User talk:Moreschi/My Archive 3

Editor Review

Thanks for the question, Moreschi - I've provided some sort of answer. :) riana_dzasta 04:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*swears under breath* Damn that Moreschi... Ah, Moreschi! :p Give me the night to think 'em over, OK? riana_dzasta 09:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, answered your questions. Feel free to tell me if my answers are, well, terrible. riana_dzasta 06:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi Moreschi, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read?

"I find it interesting that the same group of people is automatically voting delete on nom's AfDs..."

There is no accusation of sockpuppetry there, there is a statement that I find it interesting that you and another editor are voting delete on all of the nominator's AfDs. Did you notice the word "sock" or the word "puppet" anywhere in that statement? I merely made a statement of something I found interesting, I was not accusing anybody of being a sockpuppet. You read between the lines and threatened me based on something that wasn't there.

Perhaps before threatening to go to WP:PAIN or WP:RFC you should brief yourself on Wikipedia policy. You obviously have not read WP:NPA, which clearly states:

Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, [...]

The policy goes on to state that if I had said, "Moreschi is a sockpuppet", that is a personal attack, but "Moreschi is acting like a sockpuppet" is far FROM a personal attack. Furthermore, I did not imply sockpuppetry at all, merely that I found it interesting that you were voting on all of the nom's AfDs.

If you continue threatening me on my talk page, I will not hesitate to go to WP:PAIN. Please read more carefully before throwing your weight around. --JStalk 05:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use.

~ trialsanderrors 06:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quiz

Who wrote this on August 15 of this year?: "there are examples of "selective" pages which are sucessful here, you will note (as is quite evident on the List of major opera composers if you have a look at the talk page), they are generally done as part of a group decision-making process in which all of the decisions are put to a vote by people participating on that page." Emphasis added by me. Answer here[1] (see this too [2]). Ancient history, I know, but still funny. --Folantin 18:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza totally dysfunctional

The commenting on the MfD for the (shudder) WikiCouch is driving my blood pressure through the roof! I really hope the organization is utterly destroyed, and only then rebuilt -- from scratch -- with nothing more than the welcoming comittee and barnstar brigade, and with the same loose informal structuring as the CVU. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk^|^Count 21:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCouch has fled to userspace. Cyde is gathering up villagers with pitchforks and torches to slay the monster once and for all. I do feel sorry for the guy who wrote it, in a way. Esperanza blinds these people, with their good intentions, to how people outside the group view their actions, I think. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk^|^Count 22:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this might be too harsh to put on the MfD, but I want to remind some of the Esperanzans that Wikipedia is not therapy. Mak (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification?

Hi Moreschi,

What did you mean with your comment on Elaragirl's talk page, about "Ludicrous semantics, quit word-twisting."? If someone states they hope an organization will be utterly destroyed, that might indicate to some there is some vendetta involved. I do not claim Elaragirl has some vendetta; I claim it would be easy for people to misconstrue such a comment. I have not twisted anyone's words, and I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MfD for Esperanza Coffee Lounge

As much as I'd like to see this, I think it would be better if you waited a few days, at least, to see what the Esperanzites plan to do to change their organization. The boss fight we just had was insanely divisive, and although I think the Coffee Lounge needs to go, I fear if it's put up immediately with no chance at reform given, people will assume bad faith. (Not like they aren't assuming that already, but....) --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...course, if you do decide to do it, I'll be right there. Thanks for sticking up for me. hugs. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 21:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Thanks for participating in my editor review!
Hello there, and thank you for participating in my editor review! I appreciate your comments and I will strive to make myself an even better Wikipedian in the future. Thanks for taking the time to share your opinion!

-Hi Moreschi, and thank you not only for my editor review, but also your kindness and praise for my Esperanza MfD comments. I don't want to get into a debate about Esperanza on your talk page, and indeed, I hope that members of the two opposing sides will at the very least acknowledge that those who disagree with them are acting out of good faith and not of spite. As for my personal feelings about Esperanza, I'll say this much: I think the Alerts page is very important (and not just because I am an all-too-frequent presence on it), and about the rest, I'm pretty ambivalent. Just so you know, I am slowly recovering, but I will still be an infrequent contributor at best to Wikipedia for some time. Thanks again. 21:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC) — Kyok o

Sometimes I'm slow

I just realised that Wikipedia:Hangman was on a template transcluded into all the sandboxes. I've now fixed that, so it shouldn't be recreated nearly as often now. Mak (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome committee

Thanks for "welcoming" Scott Farrell. Would you kindly put up a welcome message for User:UncleCliffy? I shouldn't do it myself, because I am so technically/procedurally inept on Wikipedia that I hate to say "if you have questions contact me". Thanks! -- Ssilvers 22:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Can't Be Serious

I'm going to talk to you gently. Number one, you don't run things on Wikipedia, Number Two, I'm not here to ruin your pages, since you have yours, I'm going to make mine. And I don't expect YOU!!, to come around and run things like you REALLY MADE THIS WEBSITE. For real, don't change nothing. Twilight deserves this. And if you don't like it, tell that to Twilight. Not me, I sware, if that thing gets deleted, I sware, you'll get it. Thats not a threat. You need to stop profiling on starting web pages. This is not your website to say, "Oh this is gone, this is going to get deleted". No, it's not happaning. It is not happaning. Word up. - 6:57 P.M. A Different World - Wednesday, November 15, 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Different World (talk • contribs) 23:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the above: Please. Find. A. Clue. See. Your. Local. Psychiatrist. For. A. Clue. Dispenser. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 14:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sware, I'll TALK TO YOU IN CAPS TO MAKE MY POINT, Moreschi. I sware it... it's happaning! It's totally happaning. Word to your momma. riana_dzasta 15:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:D Yay, mail! No worries, I'm off to bed soon-ish, so take your time, send it to me in like 5 hours, I won't even know the difference. riana_dzasta 16:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're an Esperanzan?

hisses in alarm, then breaks up giggling No, really. I think that if things get reformed, and the place is rebuilt, Esperanza could do a lot of good. (Then again, so could Concordia. I liked the idea of jack-booted civility police breaking heads, figuratively. I've gotten out of line a time or two.) More to the point, I think that there are a lot of good Esperanzans ^{Like you!hug!} _{Lies!Flattery!Esperanza is evil!} and that they can do a lot of good for Wikipedia as a whole. As for that guy who wrote that article, I think he just has some minor problems that can be treated with kind words. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 18:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agrippina (opera)

I think I fixed the cast list. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the formatting of the image? Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's the obvious way: actually putting it below the line for "Content and analysis". If you mean you want it INLINE with that, we'll have to force the Table of Contents, which is entirely doable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not particularly idiotic: It's not like the Table of Contents shows in the edit, and it's not uncommon to put the picture link above the line for the topic, as that can be aesthetically pleasing. Perhaps ye might've benefitted from thinking it through a little more, but you weren't willfully stupid. By the by, I cut Jonathan Sarfati down to just the NPOV sections, to try and remove some of the awful and because people didn't seem to understand that no sources = no possibility of improvement. It's still somewhat awful, but at least it's somewhat acceptable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Vandal

That was random. They've been blocked indef. Mak (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles left on hold

You've left two articles on hold for GA past the specified time limit, Keane and Western concert flute. Please either pass or fail these articles and remove them from the list at WP:GAC. This would be much appreciated. Best, Moreschi 22:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, M. I hadn't actually forgotten about them; I was hoping to allow a little more time, since there was a backlog anyway. But you're right; they needed to be cleared off. Thanks for the note. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Jean-Thierry Boisseau and other users affiliated with Musik Fabrik are banned from editing any article dealing with artists or projects listed in their sales catalog. Further, they may not add any such artist or project to any article. There is no restriction on making suggestions or participating in discussions on talk pages. Jean-Thierry Boisseau is placed on probation. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts. Any bans imposed under this decision may be enforced by blocking the offender for a period of up to a week. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jean-Thierry_Boisseau#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 06:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W. S. Gilbert

Weel! So far, I think it's going pretty well. Most of the genuine edits are improvements, and, despite a shaky start with auto-vandals, things dropped down to a manageable level after that. Think we'll come out of this pretty good. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thank god that arbitration's over, eh? Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Style thing

I have a bone to pick with you :) I feel strongly that footnotes should go after punctuation. In order to support this personal preference, I will now cite the incontrovertible WP:MOS: from Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where to place ref tags "The ref tag should be placed directly after most punctuation marks, without an intervening space." In order to further support my personal opinion, I'll let you know that the Chicago Manual of Style supports this particular style-obsession. Thank you for your attention to this matter :P Mak (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic? Erm, ok... I thought bawdy was more specifically correct, but I won't revert you, although I will laugh. Frankly, I don't know what encyclopedias people have been reading, but my experience is that they can be really rather fruity. Mak (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, thinking about it more, I think wikt:bawdy is more appropriate that wikt:erotic. I mean, I think it's supposed to be funny. In fact, on the recording, people laughed. I don't know who would find references to love not being in gouty feet sexy. But I guess that's just personal opinion and original research. I should probably go find a source that says that gouty feet are not erotic. Cheers, Mak (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps fruity was the wrong word choice. What I mean is that even though encyclopedias in my experience tend to be prudish about sexual things, they do tend to use an extended vocabulary, and can sometimes get pretty ridiculous about it. I mean, first try I got "He also performed a fascinating, as well as problematic, assimilation of (or rapprochement with) the artistic spoils of the East, attempting an unusual integration of various non-Western musical traditions with his own increasingly linear style." (from Grove's article on Britten) I mean, rapprochement? artistic spoils? Not the best example, but like I said, from the first page I pulled up. But, seriously, "bawdy" means of a sexual nature but humorous and/or rude, and erotic means sexually arousing. "Erotic" is a more serious word because it's about a serious topic, whereas "bawdy" is somewhat sophomoric because it's about a somewhat sophomoric topic. I mean, really, the song is sexual and rude, but not particularly arousing.

As for keeping a straight face, I was fairly successful. As for the laughing on the recording... I have to admit there may have been a gesture at that point. You should have seen my hearing before the recital in front of the faculty; it was an extremely serious occasion, and they were all cracking up and looking at each other like high-schoolers in health class. Mak (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think it has a slangly connotation because of its meaning, rather than its actual usage being slang. Not a bad instinct on your part, but I do think it's the better choice in this case, it's word with the closest actual meaning to... what the song actually is. Mak (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if it sets your heart at ease, I just found that Grove uses the word a lot, so it can't be that unencyclopedic. Mak (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could edit war if you'd like. Then maybe we'd get an enforced Wikibreak :) I suppose the song probably isn't across the line of obscene, but remember "Yet never harboured in your breast." Did you look at the wiktionary definitions I linked to? My argument works best with those defs. But whichever. It's not a big deal. We could ask for mediation though, if you want. Hey! Antandrus! Adam Cuerden! What do you think? Bawdy? Erotic? Sexy? Dumb? Poorly sung? What do others think of "Image:Beauty, since you so much desire.ogg"? Mak (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG, a reference on a sound clip! You are getting careful, aren't you? And you even put it after the period! Yay! Mak (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I love the Mikado. Have you gotten to the bit about her left elbow? I always want to quote that to people, but they never have a clue what I'm referencing. Mak (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion request

Since you expressed an opinion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote, I would appreciate it if you could comment on WP:DDV, in particular as to whether it accurately represents the way Wikipedia works (and feel free to reword it if it doesn't) and as to whether it is correct that we generally discourage (but not forbid) voting. Thanks. (Radiant) 08:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

You've got it (not too urgent, but maybe of interest). --Folantin 15:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC) More mail which fails the notability test. --Folantin 11:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have moderately interesting mail. And some more mail of medium- to long-term interest. Replied. Re: refs. Gotcha (I'm off out in a mo). Mild, non-urgent rant. Replied. You have non-urgent mail. --Folantin 19:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Pet the vandals and feed them candy and they'll turn into good editors. Shakes finger sternly. Never tell them to fuck off, or they may stop coming to Wikipedia with their vandalism. Warning: This comment is addressed to my friend Moreschi. If you are not him, please do not sermonize, or I might get unhappy --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Mail

Can't... breathe... gall bladder burst... maybe spleen... maybe both. xD Read and replied.`riana_dzasta 02:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is laughing her ass off.

Is it just me, or did EA's governance tree get MORE complicated? --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 16:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll

ATTENTION: A Poll will be conducted for all proposals starting at 12:01 December 1, 2006; please remember to debate the ideas beforehand [3] Wiki eZach| talk 17:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza

Sorry for the fieryness - I'm just somewhat tired of Esperanza claiming they "need leadership". I don't need to go into it, but I am just endlessly struck by how totally unwikipedian I've seen Esperanzans act in the past few days. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I signed up

Hi Moreschi, I just signed up for the Opera WikiProject. There is a userbox on my page that says "This user enjoys all types of music," which is pretty much true for me except for rap and hip-hop. I make an exception for Eminem because I enjoy his rhymes, despite their vulgarity. I haven't seen many operas in person, but I do enjoy the music, and I have a fair collection of opera recordings, especially given my age. You may have noticed that I listed two fairly obscure operas. I've seen a video recording of Atys, and I've heard Le Devin du Village long ago. I don't remember a thing about it. We'll see how those articles develop, because my attention does stray. You need only look at all the WikiProjects I am affiliated with. --Kyok o 18:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, those operas are by Lully and Rousseau respectively. That particular time period is not among my strengths either, but I'm willing to learn. --Kyok o 20:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward1

Agrippina (opera)

Of course you are entitled to a reply.

The thing is, I'm still not happy with the language, so I don't want to promote it. But I don't think it would be to my credit to continue complain on the talk page. So I'm just lingering about, waiting, either for the language to be such that I approve it, or for someone else to review it... I might discuss it with some other GA reviewer, see what they think.

Fred-Chess 18:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You won't like my suggestions, but I dedicated some time to formulate the lead section in the way I would prefer it, to give you an idea of how I think.

Agrippina (HMV 6) was one of George Frideric Handel's first operas. It is an opera seria in three acts telling the story of the Roman Emperor Nero's mother, Agrippina, as she plots the downfall of Claudius and the installation of her son as emperor.

It is generally believed to have premeried in Venice on the 26th December 1709.^[1] The cast consisted of some of the leading singers of Northern Italy, such as Antonio Carli, Margherita Durastanti and Diamante Scarabelli. ^[2]

With Agrippina Handel demonstrated an assimilation of the Italian style of opera, after his time spent in Rome composing cantatas under the influence of Alessandro Scarlatti.

References

^ Some sources give the date as January 1710, but it is usually given as the 26th of December 1709. (Dean)
^ Sadie, Stanley; Tyrrell, John, eds. (2001). The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56159-239-5. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

You do not need to tell me that I am being unreasonable. If you don't like my ideas, just wait for a different reviewer.

Fred-Chess 19:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is my idea of how to write the entire lead section.

Fred-Chess 19:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be so rude as to butt in (your page is on my watchlist so I saw the latest comments), I do think that Fred's suggested first paragraph is a better lead than the current version, because newcomers to the opera will probably want to know primarily who wrote it and what it's all about. Discussion about Cardinal Grimani owning the theatre need not be mentioned in the first paragraph. I think I would combine Fred's proposed two paragraphs into a single paragraph, and as he has done, omit the singers' respective biographical details. I would also reinsert the content about the uncertainty of the premiere's date. --Kyok o 19:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARRGH! This is driving me crazy! Check out the talk page of that article - I got told by a previous GA reviewer to put those singer details in to help with completeness of coverage! Can people please have some consistency and make their minds up? Also, please look at The Fairy-Queen - the lede is quite substantial and has details not in the rest of the article. This was not a barrier to GA. I would like to remind everyone that this is GA, not FA. Perfection is not required. As far as I can see the article strolls past WP:WIAGA, to be frank. Moreschi 19:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at it now. I've tried to incorporate ideas by both you and Fred-Chess. --Kyok o 19:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I moved the part about Grimani owning the theatre to the second paragraph, where it is connected more closely with the premiere discussion. I also moved the bit about the narrative up to the first paragraph, so that readers can immediately tell that it's about Agrippina the Younger and not, for example a soldier who kills his wife or a deaf, dumb, and blind boy who's really good at pinball. I trimmed the biographical details of the singers just a little bit, and reworded the content about the uncertain premiere date. --Kyok o 20:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I've never seen Wozzeck, I only own the Mitropoulos recording. I don't listen to it much either. It's a jarring experience, but I can't imagine the story being set to any other music. As for Tommy, I've seen the Broadway version, and I came to know the original rock version only afterwards. I know some opera, probably more than most people my age, but I also know that there's a lot that I don't know. --Kyok o 20:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi: I'm not going to pass the article until its language throughout has been improved. Please don't ask me how to improve it, I will not copyedit the article for you.

Fred-Chess 11:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

m. Mak (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of major opera composers

I must say, some good has come out of the Jean-Thierry business: We now have a strong article that does explain women in opera in a bonus section, and, as I tread the FLC guidelines, it ought to be a featured list in around 24 hours. Perhaps the women opera composers section is unnecessary, but it doesn't actually hurt anything. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agrippina (opera)

Hi Moreschi,

Please forgive the intrusion. May I ask you to explicitly vote with respect to the GA nom of Agrippina (opera), or to explicitly repeat your vote if you have already voted? It has been the subject of prolonged debate, and I believe it deserves closure.

Thanks, --Ling.Nut 15:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I might have a look at what I can do with the Swedish literature article myself tomorrow. If the author could explain a few outstanding basic comprehensibility problems, the rest should be easy enough to work up to an adequate state - regarding style at least. Of course, it will be interesting to see what the other reviewers make of the prose too. Some of them seem a lot more zealous about this kind of thing. Shouldn't be a problem if the criteria for GA are pushed back to sensible levels again though.

Enjoy your tennis! Cheers. --Folantin 16:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: now it appears your notes don't have notes and your references don't have references. Is this a GA review or is this a Franz Kafka novel? --Folantin 17:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding what Ling Nut said about undiscussed changes to that project page, I think you'll find Fred Chess has made some very interesting edits over the last 48 hours. I've listed a particularly relevant one here [4]. --Folantin 13:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns haven't been addressed actually. LuciferMorgan 18:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_major_opera_composers

Could you have a look at this? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

knock knock

I shouldn't be yakking on Wikipedia. It's crunch time at school. I don't have time to help with Agrippina.

Because I am a college student (tho 40+ years old), I have access to many online journals. Would it be helpful if I got some journal articles and emailed them to you?

(cross-posting to Folantin too) --Ling.Nut 18:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email vie wikipedia, but no attachments allowed. reply; I'll send zip file approx. 2MB.--Ling.Nut 20:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

articles and prose

You're welcome for the articles. As I said, any time.

Some time after Christmas, I wanna revisit this whole issue of how much we should ask for with respect to the prose of GA articles. Not now. And I hope you guys don't make decisions w/out me. But I see some articles as being tangled and bloated, and you see them as fine. I don't expect 'em to sparkle; I do expect 'em to be noticeably better after GA than they were before. I would like to trade thoughts about this — later, tho.

--Ling.Nut 20:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: hey

Lol, Che. Nice to know that someone agrees with me occasionally. BTW, why are people so hung up about their edit counts? Get over 500/1000 - it all becomes are bit irrelevant, no? Also BTW, you might like to know that I voted for Kim (Bruning) in the board elections, so no hard memories of the minor scrap at your old RFA, right? Cheers, Moreschi 21:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, but -- to no great surprise, I suppose -- some people see Wikipedia just like their bank accounts, hard drives, bedposts, whatever. Glad to hear you supported Kim: she's a very capable and intelligent editor, in my opinion. Anyways, good will and good luck in this and all your endeavors. Peace! - Che Nuevara 22:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfberry

Moreschi, am I over-reacting on the Wlolfbverry talk page? Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arr. Weel, glad to see it's not just me, then. Ah, well. Thing was up for a GA a while ago. Ever since it failed that, it seems to have gone right downhill. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. What do you think of a very short history of opera for the List of major opera composers lead, per Renata's suggestion. I'd prefer it concise, but advmit it may be appropriate. I'll try again on massaging the cite tags into line, so we can get into FL. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it could stand a little more talk on Peri, and how opera came about (attempt to imitate what they thought Greek theatre was, no? But, no, it shouldn't have much more. Do you think it's worth asking the FL moderator for advice on what to do if you disagree with a suggestion? Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've gone in and hacked out all the OR and such from Wolfberry. It's a much shorter article tat can actually be read now. Of course, it'll probably be reverted. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of, etc

I think I've fixed the references to, at least, good faith attempt at citing. I had to skip a couple. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Oh, the humanity!

I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel ^Talk 13:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GrayPorpoise RfA

Hey I didn't mean to step all over your oppose. I think we have different positions on our opposes, but I felt I needed to respond to GrayPorpoise's reply to you because it pushed me from considering a thrid change to neutral back to a firm but reluctant oppose. While the games content is concerning to me, it wouldn't in and of itself be enough for an oppose since this doesn't seem like an active game, but rather research on developing a game. The non-disclosure issue is a big deal to me, but maybe not so much for you. Cheers, —Doug Bell ^talk 22:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You...

Are you a witch? riana_dzasta 04:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time when you said the same of me :) Glad things are looking better for you these days. Take care, and see ya round. riana_dzasta 10:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That featured list again

Hi. Adam thinks it would be helpful if you back me up on this one. I've asked the FL moderator to clarify the situation regarding the candidacy of List of major opera composers and Renata's objections. See my talk page for details (in other words, click on the link to Rune_welsh's talk page on there). Cheers. --Folantin 12:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by the way, congrats!

[5]. Finally! --Folantin 13:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, send that stuff by e-mail whenever you like. --Folantin 13:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, congratulations on Agrippina's promotion to GA status! --Kyok o 14:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and I'll keep Agrippina on my watchlist in case I think of anything else in the future. You should probably change your userpage to reflect the article's new GA status. --Kyok o 15:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, I didn't know about the GA. Congratulations, and I hope there are more to come! :) riana_dzasta 15:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Mak (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the e-mailed essay. Will read it at my leisure. --Folantin 09:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please check this EA charter idea

Hi Moreschi, I just posted something at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/New charter that you might be interested in. --Kyok o 16:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on Agrippina

Congratulations! Did you do all the work or was it a group effort? Best - Kleinzach 18:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Do you have anything planned to follow on from Agrippina? Now that you and the 'GA team' have learnt how to do it, there must be quite a lot of articles (Wagner, Verdi, Mozart etc.) that are close to being up to GA standard which could benefit from your treatment, though maybe you'd prefer to stick to early works?

It may be a while before I am re-united with my Grove somewhere with a decent connection and so able to contribute something non-janitorial. I'll be here (in Annecy) for only another three weeks. After that it'll be England and then Japan. Ciao. - Kleinzach 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both Orfeo ed Euridice and The Indian Queen would be great projects, particularly the Orfeo as it is such an important opera, but maybe there is a big critical literature on it to wade through? (By the way, whatever happened to Meladina?) - Kleinzach 19:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for voting on my administrator tryout.--Rat235478683--

Recording

Also, have you heard the new A Chantar one? All my recordings are linked at User:Makemi/Recordings. Cheers, Mak (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Wikipediholic test

Hello Moreschi. You asked me why I reverted your question. Actually, I only reverted because it was the quickest way to remove it. It seems inappropriate (IMHO). If you really want it, ask on the discussion page for other's opinions. I'm sorry if I seemed a bit condemning, but I thought it was out of place, that's all. If I angered you, please be aware that I did not mean to. Peace. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers to you too! And good luck next time around on the test. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC) ^{Drink Beer!}[reply]

Well, if you've taken the WP:HOLIC test, you are officially a Wikipediholic, even if you get a negative score. But that's just my reasoning. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I thought you had taken it before. Where have I seen you then? By the way, there is a question (less to the point however) similar to the one you tried too add:

Have you chosen to edit Wikipedia instead of being "intimate" with your partner? (15)

Of course, true wikipediholics take the test no matter what questions it has. ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it's a curse? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop the champagne

List of major opera composers is now a featured list! --Folantin 22:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah! Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, our internalised sexism remains uncured. Now we have to do the list of important operas. Preliminary research on gathering reputable lists suggests it might be a bit trickier though. It also looks like Flotow's Martha might make the grade. Blimey. --Folantin 15:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the ball rolling by putting a list on the talk page. Only nine to go. I think we should take a couple of months to do this; there's no hurry. I just thought I'd better make a move in case some overzealous type tries to delete the page (although, ironically, virtually nobody has paid any attention to it over the past few months). --Folantin 17:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think, perhaps, for List of important operas it may be best to cast the net widely: We want about a hundred or so operas; we shouldn't be using too short of lists, therefore. I'll make up a list of every opera with its own article in Scholes' The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music (1952, though), which, at about a couple hundred, is probably the right size. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Adam. Go ahead and make that list. I have a more recent edition of Scholes, so I'll add the extra operas (I think "Wozzeck" and some Monteverdi makes it). Update: nope, no Monteverdi makes it, but Charpentier's Louise does. This list might be a bit past its sell-by date. --Folantin 10:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a couple of days I'll have Grove, so maybe a list of operas mentioned in the article on Opera? This has been suggested elsewhere, and I think it's a good idea. Best to all, Moreschi 10:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the solution. Depends how many operas there are though. Too many, and we come close to replicating "The opera corpus". --Folantin 10:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cruft

Hi, I don't suppose you've seen this? By the way, that's a gorgeous building. Did you take that picture? ... aa:talk 00:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have come out of this, although that particular afd seems to be just the tip of a larger iceburg. Argh. I'm doing wiki archaeology. ... aa:talk 00:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight

Creator is now blocked. Thanks for the heads-up. NawlinWiki 13:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess!

Guess what I got for my birthday!? A real mic! If you think a solo soprano would add anything to an article you come across, let me know! :) Mak (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minder Benders MFD

"Creating fake articles about imaginary topics?" I'm not sure we're talking about the same pages here. Mind Benders was not a place to create fake articles but to answer question and learning researching skills. Can you tell me what made you think otherwise? = Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I finally found the faux article bit you were talking about. That is a bad start, I admit, but have you checked what came afterwards? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I am of the opinion a limited amount of socializing is neccesary to promote people working together like they should. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Opera

I just noticed how much work you've been doing, so...

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For tirelessly working on Opera articles and giving me some fascinating reading, I grant thee the BoHC. Elar a girl^Talk\|Count 20:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

I would like to take the time to thank you for voting in my unsuccessful RFA. I appreciate your suggestions and will avoid any incivility in the future. Have a nice day! -- Chris is me 14:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Mail

Read and replied. :) riana_dzasta 19:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elaragirl

Hi Moreschi,

I want to address the comments you made on WP:ANI directly, as you have indicated there that the block on Elaragirl was improper.

I had a feeling when I made the block that you would object, given your friendship with Elaragirl, and given your comments in the past when others have objected to some of her comments; however, the block has been reviewed by six other admins, and has, for now been upheld. I want to specifically address your comments on the AN/I page.

While I do not dispute - others may - that this is inappropriate, my understanding is that blocks are supposed to preventative, not punitive.

Blocks are indeed supposed to be preventative, not punitive. It is my hope that this block may help prevent Elaragirl from crossing the line in the future. The warnings she received from several users were apparently not strong enough to prevent her from making these edits.

The blocked user does not have a history of repeated similar behaviour and in my opinion a few harsh words would have been adequate to prevent reoccurence of such behaviour, or even deleting the page in question.

In fact, Elaragirl does have a history of similar behavior. She's only been editing regularly for a little over two months, and during that time has racked up quite a few messages asking her to tone it down. More importantly, these instances of personal attacks have increased as time goes on. Despite what you say, "a few harsh words" have not been adequate to prevent reoccurence of this behavior.

A block was not required, and is in violation of the blocking policy.

The block has thus far been upheld by six reviewing admins. None of these admins appear to think any blocking violation occurred. I would ask you to step back for a moment, and consider this: Consider, for a moment if you weren't friends with Elaragirl; if she hadn't given you user awards. Think how you'd feel to be on the butt end of one or more of her personal attacks.

Given this exchange - which got pretty much laughed out of the house - I would also question the absolute appropriateness of Firsfron making this block.

You may find that exchange amusing, but it was a politely worded message asking someone to remain civil. I'm sorry you think asking someone to remain civil is laughable; it's one of the pillars of Wikipedia.

As far as the appropriateness... An administrator may both issue a warning and block if the warning isn't heeded. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I take them to heart. I am glad you do not hold grudges, and wish you the best on your continued efforts to refine the encyclopedia. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

Thank you for your concern with my RfA. For what it's worth, my 3RR violation was accidental; I was dealing with a user who was persistently reverting to the same text, and had been blocked before. I lost count over the course of a day and did a fourth reversion in 23:45, instead of proposing an alternate text, as I had intended, or going to AN3 myself.

The previous block was towards the end of my dispute with Ultramarine. Arbcom enacted limits on our conduct on two specific pages; Stifle blocked both of us briefly, as a warning, for a controversy over one line on a third page. We had both avoided 3RR; and I think we were both surprised. Septentrionalis 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreaking

I'm going on Wikibreak until Monday, hon. hugs tightly I'll try to stay out of trouble for at least a week when I get back, but you know me. :)--Elar a girl^Talk|Count 20:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionism

Hey, I read on Elaragirl's page that you're planning to nominate tons more articles for deletion - would you mind going through User:Striver/Contributions for ideas? There's some truly inappropriate and abysmal articles in there, and with the RL pressures I'm under, I don't have time to AfD myself... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*raises eyebrows* Tread lightly Moreschi. riana_dzasta 01:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Staggeringly impressive? You're not being even the teensiest bit sarcastic? :p Thanks very much. If I can leave Wikipedia with one piece of knowledge, it is this - do NOT fuck with religious articles. Click random article, there are juicy targets everywhere. riana_dzasta 12:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You fighting Irishmen! I'll just watch, while selling the concept of karmic realignment. Or something. riana_dzasta 12:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC?

(I replied at my talk page to your question there, but here is a copy in case my page or post gets meddled with as Moby's have.)

Yes, definitely, but I'd want to know that his critics weren't blocked to keep them from participating, as for instance Moby Dick is blocked now. (He might well want to help certify the RfC.) Likewise, I've been blocked on Commons (for objecting to the railroading there), on the false charge of "making threats against Cool Cat and others", and even my repeated requests to be told "what threats?" were evaded or ignored. Blocking one's critics to stack the vote... gosh, why am I thinking of Florida 2000?

By the way, the Steward election Bastique's in runs only until December 15. If he becomes a Steward, I think he can then thumb his nose at any mere Wikipedia RfC. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 12:02, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Terrifying? Furthermore, SAJordan's comments above are entirely inaccurate. A steward has no more "power" on any single project than any other user. Every individual is answerable for his/her actions. Furthermore, I didn't block SAJordan on Commons. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 13:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, follow the links in the "Yes, definitely" paragraph. Zscout370, who executed the block, says "the other admins" wanted him to do it. Bastique merely threatened and then (like Lar) endorsed the block. None of them (B, Z, or L) ever really answered my question "What threats?", only evaded or ignored it. That false and defamatory public accusation against me has been left up for three weeks, where I cannot respond to it, without anyone being required to either specify or cite the purported "threats". Won't it be nice when all the Wikis are run this way?

Oh, Stewards have no power, other than little things like toggling the admin bit; and that could never possibly be abused, just as the admin power itself could never be. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 16:41, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Right, and like all other stewards for nomiantion, the Wikimedia Foundation has my name, telephone number and contact information. And many users, like SAJordan, are watching. So if I were to abuse anything, I would be held completely accountable. Which is unfortunately not the case with people who shield themselves behind anonymity and engage in sockpuppetry. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 19:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudeness and Assumptions

You wrote "please don't blank your talk page to get of things you don't like."

How can you possibly determine the reasons for me blanking my talk page? Did it ever occur to you that I wanted to clean off old irrelevant stuff?

Perhaps you should think twice before posting obnoxious and rude comments? OldManSin 23:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I have to admire your style. Editing my user talk page of all things! I don't see how my above comment could be classed as uncivil. I think perhaps you are being overly defensive? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OldManSin (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yay, back from wikibreak.

Hrm. I have a proposed project I'm working on, an article about deletion, for people who don't know how the process works. It's here for right now. Thoughts? --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 16:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful. I will do my best to wield the broom wisely! | Mr. Darcy talk 18:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winton Dean

I've googled around a bit and it seems he's very much still alive. He even has a new book out this week (Handel's Operas: 1726-41 - see Amazon for details). Also this from this summer [6]. Incidentally, appparently James Dean's dad's name was Winton. Very odd. --Folantin 22:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EA governance thoughts

Hi Moreschi, I hope you're doing well. My own mood has taken a bit of a downturn, so I'm not as productive as normal. Anyway, I've posted a number of comments on the page about the EA Charter Proposal voting, and it would seem that we agree on a number of points. I was curious about your thoughts about something by User:Night Gyr, who wrote here about eliminating the idea of Esperanza membership entirely, in order to get rid of the perceived "us" vs. "them" mentality. I'm intrigued by the idea, and if this came to be, it could perhaps avoid bureaucracy altogether. --Kyok o 00:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

I just read what happened at WP:CIVIL. Amazing. By the way, I made up a new template for civility warnings.

User:Elaragirl/Temp/Civil

WARNING!!!The above image uses sarcasm. Sarcasm-impared inviduals may wish to avert their eyes.

You like :D --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 16:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help my sarcastic nature. Now, I take it out on my coworkers. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 17:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French opera

I've just moved this 32k monster into mainspace from my sandbox. It's not had the finishing touches put to it but it is about 90%+ complete. Much better than what was there before anyway. If you get the time, could you check it over? I'm going to be revising it too but I'm a bit sick of the sight of it at the moment. I'm going to relax with a bit of XfD now. Cheers. --Folantin 12:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I'll leave it for a couple of days and come back to it with a fresh pair of eyes. I'm concerned it just peters out with Messiaen at the end - but then so apparently does the history of French opera! If you know any contemporary Gallic composers of operas, please add them (Pierre Boulez promising/threatening to knock one out for the past four decades doesn't count. Nor does Ahem You Know Who). No more epic articles for me until the new year. I've just got a few smaller things I've been working on to sort out plus that list. The deletionism campaign looks fun. Time to go mad with an axe!--Folantin 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

-

Hello Moreschi! I want to thank you for taking time to comment in my recent request for adminship. Though it didn't succeed, I value everyone's opinion, and hope to use the descriptions of the neutral and oppose votes to improve. T e ckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 22:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting

I appreciate the feedback that I received during the RfA process. Unfortunately, I withdrew my candidacy. However, your participation is appreciated. I have made my New Years Resolution (effective immediately) to attempt to vote on at least 50 WP:XFD/week (on at least 5 different days), to spend 5 hours/week on WP:NPP, to be active in WikiProjects and to change the emphasis of my watchlist from editorial oversight to vandalism prevention. I have replaced several links that I had on my list to some that I think are more highly vandalized (Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, my congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., my senator Barrack Obama and Jesse Jackson). My first day under my newly turned leaf was about what I hope a typical day to be. I quickly found a vandal, made a few editorial changes to Donald Trump, voted at WP:CFD and WP:AFD, continued attempted revitalization of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago and proposed a new stub type as a result of WP:NPP patrol. I hope this will broaden my wikipedia experience in a way that makes me a better administrator candidate. I hope to feel more ready to be an admin in another 3000 or so edits. TonyTheTiger 16:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Semele

Thanks for helping with Semele! Much appreciated as I am leaving Annecy soon and have little time . . . - Kleinzach 20:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I leave here on Saturday and I'm not sure when I'll have a good connection again . . . maybe not until I get to Japan in or around mid January. - Kleinzach 20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orfeo ed Euridice

Done. Or, if you prefer it, revert to here Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but to make the table fit, I had to remove some of the information. Either add in the Paris premiere information up above, or break it into two tables, because it's not going to fit very well without doing one of those. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irony Gold

Due my comments on the first AfD Vote for Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia , Cool Cat decided to file his friviolous RfC of me. Due to people seeing through his eight-mile long record of his proud tradition of slaying WP:CIVIL to make a WP:POINT, they laughed him out of the house, which then resulted in his histronic little fit at WP:CIVIL that got him blocked. Now, Cool Cat can't clean up Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia or vote for it's keep. I love irony, don't you? --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 22:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your edit of my userpage

While I don't have a doubt in the world that your edit was kindhearted, helpful and probably for the best, don't you think it might have been better to discuss it with me first? Jeffpw 15:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<grins> Yes, well I think I used up all my civility in our interaction, judging from the comments made to me on the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust article talk page. :-) Editing controversial articles is quite taxing at times, isn't it? Anyway, I know about Elaragirl's troubles, and I have no wish to add to them. Though that user should be banned indefinitely as an anti-Semitic troll, the sad fact is he isn't. So it is just good sense to have that removed. Thanks again and happy editing! Jeffpw 19:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about eliminating EA membership

Hi Moreschi, I had been thinking for some time about Night Gyr's suggestion, but I didn't want to bring it up to your talk page until after you saw it, lest I be accused of trying to vote-stack the idea. My first reaction when I saw the message was "Wow. That's pretty extreme." My second reaction was "That might actually work." My third reaction was "People aren't going to like hearing this." That's why I delayed a few days before mentioning it. I hope that people are nice when they respond, because I'm not really prepared to suffer their slings and arrows. Such a reaction wouldn't be in the spirit of Esperanza anyway. --Kyok o 20:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen Elaragirl's template, but it's not my style. Thanks for the thought anyway. I was speaking in all seriousness with my vote and the edit summary, because this idea might offend people who strongly prefer having structure and hierarchy. --Kyok o 20:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Monckton

Hi,

Apologies for being so witty, however you did not give me a chance to complete my article.

Rosa Monckton is a well known figure in British Society and a leading fundraiser for charities relation to Down Syndrome and children.

If you allowed me the courtesy to complete my article then I would of been able to display the facts.

I am a new Wikipedian and although a bit slow I do have sufficent knowledge to list relaible information. Anthonycarrol 21:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA?

I always see you do good work around here and I wonder if you are willing to have an RFA as you would be great with the tools. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderously seconded and will happily co-nom. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No fair, me first :) Well, anyway, I responded to your questions on my talk page. Cheers, Mak (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your participation in my RfA, which I have chosen to withdraw early at a final count of (10/8/3) as it was unlikely to gain consensus. I will do my best to improve in the areas that were cited as my weaknesses, and will reapply sometime in the future when I have gained more experience. Please always feel free to help me along with a suggestion on how I could improve, and if you ever need help, I am ever at your service. Best as always, Dar-Ape 23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Search Strings

First, I start with a specific search. Like this.

Then, with a discreet search to find the most tightly focused sources. Like this.

Note that the numbers shift. If you put in

comic "Associated Student Bodies"

You get 6k ghits. But if you put in

"Associated Student Bodies" comic

You only get 3k ghits. Google is a mess. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 14:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ahh, the intrigue... but well said

I'm just now beginning to see behind the veil of macro-events at Wikipedia, and as always in life, the motivation for large events is a small thing.... in this case it is "ego" (though in the non-Wiki world, other motivations include, money, sex, etc.. still small things).

Well said at WP:GA/R.

--Ling.Nut 16:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael vandal

Thanks for tracking that vandal down. I was about to report 68.160.102.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on AIV just this moment. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which did not succeed and was closed early at 2/10/9. I am not discouraged, however, and will use the experience to improve my skills until a later date when I may succeed. Yuser31415 20:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new idea

Hey, Moreschi, I saw your comments on the editors' forum about votestacking. After the endless hassle I've had with the Muslim editors ganging up on all non-Muslims to get their own way, I was thinking about setting up a WikiProject Anti-Votestacking, where blatent votestacking could be listed and members could vote to dilute it. Just 50 members regularly voting would demolish most cases of votestacking. What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Deletion is simply about *fDs - there's votestacking all over the wiki. Also, sorry to say this, but you guys are always going to err on the side of delete, and votestacking the other way isn't something I want to achieve.

On Latter Days, I have the DVD and the book, if that's what you mean. Not sure what you're getting at there. Ta for your help though. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage would be good. Somewhat worried over how many cites you want... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A pity you won't be watching it, it really is an amazing film...

I just noticed my antivotestacking wikiproject proposal above. Do you reckon I ought to go ahead with it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was edit conflicted three times trying to cast my vote - a minute after the MfD opened. This could be a long night... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19 full deletes, 6 historical votes in whatever form, and 1 keep. 74% support for full deletion. Damn, this is going well. Too well... I'm expecting a disaster at any moment. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoke too soon... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for additions to Pastoral opera draft

Hi, Moreschi, thanks for adding the section and some examples to the sandbox Pastoral opera article. :) Please feel free to continue to make contributions as the article develops. I'm afraid the progress will probably be rather slow, because I tend to deliberate a lot before deciding exactly how to word things, and I seem to have only snatches of time for Wikipedia. But it will be ready for an actual WP page eventually. Thanks again, Lini 13:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings

Hey, I've just started Wikipedia:Requested recordings, to try to coordinate musicians and articles which need music, so your need comes at a good time! Let's try to get this thing going! Wikipedia needs more free-content music! Mak (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ah, yes, right. Excellent. Sounds good. Mak (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added the {{reqrec}} template to the talk pages :) Would you feel comfortable signing up as a singer or whatnot for the across-the-pond contingent? Cheers, and happy third day of Christmas! Mak (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Moreschi/My Archive 3

Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asterion^talk 13:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Sig.

I compressed my signature and you can look at it under edit.
--¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 01:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy... Mak (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez! --Folantin 22:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re

plied. --Folantin 22:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replying

No problem about the Checkuser. About the Mozart article, well, I should probably update my page. I've kind of put that project on hold to work on some Joseph Haydn-related articles. His bio was in desperate need of citations, let me tell you. It's improving slowly but surely. Anyway, I'm mainly on that right now. But I may return to Mozart eventually. Thanks for the tip! Heimstern Läufer 23:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky

I was just about to produce my last boilerplated stub for [[Les surprises de l'Amour when I got your message. I just thought I'd get my head down and turn all the Rameau red links blue while I had some time today. At least we have stubs now, however paltry. It might even be worth doing an article which deals with all of Rameau's lost works - there's quite an interesting story behind the loss of Samson and Linus. But plenty of work to be getting on with for now. Cheers. --Folantin 17:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Thanks for the note. Yes, I most certainly would remove false accusations, but at this point, I don't think he even cares anymore. I did find this amusing, where he used one of his IP edits to remove the puppetmaster tag from the Jacob Peters account. --C33 18:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mother!

From that subject title, I thought I had a long lost child! Thanks for the laugh, and for the encouragment, it means a lot. I think people will cool down about it soon, hopefully. -- Natalya 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Gone With The Blastwave

Hey, you recently voted for a delete here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gone_with_the_Blastwave If you hadn't already, I would like you to take another look at that page, skim read some of the evidence for it, and reconsider your decision. If you still believe it should be deleted, then that is fine, but judging by your comment it does not seem as though you have seen any evidence for it. Thankyou.Darkcraft 07:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

You wrote at Hoary's talk page: I think we might all be slightly more sympathetic if M. Perreualt had not posted his vanity here in the first place, and had not then resorted to meatpuppetry. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right there could be a hint of vanity having an article about yourself - I would be proud if somebody have created one of me (of course I am not notable at all) and would try to be it as accurate as possible. By the way I took the opportunity to look at your user page. What a nice page of articles you contributed to Wikipedia and discripton how you make Wikipedia better - by your own standards. You know, I see more vanity in your behavior then Martin Perreault's. Please next time concentrate on the article, not the person. Rikapt 22:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is just such patent nonsense I'm not even going to bother responding. If you can't see the world of difference between my userpage - which does not list my real name - and a fully-fledged article solely there to advance your career then there really is no hope. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Huh, I don't seem to have gotten it. Re-send? Cheers, Mak (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, didn't get it and it didn't get caught in my spam filters. I sent you an e-mail, maybe try just replying to that, if you've been using WP's "e-mail user" function. Mak (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the e-silliness :) I just got one of them, although it says that it was sent almost an hour ago (I usually get e-mails practically instantly, even if they have huge attachments) Oh well, it's a mystery, thanks for jumping through the hoops :) Mak (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, replied, sorry it took a while, I had to do some real work for a while. Mak (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Savage

All I could find to add were a couple of blue links. I think it's fine now. Cheers. --Folantin 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey! Puts World of Warcruft in perspective. --Folantin 19:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gundam-related PRODs

This is being discussed on AN/I. I'd appreciate your input. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gundam merging

I was suggesting merging to a central article on all the fictional weapons of that series. And ideally, to a single article on all of that series' artifacts. And also, my signature consists of an extrenal link which redirects to my user page. I obtained the domain as a free shortcut to my user page, but to be sustained it requires a certain amount of visits. After February I'll remove the signature links and go back to normal. ~ Flame vip e r 14:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD vote on Mr. Lady records

Hello, you voted to delete Mr. Lady Records on articles for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Lady Records. I have added many reliable sources to the article, and ensured it now asserts this (now defunct) record label's notability at the time (meeting WP:RS and WP:CORP, the two concerns raised. I'd be very grateful if you could consider revisitng the AFD and the updated article, and consider whether the article should still be deleted. If you still don't believe it meets Wikipedia requirements, please advise as to why (this would be helpful). Many thanks. Proto::► 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)[reply]

Good talking with you lately. Let's hope it continues! The Rambling Man 19:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gundam AfDs

In the interest of de-escalation, would you mind withdrawing your Gundam-related AfD nominations of January 10 (and later, if there are any more)? I think they probably shouldn't exist as stand-alone articles for the most part, but I think at least some of them warrant a merge, and I feel it may not be possible to fairly evaluate this number of articles within 5 days. I don't much care for Gundam, but I'm willing to go through those articles and see what might be merged, if only to hope to stop the histrionics. No way I can address all of those within 5 days, though. Shimeru 09:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider your mass nomination of all Gundam-related entries for deletion to rather obviously be in bad faith. Jtrainor 11:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in trolling of that kind, Jtrainior. Go play elsewhere. I'll respond to Shimeru's excellent post later, I'm currently busy. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with you is hardly trolling, especially, since, if I recall correctly, you've attempted a crusade against all Gundam-related things on Wikipedia before. What, precisely, makes Gundam more valid as a target than any other fictional universe? Jtrainor 23:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop mass-nominating these articles, and work towards some sort of consensus on them. I have no particular view on whether these articles should be in the encyclopedia or not, but your behaviour with this is patently disruptive, and if it happens again will result in you being blocked. Rebecca 03:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. Some Gundam related articles are downright atrocious (see The-O for an example), but that's no excuse to decide the whole project is non-notable and kill everything involved. Some of the people who came out in favor of your original AfD were also in favor of deleting WikiProject Gundam, if you recall. *I* certainly wouldn't want people like that in support of my ideas. MalikCarr 20:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, William Savage, was selected for DYK!

On January 14, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Savage, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid 64 15:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Trial

Should this go to AfD?? If you think so, would you please put it up? Sam

Gundam: what to keep, what to delete

While I do think that you may have taken some Gundam deletion a little far, I do think that some of them are of merit... especially some that I only heard of in SD Gundam games, which is absolutely not canon (contrary to belief). As of now, I am attempting to move as much of them to Gundam Wikia.

My proposal is this: give me, and WP:GUNDAM, time. If you saw any that is one liner and spec only, instead of just Afd it, just bring it the attention to WP:Gundam (or me).

I will also see how to rewrite the navigation template for gundam mobile suits such that it is easier to navigate. Even I understand that some of them should not be included.

In the mean time, I am going to try transwiki items as much as possible. However, do keep some of the Gundam articles in here, since just because it is not notable in North America doesn't mean it is not notable in Asia. If anything, Star trek is basically unheard of in Hong Kong (since it's English), which is said to be an international city. As for pop culture reference, different culture have different idea of what consitute as pop culture reference—and actually, this should actually expand to "culture". For example, recently, an Indian policeman was demoted for trying to ticket a famed Indian circket star, where it was generally held in belief that famed people should held special status and previlege. (I read it in Yahoo Odd news)

On a side note, I also need to know more on how to edit wikipedia more professionally. Especially on the prod as the WikiProject (which they have began to conduct).

Thank you for your attention, pardon my stupid acts (I had tried to Afd some star trek articles, which is WP:POINT as I found out later), and hope for your reply. George Leung 07:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeckWiz's RFA

TeckWiz's RFA

I would like to thank you for helping the Wikipedia community determine if I should become a sysop by voting oppose on my second RFA. Many opposes were because of my "different" answer to question two, which I still partly agree with. I withdrew per WP:SNOW, as consensus to promote was against me. I will continue to improve until one day, I become an admin. Happy editing! --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurtful

I don't mean that sarchastically. It is real I promise. Please undo the deletion threat, it seems quite popular as well. The book is being written and the game is being developed as I type this message. If you don't believe me, go on the website and email the person in charge of it. Gmeman 17:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re vandalism of your userpage by users from other sites

I do not endorse any such activities and certainly did not encourage or promote them, and furthermore, I have no control over what other people on external sites do. I suggest you email the admins of mechatalk the IPs that have been vandalizing you (they're in your history, right?), and mabye something will come of that. Jtrainor 18:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh hehe!

Heh! Nice one. Will ye also be tracing the Anvil Chorus? =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Il trovatore, referenced in the "Come, friends who plough the sea" section of With catlike tread, which was modified slightly to become "Hail, hail, the gang's all here". Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 17:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orfeo ed Euridice

Tomorrow! I do think that Max Loppert's table of which number in which version became which other number in which other version, or something like it, would be a useful addition. I'll get down to that when I've had a look thru the current article. Best. --GuillaumeTell 01:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look through the article, and it's much better than when I last looked, though I really don't care for all the repetitions of "Grove" at the bottom - Vivaverdi's abc stuff would work well here.

One or two things I noticed:

1. The Viking makes it clear that the "reform" impetus here wasn't from Gluck but from Calzabigi, with support from Durazzo. And Gluck actually rather reneged on reform in 1774 with the addition of "L'espoir renaît", didn't he? I still think of Alceste as his first reform opera, so I'd be rather more ambiguous in the article.

2. I think that the Performance History and Revised Versions sections aren't ideally organised - the temporal sequence goes 1762-1763-1769-1770-1776-early C19-1854-C20 [and Baker certainly isn't a contralto...] - then 1769-1774-1859-1950-1889-C20. I rather think that they ought to be amalgamated and then maybe subdivided - I could have a go at that if you like.

3. Recordings (is this section just what's available now?). The 1889 Italian version, which isn't identical to the Berlioz, as noted higher up, is (I think) the basis of the Leppard recording. And maybe the recordings with a baritone Orfeo, if they're still available, should be listed. The Met Guide and Opera on Record (both of which I have) are good on which recording uses which edition.

You're probably right that the detail of the different numbers in the different versions would go better in the synopsis. Maybe I'll have a go at one of the acts and see what it looks like.

Thoughts? I have some time this week but don't want to rush in and do things without agreement. Is it worth consulting Folantin? Kleinzach seems to have taken his bat home. --GuillaumeTell 17:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now integrated the 1774 first lines into the Act 1 synopsis and altered the wording here and there. Does this look OK? Including the keys now seems a bit over the top, so I haven't done that.

The Fi-Di baritone recording is certainly available [7]! --GuillaumeTell 18:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiberius Julius Alexander

Thanks for the encouraging GA review of Tiberius Julius Alexander – and for assessing it so quickly! EALacey 21:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie

Hey Moreschi, I ran into a newbie you might be interested in shepherding - User:Norman.wakefield. Cheers, Mak (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD issues?

Check out Savoy Company. Should it be AfD, or should it be tagged as having no citations? Also, it reads like an advertisement. But, it probably is the oldest....
Also, would you please put up Sinfonicron for deletion?
Also, what about Wobbly Dog Productions?
Penn Singers -- I thought this one had been AfD'd previously?
Empire Lyric Players
Cornell Savoyards
Montreal West Operatic Society -- Ssilvers 07:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think being featured on the local TV station makes the Cornell group notable (I think they should just be mentioned on the Cornell Univ. article), but I'll leave it to you to decide whether to AfD them. -- Ssilvers 16:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our schoolfriends

I thought that cohort of accounts would be trouble! I nearly blocked one for trolling weeks ago, when it appeared to be for the sole purpose of complaining on Makemi's talk page about harrassment from other single-purpose accounts (probably socks or schoolchums) but I gave it the benefit of the doubt. It now appears to me they've been trolling since early December or before. Heigh-ho! Best wishes, --RobertG ♬ talk 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Thanks, but the guidline says no aggressive lobbying. I did not say which way to vote, I only said vote. He can vote to keep if he feels it is warranted, and I value his opinion either way. -- Ssilvers 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orfeo

I took a quick look at Orfeo and made a few edits. I hope you find these helpful. It's a great article. In general, I would try to be careful that people who are not opera experts can understand all of the important terms that you use, because the vocabulary and foreign words may be daunting to some, and in a couple of instances, you might want to provide a definition. Maybe there should be a separate article on the reform movement, so that you could easily cross-reference it in all the articles that deal with it? Also, (obviously), page references to all the Grove cites would be helpful if you want to get this up to FA later. Regards, -- Ssilvers 22:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishzilla

User:Bishzilla is User:Bishonen. {Slash -|-Talk} 05:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC) See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bishzilla. {Slash -|-Talk} 05:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLLOCKS

WP:BOLLOCKS. Thank you, and have a nice day :) Mak (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. On another note, I try not to bite the newbies, ya see, and I feel like it's harsh enough to say that their article should be deleted, without adding insult to injury, generally. Especially if it /may/ have been intended seriously, even if it is in effect complete Bollocks. I figure better safe than sorry (also called "assume good faith ;) Mak (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[date-1] Some sources give the date as January 1710, but it is usually given as the 26th of December 1709. (Dean)

[Grove-2] Sadie, Stanley; Tyrrell, John, eds. (2001). The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56159-239-5. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]

Editor Review

RfA thanks

Can you read?

Quiz

Esperanza totally dysfunctional

Clarification?

MfD for Esperanza Coffee Lounge

thank you

Sometimes I'm slow

Welcome committee

You Can't Be Serious

RFA Thanks

You're an Esperanzan?

Gilbert Vandal

Articles left on hold

Style thing

Discussion request

Mail

Civility

re: Mail

This user is laughing her ass off.

Straw Poll

Esperanza

OK, I signed up

Smiley Award

References

knock knock

articles and prose

re: hey

List of, etc

My RfA

GrayPorpoise RfA

You...

That featured list again

Oh by the way, congrats!

please check this EA charter idea

Congrats on Agrippina

Thanks

Recording

RE:Wikipediholic test

Pop the champagne

cruft

Twilight

Guess!

Minder Benders MFD

Holy Opera

My RfA

re: Mail

User:Elaragirl

3RR violation

Wikibreaking

Deletionism

RFC?

Rudeness and Assumptions

Yay, back from wikibreak.

Thank you

Meta

Winton Dean

EA governance thoughts

WP:CIVIL

My RFA

Thanks for voting

Thanks for Semele

Irony Gold

your edit of my userpage

about eliminating EA membership

Rosa Monckton

RFA?

My RfA

Multiple Search Strings

ahh, the intrigue... but well said

Raphael vandal

My RfA

new idea

Thanks for additions to Pastoral opera draft

Recordings

My Request for Adminship

My Sig.

Re

Replying