User talk:Musical Linguist/Archive03

  I want to thank you very much for your vote on my RFA. Greatly apperciated, I owe you one!

Thanks for the kind words. I know that many editors can be ruthless when voting in RFAs. Sometimes its not what is said, but how it's said. I just think that if there an issue, attack the problem and not the person, and be nice — even if the person is not nice to you.

I did not title this new thread in any way to call attention to it, but I wanted to let you and other attentive wikipedians know my thoughts on the stalker (who, as I recall, told someone they were wrong: She wasn't a guy). She (he?) might be crazy but still may have a point. I've decided to remove a little bit of my sensitive information from my user page. You can look at the latest diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:GordonWatts&diff=next&oldid=24010760

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:GordonWatts&diff=prev&oldid=24010760

to see what I mean. I am not saying to you that you should do the same, but I don't think it would hurt me. Anyhow, those are my 2 cents worth on the issue.--GordonWatts 18:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey Ann, I was about to edit your page to get rid of the arrow for you before I noticed it is protected. So as to not step on toes I'll ask if it's okay to do so first. Also, thank you for the suggestion on my sig, I agree it will look better and I've changed it.

If you want to do it yourself just add <div class="plainlinks"> after the "div style" part and then close it out with a beside the other div that's already there. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 18:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 18:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ann-- I appreciate your interest in my RfA. To answer your question (I don't have the diffs at hand), but I have apologised in many places, including on the RfA page itself. I don't intend this to be looking for your support, I just thought you might like your question answered (who doesn't). I hope you can find what you are looking for. Cheers my friend. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 01:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

My dear Ann, I hope you don't mind that I left you as one of the last persons to thank, because I really felt like writing something special to you. First of all, I didn't mind your teasing at all; on the contrary, it gave me a good laugh. I must make a confession to you: I'm famous among my friends for being too adept to physically demonstrate my affection, so I guess it's rather my problem than yours! Anyway, I really wanted to thank you for your support, but mostly for the kind words towards my modest contributions. It was merely a matter of time before our paths crossed, and I'm happy that they did now. I'm convinced that we share the same view regarding respect of others' opinions and dialog, and you can count on me defending these principles from my humble place. Ann, thank you, from the depths of my heart for your support when I was somewhat aback; I'll never forget it. Soon, it will come the time to propose you for adminship, and I wish I'm the one who gets the pleasure of nominating you. You'll always have a wiki-friend over here... even if I must end my messages to you without my classic hugs! Slán go fóill, Shauri Yes babe? 23:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

We haven't really interacted directly, though I've seen your comments all over the place of late and very much admire both the substance and tenor of your contributions. I came here to post a kind message and let you know that I think you'd make a fine administrator, if you'd be at all interested in the task, only to see that it's already been proffered! I can't say I'm surprised. At any rate, here's to an official hello, some plaudits, and the sincere hope that you'll find yourself interested in administrating at some point. I think you'd be good at it. Best · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ann, for the reply. I'll pray that your stalker goes away and you get your other objectives. Lafem 07:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support on my nomination for adminship. Now that I have been made an admin, I will do my best to live up to the trust you and the community have placed in me. If you ever see my doing something you think is incorrect or questionable, or does not live up to the standards that should be expected of an admin, please let me know. DES ^(talk) 16:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Just curious, is there a particular significance to the spelling of "Ann" versus "Anne"? I mean, obviously, I feel bad for just remembering your name phonetically, then writing another common (but wrong) spelling variant. But aside from the fact that one spelling is your name, does the 'e' in 'Ann(e)' signify a particular regional, religious, cultural, national, or something, distinction? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ann, please see my latest comments on the JP2 and Benedict talk pages. The rule being cited simply prohibits leading with the honorific, and adds a sidebar box. It is simply good editing to actually relate the sidebar material to the main article by briefly discussing it within the article's text. All this silliness is so extremely POV - popes have a very unique form of address and people from all walks of life use it everyday. 214.13.4.151 17:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is a proposed framework for an improved article; feel free to add to it and/or edit in the days ahead. Eventually - hopefully - it can replace the POV monstrosity that currently exists. Thanks...KHM03 22:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. :-) By the way, if you're interested in the ArbCom elections, The Wikipedia Signpost is doing a special series on the elections. THe fourth part of the issue should be out on Monday. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Anne. I just found you in the Roman Catholic Wikipedian category and I'm wondering what it's like in that chuch.--HistoricalPisces 17:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes, I've had lots of bad things all through my life, I'm just trying to make it better. I do need any prayers I can get, since it is really hard. So, thanks again. Private Butcher 21:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Anne, I saw your reply. Well, as you know, you can visit us there anytime. :) Good luck! Thomas S. Major 07:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Ann, thanks for voting. I wasn't sure your edit to the current count was correct, and i did not want to change it myself as i certainly would have been barked at. I believe it's 20-6-1 as one of the opposes was withdrawn and one was only a comment. Could you take a look and make sure the count is correct. And you're correct, I didn't think bringing up the deletion at the same time as voting on RfA would be an issue as it was only done in the best of intentions. Speaking of that, do you know where I can find the correct procedure on wikipedia for dealing with articles listed for deletion that have already been voted on before. Had I known what exactly to do with the previous vote debate, i certainly would not have moved it the way i did. no one seems to be able to know where the instructions are for that though. --ScottyBoy900Q 22:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, while you're busy telling the world what a horrible monster I have been the entire time I've been on the Terri Schiavo article, could you take a moment to point me to an NPA violation committed by me that occurred after mediation started and before SlimVirgin started editing the article? I know you like to give Ed Poor credit for my reform by blocking me for non-existent NPA violations, but I was just wondering if you have any diffs in that three or four week period. While you're digging, did you actually find an NPA violation on my block directory? or is your only response to tell terrible tales of what a horrible monster I was? I know you don't want anyone to hear just "half" the truth, so I was wondering if you had the whole truth. FuelWagon 02:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, well do good on those exams, and even when I say I'm taking a wikibreak I can't really stay away. And Wikipedia is my homepage, so its even harder, and right now everythings fine, I'm sure that everything is going to be nice, easy and clear for awhile for me. Private Butcher 18:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 

Thanks for letting me know, Ann, and best of luck with them! Shame you can't smuggle Wikipedia in with you: I'm sure it's all in here somewhere, probably all spelled wrong, but hey. ;-D I'll keep an eye on your page for any weirdness. And thank you so much for your recent help and your level-headedess. It's very much appreciated. Good luck! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably you won't be reading this until October 20th, Ann, but just in case you do, I wish you the very best of luck in your exams. And please, don't forget to Smile!   for me today! :) Hurry back! Shauri   smile! 23:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:Mel_Etitis/Archive_27#Dash it, Mel Jkelly 15:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I saved the link for my own reference, as I found it useful. And, while I am here, thank you for all the good work you do around Wikipedia. Jkelly 16:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ann, welcome back. I think I still owe you some explanations:

I think calling out "Waiter!" in English a bit rude, too. I would only use it if I had to reach the waiter over a certain distance or a certain noise level. I certainly wouldn't address a waiter in English as waiter after the meal (as I don't say "driver" to the bus driver). But you know English better than I do.

"Waiter", I think, is in regard to politeness different from "Ober", as Ober is short for "Oberkellner", which is "head waiter". So in a way it is term of respect, even amplified by "Herr Ober". So I don't think it's inpolite to call out "Herr Ober", though it might sound a bit old-fashioned in some quarters. But certainly not rude. But you can also say "Entschuldigung" (Excuse me).

I had a look into the German article and everything seemed to be fine. There were some changes due to the spelling reform (hiss hiss boo boo!!), but this didn't eliminate the "-ß" alltogether. After short vowels it was changed into "-ss", such as in "daß > dass", "Kuß > Kuss", "Rußland > Russland", but after long vowels the "-ß" remains, as in "Maß", "Spaß". In Switzerland however, they don't use the "ß" at all and have so for a long time.

I hope you liked my edits at Ordination of women. You were right. It was indeed dreadful stuff.

So long, Str1977 18:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ann, there has been a revert of your latest edit at Ordination of women. See for yourself. I deleted the "full approval", but have no knowledge of the details of this issue. Str1977 23:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I fixed that by adding quotes that support the Vatican's opposition -and quotes that assert SUPPORT by the pope. Hmm...--GordonWatts 06:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Ms. H. It seemed approprate since we are both collaborating on the Ordination of women arty that I drop a line. I hope that with our excitingly contrasting views and eagerness to make a good article we can accomplish something good. Carolynparrishfan 20:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to go for sometime, thank you for caring. You can email me to keep in touch or something, but for now I have to leave for some time. It might be a few days or a few years, I don't know. I might come back every so often and give an update on how I'm doing or something. Private Butcher 21:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting abuse on my user talk page. I have no idea what User:Lucid was angry about, since those postings were his only edits! FreplySpang (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, on the subject of my mother, she passed away this July 22nd of cancer. This was the reason for my quite lengthy absence from wikipedia and the Terri Schiavo article in general. But thank you for the well wishes -- if only they truly made a difference to a person's well being, instead of being the small comfort of sympathy.

I'm glad you remember me (I guess I must have been memorable), and you'll have to pardon me for my initial belief that you were a vandal -- I also hope you remember I apologized for that assertion. You were one of the few, non-biased editors genuinely working towards improving the Terri Schiavo article, and for that -- good work! As for my edits, I'm still gladly latching on to the hotter, more controversial articles. I like to let truth be the great judge. It's a rude, sneaky way to get my biases in, I know, but I find hanging people by their own words to be both encyclopaedic and hilarious. Most people with common sense will know the right way to look at something. As for Michael Schiavo's statements, that was a major problem. In fact, it was a fairly large problem on both sides -- the greatest example of that was the problem that people were putting in that Terri Schiavo could, in fact, see things -- which only sticks out in my mind because the post-autopsy question I asked myself was, "will that one finally be laid to rest now that they've proven her occipital lobe was gone?" People were being quite sneaky, and thankfully your dilligence really did help out (save for that first edit, which I thought was vandalism -- but I now realise was a sloppy edit everybody gets now and then.)

And no, I never thought you were NCDave -- but I guess in my furious frustration with him, I couldn't help but believe anybody who took that nutter's side in any way, shape, or form had to be just another troll. Professor Ninja 08:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back! It's great to see that you're contributing as usual with no hassles again, and that everything went OK at the exams (as I had no doubt you would :) I must confess I cheated: I knew you had had a look at my good wishes message... amazing what taking a glance at "user contributions" can do, isn't it? I was sure you would keep coming in to see what was going on in here... I would have done the same in your place ;)

Thank you so much for your nice and kind words towards my modest contributions to try and make this a better place for us all. I'd be even more naif than I already am if I assumed that could solve everything, but I see nothing bad in giving peace a chance. If I could think of one person around that shares this view, I'd be convinced to point your way. And that's why I insist on nominating you for that position as well... just say the word and I will!

Aw, you're too kind to mention my fumbling attempt to greet you in your beautiful language, Ann! In fact, I've always been attracted towards Irish language due to my love for your national music, which I developed after hearing a song called something like Seacht suáilcí na Maighdine Muire by a singer from Donegal, Aoife Ní Fhearraigh. After that, I collected a heap of records of traditional Irish and Gaelic singers, and I even learned a few phrases, but that's as far as I could go due to lack of time. Someday, you'll have to teach me a few more; in exchange, I'll be your Spanish teacher :)

Céad míle fáilte, a chairdhe! (I hope I said that correctly! And I'll spare you my *hugs* if you prefer :) Shauri   smile! 15:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to reply; I've been a bit swamped. The article looks fine to me; I'd have used inverted commas rather than italics, but given that there are so many instances it might look better your way.

The place to look for stubs is Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types#Language and literature; would {{vocab-stub}} fit the bill? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your support on my RfA, I really appreciate it. the wub "?!" 14:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ann,

Thank you for your message. My response is on my talk page. (I never understand if I am supposed to keep conversations on one thread on my page or if I am to write on the other person's page). I have a question. On your user page you have a lovely, user-friendly box that people can click on if they want to write you a message on this page. Can you tell me how I can put one of those on my user page? Thanks Carolynparrishfan 18:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Titoxd^(?!?) 20:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I've now made two attempts to balance out the section in Christianity on Roman persecutions. The current version which you've reverted to (again) is silly and biased, with its lurid hollywood descriptions of the roman games, which should be discussed under that topic if they're relevant. The paragraph gives the impression that Christians were especially persecuted (untrue) and that the punishments were especially violent (untrue). It gives no information on why, or when, the persecutions took place (which I attempted to) (starting 250CE etc).

I'm a bit annoyed. My first attempt wasn't very good I admit, but the second time I made a serious attempt to present an objective historical view, rather than the silly and lurid one which is currently there, which displays no attempt at research and apparently got its data from Ben Hur.82.71.30.178 02:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears that the topic of Host (Holy Communion) is fully covered at Eucharist. Do you think you could merge your article with that page and allow for a redirect? --Viriditas | Talk 02:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response, Ann. You've pretty much convinced me of the reason it should exist on its own page. On another note, you may want to take a look at the information contained in Coeliac disease, particularly the section entitled "Coeliacs and the Eucharist", as it may be of interest to you for inclusion in your article or just as an internal link. You might also want to check that information for accuracy. --Viriditas | Talk 11:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ann,

the article Eucharist contains the following sentence (I know you have seen it before):

Although the symbolism of the consecrated bread (known as the host) is the Body of Christ, and the symbolism of the wine is the Blood of Christ, it is both of the species together, when consecrated, which constitute the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Do you see any way to avoid the word "symbolism", as it seems contentious to me? Str1977 10:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

All is well, thanks, right now I'm having a battle with a troll user. So I can't talk now. Private Butcher 20:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind welcome. I look forward to serving Wikipedia. If there is anything that you would have me do for the site, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enforcer1 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 27 October 2005

Ann wrote:

Patsw says that the Cardinal made statements to say that such ordinations would have been valid, without actually confirming that they took place

I think you meant to write "would not have been valid".

Since we have a dispute in OOW over whether validity is determined objectively or subjectively, I think "valid by the Church" is an important qualifier. patsw 12:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for working on my article on crisis pregnancy centers. I agree with your latest comment that post-abortion syndrome is real; I had to note the Wikipedia article as NPOV since at one point it had it listed under the category of Quackery. Just to surprise you a bit, I volunteer at a center in Lewisville, Texas USA and I am actually a male (no really, I'm not in the middle of any surgery to change from one to the other), my main duties there are to keep the financial records and to make sure we have enough diapers on hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.190.62.54 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 28 October 2005

Dear Ann,

I thank you for your kindness.

I do not wish to join Wikipedia at this time.

The simple fact is, I do not understand how to do the various things required (revert pages, leave messages for people, compare pages, compare edits, make sophisticated coding, use the discussion page, etc. etc.)

I just simply CANNOT figure it out, and it frustrates me to no end.

Therefore, I am not going to sign up yet.

Also, I want to see if Wikipedia cleans up its act in a few areas.

Also, just for the record, I believe the following sentences would flow JUST FINE.

"While it is true that Michael Schiavo eventually became a respiratory therapist and emergency room nurse, this statement is often questioned. The main reason for this is that in May of 1998 (just before filing the petition to disconnect his wife's feeding tube) he got engaged to another woman, with whom he lives and has fathered two children."

My very best wishes to you,

Hugh Berengar hugh.berengar@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.41.25 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 29 October 2005

Hi, Ann. Regarding the length of my username it is perfectly alright to call me either Carol, Carol P Fan, Carolyn (all of which have been suggested/used) or Geoff (which is my real name and less of a gender-bender). Carolynparrishfan 13:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

We would love to see you there! Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 21:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

First, I want to reiterate a point I made on the TS talk page more directly. The fact that a particular religious group finds a usage heretical is not in-itself a reason to remove it. The comparison I made to the Prophet Mohammed was not at all glib. It is sacreligious to Muslims to mention his name without subsequently saying "Peace be upon him" or at least "PBUH" (in print) as a short form (they do the latter but the nature of everyday speech is sort of hard to conform to the former!). But that doesn't mean we employ this usage in Wikipedia as a matter of fact. So the point (however dubious the source) that Catholic usage is likely to be not understood by non-Catholics is valid. For the non-Catholic, the host wafer is bread. How else are they going to identify it? What else should they call it? I participated in Catholic mass many times when I was younger and, of course, as a child, after we left the church when we talked about the ceremony generally we talked about "the bread." "Did you eat the bread?" "Nah, I just spit out when I left!" "Ah really? It's weird, huh?" It is bread to the five billion non-Catholics in the world and to a great many Catholics when talking casually. Just as, of course, to the five billion non-Muslims the Prophet Mohammed is "just another historical figure." Wikipedia isn't obligated to use religious specific labels when discussing a specific religion...

That said!...

Fuelwagon is looking for something to bitch about. That's all he's looking for. You tip-toed around it on your post to me because you don't want to cause trouble ;) but I don't mind saying it. He brought it up for the sake of pissing people off. I'd never have noticed it if he hadn't started revert warring over it. But it's impractical for the two of you to go to three reverts every other day...

So...

While I appreciate Google doesn't turn up "host wafer", it is "the host" and it is "a wafer." So we use them in conjunction. Hey, we're breaking new ground. Not the first time I've seen a "Wiki-usage" become the "right" usage. If FW agrees, why not leave it? It isn't incorrect. But then again, FW probably won't agree and we'll be back to square one.

Anyhow, your points are well taken. If you want to get into the bits and pieces I have e-mail. I can argue all day about bits and pieces! Marskell 23:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ann, I have commented on Talk:Terri Schiavo patsw 02:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

More recently I have been asked "why is it offensive?" -- Time for a meta-discussion -- I have never seen a four word anonymous edit "bread,otherwise known as" have so many tenacious advocate-editors flood-edit such a small point. Merely, on the matter of acting on good faith, your determination that it was offensive should have been the end of it -- restoring to the wording the article has had for months. You and I are Catholics (as Terri was) and we share a common understanding of how to refer to the Blessed Sacrament. In fact, from looking at the backgrounds on our non-anonymous and real identity user pages, we want to be taken seriously as knowledgable in the Catholic faith and advocates of its correct description in the Wikipedia.

So there is no need to be drawn into a debate why "wafer" is offensive. Let 134.53.110.1 return and debate the four word edit. patsw 04:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll be on the down-low on T:TS on the assumption that my concurrence with the last round of edits would be a provocation to the cabal who want to insist upon the article containing a contradiction of the Catholic faith. patsw 14:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)