User talk:Moriori/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Twilight Imperium: Sardakk N'orr

Please do not delete my post. WIll be updating more, not incoherent nonsense.

yeokaiwei —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeokaiwei (talk • contribs) 06:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wael Abbas

The Wael Abbas page was put again on wikipedia, so I was wondering why where you so pissed off that I was trying to put it on, in the first place. I merely was trying to help with my knowledge on wikipedia Abdowiki —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No

No, you cannot revoke your contributions to Wikipedia because you are in a bad mood. It was a misuse of your admin powers to delete the images you have contributed. I suggest you reverse these actions. 1 != 2 15:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to remind you of the WP:NPA policy, don't call people arseholes, even if you are angry. 1 != 2 15:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I second that - you have admin tools for actions to benefit the project, not to use them in disputes with other users. Including a personal attack in the deletion summary was completely out of line. Your images that were used in the mainspace have been reincluded in the relevant articles. I have raised this matter at the administrator's noticeboard for further input - see this thread. I encourage you to restore the rest yourself. It is expected that if you upload images that you do not own the copyright in and claim that they are PD that you will provide material for this to be verified - either by refering people to the source that makes the PD status of the image clear or by forwarding to OTRS-permissions an email from the copyright holder releasing the image under a GFDL compatible license. WjBscribe 15:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Moriori's contributions are thousands-fold times this silly dispute, the indiscretion in a deletion edit summary, the deletion itself, etc. Let's give him some space. El_C 17:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree about giving space until this user has a chance to respond. As to the other part, we don't work on a scoring system here where you can build up enough credit to do bad things. 1 != 2 17:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started restoring the deletions. Please do not come back and continue your disruptive deletions. Friday (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (To be clear:) I do hope you come back, just please don't delete more things without a good reason. Friday (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

A request for arbitration has been filed listing you as a party here. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this abritration request has now been withdrawn - Alison ^❤ 15:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Titan T-51 - airshow1.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Titan T-51 - airshow1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn 13:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:HMS New Zealand (1911) superstructure.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HMS New Zealand (1911) superstructure.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:42 Sq RNZAF Formation.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:42 Sq RNZAF Formation.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wael abbas DRV

I don't know if you're likely to read this, but I've put the Wael abbas article up for DRV. Andjam (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:42 Sq RNZAF Formation.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:42 Sq RNZAF Formation.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Eli Soriano's Awards

The following is a reproduction of my message to another editor

Hi, I would like to call your attention to the Awards and Recognitions section of the Eliseo_Soriano article. I was unable to source 99.9% of the award-giving-bodies. When I Google them on quotes like "Sons and Daughter of Charity" then add "Philippines" as a qualifier the only website that comes up is the one here in WP.

According to the official website of [Gawad Amerika] "Gawad Amerika is an independent award-giving body based in the USA that recognizes the achievements of Fil-Am people in the field of acting, singing, professional carrers, businesses and the Life Time achievements since 2001." This is the real Gawad Amerika award and Soriano's group, who seem to be creating temporary award giving bodies for the purpose of giving awards to Soriano (and also to a few others so that it will not be so obvious) seem to have undermined the existence of a real Gawad Amerika, who only gives awards to Fil-Am people, and created their own temporary Gawad Amerika.

I was happy to find the Gawad Amerika website because I thought that at last I found an award-giving body that really exists, but alas! it is a different Gawad Amerika.

I also noticed that an award received by their website is listed there. How is it that an award intended for their church's website became an award of Soriano? That award is for the webmaster.

There is so much anomaly in that list. Barangay level appreciations were included, as well as awards issued by an unnotable radio program. All of them should not belong to an encyclopedia.

Thanks! - Shannon Rose (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Jet stream

I answered your question in the talk page. I'm amazed no one answered you sooner. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Operación Masacre

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Operación Masacre. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. was added to the deletion review log. Neagley (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Walker (jockey)

It looks like you're not active anymore, but if you return your ehlp on Michael Walker (jockey) would be appreciated. The article now uses un-encyclopedic "peacock" words and appears to be original research. The article needs to be more neutral and needs sources. I've also posted a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing

I know it's not a big deal, but three years ago this week, you were the one who first greeted me into Wikipedia. I wish you would come back. This is not a perfect project, by any stretch of the imagination, but it would be better with you in it. Unschool (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I miss you too. I hope your life is a happy one.-gadfium 06:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Add my name to the list of Wikipedians who would like to see you back... Grutness...wha? 08:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back.-gadfium 18:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sixteen edits since I started this section. Well, it's good to know you're still alive. Unschool 14:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Venom

Pedantic unimportant trivia. Actually the Venom's wing is swept (very mildly) compared with a Vampire - check plan view or photo if you don't believe. Albeit it the leading edge of a DC3 may be swept more... though I'm sure this has everything to do with centre of gravity and a heavier engine and nothing to do with speed gains, which came from the thinner wing - and comment was misleading in article until you amended it. :-) Winstonwolfe (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

File:NorfolkIslandPineKerikeri.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:NorfolkIslandPineKerikeri.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Auk city night.jpg

File:Auk city night.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Aukland night.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Aukland night.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

File:NZ-Whakaari White.png is now available as Commons:File:NZ-Whakaari White.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Waikato

Hi. A long time ago you contributed to Waikato (region/district). Now there is a proposal to move the article, and some questions about its scope. Please see Talk:Waikato (region/district). --Una Smith (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Contact arbcom

You have failed to respond to my queries. You need to contact myself or arbom immediately. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Golden kiwi ticket.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Golden kiwi ticket.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I found a way to save it. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Moriori! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 9 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Michael Walker (jockey) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Duncan Garner

Hi Moriori, I've left a reply on my talk page. XLerate (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Edward Cephas John Stevens

Thanks for the nice tidy up job on this page. Much appreciated. If you are interested in that topic area, I write about historic politicians quite regularly. If you wish, I'll bring it to your attention when they're ready for publication. Please reply on my talk page if you want to reply. Schwede66 06:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Have just finished (expanding) another article. William Montgomery (New Zealand) - feel free to have a look if you have a moment. Schwede66 04:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Stewart Island

Hi there. The previous editor on the Stewart Island article seems to have been correct (as far as my understanding goes) in that there is no commercial forestry or farming on the Island, but I haven't been able to find a handy reference that spells it out in so many words. I've put a "citation needed" on the statement the previous editor disagreed with. Just advising you of this so that you know it's not your actual edit I had a problem with. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no probs. Moriori (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits in Extretion

Can you inform me as to why you think the words used are a better choice than poop which is in fact common language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.125.253 (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Where you say common language you mean commonly used, but so is crap. Colloquialisms both, considered by many to be profanity. Feces it is. Moriori (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My parents would have beat my ass if I came home saying "excrement"; 1, they would have thought that I thought I was better than them, and 2..it sounds dirty. Like how "cock" (the proper term) sounds more vulgar than "wang" (a common word). I went to college. --68.226.125.253 (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be hilarious at times. Thanks for your contribution. Moriori (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Naughty Randi the big hoax hoaxing hoaxer. Hoax.

Thanks for removing the listing for Randi in Possible hoaxes at List of hoaxes. I was worrying the listing, but found it difficult to discern whether it was a claim he was a paranormal fantasist or merely a reference. You've settled the matter.MartinSFSA (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Auckland Meetup 5 on 9 May 2010

You are invited to Auckland Meetup 5 on the afternoon of Sunday 9th May 2010 at Esquires Cafe, Ground Floor, Auckland Central City Library, Lorne St, Auckland. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 5 for details and RSVP. You can also bookmark Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland to be informed of future NZ meetups. - Linnah (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Laborteaux vs. Patrick Labyorteaux

I don't know the reason behind it, but Patrick Labyorteaux spells his name differently than the rest of the family. Linking Patrick Laborteaux gives a dead link, while Patrick Labyorteaux is valid. I know Patrick is adopted, but I doubt that is the reason. 67.170.59.75 (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Had you given an explanatory edit summary, which you didn't, I wouldn't have thought it unusual that you changed the surname spelling to Labyorteaux in an article about Laborteaux. Moriori (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Te Mahanga (Moehanga)

They are the same person (I'll add the alternative). The timeline of his visit to London as per Anne Salmond's "Between Worlds" (1997), which is both a more thorough and scholarly work than Te Ara, is as follows.

1. 20 September 1805: The Ferret arrives in the Bay of Islands. Te Mahanga boards some time after.
2. 31 January 1806: The Ferret arrives off Saint Helena.
3. 27 April 1806: The Ferret arrives at Gravesend.
4. 13 June 1806: The Ferret leaves London for the return to Port Jackson.
5. 17 February 1807: The Ferret arrives at Port Jackson.
6. c. March 1807: The Ferret returns Te Mahanga to the Bay of Islands.

He should have his own article, but I have been too busy to get around to it. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, Salmond trumps TeAra. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiki glitch

Wiki does do strange things to editing sometimes! Must be one of those internet/server things.... Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that you accidentally edited the 25 April revision of the article. If you were viewing a diff of Schwede66's edit, then perhaps you clicked on the "edit" link on the left side of the page, rather than the right side. It's an easy mistake to make, although there is a pink banner on the edit page saying that you are editing an old version.-gadfium 02:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Signature

I just wanted to give you the heads up that you did not sign your AfD entry here [1] -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ta. Fixed, eventually. Moriori (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:) -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

RM Taylor

I'd appreciate if you wouldn't remove redlinks from articles about MPs that I've written. They are there because they will have their own articles written at some point, possibly by myself. You can look at the tasklist in my userspace if you are interested. Thanks. Schwede66 02:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Beats me how deliberately creating redlinks in an article is helpful. It indicates something isn't kosher, that maybe the link was done incorrectly, so someoene has to take the time to have a look to find out what the situation is. Why not leave the link until there is an actual article to link to? What disadvantage would there be in that? Moriori (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You either haven't read WP:REDLINK, or you disagree with what is written there. If it is the former, then I recommend you should. If it is the latter, then it needs to be stated that we don't edit WP according to our personal tastes and preferences, but we go with accepted standards as defined by the WP community. I take a lot of care to create only those redlinks that are in compliance with the policy, and if you come across articles that I have created, you don't have to worry about it being kosher or incorrect. I have either created the redlink myself, or I watchlist the article to see what others are doing with them and will deal with incorrect redlinks myself. Schwede66 18:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You either haven't read WP:IAR or WP:BOLD or you disagree with what is written there. I am one of those who think presentation of information is not far behind quality of content in importance. Some articles are visual abominations, with redlinks galore. The article you are talking about is barely past stub, yet it has 15 redlinks. Fifteen! It looks awful. I repeat from above -- Why not leave the link until there is an actual article to link to? What disadvantage would there be in that? " Moriori (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that I'm an accommodating person, I've done something about the redlinks, and they are now down to five. Four of those are due to missing pages for parliamentary terms (and I won't get onto those in a hurry), but I will address the one redlinked by-election soon. I hope you appreciate the effort.
The reason that I set the pages up with redlinks is quite simple - when I started working on 19th century Canterbury political history, there were about (all these numbers are wild guesses) 50 MPs, 25 ex mayors, and a few dozen by-elections without pages. In addition, there are several dozen entries for political representation missing on electorate pages (and we are talking just Canterbury here). I'm working my way through this and it became very apparent to me very early on that all the players are very inter-related. Hence, I'm setting everything up with links in place as I create it, and over time, the redlinks turn into blue links. To go back over all the previous pages that mention a person / election / etc would create much more work. There's been great progress already, you might just like to compare the Christchurch electorate page from February with its current version. Along the way, there are numerous redlinks, but they will disappear quickly.
I hope this explains it for you and you can relax.
And by the way, the article that in your words is "barely past stub" has since been assessed as C class. Schwede66 06:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

On just one of the dozens of pages you created/work on you were able to remove 10 of 15 redlinks. Kinda makes my point. Just to clarify, by stub I meant visually stubbish, the bit that readers see. Moriori (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

David Coburn

Hi. It appears that you deleted this article as "patent nonsense per G1". Unfortunately, this article was actually the subject of vandalism and should have simply been reverted back to its prior state. I'll restore the article and revert it accordingly. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. Moriori (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Alaskan Authors/Billy Bryan Brown

While researching Alaskan authors, I came across your deleation of Billy Bryan Brown. Since I just finished his book, my curiousity was aroused. I began researching the subject. Under a Yahoo search I found five pages listed of him. I have found his book available in Barnes and Nobel, Ingram and Amazon. Newspaper articles from the Tennessean newspaper (Nashville), Capital City Weekly (Juneau, Alaska), Anchorage Daily News (Anchorage, Alaska) and a television program titled Marooned on CBS+5 (Nashville). All of these confirmed that he is indeed an Alaskan author. My search only took me about three minutes. Please apease my curiousity as to why you deceided to delete him from Wikipedia. QuillbackQuillback (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Quillback. Billy Bryan Brown was deleted back in 2007 because it wasn't really suitable as a wiki article, not because of the subject. When it was created on October 10 the article's total content consisted of only five words, "Billy Bryan Brown born 1952". User:VAcharon put a tag on it saying it was a candidate for speedy deletion because it had no context, and I agreed, deleting it with the tag "nocontext". The article was later recreated on December 21 when User:Doctorbrassstone made three edits, unreferenced. That same day, User:Master of Puppets slapped a speedy delete request tag, A7, and User:Coredesat deleted the article at 21.00. If you believe you can create an encyclopedic article about Brown then go for it. The following articles will be able to assist you.

• Tutorial
• How to create your first article
• Manual of Style

Cheers Moriori (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! In my haste to thank you I hit the wrong edit button and posted on DB120. Please read below for my thank you. DB120 forgive me for the infringment.QuillbackQuillback (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Especially for your consideration for a first timer, and the information and links to the turorials. In honesty, I wasn't that intrigued in doing my first article about an individual, although it seems it's been thrust before me. Maybe in retrospect it's the perfect place for me to start. Again, thank you.QuillbackQuillback (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

DB120

Thanks for helping with that article. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Noticed it at AfD, read it, and cringed at the statement that said "It plants 48 30 inch rows, making it 120 feet wide." Impossible, of course, because 48 rows have 47 spaces between them and 47 X 30 inches equals only 117 ft 6in, not 120. Moriori (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Air India Express Flight 812

Whack!

I think you know why! DIFF Happy Editing! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You should read edit summaries. Moriori (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop reverting my changes. You're taking too long to make edits and it's causing loss of information. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha. YOU removed the "under construction" tag. Remember? You removed it. It lets people know that there are others editing and there will/may be conflicts. Nice one. Moriori (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

With a hot news article, the trick is to copy your added text before saving. If you get an edit conflict, simply click on the article tab, then click on the section you were adding and past your copied text. That way, you don't inadvertantly overwrite other editors contribs or wreck refs etc. It is highly unlikely that an {{inuse}} will be heeded when so many are editing the article. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There's some good advice here. Hope you take it. In any case, good luck with future articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Crux from New Zealand

Hi Moriori, indeed you're right - the Crux can only be seen from the southern hemisphere. But the article explicitly said that the NZ flag features the Crux "as seen from New Zealand", which seemed to suggest that it could look differently in other places. If you want, feel free to add a clarification - a better phrasing would be "the NZ flag features the Crux, which is visible from New Zealand, as well as from the whole southern hemisphere". --WinstonSmith (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you a better map?

Way back when, here, you added a map at Stewart Island/Rakiura. It had a superceded name of the island which did not include the name Rakiura. Have you a later map, or can you amend the name on the map you inserted? Moriori (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Other option is this German map which also does not include the name Rakiura: --Waltloc (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we may have a coordinated attack here.

Either that, or one guy playing silly buggers HalfShadow 03:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Gone, I think. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

NZ Maori RU team

"By changing Category:New Zealand Māori people to Category:New Zealand Māori rugby union team players for many Kiwi rugby players -- such as Carlos Spencer, Zinzan Brooke and Troy Flavell etc -- you have removed many Māori people from the only category that collates them together"

If they're in the team, it's a given they're Maori, or part Maori, as it's a subcat of Maori sportspeople. I think the category "Maori people" is too broad. Most other such categories are subdivided into occupation, location, religion etc. I think including both cats makes the broader one redundant. I looked to see if they were notable outside rugby but most of them weren't. Some of them have gone on to become successful politicians, but not many.--MacRusgail (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hang on there. I interpret you as saying it is not OK for Carlos Spencer to have both Category:New Zealand Māori people and Category:New Zealand Māori rugby union team players (two cats)

but it is ok that he has all ten of the following rugby categories

Category:New Zealand international rugby union players

Category:New Zealand Māori rugby union team players

Category:New Zealand rugby union players

Category:Auckland rugby union players

Category:Blues rugby union players

Category:Rugby union fly-halves '

Category:Rugby union fullbacks

Category:Northampton Saints players

Category:Barbarian F.C. players

Category:Gloucester Rugby players

You think including both Māori cats makes the broader one redundant. OK, shall I remove the New Zealand international rugby union players cat from Spencer? Clearly it's redundant, because playing for New Zealand Māori means he is a New Zealand international rugby union player.

You "looked to see if they were notable outside rugby but most of them weren't". That doesn't stop them being Māori? The category establishes them as Māori, not as sportspeople/businessmen. There is only one category that groups Māori together, and you have removed it. Please restore it. Moriori (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There isn't an overlap in the rugby categories mentioned - you'll notice that there's actually no overlap between them, apart from in the category, Category:New Zealand rugby union players, which overlaps with three/four of the others.

However, if someone is in Category:New Zealand Māori rugby union team players, they come under Maori sportspeople, and thus under Maori. I tend to think categories like "Maori people", which refer to a fairly large group, should be broken down further. Check out Category:Scottish people - despite there being a lot of us, very few Scots are in the main cat, and three or four of the people who are could be put into more specific ones.

We could have a monster category including all the hundreds/thousands (?) of articles on Scottish people, but it would be of little practical use because of its size. Likewise I suspect that there are hundreds of articles on Maori, which would be better served by going into subcats. --MacRusgail (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

--MacRusgail (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

SEEM

SEEM redirects to SEEM (disambiguation). If that latter page isn't allowed to exist, then where should SEEM redirect to? --Stybn (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Stybn. I was about to say that as we don't have articles called SEEM there is no need for disamb. But, I thought about it for a while, and have asked for advice. See User talk:RHaworth#Second opinion needed. Will keep ypu posted. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We now have a SEEM page which does the trick, created by RHaworth. Moriori (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Message to srich32977 & response

Why? Why are you delinking perfectly valid Wikilinks saying they are "redundant" when they clearly are not. I'm talking about this, this and this etc. Moriori (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not so. I just looked at Sylvia Browne, which you reverted. Randi, paranormal, Larry King etc. are all redundant redundant. But revert away if you must. It is no skin off my teeth. I enjoy editing. (Perhaps Sylvia can answer why you like unneeded wikilinks!) --S. Rich 23:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "Randi, paranormal, Larry King etc. are all redundant redundant"? Moriori (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

|}

Fundació Suñol

Fundació Suñol article. I introduced the information about Fundació Suñol twice, in 2008 and today. The information that I included was written by me, and sites as www.barcelona.com or other touristic websites are using this text because we send it almost two years ago. Could you please reaccept my article. I think it's important that Fundació Suñol appears in wikipedia (as already does in other many languages), because is an important museum in the city. Please, visit the website: www.fundaciosunol.org Xavier de Luca —Preceding unsigned comment added by FundaSunol (talk • contribs) 10:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Su-30 MK1

Su-30 MKI Just to clarify, all Su-30MKIs use the AL-31 engine which until 2010 was only manufactured in Russia. Also, I have corrected the wording to state indigenously assembled (which is different from indigenously manufactured). Should that suffice or would you prefer the wording as it was? Vedant (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Oh, ok. I think people would generally interpret an indigenous (Indian built) aircraft to be Indian built, so it would be informative to explain that it had a Russian engine. But specifying "assembled" would fix the prob. Moriori (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I understand the confusion, I was actually just about to correct that. AFAIK, all the components used in the aircraft today are being manufactured in India (including the engine) per this although previous aircraft were manufactured using kits supplied from Russia. Vedant (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

2005 election

2005 election Moriori, please reconsider what you are doing at that article. The lead version you've restored reads, "The 2005 New Zealand general election held on 17 September 2005 determined the composition of the 48th New Zealand Parliament. No party won a majority in the unicameral House of Representatives, but the Labour Party of Prime Minister Helen Clark secured two more seats than nearest rival, the National Party of Dr Don Brash. With the exception of the newly-formed Māori Party, which took four Māori seats from Labour, most of the other parties polled lower than in the previous election, losing votes and seats." That version contains several unnecessary pieces of information (there is no need to state that the New Zealand parliament is unicameral there, for example), and some misleading statements (the Labour Party was not a party "of" Helen Clark, since it does not belong to her personally). I cannot see a good reason to restore a version that contains such things. Linbit (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting pagesl
Deleting pages When you delete pages, it would be helpful to warn the users who created them with a speedy notice, or else they will just keep doing it and they can never be reported to AIV, since there is no record on their talk page of what they have done. Regards, WackyWace converse | contribs 09:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia, not dictionary

Wiki=encyclopedia Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,not a dictionary. Anyway, pseudoscience is defined by what it "is not" it is "pseudo" "science". It can "not" do it in any number of ways. Lead in is a summary. Defining pseudoscience by what it does do could take an eternity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Wow. I am obliged to AGF, so I guess I must thank you for your advice. However, we shall see how your creative efforts end up. Moriori (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you know how to edit a wiki?

==Seriously== Do you know how to edit a wiki? Just reverting back to the old jumbled gobbledygook of the old version is silly, there are a zillion problems with this thin & I'm doing the best I can, reverting a days worth of work because of one conjugation of a verb, is wasteful... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Wow #2. I am obliged to AGF, so I guess I must again thank you for your advice. However, we shall see how your creative efforts end up. Moriori (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles can and should be broken up into sections

==Wikipedia articles can and should be broken up into sections== You claim the lead I keep introducing is a POV, however you are wrong. The lead is based on cited material throughout the page, & simplifies the whole scope of the topic into ONE EASY SENTENCE. I'm sorry if your stance is that we should be complicating information in order to spread it, but I disagree with you. This page is all fudged up in a number of ways & I keep trying to fix it. I'll just need to put a tagit. Geez, you people. it is not vandalism to organize a wiki page Organization is what the kenosis version lacks.

Reason

==Reason== Hello. I just wanted to see what could be changed about the JAPANiCAN article you deleted in order avoid future deletion. It made no particular sales boasts, and simply shared basic information about the company and its history. Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azure Interim (talk • contribs) 09:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC) It reads like an ad, looks a bit like an ad, and has no references, least of all independent sources. Moriori (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Colin McLaren

== Colin McLaren == Hi. I am unclear as to what needs to be altered to have this page accepted? It is not a copy of Profile Talent's webpage, infact I include that link for any interested party. The synopsis follows Colin's career chronologically (which obviously can't be changed), recent updates (not on Profile page) Also the page has been approved by Colin, who is contactable at cm@scuttlebuttmedia.net if required. I hope you will be able to clarify what is required, regards, alison —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizmolucy (talk • contribs) 08:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC) The article had identical content to http://www.profiletalent.com.au/colin-mclaren.html in part. That is copyvio. Info in the content can be rewritten for wiki purposes, and would obviously need to be, but the actual content cannot be cut and pasted. Moriori (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Colin McLaren Hi. The first article was based on the profile page as i originally wrote that too, but the second does not. I have just rewritten it (second page posted) The information is not cut and paste. The facts are not changeable. I have included extra details and names but can not change the chronology. If i have missed a word or phrase can you please copy and paste what it is you are objecting to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizmolucy (talk • contribs) 09:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Very biased editing

== ç == Moriori, Given that Hone was originally Hone Hatfield, why would you remove this important fact from his bio page? Very biased editing... hmmmm. Chur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.18.69 (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC) I didn't remove this important fact from the article, but moved it slightly further up. See my edit here. I also removed your claim he was christened. It was not mentioned in the reference. That 's ok. Moriori (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC) oppssy ..... my bad. Helps if I could learn to read :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.18.69 (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC) I have reinstated the word "activist" as applied to David Rankin, which I had accidentally deleted. There is a full response to your comments on my talk page. Thank you. Boscaswell (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

جامعة العلوم والتكنولوجيا في الصين

== جامعة العلوم والتكنولوجيا في الصين == Hi, I see you earlier speedy deleted جامعة العلوم والتكنولوجيا في الصين as category A1 with the comment "foreign language". However, I didn't think A1 was supposed to be used for foreign-language additions - aren't we supposed to use the {{notenglish}} template to give people time to translate them? (As an aside, it has been recreated and a quick translation using Google Translate showed plenty of identifying context in the latest version - but it's a duplicate of another article, so I've tagged it A10). Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)|}

Trijang Rinpoche article deleted

== Trijang Rinpoche article deleted == The copyrighted page referred to is wrong: http://www.loselingmonastery.org/index.php?id=52&type=p The referred article is not even about Trijang Rinpoche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.160.51 (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC) But this one is and that is the url I intended to cite!Moriori (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I reckon that page and several others took the information from the wiki page, the wiki page cited a textual sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.160.51 (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC) I brought up the now-deleted page in the Yahoo cache to see what information was the same as on that other site. The opening paragraph has a number of quotes, which are cited in the Wikipedia article, but the references are not given on that other site: Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche (1900-1981) was a Gelug Lama and a direct disciple of Je Pabongka. He was the junior tutor and spiritual guide[1] of the 14th Dalai Lama for forty years. He is also the root lama of many Gelug Lamas who teach in the West including Zong Rinpoche, Geshe Rabten, Lama Yeshe, Lama Gangchen Rinpoche and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. Geshe Kelsang has likened Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche to "a vast reservoir from which all Gelugpa practitioners of the present day received 'waters' of blessings and instructions,"[2] and the FPMT describes him as "one of the foremost Tibetan Buddhist masters of our time."[3] It is widely acknowledged that "Without his help the situation of Tibetan Buddhism in general and in particular of the tradition of Master Je Tsongkhapa would be in quite a different state." A great number of present-day Tibetan Buddhist masters are his students and "whatever they have accomplished, they owe it directly or indirectly to the great kindness of this master, who stands out as one of the most unforgettable figures in the history of Tibet and its Buddhism."[4] According to the Wayback Machine, in September of 2006, this article was just a stub--containing of nascent version of the above paragraph: [2]. In comparison, that other site did not even have such a page as of July 2008 (i.e., there was no link to a page called "H.H. Pabongka Rinpoche, H.H. Trijang Rinpoche & Geshe Kelsang Gyatso" -- those statues weren't being sold yet): [3]. As you can see from the PDF I put together, the author of that site simply highlighted out bits and pieces of the Wikipedia article for their own purposes: [4] I'm sure that viewing the history of the Trijang Rinpoche article as it evolved would confirm this. Emptymountains (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Moriori, I am rather shocked and distressed to see that you have deleted this page :-( I spent many many hours researching it and helping to write it from scratch. If you check the chronology, you will see that it is the other site that has copied the original encyclopediac article on Wikipedia, NOT the other way around. Many people come to this Wikipedia page to find out about this great Tibetan Lama and the page is well researched and balanced (which may be why others have copied it, but it is surely not right to blame this on the Wikipedia article). Please please please put the article back where it belongs. Thank you. (Truthbody (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)) Moriori, if you check where you say the material has been copied from http://padmaguruarts.com/lineage_gurus/gyeshe/gyeshe.html you will see that this website owner is running a business and has simply cut and pasted a couple of paragraphs from Wikipedia to help his business. Whereas Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is free for everyone to consult, so people should be able to find out information about this famous Lama on Wikipedia, not by being forced to look elsewhere e.g. ending up on this commercial website. It would be better to write to the PadmaGuruArts website owner and ask him to change his information as it is infringing the copyright of the Wikipedia article. He does not even include all the original sources and so on. Surely, there must be rules about this? For if Wikipedia articles are deleted every time someone wants to copy bits from them, there would be no articles left at all on Wikipedia. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks. (Truthbody (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)) Truthbody and Emptymountains, you are both quite correct. I have restored the article.. Apologies. Moriori (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Thank you Moriori :-) (98.244.192.66 (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)) Thanks! The webmaster of that site now links back to Wikipedia as the source of the bios: [5]. Emptymountains (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My Mommy Manual

==My Mommy Manual== I have removed the {{prod}} tag from My Mommy Manual, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. Once a PROD has been removed, for any reason, it may not be replaced - see WP:CONTESTED - certainly not when, as here, it was removed with edit summary "rm proposed deletion template - deletion has been contested, so it will have to go through AfD". If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! JohnCD (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I did not replace a prod. I created a new one. Incidentally, can you show where the earlier prod was contested. Moriori (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC) The point about PROD is that it is for uncontested deletions only; once it has been contested another PROD is not allowed, even with a different reason. WP:DEL#Proposed deletion: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. In this case, a PROD template was: added here by Sweet xx at 22:19 contested here by Mcf354 at 22:39 (I'm deleting this [i.e. the PROD] because I'm finding more appropriate references to use.) re-added here, improperly, by Sweet xx at 01:35 removed here by C.Fred at 03:34 (rm proposed deletion template - deletion has been contested, so it will have to go through AfD) JohnCD (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Red Wolf

== Red Wolf == Conventions specify that the name should be Red wolf, not Red Wolf. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC) They do not. Bald Eagle, for instance, which is actually given as an example in the link you gave. Moriori (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I quote: "..."In general, common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in sentence case — for example, "oak" or "lion". This means names are written in lower case except for proper nouns or words that start a sentence. Examples: "Black bears eat white suckers and blueberries" or "The Roosevelt elk is a subspecies of Cervus canadensis."...". Bald Eagle is a special case. Why are wolves special cases? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC) They aren't, and neither is Bald Eagle! The name of the wolf named Red Wolf should be capped for the same reason that Laughing Owl and Golden Eagle and White Rhinoceros and Ford Explorer and Academy Award and United Nations Security Council et al are capped -- they are the actual name of the subject. See Flying Ant. There are ants which fly, but none named Flying Ant so the article is about a yacht instead of a bitey. I believe we should cap names. If kids didn't do so at school they'd get a word from the teacher (hopefully). Moriori (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC) My mum would love you. I grew up capitalizing proper nouns. When I first started here, I thought I was going crazy. Then became indoctrinated. I cut my use of commas in half, and even tried hard to stop using serial commas completely. When I was a kid, Green Monkey was Green Monkey. So, Wikipedia is highly inconsistent. Brown Bear starts: "The brown bear (Ursus arctos) is a...". Article names and content are all over the place, even within the same article. This is shameful. It seems like most Wikipedians know it should be Brown Bear, but are trying to follow the guidelines, which creates a split. If English has changed, I can live with it. Right now, consistency is my chief concern. What do you suggest? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Tracking back through sections' hatlinks from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species found the convention information to be split/duplicated between several places. The case of Brown Bear (and many others) may be partly a need to distinguish the species, or a bear of that species, from any bear which is brown in color. I suspect this dispute would have to be settled by a long formal discussion in a Wikipedia policy discussion page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Oh, rats! Long, formal discussions are not fun. But, this inconsistency is a blight upon the project. It just looks so awful and sloppy, and should be very high priority. I guess I should open the can of worms. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Could somebody please help me search the nooks and crannies in case this discussion is already open somewhere? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC) I've read a LOT of discussions on species pages arguing for capitalization or not. I'm a biologist, and was always taught NOT to capitalize common names, so most scientific writing doees not and many using that as a guide fight using capitals. I was told early on that Wiki-rules suggest we do so lay people will know Red Wolf is a species, not just a red colored wolf. While not conventional to science, capitalizing species common names IS common for many popular books and magazines so it's totally crazy. That's why so many pages have both styles and it will be hard to enforce consistency, but for the wiki audience, I've been convinced to capitalize the species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddling bear (talk • contribs) 09:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Doppelgänger (band)

==Doppelgänger (band)== I have twice deleted the article Doppelgänger (band), a blatant copyvio from http://www.mahathkala.com/Biography.aspx Is there a reason why you think it should not be deleted? Moriori (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Actually it's a translated version of the corresponding article on Russian Wikipedia. After checking the link you gave I see no obvious similarities. The link is about an artist from India, the one I wrote is about a goth band from Russia. Don't forget to undelete the talk page as well. // Liftarn (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Reason for no similarities is I gave the url saved from an earlier deletion. The article is a copyvio of http://www.myspace.com/doppelgangerband which has "©2003-2010 MySpace, Inc. All Rights Reserved" on it. Moriori (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I think yu are overreaction. Sure, the facts are there, but facts in itself are not copyrighted. // Liftarn (talk)

Comments on capitalization of common names of species (redux
== Comments on capitalization of common names of species (redux) == I would like your input on this. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

==Deletion== I have added an article on Dr. Gautam Ghosh whch has been deleted. The reason is still unclear. I strongly object deleteion of such article without any prior notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandarb (talk • contribs) 10:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC) (This comment moved from top of page) Anandarb, please read Copyvio. The article was a cut and paste from an external article at http://www.drgautamghosh.com/category/indian-police which had a clear "Copyright © 2010" on it. Moriori (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorperated
==Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorperated== Why did you delete Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorperated. It's a real show. - LuigiGamer64 (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Yucca flowering.jpg

== File:Yucca flowering.jpg == It looks like it is one of your old photos. Someone asked for a permission. Perhaps you can can have a look and if it is yours make a note that you agree to the license. --MGA73 (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC) I am asking the someone to approach the editor who removed the specific PD permission I gave nearly seven years ago when I uploaded the image. Moriori (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Olivia Wilde
== Olivia Wilde == I have removed the |2011 parameter from the ibox. The reference says that she and her husband have separated. They are not yet divorced so the infobox should not imply that they are. – ukexpat (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Mitch Evans

== Mitch Evans == I didn't include the bit about youngest winner of any Grand Prix because of this wording from the official website. Today’s win is believed to put him in the history books as the youngest person to ever win an FIA-recognised Grand Prix. It leads me to believe that the feat is actually not proven. --Falcadore (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC) OK. Until it is confirmed, it is probably better for us to not make a definitive claim. I will amend both articles. Moriori (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Do NOT remove a cleanup tag if no effort has been made to effect an actual cleanup

== Re: Do NOT remove a cleanup tag if no effort has been made to effect an actual cleanup. == You can do what you said, but once February 20, 2011 is over your edits will be wortheless. Just a heads up. I will leave it on there until I finish the article sometime next week. I hate the wording too, but I don't really care about it because that is not how the article will look once its completed. This article will be a good article by April. Nascar1996 02:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC) By the way, if you would like to help with an article, try the other Daytona 500 articles, such as 2010, or 2009. Neither are finished, and I don't have enough time to clean them up. Nascar1996 02:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC) I don't think you quite got the import of my message. Articles should be nicely written at whatever stage of their evolution. Yes, there are times when articles are incomplete, waiting for info to be added later, but the info that is actually in the incomplete article should be up to standard. I look forward to seeing how this progresses. Moriori (talk) 02:50, February 18, 2011 (UTC) If you think I was joking about the good article information, you must be kidding. I will do anything to get the article to GA status. On the other hand, the race has yet to take place, and all the will bes would have been removed Sunday. Its been like that since the creation of the article, and thats how I start all the articles I created. I could care less how the article looked at the beginning, I'm focused on how it looks at the end. Nascar1996 02:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Sigh. Nascar1996, I am having trouble getting through here. I didn't mention construction of the article (although that undobtedly can be improved). I mentioned the standard of writing. When I quoted "will be" I did so not because it was a prediction etc, but because that phrase was used twice in the space of 13 words in one sentence, part of the poor writing I was talking about. Moriori (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC) A question or two, what is exactly the problem with the article? The background? I know the practice and qualifying section is almost the same incomparison with the other season articles from last year. I'm not sure about the backgroud (I never was). Since it is the beginning of the season, its not like I can actually put standings like would normally, so I'm not sure. I would appreciate if you would tell me, so this template would dissapear before Saturday. Thanks. Nascar1996 02:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC) If I deal to a couple of paragraphs (later) , will you take notice? Incidentally, everyone's writing here can be improved, so I don't profess to be the b all and end all expert around here. I get edited mercilessly too, and it's often an improvement which I gladly accept.. Moriori (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Yes, unless it takes away from the main meaning of it. I welcome your help. Nascar1996 03:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC) You seem to be still struggling to grasp the point. Meaning is dependent on content which can only be justified by references. By seeking a better standard of writing I don't propound changes to the meaning of referenced material. Being concise would be a good start. Using fifty repetitious words to say something that can be conveyed in 30 words is not helpful to Wikipedia which is supposed to be an international encyclopedia of high standard. This is not a blog, even if some subjects in Wiki make one wonder. Moriori (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Yes, but if your unfamilar with NASCAR, you might reword something in the wrong way, therefore removing the actual meaning. You might want to stick around for the article until Saturday when the final practice session is. The Race summary is normally good with other editors, while the post race might need a cleaning. Thanks for yout help. Familiarity with NASCAR racing is not a pre-requisite of good sentence construction. --Falcadore (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Oh my damn, what I meant was that if they weren;t familar they might change something to subtract what actually happened. Nascar1996 18:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC) And still you don't get it. Competent editors don't need intimate knowledge of a subject to knock a poorly written article into passable English without compromising the efficacy of content. You appear unable to grasp that point. The examples below are paragraphs from the article, before and after an edit. Original : In the third practice session, which was delayed because of rain, Kyle Busch was quickest with a time of 44.943 seconds. He was followed by Greg Biffle, Earnhardt, Johnson, and Juan Pablo Montoya in the next four positions. Also in the session, Earnhardt, along with Truex, collided together, and into the wall. Both sustained major damages to their car, which prompted them to move to back-up cars, meaning Earnhardt will have to forfeit the pole position. During the fourth practice, Kasey Kahne was quickest with a time of 44.985 seconds, only one-thousandth of a second faster than Joey Logano. Gordon followed in the third position, ahead of David Ragan and Kyle Busch. Edited : Kyle Busch was quickest in the rain-delayed third practice with 44.943 seconds, followed by Greg Biffle, Earnhardt, Johnson, and Juan Pablo Montoya. Earnhardt and Truex collided and hit the wall, both needing to use their back-up cars which meant Earnhardt forfeited pole position. Kasey Kahne led fourth practice with 44.985 seconds, only one-thousandth of a second faster than Joey Logano. Gordon was third ahead of David Ragan and Kyle Busch. I hope you appreciate the differences. You added a par about later practice, the first sentence of which stated "During the fifth practice session, Burton was quickest after recording a fastest lap of 45.767 seconds." That says he was fastest and fastest. It's a bit like (above) saying four drivers were in the next four positions, and "Earnhardt, along with Truex, collided together".Moriori (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC) So do I need to remove the second fastest, then what? Nascar1996 03:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Thank you very much! Sorry we started out on the wrong foot, but please when you see something wrong on an article fix it. Thanks again. Nascar1996 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Absolutely not!. No-one is obliged to follow you around and fix your writing inadequacies. If you feel you are not up to writing adequate contributions, then attend a writing course, or don't contribute. Incidentally, I approached you on your talk page but you brought it here. I think we should share the conversation so I am putting it on your talk too.Moriori (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC) What I meant, was if you go over another article similar to the race article, as in repeat what you did at first with the introduction paragraph. You have no clue what I meant. Nascar1996 13:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC) No one else would either. If ever we needed an example of your writing ability....... Moriori (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Our articles have consistancy, and I want that to stay. Nascar1996 22:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC) What is the damn information I removed? I'm dedicated to this article now, and I know how to write it. I want consistancy through all the race articles. Nascar1996 23:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC) I'm not showing ownership, but I sure do know that how you constructed the lead is not at the level of GA. I also reworded it, so the warning was not nessesary, and was removed. Nascar1996 23:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC) I have replaced the block warning at your talk page where I initiated this whole thread, and responded there.Moriori (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC) I was adding that information before I recieved the warning. Have you had any sense to look at the other articles I worked on? Nascar1996 23:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC) I am tiring of your silly games. You removed this information from the lead --" won by 20-year-old Trevor Bayne....." -- with this edit at 11:36 my time. It was restored, and then you removed it again with this edit at 11.46 and acknowledged in the edit summary you had been warned. Nobody in Wikipedia has to sit around waiting for you to edit an article. Had you improved my patently valid contribution instead of arbitrarily deleting it on both occasions, then fine, that's the way of wiki. I guess you are a little touchy at the moment, but profanity in edit summaries like this don't really help Moriori (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC). You know what, that was unreferenced, so I had a right to remove anyway. Give me a break, I finish these articles in less than 3 days. Those articles are complicated to work on. I don't have to do it, but I wan't to. You don't even know what the race is probably, and theres probably no way you can complete the summary. I construct these articles after seeing what the F1 project does to their races, which some are FA class. If you are tired of my silly ways, don't worry about the article. I'm going to be working on it tonight, and tomorrow. Right now I'm working on the news story. I have a lot to do. You are the one anyway who started editing on the article in the first place, you didn't have to do that. I would have been better off if you didn't. The intro is also suppose to summarize the article. Nascar1996 00:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC) He just wanted to help, you know, and you're not letting him. Stuff like this would irk me as well. Nobody has to edit Wikipedia. They do it because they want to create, improve, and maintain something special. When you said "You don't even know what the race is probably, and theres probably no way you can complete the summary." Ouch, man. Ouch. So what if they aren't NASCAR fans? That doesn't mean they can't do a little bit of research and help out with the lead. I really don't understand why you're undoing Moriori's edits, which all look valid. Your post above really makes me think you think you own the NASCAR articles that you work on and are the main contributor to. Airplaneman ✈ 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Articles need consistancy, or that is what I've been told. Since the second race of the season last year, to this year's Budweiser Shootout, the layout has stayed similar. The other race articles need to be fixed like these, but that would be impossible. I'm not responding to this anymore, its time to move on. You poking you nose in might not be that good, either. The current layout of the articles have been soo succesful in Formula One's project, which some of them with this format are Featured. That is my ultimate goal. I apreciated his help, but this was an argument of what worked better in our own opinions. People disagree all the time. Nascar1996 21:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC) If you are tired of my silly games, why don't you not bother and intimidate me on my user page. It would be better, you do not interact with me on here. We have a problem with each other, and to maintain peace it would be better if we stay away from each other. By the way, do you know the last time I did this? This time last year, in my first couple months of editing here. I've had some problems with logos since then, but those were all fixed (I didn't know we had to use the fair-use rational at the time). Nascar1996 11:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Strike last comment, it would be better if we both forget about what happen and start over. I though your first change was confusing, but I should have reworded it. Then the second time about the 20 year old, I should have removed that, while readding it at the end in the same edit. I'm sorry for all of our troubles, and I have been thinking about this arguement while at school and away. I hope you forgive my foolish actions. I'm sorry. Nascar1996 21:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Your revert on 2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series is not correct, and either way would be unreferenced. Lowe's sponsors Johnson for 28 races, 20 more than Kobalt Tools, therefore Lowe's is the primary sponsor, while Kobalt is a associative. They display both for certain races, though Lowe's sponsors for more races (to shorten the table, only big primary sponsors are listed). --Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Question: Why are you giving me a warning for undoing a addition of incorrect information? --Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Also a sponsor in NASCAR is split, there are associative sponsors, and primary sponsors. Kobalt Tools is a primary sponsor. Above at the top of the table it says 'Primary Sponsor', not just Sponsor.

Note about block
== Note about block == Hey, Moriori. I see you accidentally blocked 12.186.155.130 indefinitely. I have changed the block settings to make it a regular duration for vandalism. --Bsadowski1 03:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Oh, OK. Moriori (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Possessive apostrophes in place names

== Possessive apostrophes in place names == Hi. Thought I'd better let you know as a courtesy why I reverted your edit to Mount Taranaki/Egmont. In a lot of place names, etc., LINZ have dropped the apostrophe from before the possessive "s", even though it is not proper English to do so. This appears to be the case for Fanthams Peak as per [6]. (This is not the silliest thing LINZ have done; at one point they dropped the possessive "s"s off the end of a lot of road names, and did so with such enthusiasm that a lot of terminal "s"s that weren't possessives - such as "Shields" and "Chalmers" - got caught up as well). Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Maybe the next world will be guided by logic! Ta for headsup. Moriori (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

you've got mail

== Email == Hello, Moriori. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. --Nascar1996 23:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Nascar, I never discuss goings-on in Wikipedia by e-mail. I am sorry you are somewhat confused, but I have had trouble communicating with you and can't see value in attempting to continue. Moriori (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Before I didn't want to listen to you. (Part of the hard headed self I am) However, now I do. You have been here for a long time, and you have more experience than some of the others. I would appreciate you attempting to continue trying to help me. Please and thanks. --Nascar1996 01:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discussion

== Pseudoscience discussion == with respect to this - [7]. Just a point of interest: I've answered your question in a complete and thoroughly fashion. If you need it reduced it to a yes-or-no dichotomy then you'll have to ask someone to help you with the logic offline, because it is not a yes-or-no question that you're asking and the talk page is not the place to work through those kinds of basic mistakes with you. Further, if you continue trying to push me for a yes/no answer prosecutor-style (by repeating the same question over and over, with bolds), well... that is not going to work out for you the way you think. I am giving you a chance to refactor this second repetition (or at least stop before you get to the third), because if you push me into a position where I have to respond to this kind of thing I will be forced to discuss the very poor reasoning that underlies the way you've phrased your question. I do not have any problem whatsoever producing the kind of constructive criticism that I would give to a freshman who used this approach in a class discussion (I see this kind of thing often enough), but I anticipate you would be somewhat uncomfortable being put in that position. best if we don't go down that road at all. thanks in advance! --Ludwigs2 10:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Oh Mr Clever Clogs. For the benefit of anyone who meanders in here, Ludwigs made the following statement at Talk:Pseudoscience -- "'Pseudoscience can be a risk to public health when used to promote medical quackery' is not correct." I queried him on that and then twice asked the following question -- "Is it not true that pseudoscience can be a risk to........X? Yes? Or No?". He wouldn't answer, because he disliked my paraphrasing of it. Fair enough, let's rephrase it: Is it true that pseudoscience can be a risk to public health when used to promote medical quackery? Is it true that pseudoscience can not be a risk to public health when used to promote medical quackery? Pretty clear really.Moriori (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Mount Everest

Mount Everest While I applaud your changing of "geoid" to "MSL" in the Mount Everest article (and would have done it myself if I'd gotten there first), there is no way the edit meets the criteria listed at WP:MINOR. Please be careful to only mark as minor those edits that are such. Thanks! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC) To me it was a minor edit, replacing a confusing word that as far as I can see has never before appeared in this article in more than nine years. I would rarely plead IAR, but I sure do on this occasion. Moriori (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC) The point is not what any of us feel, but rather, "Does it meet the WP:MINOR criteria?" I recommend not using the "minor" checkbox if there could be any doubt. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 11:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC) I must confess it is a l-o-n-g time since I read WP:MINOR, and have been editing on the basis that an amendment which does not change the meaning of the article is minor. I edited Mount Everest on this basis and gave a very clear reason in the edit summary. I note it also says "a minor edit is one (that).......could never be the subject of a dispute". There wouldn't be too many edits in Wiki that someone wouldn't dispute, but OK, point taken. Moriori (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC) I had been doing patrol-the-crappy-edits-and-vandalism duty for a while that day and had admonished a bunch of folks for not supplying Edit Summary info and misusing the Minor checkbox when I ran across your edit. Considering your history, I should have said nothing. I think I was being a little bit too pedantic; sorry for bothering you! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 21:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Hey, no probs. It's motivated me to be more careful. Moriori (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Nascar1996#Last_warningl
Hello, Moriori. You have new messages at Nascar1996's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. --theMONO 02:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor?

==Editor?== You show biased judgments on "editing". You favor editors with the most posts rather than the Truth. Comment deleted from other's posts are long ignored. Comments referenced to Wiki's Own Headings are ignored. Hope the Maori's sacrifice you at the next football (soccer) game, and the ghost of Bertie Munro runs you over at 208 MPH on his American made Indian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.118.196 (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Diff/s would be helpful.Moriori (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Novus Spiritus Pagel

== Societhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MovePage&target=User_talk%3AMorioriy of Novus Spiritus Page == Hello. You have told me to place my last article addition to the Novus Spiritus page, but it seems there is no such page; it simply redirects to Sylvia Browne. Am I to create an entire page for this small bit of information? There is, already, a Novus Spiritus section to the Sylvia Browne article, and so I don't see why (if this is what you are after) a new page should be added for this small bit of information as to the source of her church's teachings. Sorry for any confusion. I'm rather new to all of this. LitAes (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Ok. The page is about Browne, and is not the place to go overboard about Novus. If you believe Novus justifies its own page, then perhaps you might like to create it. It would help you to have a look at the following links. Tutorial How to develop articles How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish) Manual of Style Cheers. Moriori (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you. I'll read all of this now. I appreciate your help. LitAes (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Intervention isn't the same as participation

==Intervention isn't the same as participation== (Just became aware of this, so moved it here to comment)". Moriori, it is inappropriate, no matter how upset you are, to threaten a user with a block based on a content dispute. Please seek dispute resolution instead. theMONO 02:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Let's look at reality. I had been watching an article after removing a copyvio image (my first edit of the article). A little later I intervened when an editor reverted a verifiable edit by an IP. I checked both edits and restored the IP's which was verified by an authoritative website. The editor removed that information again, giving an inaccurate edit summary. I restored the IP's info, summarising "Restore valid information". As the editor had removed verified information and had been told twice it was valid, I gave a block-for-disruption warning as a preventive measure. It worked and the verifiable info posted by the IP remains. Hopefully Mono will take his own advice and read dispute resolution which starts with "This policy describes what to do when you have a dispute with another editor". I didn't have a dispute; the editor initiated a dispute with the IP and I saw he was out of line so intervened. Moriori (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard Riemerschmid DYK

==Richard Riemerschmid DYK== Thanks for suggesting an alt that got the article finally taken to prep! And in particular for keeping my "after his marriage" wording in it. I was so flummoxed trying to either defend that admittedly ambiguous English-language usage or find another way to say it that wasn't hopelessly convoluted or stiff that I quite overlooked the fact the order of elements in the sentence wasn't optimal. However, last time I looked I was a woman, and personally am quite ready to use "suitable" to mean "suits me" '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoa back there

==Whoa back there== If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. I have removed the insulting template (seen to the right of this text) that you put on the talk page of a contributor with 44,000+ edits. Whatever your motivation might have been, provocation or ignorance, it was especially appalling given the current situation. Moriori (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC) I requested one of the user's images be speedy deleted. Twinkle supplied the generic 'your image just got tagged for speedy deletion' template, which I guess includes that. I never actually saw the user's page. I don't care what you do one way or the other as far as this goes. The issue is moot now, the image is gone. As a side note, if an editor has 44,000+ edits and is uploading images that are copyright violations, there are disturbing implications. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC) You could have removed the component of the template that is glaringly irrelevant to the overall intent of the message. You need to be more observant in future to identify such an irrelevancy. Moriori (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC) No, I don't. It's a template message, it's designed to be as generic as possible to apply towards all applicable readers. That there is one component that does not apply in one case is of no concern to me. There is a reason that the first word in that box is "If". Sven Manguard Wha? 18:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 Monaco Grand Prix

2011 Monaco Grand Prix Don't know why Wikipedia let me revert you - your version of 00:31 was not visible on my machine when I went for "restore to version" at 00:32. It should have come up with an edit conflict. The are problems documented on the village pump about odd behaviour, seems to be problems with some servers not updating - let's hope they fix it!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC) No probs.Moriori (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: Your welcome to User:98.248.18.25

==RE: Your welcome to User:98.248.18.25== That warning was two months ago. Unless there is solid evidence it is a static IP, level 1 warnings are always given. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 07:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC) What was given two months ago was a final warning. Unless there is solid evidence it is not a static IP a block is reasonable for an IP with six edits to Wikipedia, all of them deliberate vandalism! If the IP thinks the block is not justified, then anytime now we will see an unblock request and we be able to evaluate his rationale for vandalising Wikipedia. Moriori (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

its top single

==its top single== Moriori, it was a UK poll to name the best single (the UK's fave single, not the fave UK single) hence the top 30 features non British singles from the likes of Elvis, Jackson, Madonna. To give an example, best British single category at the Brit Awards are just that, British singles. I hadn't read the BBC citation myself so i initially assumed it was only British singles, so i got an Administrator to look at it. Cheers.Queen Zeppelin Metallica Floyd (talk) 10:56, 04 June 2011 (UTC Who was the Admin you say you consulted? I have difficulty getting through to you. The source says "Queen's rock opera single Bohemian Rhapsody has topped a poll to find the UK's favourite hit of all time" which I think most people would agree is patently clear. Consequently, I have amended the article, to say BR was voted "the UK's favourite hit of all time"". Note what the two bolded phrases say -- exactly the same thing. My change accurately quotes the reference -- verbatim -- and the link to the supporting reference immediately follows the quote. Do not again change it to something that does not accurately reflect the source. Also, if you need to consult a second admin, try me. Moriori (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Don't get why you are getting worked up over this. I agree with the change btw. Stating British single was vague and could be misconstrued as being solely British singers. Cheers.Queen Zeppelin Metallica Floyd (talk) 11:56, 04 June 2011 (UTC) I am far from worked up over this, but find it hard to AGF when someone tries to include inaccurate information into an article, claiming it had been checked by an administrator. Who was the administrator? Moriori (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Bud its done..i've given the Brit Award link (best British single) twice previously as to why British single was inaccurate, which you reinstated. BH was voted the top single of all time in the British charts (ie.the UK's favourite hit) not top British single. Now.. if the Brit Award committee ever include Eminem and Madonna in their category of Best British single, then reinstating such a coment will be valid. Cheers.Queen Zeppelin Metallica Floyd (talk) 21:56, 06 June 2011 (UTC) It's done only because I did it. Had I not intervened the article would still be inaccurate. One of the good things about Wiki is that edit histories are available to be checked later. It would be a good idea in future for you to not ignore advice you sought from an admin by inserting inaccurate information into an article. It might also be a good idea to not say in an edit summary you "reworded for accuracy per Admin" when no admin previewed what you inserted. I have left a note for Graeme Bartlett. Incidentally, you could check out a few of our articles to see that British and UK are synonymous. Moriori (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Minor edits

== Minor edits == Hello Moriori. While looking through unblock requests yesterday, I noticed the peculiar typeface due to an unclosed font tag in your signature in User talk:139.80.123.40. I wondered if your signature was broken elsewhere, so I looked at your contributions and then saw that you mark almost every edit as a minor edit. Many of the edits, however, don't qualify for WP:MINOR. As other editors with this habit have been the cause of considerable discussion in the past, which led to the removal of the "mark all edits as minor by default" setting from preferences, you might want to change your use of it. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC) What a curious thing. I haven't consciously deliberately selected minor for non minor edits. I feel suitable chastened. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Oh dear - my intent certainly wasn't to chasten! My apologies if I was misunderstood. —DoRD (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)|}

FakhtneviM

Hi, I had a problem with that same user before you do in terms of him/her making ungrammatical edits to userboxes; in the case I dealt with, it actually reversed the userbox's meaning. I tried to assume good faith, but the fact that this user continues to fight with people and insist his/her grammar is perfect makes me think that the time is up for that. (I mean, it's one thing to be not-so-great with the English language, it's another to be in denial of that and continue to make the same errors after having them pointed out to you repeatedly.) I'm still pretty new to the counter-vandalism thing, though; do you suggest nominating FakhtneviM as a vandal and, if so, how do I go about it? Beggarsbanquet (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't think that is necessary, really. The FaktneviM's of this world eventually self destruct, so just have a little patience. Moriori (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Daytona 500

If you are interesting in helping with the GA review, you are welcome to comment here. -- Nascar1996^{(Talk • Contribs)} 00:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

John Carter

Former MPs do have working links in Parliament. If you weren't so eager to smash things rather than fix them, you would have noticed that. And you couldn't even be bothered to let me know there might be a problem. I hope our paths never cross again but I suppose I'll have to watch your contributions in future to make sure you aren't deleting everything I do. What a waste of time. Oh yeah - I'll assume you were smashing in good faith. As if. Thanks for ruining my (formerly) good mood, as I was enjoying making some useful contributions to Wikipedia articles. Kiwigov (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Now, a recap. With this edit you added a link to the current MPs list, for Carter. Problem was it was for David Carter, not John Carter so I removed it. I went to replace it with one for John Carter, but there is none, so I couldn't. You then added another link, but like the first one it too went to the wrong person, this time, Cam Calder. I removed it with the edit summary "Cannot replace it because Carter is no longer an mp". You have responded by inserting a brand new link to Former MPs. I was unaware Carter has been added to that list, but that is beside the point because I was removing links to current MPs. If you intend to edit Wikipedia for a while I suggest you don't shout in your edit summaries as you did with "Former MPs DO HAVE WORKING LINKS. Wikipedians fix links rather than delete them", and you address the actual issue and don't jump to conclusions. Moriori (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Moriori. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 03:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Comments on Tuku Morgan

You made some comments in your revision of my edits to Tuku Morgan. The comments are entirely justified, but it's not my fault, since the source updated their content. I've also added a note to the talk page of the page in question. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't you hate it when that happens? Maybe there are a journo and sub who got a bollocking for the original article (Waikato Times?) which wasn't entirely accurate. All cached stuff seems to have disappeared. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit flag

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Noted. Moriori (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Flight 19

I'm rather confused as to why you felt the need to use the revert function over my edit to the Flight 19 article. I was adding a space between the reference for the previous sentence and the following sentence, as they are seperate sentences. In general, reverting without leaving an explanation is used for anti-vandalism reverts, and I think it's pretty difficult to class my actions as vandalism. - Chrism would like to hear from you 14:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather confused too! I can't actually recall rv-ing that article. Must have clicked onthe wrong line while traversing down my watchlist yesterday. Absolutely no aspersion on you intended. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha, fair enough, managed that before myself. Also, apologies for the perhaps snappish tone of my message. Had a mild case of toothache at the time and wasn't in the best of moods. - Chrism would like to hear from you 11:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hit the wrong link?

Just noticed this - did you hit the wrong link/button here or am I missing something completely. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh????? Absolutely not. I never edited that page even tho it shows that I did. That's the second time it has happened today (see Flight 19 above). I will have to report that my account may be compromised. Not sure where so have asked at ANI. Moriori (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's always with revert, it maybe something triggering revert rather than a compromised account (accidentally clicking on a watchlist etc?). It looks like this revert is another example. XLerate (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Cripes!! I wasn't even aware of that revert. Trust me I did not knowingly do that. Moriori (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the initial edit was just silly vandalism and didn't bother me, and I cannot believe the revert was deliberate. I only offered it as an example because I thought it may help understand the issue and determine the cause, it appears to show those reverts have been happening for a little while. XLerate (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted and ignored the first edit, assuming it was a slip of a mouse button. Could someone have hijacked your authorization cookie? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Captain Cook

Thanks for fixing the Captain Cook link. I almost fixed it myself but it was so odd I thought there might be some reason for it being that way. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Please see this edit. Viriditas (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And this. Viriditas (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Kim Casali

Do you have references that she ever used the name Kim Grove professionally? She was born Marilyn Judith Grove, but became notable as "Casali", her legal surname following marriage and up until her death. Michelle Obama, for example, isn't referred to as Michelle LaVaughn Robinson. JenniferGovernment 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You may have thought it was obvious...

See Bill Asprey's (who has written and drawn Love is... since 1975 and was a close personal friend of the Casali's) website here and here. He quite clearly only uses the name "Kim Casali." Maybe he's just being obtuse? JenniferGovernment 00:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me iterate. Kim Grove"s name was Kim Grove when she created the cartoons, and I provided a reference to show so. Even after she was married to Casali she published Love is... books with her name on the cover, Kim Grove. No-one denies she subsequently used Kim Casali. In the context of the article, using her name Kim Grove is accurate and verified by a reference. I suggest you have a look at illustrations of many of her books for sale on amazon. Note the author's name on the covers -- Kim Grove. Moriori (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

More specific RfC on astrology

Thank you for your input on the RfC on Astrology. Because I was informed that the original RfC was too vague and general, I've reformulated it with specific concerns. The reformulated RfC can be found here: [[8]] Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edit for Astrology

I am making all recent contributors to the Astrology article and its discussion page aware of a proposed amendment to the text which discusses the 1976 'Objections to astrology' and the relevance of Carl Sagan's reaction. This is in response to the comments, criticisms and suggestions that have been made on the published text, with the hope of finding a solution acceptable to all. Your opinion would be very welcome.

The proposal is here.

Thanks, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sheila Laxon

The ref you added to Sheila Laxon regarding Empire Rose doesn't appear to working. You might want to check it out. Regards. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Editing 101 - after saving page, check that refs actually work! Smacks head. Ta for headsup. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

??

[9] A mistake, or something I need to be aware of? --Ludwigs2 22:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahhhh. Slips. ! Moriori (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

HahaH! wet noodle time. --Ludwigs2 23:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kim Grove Love Is... book.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kim Grove Love Is... book.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. An incident report has been place here for personal attacks to User:JamesAlan1986. This warning is being placed so you can defend your actions. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 06:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:

First off back off my talk page. Second I did warn you I just didn't post it right here learn to read it said and I qoute

An incident report has been place here for personal attacks to User:JamesAlan1986. This warning is being placed so you can defend your actions. JamesAlan1986 *talk 06:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

with a link to the incident report. So back off. Third I don't owe him anything, he was doing disruptive edits that were unnecessary and you were told the same thing and also I'd like to point you to Tbhotch's talk page where I actually said I felt bad for filing it after I found out you done the same to Fastily cause I didn't see it on her talk page. So maybe you should back up a few steps and stop being a drama queen and learn to read and also learn to when it's appropriate to say something and what's too much to say. How about you try that? Now back up, back off and leave me alone and learn to read what's under the guidelines before you assume things and jump onto people. That's all I'm asking. Thank you. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 04:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That is largely incoherent, but I think you want me to back off your talk page. That's curious, considering that the section below this one -- on my talk page -- was posted by you after you asked me to not post on yours. Interesting. Moriori (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Moriori. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 05:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Many Thanks

The work you did on the rangatira is incredibly interesting. Well done. Te Karere —Preceding undated comment added 08:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

75 Squadron

Can you a reference for your recent edit please. The article captures some useful and interesting NZ military history and sources will also be of interest. Thanks for your efforts.NealeFamily (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Any you can add against facts and statements made in the article would be useful. I'm quite happy to go digging for any items that look like they need a reference added, but as you have quite extensive knowledge on the subject you might be a bit faster than me. NealeFamily (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hone heke

Hi Mo- I have read that section and taken it into account but that section has rather been overtaken by the 2000 letters in French that the vatican sent the Waikato Uni to translate. These reveal more intimate knowledge of what the Catholics missionaries were thinking. The difference is between what they were saying in public and what they were thinking and writing about between themselves is quite startling.Also was it co-incidental that when Kororareka was burnt down the French mission remained untouched? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.39.161 (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

We?Wi Ripa?

My mistake its Wi not We.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.39.161 (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question

Hi Msalmon. When you removed material from the X Factor's Week 7 (December 7/8) section, you asked "why do you need to say Scherzinger was booed off stage, what has that got to do with the actual result?"

The info did not say she was booed "off the stage", and it was in the details section, not the results section. Details of other weeks also include information about those weeks, such as Week 2 recording Cowell telling Astro that he didn't like his attitude, and Week 6 recording that Jackson's family was in the audience. The booing of Scherzinger was noteworthy, being reported worldwide. Even Scherzinger's own Wikipedia article says she "was also booed by the studio audience....." This article is about X Factor 2011. The audience reaction to Scherzinger in Week 7 is a noteworthy, verifiable and referenced historical detail, so I am restoring the information. Moriori (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Response

Please see my response to your comments at User talk:Northern winter. Thank you, AndrewJFulker (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There are so many things wrong with what you wrote there. I will comment after Northern Winter responds. Moriori (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You have reverted the edit of Northern Winter on the Staines page and also removed valid, factual information which was put in place by someone who seems to be a resident of the town. The former name of the railway station and those which have closed down, the continued use of the name of a former resident as the name of a secondary school, the name, use and dates of the stadium and other unbiased, factual information has gone. It seems that you have let a personal disagreement with another Wikipedian taint your ability to edit the page in an objective way. The aforementioned contributor is now reluctant to edit the page about the town they live in as they are in fear that you will block them from editing again. May I suggest that you have become emotionally involved in this issue and that you too should step back from the Staines page and ask people who are not involved in the heated discussion to deal with the wording of the page. AndrewJFulker (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure I reverted Northern Winter, and I have clearly explained those rvs at Staines:Talk. It seems you need to start again, to learn what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopedia, not a citizen's private blog, in which he controls the content. Wikipedia makes the rules, not him, not you and not me. I suggest you spend some time reading WP:WELCOME and the guidelines/rules it leads to. What do the names of railways stations, or the school named after a former resident, or the name and use and dates of the stadium -- have to do with me?

Suggesting I am "emotionally involved" is insulting. Moriori (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly did not intend to insult you and I am sorry if that is the way I came across. I agree that Wikipedia is not a private blog; however we do all control the content. The items that I listed were all details that the other contributor had added and that disappeared when you reverted his last edit; I’m sure that this was unintentional and will assume good faith. I have read all the posts involved, as well as all the citied references, and I feel that that there are definitely two sides to this discussion. It is not my place to adjudicate between fellow contributors, but I do feel, as stated in my original comments, that we should set aside the contentious parts of this issue and simply put the facts on the page without coming down on either side of the argument. I stand by this comment. I also feel that I am too close to this discussion to permit me to make the relevant edits and would like to leave it to neutral members of the online community to do this for us. AndrewJFulker (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Village stocks

There was an old discussion at Wikipedia talk:Village stocks#Suggested nomination whether this page move qualified for entrance into the village stocks. At that time you weren't active, so I thought you might want to know since you've returned now. Double sharp (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wunderbar, those were the days. Actually the move wasn't made by me but mea culpa for not better supervising someone who I was introducing to the ways of Wiki. Any particular reason why you raise this now? Moriori (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Moriori (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I found that when looking through Wikipedia talk:Village stocks. Double sharp (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

ManawatuNZ

The username issue was a bit more complicated than that. I would be willing to unblock if s/he were clearer about what the relationship between him/her and that website was, and they put in for a username change. Daniel Case (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

She has asked to be unblocked, and I see User:Max Semenik has asked her some questions that will need satisfactory answers if she is to return, (with a new username). Cheers. Moriori (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Erasmus Mundus

An article that you have been involved in editing, Erasmus Mundus , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ejly (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC) I saw your comment from years back on this article and thought you may want to weigh in on a merger proposal: ejly (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Te Kooti

Hi Mo, to start with some of your more interesting observations. The Ringatu article is almost certainly written by the people in the cult as it has little mainstrean influence at all and they are very secretive about some practices-a bit like the Mormons. If the word cult had been invented in Te Kooti's time it would have been the word used to describe them. The only difference I can see between say the Hau hau and Ringatu(on the surface) is that Ringatu didnt eat their victims but then Hau hau didnt torture their captives, as far as I know. If you check out what cult means you will see that it applies exactly to TK.ie Cohersive, getting people isolated, placing them under stress,constantly browbeating them with the same message and all based around one figure. If you consider what TK actually did there is no way he was a christian. If someome behaved like that today they would be considered a psychopathic killer. Where is the christianity in stealing? Mass murder?Brutal torture? Rape?Sedition? Killing peace messengers? Getting drunk?Come on get real!These are historiacl facts which no one disputes.

I doubt you have ever read Crosby's book on Mair.It gives the other dark side of TK. Crosby makes it very clear that TK was a wild one from childhood and he got far worse when he discovered booze.Its pretty bad when your own relatives hunt you down with a war party and drive you off your own lands.Crosby is very clear on the multiple wives-many at the same time -not very christain that!He also says that others wives were not safe when TK was around. This is what caused Titokawarau's demise too. We know today that TK was an exact fit for a psychopath-he had every one of the 15 traits assocaited with these unfortunates. Rebel -of course he was. He spent 4years actively killing nz citizens ,both Maori and Pakeha including fighting vitually the whole of what was then the NZ army.Both Te R and HH lived at a time before British law and order were properly established and both were steeped in the bloodthirsty ancient tikanga of war. Both of these gents literally got away with murder as there were not enough police/ soldiers to bring them to justice in those very early days so Grey had to work around them. Hey, if you dont like my grammar or whatever improve it-that's what good editors do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.185.98 (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Good editors don't post pov rubbish. Moriori (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Mormons

Hi Mo. Mormons are a relatively small religion apart from maybe in Hamilton. When the Mormon High school,Church College, closed about 2 years ago the various mormon teachers and managers were able to move to some of the other schools in Hamilton (and elsewhere?). Mormons have some distinctive practices,perhaps the best known being abstaining from alcohol but also have secret religious practices.The particular school in question has a liberal tradition.I dont know of any city in NZ where both husband and wife are both principals,let alone mormon principals.The details as mentioned are just facts.By all accounts Mr Crawford is a fine principal.The candidate who withdrew was a Maori Catholic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.184.199 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC) (Replied at talk Fairfied College).

Possibly unfree File:Tane Mahuta sign.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tane Mahuta sign.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing help

Your comments are not helpful Mo. Most editors try to be useful and not negative. Assume good faith is the first rule of editing. 1-2 mts on your time would have been enough to verify all the information on Te Kooti written by (mostly ) the renown Judith Binney as all the sources were accurately named. It sounds to be like you have a bureaucratic mind set maybe.Lighten up, be postive use your editing skills to help, not hinder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.184.199 (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

How many times have you bee advised re including references, by how many different editors, and how many times have you ignored that advice? Moriori (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy blank

Speedy deletion nomination of Blue (Bill Mack song) If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. A tag has been placed on Blue (Bill Mack song) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Swifty*talkcontribs 11:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Blue by LeAnn Rimes It has been stated before and I will say it again. THE SOURCES THAT CLAIM THAT BILL MACK RELEASED THE SONG AS A SINGLE IS NOT RELIABLE please stop thank you! Please see here, and here. If this continues I will report you to an admin. Swifty*talkcontribs 11:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Blue (Bill Mack song) Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Blue (Bill Mack song), is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Swifty*talkcontribs 13:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC) February 2012 Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Blue (Bill Mack song), you may be blocked from editing. Because of here, here, and here I know this page was made out of a deliberate attempt of vandalism. Swifty*talkcontribs 13:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:

First off you created that page after an edit war. Second what you did was wrong as WP:COMMON is also on my side. Rimes is most noted for the song not Mack so yes I will protest it because it's funny how all these rules are set into place on Wikipedia but yet everyone picks and choices when to use them and when to not. Swifty*^talk_contribs 15:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Swifty, it is tiresome trying to communicate with you because you continually change direction. I was never aware you were engaged in an edit war. I independently created a new article (because it never existed) and moved the title of another, edits which were and are not wrong per WP:COMMON.

WP:COMMON redirects to Use common sense, which in part says "it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule."

Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song) is so named because he wrote the song. It was common sense to name it after him, not any of the 200 or so artists who covered it.

Blue (Bill Mack song) is so named because he wrote the song. It was common sense to name it after him, not any of the artists who covered it.

Don't go off on any more tangents. Seems to me it would be rewarding for you to honour your "Retired" banner, to go away for a bit to recharge, and then come back refreshed sometime in the future. Moriori (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No you are choosing to pick your battles to make me wrong WP:COMMON means things like Sailor Moon every page is named Sailor Moon as it is a common name for the franchise just like Blue is commonly known by Rimes and not Mack. So you're picking and choosing the rule and that's not right of you to do. Also you're sitting here trying to do it to more then one page which makes me question you more. Swifty*^talk_contribs 15:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Also BACK OFF ME! Don't lass at me cause you don't like the contradictions being shown to you that's a weak argument and a low blow. I do not have internet at home anymore and have been forced to get on here when I can because of crap you no nothing about. And because of that I had to retire my account but because of your vandalism I've had to get on here everyday because no one wants to follow the rules. It's sickens me. Swifty*^talk_contribs 15:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Recording my message zapped from user:numbaonestunna's talk

The summary for one of your most recent edits said "You didn't know what I was trying to do. Why don't you try waiting a few minutes as people get their stuff in order?". Of course I didn't know what you were trying to do. I am not psychic. You made 11 edits to this article today, two as IP 71.243.108.235 and the rest as User:Numbaonestunna. In only one of those edits did you leave an edit summary, the one I have quoted here.! This is a wonderful example of why editors should give edit summaries! Moriori (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Moriori (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)