terms to any suggestion that I have stalked him in real life, I don't know exactly what evidence he has presented in his private emails, but whatever it is has got to be wrong. But I suppose that he has found my behaviour annoying - the AFD may have been a WP:Point, but wasn't meant as a 'personal' attack. It went downhill from there.
• It has never been my attention to upset anyone - including Robert and I do not want to see him lose his hobby because of me. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I'm sure Robert will agree with me.
• I ask all concerned admins to give him one more chance. Blocking him will mean one less contributor and (although I still say that Moortje was an article crying out for a AfD,) he has made many positive contributions.
• His probation wasn't very specific. Instead of blocking him, I ask that he be given more specfic terms and he be held to those in his future actions. Any admin action should be based upon 'future' productivity and not past indiscretions. I think that's the whole point of Wiki.

That's all.Neuropean 23:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Ann.

I have 'striked' the line now ('stricken' or 'struck' somehow don't sound quite right). WRT the block and NE's comments, I think he is wrong and up until the last 48 hours my WP:AGF:AGF limit for him had not been exceeded. But I have to say that I find the latest contribution (above) very hard to accept. If I didn't know better I'd suggest that they were in cahoots with each other. Maybe they both enjoy the cut and thrust of their interactions, but personally I find it distasteful, at the extents to which they both have been. The other admins at WP:ANI, when they saw the evidence you collected and collated, were of a pretty unanimous mind. Even User:Syrthiss, who I personally have found pretty ineffectual, agreed in the end. My tuppenneth' for what its worth. Frelke 08:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Kara Umi

You may be wasting your time. I know - I've fought with this user a great deal.

It has a history of shifting between multiple IP address, anonymous accounts, using multiple 'personae' to support each other, etc. It is also will not listen to reason. For examples examine the past debate on Talk:Carthage (where I have to admit I lose my own temper - so you might want to take my opinions with a grain of salt as well).

Spotting one of Kara's alter ego isn't hard. They are all characterized by the following traits:

• Poor spelling, and grammar.
• Snarky "teen age" sarcasm - I suspect the Kara is a mid-late teens editor, partly educated and highly opinionated that they do know it all. It certainly seems to be parroting a highly slanted historical view that has been fed to it for propaganda purposes.
• Self-congratulatory (one alter-ego to another - see talk:Carthage).
• Extreme Hypocrisy - It will complain about someone's behavior on one article, and then turn around and do the exact same thing in another. Look at the recent edit histories of Islam and Christianity here and here
• Extreme pro-Islamic, pro-African, anti-Christian, anti-West bias. It will present this under the disguise of "combating western bias" (see extreme hypocrisy above).
• Lack of originality - it will not bring an argument to bear against you unless you bring it to bear against it first - then it will parrot it incessantly. Apparently originality is not one of its qualities, either in views or arguments. Unfortunately I taught it to squawk "sock puppets".

My advice would be not to waste the effort to try and "correct", "covert", or show Kara Umi the "error of its ways". This has been done to death already. It simply won't listen. Just enforce the rules, revert according to Wikipedia policy, and - should things ever get to the point where it is becoming too disruptive, ban it like you would any other account. I think it is important that such actions be clear and concise "under the law", or you'd get a real fight on your hands in the form of a protest. You would anyways - but at least everyone else won't have to give the protest much thought.

Ironically, in my first major conflict with Kara (who was using anonymous accounts, but signing all their talk page posts 'Marduk'), I was contacted by another contributor saying that they had encountered this individual on other Wikis, and on other discussion boards, where they were equally disruptive. I think this is just a basic personality flaw.

I would also urge you to treat this whole message with skepticism :) I am not unbiased here, and I would urge you to not take anything I say here "at face value", but test it out to see if it is accurate. I am confident that the public evidence bears in out :)

Anyways - good luck to us all dealing with it. - Vedexent 15:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Avater

I've decreaed the protection on this from protected to semiprotected, and will remove that in a few days. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Imitation and flattery

Some say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. If that is true, then consider yourself flattered.  :) I liked the design of your user page so much that I used it as the anchor for my own newly redesigned user page. Thank you. SWAdair 08:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

per Neuropean, re Robertsteadman

(this is being sent to Shane, Dan, and Ann as the three who Neuropean contacted with his request as well as Tony)

Assuming you read what Neuropean wrote, do you have any consideration of giving Robert another last chance? I have my own feelings on the matter, but want more feedback. Please reply here, or on my talk page, or email me. Syrthiss 12:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied here. The quick answer is "no". AnnH ♫ 13:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ann, and thanks for the detailed response. :) Syrthiss 13:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks

Thanks Ann - it's much appreciated. One day when things have settled somewhat I may find myself editing here again at which point I will make sure it's on my user page. Thanks for your help and I'll e-mail soon. Sophia 13:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Cyde doesn't provide me with the diffs for my alledged actions

Hi Musical Linguist,

I was subject to a 24 hour block by user:cyde [1]. He accused me for "personal attacks, harrassment, and disruption". From the very beginning I asked him on my talk page and also through email to provide diffs for my alledged deeds, but he has ignored me from then so far. While I was blocked, Admin user: Bishon asked him to post something on my talk page as I had requested for unblock, but he replied with another comment containing new accusation of connections between 'my objections to a particular block of user:Zereshk by user:InShaneee' and a 'silly cultural conflict'. Something my soul wasn't even aware of. I think Cyde hasn't study the case closely. I've replied to him on his talk page. The whole story is a bit long. But as to my block, other editors have also requested for further information: for example, user:Timothy Usher [2], [3] and Admin user: Tom harrison [4]. But no further information is given.

Here is the conversation between Bishon & Cyde on Cyde's talk page and my later comments (after I got unblocked) [5]

I have tried to re-ask Cyde for the diffs. Would you please advise me? Should I continue asking for the diffs? Thanks so much in advance. --Aminz 07:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

After a bit of cooling down, looking back into what happened, I do admit that I lost my temper block of Zereshk. Even having a point can never justify my voluminous criticisms of InShaneee's administrative decision. I ignored the fact that one's admin actions does not necessarily depend on what a person has immediately done. I do admit that I lost my temper again after I got blocked myself and have done what I shouldn't have done; and by doing so, I have poisoned the well. So did I after Zereshk's block.--Aminz 08:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question

I'm sure this is a "tired" and worn-out question, but shouldn't the Robert Steadman article state that he is a gradeschool music teacher who composes music during his free time? Teaching is his profession and if he does actually make any money off of what he writes or records, I'm sure it would be pocket change at best. I also noticed that on the 2 AfD's for the article that the majority of the "Keep" votes seem to be anons and his vast array of sock puppets. I find it odd that this article survived a pair of AfD's. I don't want to turn this into a rant by any means, but by all means, if you have any comment, please share. DMighton 03:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me butting in, but I think Ann may be on holiday at the moment. Whilst I'm no friend of Steadman, the article does already mention that he's a teacher. Very few composers make their living entirely from composing, most will have some sort of teaching role, albeit perhaps more often at university/conservatory level than as an 11-18 school teacher. He has even been mentioned in a UK national newspaper (The Guardian) as "British composer, Robert Steadman said" within the past month or so. Whilst I find it a little topsy-turvey that Steadman's article is fuller than that for more established contemporary composers such as Thea Musgrave or George Benjamin, I'm not sure I'd vote to delete his article, and given my own history with him (outside Wikipedia, see further back in the archives of this page for an explanation), I've shied away from attempting to edit the article because I recognise tht I would probably find it hard to maintain NPOV. I assume from your user page etc that you've clashed with him over (ice) hockey articles, which might cause others to question your motivation for any changes to the article (whilst they will of course assume good faith :) ). David Underdown 09:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I answered on your talk page David, but as a quick answer... I don't wish to be on the receiving end this guy's nuttiness more than I have to, I will not be editting on that article. DMighton 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre Sacraments

Muscial, in the early days of The Church of Jesus Christ wine was used. However, after many instances of using wine that had been poisoned the directive was changed to use either water or "wine of your own make". The result was that since the early 1840's water has been used for weekly Sacrament services. The prayer said to bless the Sacrament, I have always found wonderful:

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee, in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this water to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

The blessing of the bread is slightly different:

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

Partaking of the Sacrament is held to be the most sacred purpose of weekly Sunday service. Those who partake are encouraged to have been repentant for any actions of the past week. We fast for 24 hours once a month. The money saved from not eating during that period is then donated to aid in the welfare of the poor. Many donate more than the cost of the food not eaten, but that is strictly voluntary. I hope this helps to understand the bizarre instance of using water. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ann, please do not worry about it. It just made me smile when I read it the word "Bizarre". We do need to be careful when evaluating other practices because it is so easy to give offence. Difference is neither bad nor good; it is simply different. On a brighter note, as important as the Sacrament is to LDS, I believe Catholicism and its sister churches have much from which LDS could learn about the Sacrament. I have been uplifted many times while studying the Eucharist. Peace. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The new FAR/FARC process

Hi Ann (I hope I've got your first name right)

I noticed your work on WP, and wondered whether you'd be interested in dropping into WP:FAR occasionally (or often) to encourage, prod, critique, and—when the crunch comes—to declare "Keep" or "Remove"..

The new FAR process is now being swamped with nominations (currently 23 in FAR and 13 in FARC), and the four or five regulars are finding it difficult to service the needs of such a large process. The ideal is to encourage the guardians of the many substandard FAs to fix them; sometimes this happens, but all too often, a nomination is met with disinterest by those you'd have thought would be keen.

The contribution of more good reviewers there, particularly those who are focused on good writing, would have a powerful impact on the FA culture in WP.

Tony 08:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ta

Thanks for the revert. I went ahead and blocked the vandal anyway (just 3 hours -- more as an attention getter), as I'm pretty sure that it's a regular user logging out for the purpose. (A single contribution? That's pretty rare outside of the AOL range.) I returned to AfD after a year away, only to find that steaming pile of moronia that is Schoolwatch going at it hard and heavy. ("First, insult the nominator. Next, insult every delete voter. Third, insist that there is a policy that says no school can be deleted. Fourth, insult them all again as you swear that Schoolwatch is an official organization.") I have a feeling that it was one of those proponents putting emotion ahead of reason again. Geogre 20:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Klaimers

Claims to be a bot operated by you. Is it? --pgk^(talk) 20:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

AD in Montanism

Can I ask you to stop putting "AD" back into the Montanism article without justification? Right now the MoS and the article's Talk page agree that it shouldn't be there. If you disagree I would recommend taking it to the MoS Talk page rather than engaging in an edit war. Thanks. Fagstein 22:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use the expression "edit war" to refer to a routine administrative task of rolling back the edits (once on each article) of a sockpuppet of an indefinitely-blocked user. I have no particular interest in the article (which was not on my watchlist, but which I reached by following the sockpuppet's contributions), or even in the issue. However, I note that the article's talk page is certainly not in agreement that AD shouldn't be there — even less so if you discount the comments of the blocked user and his IP edits. And others disagree with your interpretation of the Manual of Style. I have now added Montanism to my watchlist, so if you wish to engage in further discussion, please do so there. Oh, and please refrain from re-instating edits from blocked users. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 08:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User:CrazynasBot and {{sockpuppet}}

The main reason I'm changing them is consistency. The was one the template for about 8 hours, during which time it got subst'ed by User:BetacommandBot to about 900 templates. The image was added by an ip [[6]] to a template that is now full protected. I think that is more professional (in addition to it not expanding the size of the template) and more importantly when all of the {{sockpuppet}} templates have the same image (as opposed to a small percentage having a different image) I think it makes the project look more professional. Crazynas ^t 11:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Luther & Free Will

Perhaps you will believe Luther himself when he speaks about his beliefs about free will? [7] - Nunh-huh 16:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I presume you are referring to this edit, though there's nothing in it to suggest that I do or do not believe Luther. All I claim is that Wikipedia articles should not state quite so bluntly that Luther's beliefs contradict the doctrine of Free Will. I'll certainly read the article, though I'm not sure why you suggest that I might believe Lutheran's theology just by reading his article. After all, I don't suppose that reading this would make you believe Catholicism? Even if I told you that Luther held the same position (which he did)! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 19:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to your edit summary, "(...it's not for us to decide that Luther's ideas contradict doctrine of Free Will), and noting that it's not us saying it: it's Luther saying it. I am not trying to influence your beliefs, but rather ensure that Luther's beliefs not be misrepresented as compatible with Free Will when Luther himself says they are not. I believe that Humanae Vitae represents the Church's teachings: why do you not believe Luther's writings also represent his teachings? - Nunh-huh 06:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you removed my contribution in Historical Jesus?

You say that it is due to Liguistical problems ,what are these Linguistical problems? I don't see any problem.-->User:Atenea26 14:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please take it to the talk page of the article, as I suggested. English is not your native language; nor do you have a native-like command of it. I don't mean that in any disparaging way. I see from your user page that you speak an impressive number of languages — more than I do. But if you have intermediate-level English, it's better not to compose whole sections and insert them into articles, and it's certainly not a good idea to put them in again after a native speaker has taken them out. Please, as I suggested, go to the talk page of the article (not here) and say what you want to include. I'm sure you'll find lots of people to comment on what's good and what isn't, and when we've decided on what is appropriate, someone will insert it. You've already forced me twice to comment on your level of English in my edit summaries, which I really don't like doing (bearing in mind that my German and Irish are only at Level One), as I know it must come across as being critical. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 13:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Only for that? Do you have to delete my edits? and why don't you correct my contribution? -->User:Atenea26 15:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Grammar isn't a valid reason for reverting edits. -->User:Atenea26 15:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Catholic abortionists

Could you take a look at 69.136.96.119 (talk • contribs) how keeps removing people from catholic categories and lists because they support abortion. Agathoclea 06:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This user did it again. 00:42, 2 August 2006 69.136.96.119 (talk • contribs) See the new documentation on his talk page.

AnnH: Take a look at this user's latest contributions. I think it's way past time to PERMANENTLY BAN him until he apologizes and shows some remorse for the work he's caused numerous Wikipedians! At a minimum, lock him out of his own talk page and give him a long suspension! JimmB 18:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Harman-marsh

Thank you :) VoiceOfReason 09:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin opposal of SynergeticMaggot

I find it odd agreeing with you for a change, but I would like to thank you for mentioning his vandal tags on me in the discussion. Peace.

KV(Talk) 11:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Aidan Work

Ok i shouldn.t have done that.I was just annoyed at his edits he made before.Sorry Dermo69

honest mistake

So, while we are in the midst of pointing out honest mistakes, you want to fix yours on Aldux's talk page, about me?--Vidkun 14:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If I had any idea what mistake I made, I'd gladly fix it. AnnH ♫ 14:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what it is now.[8] Thanks, Jkelly, and apologies to Vidkun. Too many unfamiliar names! AnnH ♫ 15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

(ec)You named Vidkun as the editor who vandalised my talkpage in your message to Aldux, instead of this Yaf-something Iasson sock. I altered your signed comment to fix it for you. Perhaps now I'll be reverted, and someone will revert that, and we can all get on the merry-go-round again! Jkelly 15:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of sending you a vandalism warning for altering my comment. Would {{test3}} be appropriate, or should I go straight into {{test4im}}? AnnH ♫ 15:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussing my being treated like a danger to the project was a lot funnier before this. Now I'm all cranky. Jkelly 16:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Voltaire

Have another look. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Body and Blood

Your edits at Coeliac disease look fine to me. Within the Orthdox Church, I think we just call it the Body and Blood of Christ, sometimes adding more adjectives of course (Holy, Precious, etc.). I'm sure some would object to calling it "merely" consecrated bread and wine, but that's probably as accurate and neutral as can be reasonably expected on wikipedia. It gets the idea across, and readers can decide how "special" that makes it. I didn't see this as an issue, but just for future reference, it would be inaccurate to refer to it as the "blessed bread," since that is usually used to refer to the antidoron, or bread that is blessed but not consecrated, and is generally eaten immediately after partaking of the Eucharist, and is also offered to those not partaking of the Eucharist that morning for whatever reason. There is typically plain, unconsecrated wine to go with the bread as well; people are offered either a small sip from that chalice, or can dip their piece of 'antidoron' bread in it. All of this to say that there is a very practical reason to include the word 'consecrated' when referring to the Body and Blood of Christ at an Orthodox Eucharist: to differentiate it from the blessed bread and ordinary wine that are offered in addition to it.

I think we have at least one person at our parish with a wheat allergy, but not coeliac, who just partakes of the Blood from the chalice; come to think of it, our priest's older son is gluten intolerant. At one Orthodox parish I visited, the priest kept some of the Body out of the chalice, for the benefit of recovering alcoholics.

Thanks again for your ongoing work on these articles. Wesley 16:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

CyrilleDunant

I've unblocked. Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Frog

When I first looked at the frog above, I thought it was a dancing monkey :) Pecher ^Talk 19:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles

Ann, Jayjg and SV did the exactly the same thing to me previously and to many other users. Why was there no warning to them when they do it? Perhaps you would like to block them both for calling me an anti semite. Arniep 19:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did SV or I "call you an anti semite"? Can you post a link? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Forbidden

I understand you eleted much of the Trivia section on the wiki for Christine Dolce. True most of it is completely false, however the two portions that you left are both true, I only ask you don't go thinking they are both false statements and "vandalism". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awful Turkey (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 August 2006.