![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive One Archive Two Archive Three Archive Four Archive Five Archive Six Archive Seven Archive Eight Archive Nine Archive Ten Archive Eleven Archive Twelve Archive Thirteen Archive Fourteen Archive Fifteen Archive Sixteen Archive Seventeen Archive Eighteen Archive Nineteen Archive Twenty
I removed the link but strongly protest the strong pro-Christian POV I see - but you never answered me. Just curious as to why you think BC and AD is not POV especially on Jewish topics? - Sparky 15:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Charlie has given you some of
his famous
Solid chocolate truffles! Chocolate truffles taste good, help moods, promote
WikiLove and hopefully make your day better. Hope you find the truffles to be tasty, and make sure you enjoy them with a nice tall glass of milk (they're rich)! I had seen you on WP:AN a few times, and before you changed your user page I had noticed that you had a few tasty recipies. I was wondering if you would be interested in trading. I waited so I could post my truffle recipe
here (External as I wasn't sure about releasing under GDFL yet). In any case, have a good day! --
Charli
e(
@CIRL |
talk |
email )
05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Check out the Jesus and Christianity pages and talk pages - could this be a User:Jason Gastrich sock? I'm not quite sure what to do in these situations. Sophia 08:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ann, kindly find some time to give your comments at the Opus Dei article. We need an objective third party opinion of somebody who knows the non-negotiable Wikipedia NPOV policy. Thanks! Thomas S. Major 04:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ann,
I thought you might get a good laugh: http://thoseshirts.com/roe.html Jkister 06:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the smiley. I needed that. The loss has saddened me greatly. I will send you another message later.-- Dakota ~ 16:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I cannot move this page because what I want to move it to already exists. I want to move Nuit to Nut (goddess) for the express reason "Nuit is not found in Egyptian naming, the hieroglyphs spell Nut, not Nuit. Transfer to proper naming scheme." It was improperly named and I discussed on the talk page the fact that the hieroglyphs used say "Nut" or literally, "nwt", not "Nuit". I have not seen the spelling Nuit used outside of Thelema, and have seen Nut used constantly, including the only citation which backs up the preexistent hieroglyphs.
Hello. The logical follow-up to this is to move Nuit (Thelema) to Nuit. I have already updated all the Egyptian articles to point at Nut (goddess), so this will not cause any problems. I tried to move but since it didn't point at the article to be moved I couldn't. I've listed Nuit for speedy delete so the move can be done, but thought maybe you could expedite. - 999 22:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Please stop removing comments without permission, this is against policy. -- Col. Hauler 14:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!
-- Bhadani 14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Since the talk page has been archived but there are no links to the archives you may not have noticed that Boothy443 is already on personal attack parole. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Boothy443. I tried adding links to the archives back in, but Boothy443 reverted me. Is it appropriate to add this block to the block log on the RfA? — Jnk[ talk 02:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I was curious whether you might offer an opinion on my most recent comments on 3RR regarding Anonymous editor, who has (once again) demonstrably lied in his defense. It is beginning to look as if he is uniquely above the law. Timothy Usher 21:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Removing the personal attack is great, would it be to much to ask to check the attacks he left on other pages? Thanks again. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 17:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the category bit on my user page. Chooserr 21:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Ann, first allow me to thank you for removing that silly vandalism off my page; and second (and more important), did you get the email I sent you yesterday? I'm not sure whether or not the Wikimail is working properly... Cheers, Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 12:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Saw you reverting and then blocking a user on Mary Magdelene and wanted to say thanks for all the work you're doing :) Inner Earth 15:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like ot know why you are censorship my statments on SV's talk page. When I gave up on answering someone with my own assessment of the situation which was being reverted as I guess it could be interpreted to be presenting a negative assessement of SV's leaving (which I stand by), I then simply wanted to endorse the comment that the talk page of another section that stated the talk page was of limited value because of the censoring. But, you removed that as well. Note that there is no way to even possibly interpret this comment as any kind of taunt. I feel this is blatant and unjust censorship, which I disdain, and I ask you to justify your action. My message, you censored:
I hope you are really the person to speak to, but you said you would look into this. I did blank the page twice indeed, but that was only after a person who is not part of this mediation left a long rant there that was full of slander and misrepresntation (in other words, her usual style). The mediation attempt was pointless from the beginning, but I most certainly will not allow such dishonest and harassing rants to stay on a page where they don't belong. The user who made the vandal alert was also less than honest, presenting himself as sombody who wished to help, only to report me (completely inappropriately) as a vandal, which is definitely not what I am. -- AlexR 09:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to my VIP call. The user appears to be a good editor (certainly an impressive edit history) who has put alot of time into wikipedia. I'm not sure whether the current, well, "tone?" he uses has been around throughout that time but I won't stop hoping we can reach some sort of amicable conclusion on the cisgender page... However dim prospects look... I don't think any more admin intervention is needed at this time, especially given the user claims to be abandoning the debate, but I hope I can stay in touch with you if circumstances don't improve. :/ Usrnme h8er 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Ann, thanks for having a word with him about his vandalism to my user page. Since then, I've asked him not to engage in personal attacks [2], [3] . His response defends his prior attack and is itself palpably incivil [4]. Additionally, he shows no remorse for the user page shenannigans. He's already blocked for 3RR - might you consider extending it for personal attacks and incivility? Timothy Usher 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
{{ civil1}} Al 06:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove warnings. If you're unsure as to why you were warned, ask. In this case, the warning refers to your uncivil (and inaccurate) remarks about me on AN/I. Thank you for understanding. Al 18:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear, I was referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=56984785&oldid=56984284
Now, I'd like her to either acknowledge that she was uncivil and inaccurate, or explain why she thinks she wasn't. This is not unreasonable. Al 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call "vandalism" a good-faith description of my actions. Nor would I call her attempt to shift he focus away from Chooserr to me "civil". Al 20:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I did point out a specific inaccuracy on the ANI page. It would be helpful if you did full research before drawing conclusions. Al 21:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this speaks for itself, so I'll stop speaking. Al 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Seriously. dont revert me cos your mad tat i can legally get your christianity deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andy5190 ( talk • contribs).
It seems that, at least twice, you removed the AfD tag placed on the Christianity article by user Andy5190. Now, while I may not have agreed with his placing of said AfD tag, as I am sure you are aware removing it is a violation of Wikipedia policy. It is considered vandalism. The proper response would be to vote on the AfD page, which is what you should have done. Thanks. --- Charles 05:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed, in going through my discussion page history, that you decided to do some editing, unbeknownst to me. Though I'm always pleased to see admins doing their job, this was one case where the message re: a vote on a George W. Bush article was of interest to me. Thanks for keeping a close eye on Wikipedia. It shows :) -- Michaelk 09:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see my talk page, and the archive. -- Sunholm (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
User:Spicynugget is making what I believe to be inaccurate or disruptive edits to List of anthropologists (repeatedly adding a non anthropologist named Mark Andrew Ritchie to the list). You may also wish to take a look at this creation of his Mark Andrew Ritchie.
Maybe I tried to engage this user the wrong way, but he does not seem to respond to requests for evidence of his assertions. You've dealt with him in the past, so perhaps you wouldn't mind keeping an eye on him.
Apologies if this is the wrong channel for this sort of thing--first time I've ever felt I needed to do this.-- Birdmessenger 19:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
May I ask why that clarification does not appear on the 3RR page? If it's not part of the official policy, I'm not certain we can legitimately ban someone under its auspices. CJCurrie 21:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I've got a question. What did you want to email me about? I can't thing what it might be and I'm really curious. It's not important if it's not important (if that makes sense). Thanks! Dan -- Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem :) Pecher Talk 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind vote of confidence, Ann. I guess you and I are both teachers, and can appreciate how much teaching and learning goes on here, and how different those dynamics are from those of a battle or a debate - or at least how different one hopes they are. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Err? What was that about? -- Cat out 20:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to catch up on our conversation from last week on the Christianity article. I agree with you that classifying Mormons as Christians depends on the definition as you pointed out on the discussion page. Of course, I favor a definition that would most closely align with 1st century Christianity: a belief in Christ as the Savior, the Son of God, that was born of a virgin Mary, lived a perfect life free from sin, submitted to the crucifixtion and died only to rise again on the third day. However, if we are to limit Christianity to only those accepting the creeds of the 4th century and after, then Mormons would not belong; they are not part of the Orthodox Christian "tree", but rather restorationists. I might add that I strongly dislike disqualifying any person or group from being called Christian. It is better to stick with labels that do not attempt to judge a personal relatioinship with God. For that reason, I am comfortable with, "Mormons are not part of the Historic Christian church". At times orthodox seems acceptable, but my contention is that orthodox to what? 4th century creeds, then yes. 1st century Christianity, then no.
I do think that we have talked about this before and come to an understanding or an agreement to disagree maybe. I was trying to limit COgden's focus on the article. He has a bright mind and is LDS. I know him from the Mormon articles and have a high degree of respect for him.
I always appreciate your edits and comments. Thanks for being there. Storm Rider (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
An editor ( User:FredrickS) is currently insisting on what appears (to me and others) to be a problematic entry on the Emancipation disambiguation page ( diff). His argument boils down to the fact that people use "emancipation" in conjuction with "political", and since in his opinion proportional representation clearly provides more "emancipation", obviously a link to proportional representation is needed on the disambig page (complete with mini-essay). I've tried to attract additional editors to the page, but I thought it might also be useful to ask one or two admins to comment on the situation and perhaps convince him that this isn't just "censorship" etc. by myself or others. I've also suggested that creation of an NPOV page such as "emacipation (political)" would be the proper starting point, with no success. Thanks, - David Oberst 17:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate the fix. My goodness, you're quick. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll unprotect it again in a second. I would suspect that it is User:4.19.93.2, who has complained of my refusal to unblock several trolling usernames (e.g. Can sleep, clown won't eat me) and protecting the talk page when they don't take no for an answer to the unblock request. Since it's a single IP they get half a dozen usernames per day before they run out... Same happened yesterday and stopped after half a dozen tries, probably the same person who has now taken to doing loads of minor edits to my talk page at the moment.. -- pgk( talk) 16:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello Musical Linguist,
I have a request. Could you please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi#Some_evidences_that_the_article_is_still_disputed
The question is whether "Jewish Encyclopedia" could be cited in wikipedia (Pecher argues that it is outdated). Your input is appreciated.
Thanks,-- Aminz 08:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert on my user page. You seem to be my guardian angel recently. Thanks a lot. :-D -- Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
"It is an easy thing to tell a lie, but it is difficult to support the lie after it is told." Thomas Paine 17:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Do not remove other people's comments on my talk page.-- Dark Tichondrias
If you remove other user's comments from my page again, I will consider it vandalism.-- Dark Tichondrias
I'm grateful for the removal of this silly comment. -- Runcorn 21:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, look at this [5]. Timothy Usher 09:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Please can you delete all revisions from my userpage from 26th April through to 19th June 2006, please! -- Sunholm (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive One Archive Two Archive Three Archive Four Archive Five Archive Six Archive Seven Archive Eight Archive Nine Archive Ten Archive Eleven Archive Twelve Archive Thirteen Archive Fourteen Archive Fifteen Archive Sixteen Archive Seventeen Archive Eighteen Archive Nineteen Archive Twenty
I removed the link but strongly protest the strong pro-Christian POV I see - but you never answered me. Just curious as to why you think BC and AD is not POV especially on Jewish topics? - Sparky 15:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Charlie has given you some of
his famous
Solid chocolate truffles! Chocolate truffles taste good, help moods, promote
WikiLove and hopefully make your day better. Hope you find the truffles to be tasty, and make sure you enjoy them with a nice tall glass of milk (they're rich)! I had seen you on WP:AN a few times, and before you changed your user page I had noticed that you had a few tasty recipies. I was wondering if you would be interested in trading. I waited so I could post my truffle recipe
here (External as I wasn't sure about releasing under GDFL yet). In any case, have a good day! --
Charli
e(
@CIRL |
talk |
email )
05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Check out the Jesus and Christianity pages and talk pages - could this be a User:Jason Gastrich sock? I'm not quite sure what to do in these situations. Sophia 08:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ann, kindly find some time to give your comments at the Opus Dei article. We need an objective third party opinion of somebody who knows the non-negotiable Wikipedia NPOV policy. Thanks! Thomas S. Major 04:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ann,
I thought you might get a good laugh: http://thoseshirts.com/roe.html Jkister 06:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the smiley. I needed that. The loss has saddened me greatly. I will send you another message later.-- Dakota ~ 16:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I cannot move this page because what I want to move it to already exists. I want to move Nuit to Nut (goddess) for the express reason "Nuit is not found in Egyptian naming, the hieroglyphs spell Nut, not Nuit. Transfer to proper naming scheme." It was improperly named and I discussed on the talk page the fact that the hieroglyphs used say "Nut" or literally, "nwt", not "Nuit". I have not seen the spelling Nuit used outside of Thelema, and have seen Nut used constantly, including the only citation which backs up the preexistent hieroglyphs.
Hello. The logical follow-up to this is to move Nuit (Thelema) to Nuit. I have already updated all the Egyptian articles to point at Nut (goddess), so this will not cause any problems. I tried to move but since it didn't point at the article to be moved I couldn't. I've listed Nuit for speedy delete so the move can be done, but thought maybe you could expedite. - 999 22:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Please stop removing comments without permission, this is against policy. -- Col. Hauler 14:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!
-- Bhadani 14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Since the talk page has been archived but there are no links to the archives you may not have noticed that Boothy443 is already on personal attack parole. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Boothy443. I tried adding links to the archives back in, but Boothy443 reverted me. Is it appropriate to add this block to the block log on the RfA? — Jnk[ talk 02:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I was curious whether you might offer an opinion on my most recent comments on 3RR regarding Anonymous editor, who has (once again) demonstrably lied in his defense. It is beginning to look as if he is uniquely above the law. Timothy Usher 21:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Removing the personal attack is great, would it be to much to ask to check the attacks he left on other pages? Thanks again. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 17:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the category bit on my user page. Chooserr 21:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Ann, first allow me to thank you for removing that silly vandalism off my page; and second (and more important), did you get the email I sent you yesterday? I'm not sure whether or not the Wikimail is working properly... Cheers, Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 12:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Saw you reverting and then blocking a user on Mary Magdelene and wanted to say thanks for all the work you're doing :) Inner Earth 15:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like ot know why you are censorship my statments on SV's talk page. When I gave up on answering someone with my own assessment of the situation which was being reverted as I guess it could be interpreted to be presenting a negative assessement of SV's leaving (which I stand by), I then simply wanted to endorse the comment that the talk page of another section that stated the talk page was of limited value because of the censoring. But, you removed that as well. Note that there is no way to even possibly interpret this comment as any kind of taunt. I feel this is blatant and unjust censorship, which I disdain, and I ask you to justify your action. My message, you censored:
I hope you are really the person to speak to, but you said you would look into this. I did blank the page twice indeed, but that was only after a person who is not part of this mediation left a long rant there that was full of slander and misrepresntation (in other words, her usual style). The mediation attempt was pointless from the beginning, but I most certainly will not allow such dishonest and harassing rants to stay on a page where they don't belong. The user who made the vandal alert was also less than honest, presenting himself as sombody who wished to help, only to report me (completely inappropriately) as a vandal, which is definitely not what I am. -- AlexR 09:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to my VIP call. The user appears to be a good editor (certainly an impressive edit history) who has put alot of time into wikipedia. I'm not sure whether the current, well, "tone?" he uses has been around throughout that time but I won't stop hoping we can reach some sort of amicable conclusion on the cisgender page... However dim prospects look... I don't think any more admin intervention is needed at this time, especially given the user claims to be abandoning the debate, but I hope I can stay in touch with you if circumstances don't improve. :/ Usrnme h8er 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Ann, thanks for having a word with him about his vandalism to my user page. Since then, I've asked him not to engage in personal attacks [2], [3] . His response defends his prior attack and is itself palpably incivil [4]. Additionally, he shows no remorse for the user page shenannigans. He's already blocked for 3RR - might you consider extending it for personal attacks and incivility? Timothy Usher 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
{{ civil1}} Al 06:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove warnings. If you're unsure as to why you were warned, ask. In this case, the warning refers to your uncivil (and inaccurate) remarks about me on AN/I. Thank you for understanding. Al 18:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear, I was referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=56984785&oldid=56984284
Now, I'd like her to either acknowledge that she was uncivil and inaccurate, or explain why she thinks she wasn't. This is not unreasonable. Al 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call "vandalism" a good-faith description of my actions. Nor would I call her attempt to shift he focus away from Chooserr to me "civil". Al 20:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I did point out a specific inaccuracy on the ANI page. It would be helpful if you did full research before drawing conclusions. Al 21:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this speaks for itself, so I'll stop speaking. Al 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Seriously. dont revert me cos your mad tat i can legally get your christianity deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andy5190 ( talk • contribs).
It seems that, at least twice, you removed the AfD tag placed on the Christianity article by user Andy5190. Now, while I may not have agreed with his placing of said AfD tag, as I am sure you are aware removing it is a violation of Wikipedia policy. It is considered vandalism. The proper response would be to vote on the AfD page, which is what you should have done. Thanks. --- Charles 05:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed, in going through my discussion page history, that you decided to do some editing, unbeknownst to me. Though I'm always pleased to see admins doing their job, this was one case where the message re: a vote on a George W. Bush article was of interest to me. Thanks for keeping a close eye on Wikipedia. It shows :) -- Michaelk 09:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see my talk page, and the archive. -- Sunholm (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
User:Spicynugget is making what I believe to be inaccurate or disruptive edits to List of anthropologists (repeatedly adding a non anthropologist named Mark Andrew Ritchie to the list). You may also wish to take a look at this creation of his Mark Andrew Ritchie.
Maybe I tried to engage this user the wrong way, but he does not seem to respond to requests for evidence of his assertions. You've dealt with him in the past, so perhaps you wouldn't mind keeping an eye on him.
Apologies if this is the wrong channel for this sort of thing--first time I've ever felt I needed to do this.-- Birdmessenger 19:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
May I ask why that clarification does not appear on the 3RR page? If it's not part of the official policy, I'm not certain we can legitimately ban someone under its auspices. CJCurrie 21:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I've got a question. What did you want to email me about? I can't thing what it might be and I'm really curious. It's not important if it's not important (if that makes sense). Thanks! Dan -- Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem :) Pecher Talk 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind vote of confidence, Ann. I guess you and I are both teachers, and can appreciate how much teaching and learning goes on here, and how different those dynamics are from those of a battle or a debate - or at least how different one hopes they are. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Err? What was that about? -- Cat out 20:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to catch up on our conversation from last week on the Christianity article. I agree with you that classifying Mormons as Christians depends on the definition as you pointed out on the discussion page. Of course, I favor a definition that would most closely align with 1st century Christianity: a belief in Christ as the Savior, the Son of God, that was born of a virgin Mary, lived a perfect life free from sin, submitted to the crucifixtion and died only to rise again on the third day. However, if we are to limit Christianity to only those accepting the creeds of the 4th century and after, then Mormons would not belong; they are not part of the Orthodox Christian "tree", but rather restorationists. I might add that I strongly dislike disqualifying any person or group from being called Christian. It is better to stick with labels that do not attempt to judge a personal relatioinship with God. For that reason, I am comfortable with, "Mormons are not part of the Historic Christian church". At times orthodox seems acceptable, but my contention is that orthodox to what? 4th century creeds, then yes. 1st century Christianity, then no.
I do think that we have talked about this before and come to an understanding or an agreement to disagree maybe. I was trying to limit COgden's focus on the article. He has a bright mind and is LDS. I know him from the Mormon articles and have a high degree of respect for him.
I always appreciate your edits and comments. Thanks for being there. Storm Rider (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
An editor ( User:FredrickS) is currently insisting on what appears (to me and others) to be a problematic entry on the Emancipation disambiguation page ( diff). His argument boils down to the fact that people use "emancipation" in conjuction with "political", and since in his opinion proportional representation clearly provides more "emancipation", obviously a link to proportional representation is needed on the disambig page (complete with mini-essay). I've tried to attract additional editors to the page, but I thought it might also be useful to ask one or two admins to comment on the situation and perhaps convince him that this isn't just "censorship" etc. by myself or others. I've also suggested that creation of an NPOV page such as "emacipation (political)" would be the proper starting point, with no success. Thanks, - David Oberst 17:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate the fix. My goodness, you're quick. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll unprotect it again in a second. I would suspect that it is User:4.19.93.2, who has complained of my refusal to unblock several trolling usernames (e.g. Can sleep, clown won't eat me) and protecting the talk page when they don't take no for an answer to the unblock request. Since it's a single IP they get half a dozen usernames per day before they run out... Same happened yesterday and stopped after half a dozen tries, probably the same person who has now taken to doing loads of minor edits to my talk page at the moment.. -- pgk( talk) 16:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello Musical Linguist,
I have a request. Could you please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi#Some_evidences_that_the_article_is_still_disputed
The question is whether "Jewish Encyclopedia" could be cited in wikipedia (Pecher argues that it is outdated). Your input is appreciated.
Thanks,-- Aminz 08:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert on my user page. You seem to be my guardian angel recently. Thanks a lot. :-D -- Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
"It is an easy thing to tell a lie, but it is difficult to support the lie after it is told." Thomas Paine 17:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Do not remove other people's comments on my talk page.-- Dark Tichondrias
If you remove other user's comments from my page again, I will consider it vandalism.-- Dark Tichondrias
I'm grateful for the removal of this silly comment. -- Runcorn 21:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, look at this [5]. Timothy Usher 09:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Please can you delete all revisions from my userpage from 26th April through to 19th June 2006, please! -- Sunholm (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)