User talk:Moreschi

If you are coming here to complain that I protected The Wrong Version, please read meta:the wrong version, and don't bother.

52 24. Moreschi ^Talk 11:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death - when we've first with dealt the trolls, the spamvertisers, and those darned unreferenced BLPs.

Paul, first epistle to the Wikipedians.

Regrettably, I am now an adminstrator. This means I can do all sorts of terrifying things and am A Thoroughly Evil Person™. Despite my awesome powers for evil, by some inexplicable fluke I usually try to do the right thing, sort of.

Most of the time I will reply to your comments on your talk page, Meladina excepting. Short replies will be left here, lengthier ones on your talk. Please remember to speak as thou wouldst be spoken to.

Wikilurve is undesirable bullshit to be avoided at all costs: please speak plainly. In a bad mood? Go on, have a snarl, I don't mind, you'll feel better for it, and I usually don't snarl back: you don't, however, get to snarl anywhere else. If I've been a dick, please tell me about it, and I'll try to make amends: I really can be tactless, cretinous, moronic, and sometimes just plain dumb. I don't troll, though, so any of the above emanates from stupidity, not malice.

All rights reserved, including that to refactor any particularly obnoxious signatures that arrive on this page. Over three lines of code in the edit window is guaranteed to piss me off.

Ways to find me: simply leaving a message right here is the obvious option.

• For matters arcane, you could try the email.
• Alternatively, I can be found - not always, but sometimes - on IRC, using the nick CMoreschi.
• If so, you'll find me in #wikipedia-en or #wikipedia-en-admins, but not #wikipedia. Do I really need to say why?
• If you want to use GTalk, that's fine. Just ask via email for the name of my Gmail account.

• • /Archive No.1
  • /Archive No.2
  • /Archive No.3
  • /Archive No.4
  • /Archive No.5

Recently archived

Please check the archives for anything older. Moreschi ^Talk 14:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Turkish music sample page

You reason being Article is nothing but a peg on which it hang an illegal fair use gallery. It serves no encyclopedic purpose. It is an illegal list. That was not the reason with which I opened it. It's purpose - as with other music pages that incorporate it - like the music of America - is to pool together samples of Turkish music on one page. Plus illegal fair use is an oxymoron. I was in the process of giving reasons for their fair uses. And you spelt encyclopaedic wrong. I don't mind having my hard work deleted. I don't like such assumptions made however. That list was not illegal. Deff6 17:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

American spelling to keep my browser's spellchecker happy.

I'm sorry, but I'm still bemused as to what purpose that served. Fair use galleries are not permitted on Wikipedia. Does the article Turkish music exist? If so, then what's the point of a page just to collect together Wikipedia's music samples of Turkish music, which are fair use? Fair use galleries are not permitted, per Wikipedia:Non-free content. Bad fair use contravenes copyright law, and is certainly against Wikipedia policy. I can see nothing wrong with deleting a page that had no reason for existence other than to collect fair use samples. Moreschi ^Talk 17:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the articles Turkish music and American music are there to describe the music of these nations, not to collect samples of music. A page that has no purpose to collect music samples - is encyclopedic how? Especially when the samples in question are fair use. Moreschi ^Talk 17:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, nuts.

Guess I jumped the gun reverting your AIV edits. I'll admit, an edit summary on ROFL is a little misleading, especially when one hasn't had coffee yet. :)

Never mind. Stoke up on the stimulants, my apologies for the edit summary (the IP that made those reports is now blocked, bTW). Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 16:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Alfred Deller

Fantastic, thanks. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who squee message

If you get a chance soon, watch "Human Nature" and "The Family of Blood" - they blow Army of Ghosts/Doomsday right out of the water. :) Will ^(talk) 01:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 23	4 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, banned	Admin restored after desysopping; dispute centers on suitability of certain biographies
Controversial RFA suspended, results pending	Dutch government provides freely licensed photos
WikiWorld comic: "John Hodgman"	News and notes: Another Wikipedian dies, brand survey, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Thinking back on the issue, I was probably more harsh than lenient. I should have given the user more feedback on what is appropriate for the images, and in not doing so, I may have caused the loss of a constructive editor for Wikipedia. I am taking full responsibility for that. I am also taking responsibility for my harshness in the replies, but please assume good faith in my edits; they were not meant to detract from Wikipedia or from another editor. I'll e-mail the user and leave an apology note on her talk page. Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. No problem, providing this does not reoccur. We all speak too harshly sometimes. Moreschi ^Talk 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's time I stepped back for a bit anyhow and take a break. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My comment on the Carly images

Hi, I've posted a comment on my talk page on the issue of image deletions from the user page of Oh yEs itS caRly. I would appreciate it if you take a look and give your input. Happy editing. -- Diletante 02:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded, though I'm not so impressed. Nobody in particular did anything really wrong. Moreschi ^Talk 11:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with article, Al Dukes

Hi, I'm not sure if I'm editing this properly, so forgive me if I put this request in the wrong spot. I'm trying to get Al Dukes' Wiki page semi-protected, it's been getting vandalized tonight. Can you help a gal out?Ginnysanchez 00:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I can indeed, fair damsel - I see it's been fully protected for a bit by another admin. Hopefully that'll take care of the vandalism problems. Please let me know if not. Best, Moreschi ^Talk 11:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Opera Project multiple banners

If you have a moment can you have a look at the Multiple Opera Project banners topic on the project page? I know you were involved with these banners - maybe you made them? We need to decide about them because of the (imminent) bot run. (I am assuming that if the bot ran tomorrow it would ignore the singer etc banners and we'd have double bannering.) -- Kleinzach 11:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Warriors (book series)

Yesterday you tried a bit of help on WP:AN about the Warriors book series. I was wondering if you'd mind giving a bit more help at the talk page of the series where there's a lot of debate (me v. basically every editor of those articles) about the descriptions of the book covers that keep getting added to the various pages. See specifically Talk:Warriors_(book_series)#Rising_Storm_Cover and Talk:Warriors_(book_series)#Covers. The issue seems to be WP:ILIKEIT v. WP:OR/WP:V/WP:RS. Could I request you to lend some eyes over there? I need to step away from it before I go on some mass blocking spree or something. Check out the real gems posted lately by Redfur (talk · contribs). Metros 20:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Moreschi ^Talk 20:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Torrisholme vandal user:Fettlestick

This is just one of the dozens of socks of user:Graham Heavy. Check out the Torrisholme page history for an idea of the persistence of this person/group. I and others are no longer tagging the users as socks in an attempt to WP:DENY. Cheers! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So I realised. Well, he's blocked, and I've got some others to watchlist the page. Not much more we can do other than revert, block, and ignore. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 09:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 15:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tee Hee, as it were

I just wanted you to know that your use of the phrases "crap-looking books" and "spamvertising" made me giggle. Aloud. Thanks! Joie de Vivre 15:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad I amuse someone. I try. Nice work picking up on the Psychic seduction article, it really is awful. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

JP

Right. Ultramarine 21:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Amazing! Ultramarine 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

He never ceases to amaze. I loved this edit where he used an opinion piece in pravda as a source! C ^thirty-three 22:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

hey there!

Hi!

I just went though your replies on User:Xcentaur/Admin coaching. Thanks for looking through. Riana mentioned you might become my co-coach. I'm grateful, and thank you for your time :)

Cheers!xC | ☎ 13:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, always glad to help fine users such as yourself and kind ladies such as Riana (who wanted someone more clueful on deletion). Please, anything else you want an opinion on, just ask. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 13:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

St. John's University

Would you please consider taking a detailed look at the edit history and discussion page regarding St. John's University. The editorUser:YoSoyGuapo continues to revert to an obviously bias version of the page, and will not engage individuals wishing to discuss his edits. It has been revealed to him that we do not question the content (rankings, scandels, etc), just the location of the content. Additionally, when he reverts, he omits valuable information that is undisputed. Any help you can provide would be extremely helpful. St. John's University (New York City), Talk:St. John's University (New York City) - Thanks - --TiconderogaCCB 14:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

<Sigh> Dispute resolution is that way. I recommend you both try it. Reporting each other to AIV is not correct. Moreschi ^Talk 14:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Will you at least consider reverting to the version of the article that is more supported by the discussion page than what is current before protecting it from edits. It must be obvious that I have made several attempts to reason with this editor, but to no avail. He will not enter dispute resolution as long as his version is currently protect.--TiconderogaCCB 14:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

meta:The Wrong Version. Please read. The protection doesn't last for ever. Moreschi ^Talk 14:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

please note that user is attacking me on my talk page [1] including "What the hell is you problem??? Do you lack any ability to reason? I have tried endlessly to engage you on discussion and talk pages, but instead you act like a 12 year old (which you quite possibly could be). Why do you continue to revert to an absurd version of the St. John's article? Did you get denied admission, are you a UConn fan" YoSoyGuapo 14:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I actually don't care. So long as you don't troll AIV, I'm happy. Dispute resolution is that way, including requests for comments. Have fun. Moreschi ^Talk 14:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

not a problem. thanks and that sounds like an idea to consider! YoSoyGuapo 14:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

St. John's University (New York City)

Wouldn't it make sense just to block the edit-warring users (as there are primarily only two) instead of protected the article altogether? -- tariqabjotu 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably. I thought protection preferable to blocking, as a last resort. They might prefer protection, rather than blocks. When the protection came off, and they restarted, then I did plan to drop the banhammer. But, if you wish to unprotect and block, you have my blessing. They certainly deserve it. I assume they've both violated 3RR. Moreschi ^Talk 15:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, and TiConderoga had been blocked already for violating 3RR on that article. -- tariqabjotu 15:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Psst.

A present awaits. :) Joie de Vivre 17:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yearg, matey. Thar be no email in the hold. Joie de Vivre 20:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Undeletoin?

When I was banned, a large number of my large number of userspace pages were deleted. I need those pages back, so I made a list of them.

1. ‎User:Flameviper/Esperanza
2. ‎User:Flameviper/Flameviper
3. ‎User:Flameviper/Hilarity
4. ‎User:Flameviper/Massive
5. ‎User:Flameviper/NR!
6. ‎User:Flameviper/Random Insanity
7. ‎User:Flameviper/Status
8. ‎User:Flameviper/Whosapeach
9. ‎User:Flameviper/bookmarks
10. ‎User:Flameviper/citations
11. ‎User:Flameviper/edits
12. ‎User:Flameviper/header
13. ‎User:Flameviper/quotes

Since you're an administrator, I would greatly appreciate it if you could restore those pages.

• sigh*

Sorry.

~ Flameviper 19:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Email

Moreschi, could you do me a favor and check your email at your earliest convenience? Thanks, Metros 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied. Moreschi ^Talk 19:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 24	11 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Privacy report lists Wikipedia among best sites, but needing improvement	Board candidacies open, elections planned
WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?"	News and notes: Ontario error, no consensus RFA, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Flameviper

Hi. I didn't intend to step on your toes or call you out or anything by reblocking Flameviper, so please don't take offense; I suddenly realized I should have said something to you first. Please accept my apologies for not doing so. That being said, I'm pretty surprised Flameviper was as blatant as he was; it wouldn't have lasted anywhere near as long except I was busy all day. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Brandt 2 comments

My apologies I had to reply here because my subsequent edits refused to register on the DRV page due to connection problems and this is more of a sidetrack. While consensus and policy does alter over time to suit the current environment of the community, precedent still plays a large part in making judgement calls. In the beginning days of VfD, deletion discussions are largely arbitrary and guidelines for keeping an article is the result of observations from previous debates on what is encyclopedic to justify an article's existence. Also, in cases where is immense controversy, one should not be surprised that similar situations will come up in future, and when they do what do they use? Something that appears to have worked - previous decisions, or at least a deviation of it where it appears to be consensus. Wikipedia:Consensus defines as no significant objections by the group of editors, and as such not taking action or being vocal may be an indication of consent to the status-quo.

We don't worship precedents like a cult, but still we depend lots on it because it is essentially the yardstick (or benchmark) that shifts and an form of indication for consensus. (Same goes for RfA, the Carnildo was the percedent that transformed into what RfA is today, for better or for worse, which is what I'm trying to point out in the last reply. Also see Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals.). WP:BLP has just recently been revised, and precedents are used as a form of interpretation on the policy. Once it is set, editors tend to stick to the status-quo unless another major revision on BLP comes along. Precedence is something we have been using, is still using, and will remain so in future.

Hope this reply spells out nicely for you. I have seen a lot more worse things where "a lot of people have wasted time on this" on Wikipedia; at the very least this DRV debate is a gauge of consensus (or otherwise) on AMIB's conclusion. :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 07:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reversions

Please do not revert other editors work here Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. I am planning to turn this into a Featured article. Giano 11:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale Checking...

Sorry to be a bore, but there are some more that need checking, Images this time - See my recent contribs... ShakespeareFan00 13:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan

Hey, Moreschi, could you have a look at Gilbert and Sullivan's FAC? Think we have a fairly strong chance of pulling it through.... Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Joel Hayward

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Joel Hayward. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Feshbach Fan 12:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the range

Ask and ye shall receive ... at least now I won't have to semi-protect my talk page.Blueboy96 13:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Good grief ... this guy must have several windows open if he's creating this many socks.Blueboy96 14:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully he'll be dumb enough to post as an anon ... that'll make it easier to whack him for good. Blueboy96 14:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Joel Hayward

Can you explain what you are doing here? The article doesn't seem to make any sense, why not 'salt' it as seems to be done usually with pages like this? Am I missing something? Excuse me if this is a naive question, it just seems an odd way to be proceeding here... Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for defending my user page. I think I made a troll angry :P. KOS | talk 19:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Obnoxious feller, that block was satisfying. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 19:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please help me...

Could you help me rollback the history on Talk:White Latin American. Thank You. Etherroyal 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 25	18 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged	Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked	Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants"	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Mail

You probably already know this, but I replied to your last e-mail. --Folantin 10:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if you've got a moment, please check this completely unsourced article out. My sources don't have him, but Grove might. It's possible his name should be "Stradella" if, as alleged, he is the son of this famous composer. Cheers. --Folantin 10:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like someone's trying to pull some kind of Fritz Kreisler stunt here. Or maybe PDQ Bach. Yes, I never had Alessandro Stradella down as a family man and father of five, given his colourful love life which culminated in his assassination. --Folantin 13:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thx, I've already wrote at the Folantin's discussion page, so check there. Szpawq 19:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's one infobox I vote we keep! The misattribution of Camilla is more a common error than a hoax. The writer of the "Viking" article gets very upset that people keep making this mistake. --Folantin 19:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of your last comment on Opera Project

Your last comment was deleted by Andy. I've restored it. Where do we go from here? -- Kleinzach 23:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do we go? This way. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 08:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the ball is your court! -- Kleinzach 08:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Good move. I really regret not knowing about WP:AE when he went on his little point spree back in early May. Unfortunately it's too late to report him for that now. Would have saved everyone a lot of time and effort. --Folantin 13:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" Remember he's on 1 revert per week by order of ArbCom. It's also interesting to note that by his own exacting standards, he doesn't have consensus to use microformats on Wikipedia [2]. --Folantin 13:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied. --Folantin 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

John Abell

Is this your territory? He's the sole survivor of the Altos category. Was he a countertenor? -- Kleinzach 00:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry what I meant was: should we move him to the countertenor cat? -- Kleinzach 08:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What? What?

You sent a message to me for calling During a tyrant, why? Its not that badd of a comment, its just an opinion, Loc. I believe in the first ammendment. Payne2thamaxx

Knock it off. No, I didn't. Please check the diff I cited (not that calling Durin a tyrant is acceptable either). See, here on Wikipedia, we believe in respect and dignity for each other, concepts you do not seem to be understanding at the moment, given your behaviour towards others. Moreschi ^Talk 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dy-no-mite

Hi. I created this article a while ago, and I just noticed that you deleted it. Can you explain the deletion process? And was there any discussion / debate that accompanied the deletion? Thanks. I looked at the deletion log, which tells me nothing other than the fact that it was deleted by you. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 01:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Hi. This link should explain how the proposed deletion process works: in this case, I don't think the content has actually been deleted, but transwikiied to wikt:Dy-no-mite actually, I see it's been deleted there as well. If you do plan on recreating the article, I would recommend including some references to assert notability. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 16:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

England

Excuse my barging in during your major edit to revert an edit. But Alvikar ignored your "inuse" tag and removed content that should not be removed so I reverted it. Good luck with the rest of your edit and errrrr have fun!!♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with that article for now, thanks. Moreschi ^Talk 19:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I tag you in?

User:Daddy Kindsoul is objecting to my block. He's also mad because I removed his fake "new messages" bar and told him that his anti-spam policy was tantamount to disruption (since he sees any sort of warning about his images as "spam"). I admit I can't deal with this without alcohol. Alas, it's only 4 p.m. here and I'm still at the office. -- Merope 19:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

sig

So I go out of my way to revert vandalism and spam from wikipedia and to contribute to so many other things and this is the thanks I get. No I am not being uncivil and I think it is quite petty that you would pick on this espacially when I don't get paid to work on wikipedia. I find this very off-putting. I like to have a new signiture every fortnight or so because this allows me to have some variety without starting a new account or being accused as a sock puppet. So from now on fix your own vandalism and remove your own spam. The one and only (Wonder-Contributor)(<S>)

Mail?

Replied. --Folantin 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so very much for this. It really meant a lot and made me very smiley. Thank you. :) Take care, Sarah 07:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 26	25 June 2007	About the Signpost

Board election series: An interview with the candidates	RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wimbledon

Lucky you - I have to sit up to all hours watching it via television. Anyways, don't forget your camera! :) Cheers, Daniel 11:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wimbledon is what makes the weather in this country worth it. Right, now I'm off. The trolls can go bugger themselves for a bit. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 11:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that's tricky stuff... enjoy your day :) Riana (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, fun. Well, you have mail, for when you get back. Mak (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mail

Update. --Folantin 20:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Updated. (Warning: mail seems to be very slow). --Folantin 10:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Did you know

You probably need one or two more because if you look at the main page, there's white space under the last entry. (I'd do it myself but I'm guaranteed to screw it up!). Ryan Postlethwaite 10:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, in my view, that's the templates fault for not adjusting itself, but done. Moreschi ^Talk 10:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

		Thank you for your support and comments at my RfA
		Hi Moreschi, It still amazes me that otherwise "anonymous" editors take the time to place !votes and comments on RfAs. Whilst I would have normally thanked you at the time of you leaving your message, the importance of my not appearing to be canvassing prevented me from so doing. Now that everything has progressed successfully I can finally thank you. I intend to uphold a style of good adminship and will welcome your further comments at any time in the future, even if they are in the form of admonishment. I will be happy to help as an admin wherever and whenever I can --VS talk 22:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hey, I'm having a little trouble with the user Shikinluv. This user never uses edit summaries. Normally, I probably wouldn't be bothered by this, but this user often makes numerous edits to an article at one time. Sometimes text is removed, sometimes copyrighted material is added, but admittedly, most of the time nothing malicious is done. It's quite a chore trying to sort through the editor's hundreds of edits that don't have edit summaries. Chicken Wing 09:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Left a mention of the option in Preferences. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 10:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just checking....

Was your reply on ANI directed at me or to Sunshine Man? I can't see why it would be to me, but you did indent it one under mine, and if it is to me, could you explain the comment? I don't see the logical progression. MSJapan 11:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not addressed to you in the slightest, it was addressed to The Sunshine Man. Sincere apologies for the confusion. Moreschi ^Talk 11:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a hand here?

I took a look at the Sazabi and Zeong articles and found that User: A Man In Black had gone into them, torn the contents to pieces, and tossed a bunch of tags on them. I reverted Zeong a few times to a better version after I noticed what was going on, but he re-reverted it to his lower quality version and I can't put it back now since I've reverted it three times already today. Can you mediate or something? He isn't discussing it on the talk page. Jtrainor 12:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Check it out

Look who's just turned up at ArbCom. Now I understand why the AMA was closed down. Nice research - he can't even spell the name of his own "client" correctly. --Folantin 12:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

beautiful

[3]. LOL. Right on target, both. Btw, thanks for the assist here. Antandrus (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Tha has email, tha knows. Riana (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Cronulla Riot revert

Thanks for sensible use of revert on the Cronulla Riots articles. For some reason, a number of contributors seem to think that the term "Australian" only refers to white Australians, and that Australians of Middle Eastern heritage don't count as Australians at all. See the Talk page of Cronulla Riots for more on this baffling and quite appalling racism-driven phenomenon. 193.61.176.108 15:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Islam

Thank you for your change to concensus version. --- A. L. M. 17:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The protection was long overdue, only waiting for an admin who had the guts to do it. Congratulations on that decision. Beit Or 17:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Same from me. If only everyone that had worked on the article previously had agreed not to introduce substantial changes and work together to simply revert vandals, there wouldn't have been so much disruption. I wonder what kind of report will appear in the Signpost :) → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 17:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping that the no edit warring policy doesn't mean we shouldn't rv back to the FA-passed consensus version when in doubt, does it? Tewfik^Talk 18:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, no, one bold + one revert is fine; it's when another revert is chucked in that the problems start. Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss goes into this quite nicely.

Thanks for the praise, everyone else: the article's now unprotected, but I'm handing out instant blocks to anyone who edit wars as a compromise. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 18:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Moreschi. Would you be kind enough to explain why you are not allowing a NPOV policy on this article. Langdell 19:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing Islam off the main page

What about removing it off the main page prematurely, because by all counts it should be full-protected and {totally disputed} as well. What do you think? Evilclown93_(talk) 19:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably not necessary, the edit-warring seems to have died down a bit, and the article's at, more or less, what it was before it went on the Main Page. I'm handing out instant 5-hour blocks for edit-warring over it, so I think we can probably scrape through. Moreschi ^Talk 19:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll watch over it as well. --Evilclown93_(talk) 19:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not understand. The source for the material is the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions edited by Professor John Bowker published by Oxford University Press and widely regarded as one the most authoritative dictionaries of world religions in the English language. You have not explained why you are reverting the edit to what any Islamic scholar would see as a deliberate distortion of the true meaning of the word Islam. Thankyou and peace be with you. Langdell 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

{{|sociteit}}, just don't do so right now. Firstly, your rhetoric to the contrary has not convinced me that the current version of the article is insulting to anyone: you would appear to be edit-warring against consensus; but lastly The Article Does Not Have To Be "Right" Now. This can wait until Islam gets off the main page. Moreschi ^Talk 20:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't rhetoric it is simply that i am a student of Islam and I am concerned that the lead misrepresents the meaning of the concept of Islam. Since the article is on the front page of the encyclopedia is it not trebly important that the article is accurate? Otherwise one just gets the faintest impression that there is some sort of desire to put Islam in a bad light as is fashionable these days. The lead is not accurate; it presents a distorted point of view. Langdell 20:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's important for Wikipedia that the article is not a mass of revert-warring while it's on the Main Page. Edit-warring on TFA sends out a far worse message than 15 seconds of vandalism that then gets whacked by MartinBot.

We can discuss this later. Really, we can. Personally, I think you're exaggerating the extent of the "problem", assuming there actually is one, in the first place. Your objections seem to be largely political based in nature. You seem to think that the article, as it stands, debases Islam. I would dispute that, given the current wording, which quite clearly emphasises a submission to God, not to anyone else. That is, I believe, correct.

But really, we can come back to this later. Not today. Now, the most important thing is not to revert-war. Moreschi ^Talk 21:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

well, i don't want to revert war either but being very conscious that Islam gets a very bad press in the western media (unjustifiably so because it teaches very fine things about how to be a proper human being) it is disappointing that a featured article claiming to be encyclopedic allows things to be said which simply would not be tolerated in articles about other religions. And, yes, this does very much relate to politics because the distortions of Islam have put the security of the world in peril. People have been convinced by an utterly phony 'war on terror' by Mr Cheney and his front man Mr Bush for the last six years and have been told that essentially it is the fault of fundamentalist muslims (which it is not). It is very important, therefore, that as scholars we concentrate on what is actually true (which in this case can be verified by looking at authoritative references) instead of what is alleged. All sorts of false ideas about Islam are presented to Westerners generally in order to serve the interests of big oil for whose profits 650 000 Iraquis have paid with their lives. Now, i'm sure you know all this but the point is that Islam means 'entering into a condition of peace and security with God through allegiance or surrender to him'. That is a verbatim transcript from the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. To define the word in terms of peace and friendship (salaam) is very different from defining it as simply submission or surrender to God which lends itself to an interpretation that Islam is by nature fanatical. There are other errors in this article. For example take the following: 'In Islamic theology Jesus is just a man and not the son of God.' This is simply not true. Jesus is regarded with greater veneration than all the other prophets of Islam bar Muhammed and is mentioned many times in the Qur'an. Stories of his deeds and sayings abound in Islamic folklore. To make the throwaway comment as above is misleading, divisive and to even an amateur student of Islam clearly intentionally inflammatory. The section on jihad is such an apalling mistreatment of this very important concept that i am sorry but even the most unsympatheric religious studies teacher would be horrified at the level of distortion. I could give you other examples but the main point is is that this article should not have been presented as a featured article in the shameful condition that it is in. Langdell 22:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

San Diego Natural History Museum

I wasn't edit warring. I have only ever made that one edit to the article. Corvus cornix 20:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, it's the other two. They've been at it all day. Moreschi ^Talk 20:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I thought the comment was directed to me. Corvus cornix 20:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You will notice that Thesultan has now vanished from the discussion area in this article, but in the meantime (after his tirade on the Norman Golb article last night) has modified the article on the Dead Sea Scrolls (see below).Critical Reader 05:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls

Thesultan has now altered the "Jerusalem Libraries" portion of this article in polemical fashion, inserting the words "small" and "outside the mainstream" to modify the neutral terms "number," "school" and "group." This is an expression of Thesultan's personal views or wishful thinking rather than a verifiable statement (there is no concrete way of assessing such claims, they simply depend on one's perspective and on how one is measuring the situation), so I have removed the insertions. Given Thesultan's defamatory contribution to the Norman Golb article last night, I suggest that the Jerusalem Libraries portion of the Dead Sea Scrolls article be tagged as well, in the neutral form it was in after I removed those inserts, because he will predictably start an edit war there as well. I'm really sorry for bothering you with this mess.Critical Reader 05:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistance/Review

Please check the latest -it has something to do with arabic roots and meaning of muslim, islam, salam, etc. Mike33 21:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Done - basically, this can wait for tomorrow. The edit-warring on Islam has finally cooled down, and I want it to stay that way for another couple of hours. Moreschi ^Talk 21:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfB

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 27	2 July 2007	About the Signpost

IP unwittingly predicts murder of wrestler: "Awful coincidence"	Board election series: Elections open
German chapter relaunches website, arranges government support	WikiWorld comic: "Cashew"
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooops

I have just realized that the Opera text I modified is not part of an article, but part of your User page. Please feel free to revert my bad manners unless you think the small changes an improvement. My apologies! Bielle 17:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no - you're not a vandal: edit away, edit away! Improve, improve, improve! And even if I didn't want you to, I don't own my userspace :) Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You are too kind. It is more a matter of manners, than of ownership. I appreciate your attitude, however. Bielle 17:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Bakasuprman

In case you haven't seen it on WP:ANI, your block of User:Bakasuprman has been undone. User:Anwar saadat remains blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked as well as per this ANI thread. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fucking ridiculous. The Indian Cabal needs to put its house in order before they all get banned. Moreschi ^Talk 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFA/ACL 2

Hello Moreschi, thanks for your support. I find it interesting that, while you were the third person to oppose my first RfA, you were the third to support my second. Thanks for the consistency. :) Acalamari 21:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting undeletion of File:Chocobo theme.ogg

If it is within your power to do so without a larger discussion, please restore this audio file, which you deleted in late May for lack of a fair use rationale. There was no opportunity to provide one since no warning was given. The file was likely not used in the main namespace at the time, but that was because its article had been merged (without consensus and blahblahblah) in a severely truncated form. It now stands on its own again.

Somewhat more versed in the ways of copyrights, I believe that {{tl:Non-free audio sample}} should be adequate for the file. --Kizor 08:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but no, the template is not adequate. Wikipedia policy is stricter than US law (what with us being a free-content project), and fair use rationales must be provided. Moreschi ^Talk 17:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Looks like it's got the green light. --Folantin 20:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So I see. Excellent. Moreschi ^Talk 20:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard

I see you have just started the Fringe Theories noticeboard. I'd like you to try to explain on the noticeboard talk page what it can do that other noticeboards or fora can't do. I'd say it like this: as a veteran of the deletion process, I'm well aware that deletion is the only way to resolve many problematic situations with BLP, COI, and Fair Use. However, it has become clear that some situations are policy violations but the deletion process, or normal talk page discussion, are inadequeate to address them. That's why noticeboards were created.

I question the similar need for a Fringe Theories/NPOV check (probably a better name anyway) noticeboard because I think such articles are high-profile anyway. They get tagged as hoaxes or they generate long talk page threads, so I think the work is already being done. Of course, I'd be happy to see any proposal succeed if it will improve or expedite the positive results.

I'd also prefer that you de-link this noticeboard from Template:Editabuselinks until you have developed it more fully. I won't do it for you, but I think it would be wise. You can generate publicity on the Village Pump and the Community Portal instead.

Best regards. Shalom ^Hello 22:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood slightly: this is not a noticeboard designed for articles about fringe theories. That would, I agree, by unnecessary: such articles are usually high-profile and generate enough attention for a noticeboard to be superflous.

It's a noticeboard to report incidents of fringe theories being pushed (usually by cranks) onto articles, where usually they are not wanted: this is a very wide-spread problem that often takes place on highly obscure articles. Talk page discussion often doesn't work here, often because cranks shout very loudly, and because said articles are so obscure (not saying that they are necessarily obscure, they just often are). Wikipedia is a big place. Hence the noticeboard.

Re the template - if you want to remove it, fine, but I'd have to question the point. That's a for-Wikipedia-only template: if stuff on there is a bit rough and unprofessional, it doesn't matter in the slightest. Moreschi ^Talk 22:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the cabal

Apparently you're my "acolyte"--[4]. I'm not sure what that makes me, but I hope the job comes with some robes, or a funny hat. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL! This guy just does not stop assuming bad faith. BTW, someone troutslap Nishkid64, because the IRC logs as suppposed to be private, not leaked for the benefit of the Indian Cabal! Moreschi ^Talk 08:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

While it's a good idea in theory, I'm not sure it would work out in practice, so it's on MFD now. Feel free to comment. --Coredesat 05:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

M: I think that it's very important to find a way to bring together editors who are interested in NPOV depictions of fringe theories. We lose a sizable number of good editors due to stress over them, and our articles suffer from POV. But I think a wikiproject would be a more appropriate way to achieve it rather than another noticeboard. I wanted to leave a note here as well as on the MFD page, since I think your creating the noticeboard wasn't a bad idea. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. Well, we'll see how it works out. I would like a bit more than 9 hours to develop this, but if consensus is that a WikiProject would be better, I'm willing to have a look at that option as well. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 08:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Since this noticeboard is a means of ensuring Wikipedia policies are followed, it would not be canvassing to put a notice of this MfD on both WP:VPP and WP:AN, as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience, in my opinion. EdJohnston 15:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that posting a few notices on existing noticeboards would be appropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of my undo on AN/I

Sorry about that. I caught the first username in {} after I had undid it, and didn't notice the other two. My bad. Dan 14:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right. Ok, so that's what's causing the problems. Didn't understand what the hell was going on, my bad. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[5] what's this?--Tones benefit 14:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be him reverting the error you made. Dan 16:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello, I'd appreciate it if you would not use bad language such as the f word on RfA's as you did with mine. It clearly states Please keep all criticism constructive and polite and if I was which I'm not a religious person it could have caused me extreme offense, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL. Qst 18:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You would not believe how tempted I am to reply "fuck off". Knock it off. You're being ridiculous. My fucking was not directed at you, or even at your actions: it was fucking well used merely as an expression of frustration. Like the current usage. IMO, the idea that there is no right or wrong when it comes to BLP is far worse than the odd "fucking" used impersonally. Moreschi ^Talk 18:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Qst, forget about it, it's over. --wpktsfs 18:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There is NO NEED to use that kind of language and I suggest you stop doing it. Qst 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Occasionally, I think there fucking well is. Ever read Trainspotting? One of the great masterpieces of modern literature just wouldn't be the same otherwise. Moreschi ^Talk 18:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a book. Qst 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This nonsense just shows why you really shouldn't be an administrator. Nick 18:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Shutup, using bad language is a sign of bad communication skills. Qst 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fucking bad communication skills? I'm not the one with the bad grammar here. Moreschi ^Talk 18:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop this behaviour now. Francisco Tevez 18:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)