Curious Blue

sorry, I'm not complaining about your correction but why you deleted my maltese translation in external link? I speak a really poor maltese (I started studying it two weeks ago) if the problem is grammar you're perfectly right. I'm studying on some horribles manuals I've find on the net. If the problem is another tell me about it please. The new paragraphing is great and the link correction on melodytrip link is another good idea and I have to thank you for this. I won't try to restore the words you deleted but I want to know why those words have been deleted. thanks.

And sorry for eventual English mistakes, I'm not from UK even if I'm studying English language and Literature

Aurora Yukari4288 (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that the tags were default! (is my first article!) So thanks a lot for all your corrections (I'm not too strong with paragraphing and with the links)! I'm not ready to write on Maltese wikipedija, I have to study one year or two before writing in it. and I hope to do it because there aren't a lot of article on it... but I'm not ready now. Specifying language and translating is a kind or professional deformation: I'm studying Turkish English French Spanish and Maltese. Turkish and Maltese at home, English French and Spanish at the University. Thanks a lot for all the changes!! Kind regards!

Aurora Yukari4288 (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence

It is customary to start a discussion at the bottom of the Talk page when you add a merge template, stating your reasons for the merge. If you don't, there may be little or no discussion, and the merge template eventually will be removed with no consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"it's an obvious fork of the article, and I said so in my edit comment"

I was simply pointing out the customary thing to do when you set up a merge template, which you set up but failed to do the customary thing. It's all in the instructions for setting up the template. A merge template is used to solicit opinions about a merge. Now that you have made the redirect, there is no need for the merge template. Ward3001 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Time Bandits

Good call on that Ultima 2 deletion. I saw that last night, and intended to delete it, but got distracted. As you say, even with the citation, there is really no relevance. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

i didn't create it myself

I didn't create the page- psychopathy. That is the requirement - you cannot remove the speedy if you yourself created the named page- which I didn't. I simply followed the instructions on the tag itself. The person proposed speedying the page- I didn't create the page. See what I mean?Merkinsmum 14:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my interpretation of the tag which only referred to if a person created a page called psychopathy- which I did not. Redirects are deleted in an entirely different way- as you know I imagine. Anyway as I explained on the talk page, I do not really mind. But it was a page I merely edited, and as such I am entitled to edit and improve- I did not simply remove the tag, or revert. Anyway, all done now.:) I am not particularly bothered by this quibbling as I responded correctly to the wsords of the tag, which didn't mention a redirect. Anyway in the words of Catherine Tate, am I bovvered?:) No offence to any of them but I don't have the investment in propounding the psychopathy theory or any other which some on the talk page seem to have. As such, I am WP:DGAF and proud. Whatever makes them happy lol, within the context of WP:NPOV and not misleading the reader with insinuating that this is the most prominent theory or fact of psychopathy, rather just a belief and not one followed by the most prominent professional body in the field.Merkinsmum 15:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Curious Blue (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Cooler heads please

Your repeated comments on User_talk:Orangemarlin, which he has indicated are unwelcome, could be viewed as badgering. Sometimes it's to your advantage to back off a little. Even when you're sure you're right, taking the high road is to your advantage. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all editors see this as a black and white issue. Your comments were welcome from my perspective although we were coming from the opposite sides. I recognise your edits were genuine attempts and meeting a compromise. One trick I have learned on these more stressful articles is to find the compromise wording on the talk page. Note Peter Morrel's strategy edit on talk page, refine it, and ask someone to place the text for him. We worked on the second paragraph that way and it got through without a revert war. Likewise, I can see the third paragraph benefiting from the same treatment rather than the frustration of the main article. David D. (Talk) 19:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me give you a little advice. Don't sweat Orangemarlin to much. He can become very uncivil when he disagrees with someone. Don't get distracted by this and become uncivil yourself. He will frequently accuse people of being a troll and a sock puppet when he feels he's been wronged or is in the right. As a matter of fact he's already accusing you of being a sock now on his talk page. Just stay off his talk page and discuss content issues with him only and only on the articles talk page, not his. It's not worth getting into it with him and it's really not worth getting blocked or banned by losing your cool with him. I understand that's easy to do when his defense is to throw around baseless accusations but you can do the right thing by staying above all that. If his personal attacks really start to get on your nerves grab an admin and let them see what he's doing. Elhector (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, you might want to look at Wikiquette alerts, which might garner an apology from OM. Ra2007 (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind for future reference. Right now I suspect it would do more harm than good. While an apology would be nice, trying to force one doesn't seem right. Curious Blue (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Noticed who got blocked? Not me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ascended Master Teachings

Thanks for your cleanup work on the various Ascended Master teachings, I think they are right on the mark. Regarding the AfD, while I don't appreciate the accusation of forum shopping, I can see how my persistence could make me come across as being badly-motivated. To give you the background: upon first discovering these articles several days ago, I ran newspaper searches going back about 50 years, and found almost nothing. This set of red flags. Since then, I've done whatever I can to find independent sources. I found significant coverage of the religious movement, but not the individual Ascended Masters (Master Jesus, etc.). I interpret WP:N as applying to each article, not merely the "main" articles, which in part led to my efforts at AfD. Even if we continue to disagree about the notability issue, I hope that clears up my motivations. Fireplace (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I now see why you were reticent about your previous account, whihc CheckUser indicates was IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whihc CheckUser indicates was Ekajati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please stop evading your ban. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Neither this account nor IPSOS violated any policies. No formal ban was enacted by ArbCom against Ekajati, despite the tag on the account. All of my previous accounts were blocked, as were some that were NOT mine, and Ekajati was given a 6 month block. I requested that the account be blocked indefinitely myself. My intent was to have a different account unblocked after 6 months. That was in January and the block expired six month ago. Some other user, not an admin or an arbitrator added that ban notice. I was never banned. Please do me the favor of looking into it. Curious Blue (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm Ekajati never served her six month ban anyway....IPSOS was here all along. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, A Ramachandran, a previously convicted CU Ekajati sock just woke up and got caught in a autoblock of Curious Blue....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And, Curious Blue writes above, "Ekajati was given a 6 month block. I requested that the account be blocked indefinitely myself." It was Ekajati who asked for the indef-block. Curious Blue has just admitted to being Ekajati. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Nuggie. Gotta protect Wikipedia from productive editors. I do wish you'd manage to keep my sockpuppets separate from the other guy's though. I want my productive editing tally to be honest. Just for the record, the following users were not me: 999, Chai Walla, Essittam, Frater Xyzzy, GlassFET, and Khabs. Now, I don't know if they are all sockpuppets of 999 or whether some of them are completely innocent users. But, there seems to be only three possibilities for these mistakes. Either you are hiding the fact that you are simply pulling monkeys out of your butt and covering in up by calling it "checkuser" or, there is something wrong with checkuser and you don't know it, or you are making some untrue assumptions in the way you use checkuser. Clearly it's not working like it should, as you've missed several other of my puppets, one who's undergoing RfA now! Curious Blue (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo article from last year

Curious Blue, it looks like you're no longer around. For that I'm sorry because I may not have a chance to set the record straight.

I'm going through and cleaning up the mess I made of Jetsunma's article. I wasn't straight with you, though my spin-doctoring against Jetsunma was pretty obvious to the Wiki community I'm sure. I did not have scholarly integrity in how I wrote the article about Jetsunma, cherry-picking negative information to put together as negative a picture as possible -- even more negative than the most critical materials out there. I knew what to use because I was one of the main sources on the book, The Buddha From Brooklyn, which is major conflict of interest as well (especially since I didn't admit my involvement and presented myself as an outside party and then used that book extensively for the article). In fact, my real name is Michelle Grissom, formerly known as Ani Dechen, and am actually a student who broke with Jetsunma in 1996. I was one of the main reasons the book was so slanted against Jetsunma. I was not honest in that book either, slanting information exactly the same way I did here on Wikipedia: I used things that weren't really a problem for me because I knew they would upset non-Buddhists. Describing a confrontation where -- after 8 years of my rebelling against the monastic community and my breaking my monastic vows -- she yelled at me and swatted me once, I called it a "beating," simply because the police term for any kind physical contact is battery. I swept my own behavior that led to this under the rug. Jetsunma has been divorced several times, to men who either were or later became her students, and I used that in the article to make her look like she was sleeping her way through her students. I also used the generosity of her students as a way to paint her as being very greedy, even though she's never even asked for a salary, and blamed her for the ongoing struggle to build a monastery, even though the main reason the monastery hasn't been built is that the land bought for it doesn't perk. I've taken all the spin-doctoring out of the article and I am very, very sorry I abused Wiki for my own personal vendetta and convinced you when at first you seemed to recognize my bias against Jetsunma. Longchenpa (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)