User talk:Moreschi/My Archive 5

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion advice
Hi. I've just reverted some rather odd edits to the Otello article, and see that something similar has happened at Othello. On closer inspection, the editor in question seems to have been devoting his time to inserting references to his own publications in various articles, and has also created an article about himself (M.C. Gardner), thus violating WP:AUTO. Would I be right in assuming that WP:PROD is the way to go as far as the latter is concerned? And is there some easy way of deleting all his contributions as well, or do I assume that an admin will do this? All help gratefully received! --GuillaumeTell 16:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Award

 * Thank you...I only made one revert and did some ineffectual shouting on IRC, but thanks anyway! Moreschi Talk 11:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Metastasio
Hey, check out this: L'Olimpiade. Have fun transferring that lot to the librettists list! (Actually, I think Metastasio's libretti should get their own page). --Folantin 13:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's easy to forget just what a literary star he was. His libretti were still being set in the bel canto era. I've just come across a 17th century librettist, Nicolo Minato, who wrote around 170 libretti. Might try to write an article on him if I can find a WP:RS - though I won't be documenting all 170 operas...--Folantin 13:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sense
'Nuff said. Thank you.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 20:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Two barnstars in one day, I must be doing something right. Much obliged. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 20:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

librettists
Hi Moreschi, thanks for the pointer about the List of opera librettists, I'll add that to my watchlist. I can't promise that I'll add anything, but we'll see. -- Kyok o  20:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. There's certainly plenty of room for expansion. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 20:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Transnistria
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Transnistria. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Striggio
The Striggio link goes to Alessandro Striggio Senior, who was the father of the librettist. Junior only gets a brief mention there. He probably deserves his own article (IIRC apart from writing for Monteverdi, he brought the plague to Venice in the 1620s or 30s). --Folantin 12:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, blast, I was using Grove and didn't bother to check the wikilink. Grrr. More bloody writing to do. Thanks for the note. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 12:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA


Hello, thank you for supporting my RfA! I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0. Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

Big Brother is watching my contribs
Or rather, you are, aren't you? :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Indonesia
Hello hows it going? Thanks for copy-editing the article, I appreciate it very much. Apart from that, can you see any chance for this article to pass FAC? Cheers -  Imo eng  13:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me too Moreschi. Merbabu 12:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, gentlemen. Please check the peer review. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 13:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Numa (opera)
Nope, I'm not sure it was published. I was going from the composer's article. Feel free to do what you feel is right. -Harmil 13:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply. Much obliged. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 13:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza redux
Hi Moreschi, I've left my own proposal at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Mediation, please tell me what you think. -- Kyok o  13:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! Cheers, Moreschi Talk 13:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was busy doing other things, which is why I didn't respond. I hope Elara likes her description. It wouldn't be fair to say that she was meek during her time on Wikipedia. I might still tweak the text. FYI, Phaedriel had asked me to write something about Elara, so that should explain the point of all this.


 * I sure do hope that my EA proposal works. -- Kyok o  13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Moreschi, if you don't mind, could you keep an eye on the mediation? Both Dev and I will shortly be unable to participate for various reasons, and I don't know what will happen while we're away. If you don't feel that you have the time to devote to the mediation, that's understandable too. Thanks. -- Kyok o  19:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Mail
Guess what? Non-urgent reply. --Folantin 08:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Any news on who the Phantom Reverter of Old London Town with the Puccini infobox fetish is yet? --Folantin 10:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick-email - non-essential but fun. Replied. --Folantin 09:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied. --Folantin 20:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-urgent. --Folantin 12:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
 Thank you, Moreschi! Wikipedia definitely needs more troubadours :) – Riana ऋ 09:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to George Frideric Handel (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, bot. Yes, I made a bad revert. Apologies. Moreschi Talk 16:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Misleading edit summaries, eh? I'm so disappointed. – Riana ऋ 16:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but seemingly you can't fool the bots :) Moreschi Talk 16:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Email?
Hi. I am wondering if you have time to check this. Also - if possible I'd like to email you. Perhaps the easiest way to set this up would be via my own email connection on my Talk Page. Thanks. --Kleinzach 14:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Mail 00.04 (Japan Time) --Kleinzach 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone still closing things on the WP:CN?
Hello Moreschi. I notice that Navou used to close some issues on the CSN, but his user page says he has left Wikipedia. So next I see your name attached to the closing of some issues. Are you continuing to do this? Or maybe it's sufficient that MiszaBot is set to archive after 48 hours. I guess that is resolution of a kind. My observation is that there are a few sitting there that could be closed with no opposition. Thanks, EdJohnston 16:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it appears there is no unanimity as to how threads are closed at CN, judging from User:Dmcdevit's remark below. And, curiously, someone manually archived the User:Kdkatpir2 sockpuppeting issue just before User:Blueboy96 posted at AN/I for an admin to look at it and close it. (Prematurely, I believe). The perils of an informal system, I guess. And I was so sure I knew which issues were done. I am more used to WP:COIN where we know when things are done (and there aren't a million cooks). EdJohnston 01:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage/talkpage has been vandalized
Just wanted to warn you. MrMacMan Talk  17:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
That makes perfect sense, in spite of what seems like an inherent contradiction. Would you have a look at the article that I created today La bonne d'enfant and let me know what needs to be changed? Gretab 19:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Community sanctions
Sorry if the thread I started regarding Bus stop at the page above was found to be irrelvant or inappropriate to the page. I only put it there after having contacted virtually every lower-level administrataive group. I can't remember now which one "passed the buck" to sanctions, but one of them did. Like I said, I'm new here, and don't have any prior experience in matters of this type. I guess that shows, huh? :/ John Carter 22:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSN
Regarding your edits to WP:CSN, like, please do not "close" discussions in progress. Community discussions are not votes to be closed, rather, there is a bot that archives threads automatically after they have gone 48 hours without discussion. Furthermore, your comments don't make sense to me: "the editor is indefinitely blocked, though not banned. Most people seem to support a ban, though I haven't checked out the arguments." When the community supports a ban, an admin implements it, and no admin unblock, then it is a ban. Please read the first point at WP:BAN. Dmcdevit·t 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have though that discussions which have nothing to do with the page in question should be closed - I think you reverted some of those as well - but it's my understanding that an indefinite block is not the same as a ban: with a banned user - like User:Jacob Peters - one can revert and block on sight: an indefblocked user is at liberty to edit with another account, no? In that particular case it seemed to me that the blocking admin was not implementing a ban: he was indefinitely blocking with the option of an appeal to ArbCom left open. Either way, there are articles to write. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 08:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, block evasion is not permitted, ban or no ban. I don't understand why you would think that blocked users can edit with other accounts; those are routinely blocked as abusive sockpuppets. Also, note that any ban may be appealed to ArbCom, not just blocks, and so "indefinitely blocking with the option of an appeal to ArbCom left open" is in fact usually the same as a ban. Dmcdevit·t 21:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

JP?
Think this looks like our pal Jacob Peters? I do. C thirty-three  06:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

News
Looks like somebody has gone on a WP:POINT violation spree. Actually it wasn't much of a spree, more a quick walk round the block. Replied. --Folantin 12:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Well, I was feeling rather like an "interloper" myself at the time, so I guess I was over sensitive. If you have a moment, could you look at Jacques Leguerney and see if it looks okay? Also, are there generic Opera templates?  I want to write an article about "Une education manquée" of Chabrier and I couldn't find a generic template for that. Gretab 14:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Korngold image box
I am aware of the heated discussion about inforboxes for composers and that many have voiced against, not sure that being a concensus though. Personally I believe that they are very helpful in particular for less known composers as the box may contain all that people may wish to know.

I am not sure whether it is all right to go and remove a box from an article which you have not otherwise contributed to - perhaps you should have raised the question on that article's discussion page.

In any event, as the box contained information not available in the tag line I suggest, politely, at least you go back and ensure that the deleted information be added to the tag line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Classickol (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Thread on Geogre's talk page
Some of the discussion about WP:BIOGRAPHY should be copied over to the WikiProject talk page, I think, as it is very relevant to what they are trying to do. Would you mind if I copied that thread over (including your comments)? Carcharoth 19:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history
I have responded to your comment on the AfD. Can you please take a look (also at the details I have provided under my keep vote) Thanks --Aminz 07:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. Peace --Aminz 08:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Unfortunately, I think this has to go. Possibly merge some of it into Mark Cohen? Moreschi Talk 08:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I would like to see first where the AfD end in. --Aminz 08:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza
I think it should be restored, and I want to get the community consensus to do so. Esperanza helped all the problems of wikipedia. It was a genius of an idea. It showed us how to take pride and fun in editing the project. It was amazing, it really made the community come together, rather than it being a bunch of disputed, fickle critics which I have seen. Please help restore it, I have faith and pride in wikipedia, nobody else really cares. I look into the light, onto the good side of things. I know its not a democracy or anything like it; its an encyclopedia, but without something like Esperanza, its just a bunch of fickle critics at war with each other, over nothing. Eaomatrix 14:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your description of Wikipedia post-Esperanza is not one I recognise. The arguments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza are quite convincing. Moreschi Talk 14:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also have my RFA to worry about. I don't really need more Esperanza drama right now. With respect, Moreschi Talk 14:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Numa (opera)
Just a note to say that, in case you hadn't seen it, the result was Delete. I have yet to look at Bizet's "Lettres a un ami" (was it?), but will do so when next in Leeds. Meanwhile, Google Books tells me that there were printed references to this "work" in the early C20 - which doesn't, of course, mean that it ever existed! Copying this to Folantin. --GuillaumeTell 18:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You'd make a good Cyberman.
"Delete! Delete!" :P Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 20:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on, I agreed with bdjeff at DRV today! I respect Jeff enormously, but that has to be a first. Moreschi Talk 20:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Delete. Delete. Delete. No unregistered Doctor with an odd haircut shall defeat us!
 * True. By the way, I'm more deletionist than I thought. User:Sceptre/afd proves it :) Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Those statistics aren't excessive, bearing in mind the utter junk that winds up at AfD, either because prod tags get removed or because the particular article didn't fit any CSD criteria, like hoaxes, which sometimes shout "Look! Isn't this something clever I made up during a particularly boring maths lesson!" Moreschi Talk 20:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's still a lot of delete votes. Deleting stuff is fun, though :) Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 21:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I sent you an email about adminship some time ago, just so you know :). (and aren't hoaxes speedyable now?) Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 11:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers
Ta for the userpage revert, just noticed. Fella's persistent, I'll give him that :) – Rianaऋ 13:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is that? Not our Canberran friend, I think? Moreschi Talk 13:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No... some dude from Indiana who kept putting nonsense on these pages, which I and Youngamerican semiprotected, so now he's like a kid whose toys got taken away. I have 2 dedicated fans, and he's one of them. :) – Rianaऋ 13:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Awww. I weep for him, as the Walrus said. I deeply sympathise :) Heartless admins! The kids can't play?? Cheers, Moreschi Talk 13:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Trolls
On your RFA, you implied that "people assume inclusionists are trolls". I'd really like to know where you got that idea... — CharlotteWebb 17:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt
Please stop removing this section. I am putting in cites as we speak. Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe you'll find any, but OK. Moreschi Talk 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

After Midnight's RFA
Thanks for fixing that. Simply south 17:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Reaching 100
Aye, but then I can tell my grandchildren that I had a friend who reached WP:100... or something... – Rianaऋ 14:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite...on the other hand, I've only just realised how many cabals must be annoyed with me, if they don't come snowballing in it'll be a miracle. Moreschi Talk 14:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With 2 days left? I think you'll be right ;) – Rianaऋ 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Splash attack!
Hey, you. Lucky, passing RFA with 100+ votes (well, it's pretty much passed anyway). is nice! . Please, though, don't blocks me. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 20:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, though until 14.00 I'll still be crossing my fingers :) Cheers, Moreschi Talk 08:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Latter Days
I'm not sure, to be honest with you. Both the film and the novel seem to be ambiguous enough for it to be either. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your soon-coming-and-well-earned promotion! :D And perhaps "the holidays" would be best, so we don't have to make a decision. Btw, Ed and Hildanknight appear to be planning a revenge RfC against me - no wonder Ed was so keen to keep his "warnings" on my talkpage. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!
A 'crat should be around sooner or later to hand you the spare keys to the closet. I'm outta here for the night, but just a quick note to say congratulations. Enjoy the extra buttons, but treat them with care. And try not to delete anything important :) Take care, – Rianaऋ 15:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And from me as well; someone shall notice soon and change a zero to one somewhere in the database, and you'll see the mop, broom, and flamethrower magically appear. Enjoy:  great to have you.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, congratulations. You deserve it! :) Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 17:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * More congrats. Welcome to the payroll. Your cheque is in the post. --Folantin 17:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done! The Rambling Man 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, guys, and I love you all deeply, but can someone go and scream at a crat for me? It's been 5 hours and no one seems to be around. If this keeps up I'll start shouting at the stewards on meta :) Cheers, Moreschi Talk 18:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, now that's been done, I can actually say thank you properly. I am honoured by your trust, all of you, and will do my level best to ensure that that trust is not dishonoured.


 * Now, Folantin, do I get paid monthly or weekly? And presumably my bonus is linked to the number of rouge admin actions successfully completed? Moreschi Talk 19:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! I think I've used this joke before, but now you can actually delete pages instead of just talking about deleting them. Best to follow consensus, of course. -- Kyok o  20:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've started already :) Cheers, Moreschi Talk 20:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. I had to look twice to be sure that I didn't read "Moreschi (talk|contribs) deleted User:Moreschi". -- Kyok o  20:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you got the mop. I figured you would. Now you can block dear old Jacob yourself instead of leaving it on the noticeboard for someone like me to do. Huzzah. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well done! Hope I can come to you for WP advice now! All the best. --Kleinzach 10:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

First question for you as an admin
Congratulations! I was happy to give you my support.

I'm wondering if you could have a look at the discussion here and let me know what you think about this. I took out an external link which somebody has now asked me to put back. It's a link to the website of a publisher run by a woman who's published an edition of this opera by a man with the same last name as she has. The only information which the link contained was a number of performances of this opera, but only those that use the edition that she publishes. The link was placed on the article by an account which only similar links to related articles (see here ). I thought that this looked like another publisher conflict of interest situation, but now Kleinzach also seems to think that it's probably valid. What do you think? Gretab 16:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I actually am an admin, I'll check it out :) Moreschi Talk 19:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations - you are now an admin! Secretlondon 19:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Moreschi Talk 19:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Moreschi. Sorry to say that I was away during the RfA, so you can definitely give yourself another vote. All the best,. You are an excellent contributor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!
Finally you can be an admin instead of being called one :-) ~ Magnus animuM BRAIN FREEZE! 19:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Moreschi Talk 19:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * From me too! Congratulations! Mak (talk)  12:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to be cliché, but I thought Moreschi was one :P ~ Magnus animuM &#8776; &#8730;&#8734;  23:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum
Thank you for semi-protecting this page from a particularly aggressive vandal. 33 edits, reverted by at least 11 different users. Horologium talk - contrib 11:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Please keep me posted if the problem continues, and I'll drop a bigger banhammer. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 11:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think it would have been more appropriate to discuss the matter on the article's talk page before arbitrarily deleting roughly 2/3 of the article's content? The article is far less informative as a result. The deleted material is important for readers to understand why her false accusations should have been viewed with greater skepticism from the beginning, and is also important for people seeking information on why her accusations were ultimately deemed to be false. Unlearned hand 12:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, not really. Per our rules on the biographies of living persons I have fairly sweeping powers when it comes to removing article content, and that article massively violated our rules on undue weight. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a slander agency for us to attack people. I'll be back in a few hours to discuss this more fully later. Best, Moreschi Talk 12:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Sorry I didn't mean to cause any trouble on WP:ANI its just my computer appears to have a script problem with the twinkle. I am a good contributor, don't worry. Malcourno 13:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. Twinkle can be buggy sometimes, be careful with the thing. Best, Moreschi Talk 13:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Cheers for the revert on my talk page and generally cleaning up after this user. Much appreciated. Will (aka Wimt ) 12:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Obnoxious little troll. Interestingly, he seemed well-informed as to historical wikidrama, which was peculiar. Now, since I've seen you doing so much good work around here, when can I nominate you for admin? Moreschi Talk 12:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the offer! As it stands I have rather a lot of exams in a couple of weeks which I'd like to get out of the way before thinking about going for an RfA, but I'll certainly consider it when I have finished them. Congratulations on your becoming an admin by the way. Will (aka Wimt ) 12:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Riana's furious with me for making the offer, you should hear her on Google Talk right now. Apparently she got there first in the offer line. I think I'll have to co-nom :) Cheers, Moreschi Talk 12:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as I get a word in there somewhere, I'm pretty happy :) – Rianaऋ 12:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh well there have been a few others who have approached me too. But it's certainly nice to feel fought over! Thanks again. Will (aka Wimt ) 12:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So long as it doesn't descend into a whopping great wheel war...the idea of us all lined up in front of the firing squad for fighting over who gets to nom who at RfA is quite amusing. Best, Moreschi Talk 12:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Sokay, I'd rather not do the whole RfA nominating fight again... – Rianaऋ 13:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

More thanks
I appreciate that clarification. Since another, more established user had another opinion, I thought that I should ask the question, but I think that I understand how this works now. I guess the link stays deleted then. Cheers Gretab 15:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Block you just applied.
link to block log. You do realize there was no vandalism after final warning right? Fun pika  18:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Userpage vandalism. Slightly different kettle of fish, IMO. You do that, you're clearly acting in bad faith. Moreschi Talk 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

GNAA
Thanks for the help there, I was trying to go about it in a diplomatic sort of way, but I had to wonder myself, how the hell is a disambig page a POV? Wildthing61476 19:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a clue. We'll see how the talk page discussion pans out. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 19:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Cell nucleus protection
Oops, I didn't realise it was on the main page today. I thought somebody must have assigned it as a school project or something! TimVickers 20:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought you might not have. No problem. I've been doing all the reverts on that article today, which is a bit of pain, though :) Cheers, Moreschi Talk 20:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't think of a catchy headline

 * Ah, thank you very much! And only my first full day as an admin! Much obliged. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 20:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

good lord
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan

I'm not sure where to begin here. I think this is the first case of cruft specifically created by Wikipedia. I can't see how this could ever be properly sourced or noteable, even putting aside the original research used to create it. Jtrainor 12:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters if it's unsourced or non-notable. It's an internal thing - it's in Wikipedia space, not in the article namespace. – Rianaऋ 12:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Riana's right, though I must confess that I can't see the point of the thing myself. Moreschi Talk 10:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Annoys the hell outta me personally... not an anime fan... – Riana ⁂  10:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Discovery
I think I've found the project that definitely has no ambition to own Wikipedia. Good job really, for who could challenge its mighty consensus? Remember to get your special project button! --Folantin 16:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

La Juive again
Someone calling themselves "Inexperienced User" with an IP address which resolves to Heilbronn, Germany (one of the towns which did the edition of La Juive that I mentioned) is insisting on the talk page that the link I removed be restored. Kleinzach and myself have tried to talk to this person, but it's getting a bit over my head. Could you have a look here please at the end and perhaps help us find a solution?Gretab 09:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The (previously linked) page in question lists performances in all the major opera houses and in different languages. Were they all using a special edition prepared by Company A rather than a competing one published by Company B? I rather doubt it. More likely that the publishers are trying to attract interest in the opera by demonstrating its popularity - but what do you think? -- Kleinzach 09:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment left on La Juive talk. Commercial or not, it's just a useless link, as far as I can tell. Moreschi Talk 10:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess this is settled then. Gretab 11:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've replied again to "inexperience user", saying that if the information is so important, then perhaps it might be better simply to add it to the article? Quite frankly, I don't see why this is such an issue. However, it seems to me that a performance history should include perforances before 1988 and not just of this ONE edition. What a pain! Gretab 22:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added the performance history information from the publishing house's link. I've only added staged performances at major houses. Hopefully, this should take care of this situation. I don't understand why this person doesn't want to work on the article, if it's that important to him or her...Gretab 13:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice?
Hi Moreschi -- I'm hoping for some advice... would you mind looking at this, which was followed by the user leaving this message on my talk page (14 is white supremacist slang for "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" (14 words) and 311 is slang for "KKK" (3 x 11th letter)). I thought the username violation was a slam-dunk, but it was shot down pretty quickly -- should I let this drop, or raise the issue at AN/I (civility? or what?)? Fireplace 16:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent checkuser request
You recently submitted a request for checkuser. A clerk has moved your request to Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant temporarily; this does not mean the request has necessarily been accepted or rejected, as clerks are generally concerned with maintenance and upkeep, not making decisions on the merit of any given request. Please , and then follow the instructions in the box at the top of Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant. Thank you for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr talk 23:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk VK35  23:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Been fixed by someone else, I just picked the wrong letter by accident. Sorry for the mess. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 09:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy Moreschi's Day!
I forgot to say the translation, which you probably know, but it's supposed to be "Glory to Wikipedia, and Moreschi, who protects its sacred soil!" -- Kyok o  11:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never had any formal instruction in Italian, but I can figure out some of the words when reading it. I guess that's true for anybody with experience with a Romance language. It's your day! Make it a good one, whether it be by going through backlogs, dealing with vandals, writing an article, or something not related to Wikipedia! -- Kyok o  16:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Moreschi, it is so nice to see that my modest dedication to you has pleased you, and your delight at my choice of that particular quote fills me with joy. It is true that our paths haven't crossed much yet, which is natural considering the long time I was away, but you can say we are friends by association with so many good friends like Kyoko and Riana in common! :) In any case, it is a great pleasure to finally talk to you while celebrating your own personal day. And I guess I should say, thank "you" too! And not only for all the excellent work you do, but also because performing this modest campaign has the most pleasant side effect of learning many beautiful new things and rediscovering others through the passions of its wonderful recipients. Just like it happened when I had the chance to re-read the Lusiads while searching for an appropriate poem for Husond, thanks to you, I've found once again my temporarily forgotten passion for opera. It had been a long time since I had listened to Figaro's teasing to Cherubino in Non piú andrai, nor Tonio's thoughts about human nature on Si puo? - but simply by being you, you have gifted that pleasure back to me. In this bright and beautiful day of yours, I wish you all the happiness in the world, and follow our dear Kyoko's thoughtful advice - at any rate, enjoy it, and thanks for everything you do, and most important, for everything you are! :) Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 17:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Phaedriel, I have not your way with words, so all I can say is a truly heartfelt thanks :) Cheers, Moreschi Talk 11:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

West San Jose, San Jose, California
Would you reconsider the prod on West San Jose, San Jose, California on first glance it does appear to be part of a project, put it is not even significant enough to be on the template for the FA San Jose, California. It has been unreferenced since December 2005. It does not appear to be part of a group that would be a candidate for mass AFD. If you really think it has a chance of passing an AFD, I can take there but it looks like a lost cause to me. Jeepday (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On reflection I did a merge and redirect to San Jose, California and carried over the unreferenced tag with a similarly dated fact. Jeepday (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey there
Up for Gtalk? I am furious and need to vent. It should be thoroughly entertaining for you. – Riana ⁂  10:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, you have 5 minutes. Make it quick. Moreschi Talk 10:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll be starting a business next."Stressed out and exasperated by wikidrama? Then take out your frustrations out on a sympathetic shoulder to cry on, available right now on Gtalk for counselling, advice, and the virtual equivalent of chocolate and a nice cup of tea. Left shoulder 5 quid per hour, right shoulder, 6."


 * Life just keeps on getting better and better. Moreschi Talk 08:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ohhh. My humour radar is all out of whack today. Don't mind me... :p – Riana ⁂  11:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I never learnt to watch my words properly. Sorry for the confusion, that was meant as humour, not bitterness :) Moreschi Talk 11:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
What's happened to WP:SCISSORS? Nothing seems to have gone on there for a month. Time to mark this experiment as historical? --Folantin 14:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, it was just a passing thought. I'll leave it be for now. Let us know if it ever revives seriously. On the bright side, WP:AMA seems to have ended not with a bang but a whimper. I'm quite amazed! --Folantin 09:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mail: maybe express, maybe not? --Folantin 11:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see it. Moreschi Talk 11:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Composer infoboxes
I completely forgot about the composer infobox debate. You said: "Um...Wikipedia's entire reputation rests on its accuracy. If we abandon that in favour of brevity, we can forget about Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia. Most of these infoboxes are either ill-suited or inaccurate - Shostakovitch a Romantic just like Weber? Because that's what one implied!" So the problem is with the infobox containing inaccurate information, and instead of banning all infoboxes forever, you could just... fix the erroneus information?--Wormsie 21:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

La Contadina in corte
Actually the title should be La contadina in corte - but that's a redirect. Some special problem? Best. -- Kleinzach 05:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's little c in Grove (print). It's not a proper name, it just means peasant - also used for pizzas! Reminds me it's getting near dinner time. -- Kleinzach 09:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's still big C. Can you change it with your admin power? I don't think mere Wpedians can do this kind of thing. If I do cut and paste Mak gets upset. Thanks. -- Kleinzach 04:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Looks good. -- Kleinzach 23:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

CMoreschi
Oof! Didn't realise it was you... anyway, autoblock's disabled, so it shouldn't affect you, and obviously you may unblock if you wish. Oops! – Riana ⁂  14:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for reporting you to UAA and then by mistake reporting you to AIV..[[Image:sad-tpvgames.gif]].. Cometstyles 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Apologies for the confusion. Well, Wikitruth et al are always going on about administrative trolls, why not admin vandals? Cheers, Moreschi Talk 17:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

CMoreschi
I just wanted to verify something. Did you create the user ? Apparently, the person redirected the user and user talk page to your pages. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was using popups and I went straight to "New topic" before looking at your user talk page. It seems it has been cleared up. Ignore the previous message :-P. Nishkid64 (talk)  14:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've confirmed that account is me, see Riana's talk. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 17:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey...
Now keep looking at it... and when you feel better... *meeps* – Riana ⁂  10:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, and for no reason other than trying to make you laugh and relax... Peanut butter jelly dancing time! Party on, Dear M! :)  P h a e d r i e l  - 10:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Beware, for we shall fill your talkpage with blinky things. – Riana ⁂  10:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the bleeps, Phaedriel. And for the blinky things both of you. Though I must say it's all OK for you girls; you can't get your admin tools confused with...well...what I said. You know. Will it be OK with Phaedriel's bleeps, or do I need to fix it further? Cheers, Moreschi Talk 10:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's OK - the essence is still there. And FWIW I agree. – Riana ⁂  10:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A tiny little puny question...
Dear Moreschi, I'm sorry to bother you, but I've given up searching for information... Do you happen to be familiar with La forza del destino and some of the existing recordings of it? Please say you do... :( (well, no big deal if you don't but it'd be helpful! ;) Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 08:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem whatsoever, sweetie,please, relax :) In fact it was more of personal curiosity than anything - you see, I remember seeing once a video of a few excerpts (most notably the duetto of Act IV between Carlos and Alvaro) interpreted by Luciano Pavarotti and my favorite baritone, Dmitri Hvorostovsky, who was quite a youngster at the time. I've failed miserably to identify that gala despite my attempts, not to mention the impossibility to locate a recording of the breathtaking event. Thanks so very much for the pointers, tho, and for your reply, dear Moreschi :) Take care!  P h a e d r i e l  - 11:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

AMA
The historical tag is being disputed on the talk page and has been removed once. I figured the MfD would be a better route to go to close it down for good. Æon Insanity Now!  17:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As you wish. Moreschi Talk 18:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum
As the closer, I think you have misinterpreted me in deleting the history here. This action was not endorsed, really, on the back of BLP, but merely by consensus, and the deletion of the history is what was explicitly overturned. If you think those edits need to be hidden so badly, you should make an AfD request of your own, or go over heads and ask for Oversight. Please reverse your history deletion. Mango juice talk 15:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty silly to me. We already have the content at the redirect target, why leave the history there?  What prupose does it serve?  Guy (Help!) 15:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * GFDL, for one thing - it's like a merge & delete case, which we don't do. Also, it's the result of the DRV.  Also, while the article was not neutral and a bit of muckracking, it was sourced and wasn't libel, so I don't think there's much of a reason to conceal the old versions from everyone.  (Moreschi, sorry, got my wires crossed, I restored the history already.  If you intended to delete the history on your own, just don't claim that the DRV result endorsed it, and note my objections).  Mango juice talk 15:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Shrug. I really don't think the world and his wife needs to be able to see the revision history, given just how unbalanced the article was, but we can sort this out later. I have no desire to wheel war. Perhaps a broader consensus is required. As Guy points out, leaving the history there serves no purpose and could do plenty of harm. Moreschi Talk 15:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We could always merge the deleted history into the other article if we really care that much, it would depend on the historical sequence of edits / moves / deletes / other stuff. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation denialism
Thanks for being bold in closing this. -- Petri Krohn 15:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Despite the username, I try to be an admin with balls. Now, please don't DRV, no...Moreschi Talk 15:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry for bothering you, and I appreciate you being an admin with balls but is it all right to unilaterally delete an article, where there has clearly been no consensus to delete ? --Lysytalk 15:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus does not equal numbers. I made my decision based on policy and on the balance of arguments presented during the debate. To me it seemed as though those saying "POV fork" were far more convincing than those saying otherwise.


 * Consensus of policy overrides that of the AfD cabal of the day. I simply have to take that into consideration. Moreschi Talk 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What about my argument regarding why a so-to-say "POV fork" is inevitable in this case? Do you have a comment upon them, that I might use to improve the argument? Digwuren 15:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You have not responded yet. I presume you haven't noticed the question, so I'm attaching this notice in the hope that this will re-highlight my question in your watchlist. Digwuren 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I hadn't noticed your question. Having done so, I can't understand it. The article really was a classic POV fork, doesn't matter who says it. Moreschi Talk 14:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. I guess it shows I didn't explain it well enough.
 * I'll try to resummarise in more explicit terms in a section I'll create below. Digwuren 14:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But, if you really feel very strongly otherwise - that I have violated policy in my closure - deletion review is that way. I ask you to think carefully before taking that option, however. I explained my deletion rationale thoroughly and I believe it was compliant with the consensus that is policy. Moreschi Talk 15:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I respect your view and your decision, I just thought a consensus was needed in order to delete an article under AfD. Otherwise the result could depend not on the voting but on whether the closing admin is a deletionist or an inclusionist. --Lysytalk 15:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus is needed. But a "vote" expressed at AfD that bears no relation to policy or to the article does not count towards consensus, if you read this page. I judged that there was consensus to delete amongst opinions based on policy. Admittedly, there can be different interpretations of policy that are fairly equally valid, which is where "no consensus" comes in. Moreschi Talk 15:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To sum up with relevance to this case: I find it very hard to believe that this is a "notable topic" when the sourcing used bears no specific relevance to the term being used. The references were being used to push a point of view, and the telling of a narrative - which is what the article did - is usually a classic sign of original synthesis. Admittedly, the delete !voters said plenty of bullshit as well, but those that said "POV fork" looked to have a pretty solid case. The referencing just has to be directly relevant. Moreschi Talk 16:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How about the fact that there were a lot of proposals to rename the article (the title was apparently translated inaproriately into English), and to reduce its scope. The corrected term is use in scholarly works, as was presented (among tons of non-sense disscussion) of the page. Many who said delete, said clearly that they prefered the topic be covered under a different title and with a more reduced scope than they thought the article was tending to. Renaming it, and asking for it to be re-written for NPOV would have been, IMHO, a better choice. With all due respect, but what if you are wrong? :Dc76 17:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hell, just rewrite the thing under a different name, citing reliable sources that actually refer to the topic. If you want some of the deleted content, I'll restore it to your sandbox or something. I can't be responsible for articles not-as-yet written. I can only judge the one in front of me, and that was pretty awful. I can retrieve the material that's gone, so deletion is not the end of the world. If you want some of it back to work in your userspace or anything, please let me know. Moreschi Talk 21:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "I [...] judge" is not pritty logical to me, but let's say I do not understand some of the policies. Also, I take you read the article and based your oppinion mostly on your personal impression about its content at that time, I take you did not consider carefully all arguments presented in the talk page. Of course, that is a way to solve, but then - please just tell beforehand that whatever people write for arguments will most probably never be read. In fact now I see some of the opposite oppinion knew that inflating the volume with re-re-replies would bring less weight to the keep argument. well, good or bad, now it is done.
 * I would appreciate if you could please restore the text to my sandbox here. I would like to work on it together with other interested users, but it will take time, so don't expect, at lest not from me, anything soon.
 * So, if it is rewritten well and soursed well, bringing it up under a different name will not automatically be considered resurfacing of the same old stuff? Do I understand correctly, if would be judged for its own merits?:Dc76 21:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I read the article, the AfD debate, and the talk, and extracted consensus from that, not my personal opinion in the slightest. Yes, the deleted content will be with you shortly. If you rewrite it thoroughly and the put the article back under a different name, then yes, it will be judged pretty much separately. Moreschi Talk 21:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have it, thank you very much. (I don't like "pretty much" b/c I would like "to edit it", not "to pretty much edit it". Anyway, thank you for your answers.) :Dc76 21:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Have fun editing, really editing :) Moreschi Talk 21:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, I don't understand your rationale in entertaining people whose only reason for editing Wikipedia is to promote their narrow nationalist agenda. Tender yourself more dearly. Don't let yourself be bullied. Sooner or later ArbCom will have to say whether Wikipedia needs them. Until then these people should be tolerated but by no means encouraged. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I should be polite, and there's no reason why deleted content can't be userfied for a while. Out of the mainspace, it does little harm. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 13:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope Ghirla does not refer to me as one of the "people whose only reason for editing Wikipedia is to promote their narrow nationalist agenda", but I wanted to make sure that my intention was not to "bully" or otherwise intimidate you. I hope you did not get this impression, and if you did I apologize, as it was not intended. I am grateful for your explanations of the WP:VfD policy of which I obviously was unaware (and I believe many others are not). --Lysytalk 16:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. People seem to be fairly happy with my explanations of various matters, and several have copies of the deleted material to work on in their userspaces. That would seem to be a good outcome. It was always going to be a tricky AfD that would cause trouble no matter how it was closed. There's been no DRV yet, so personally I think it's turned out OK thus far. Moreschi Talk 17:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible unsatisfiability of WP:POVFORK policy
The article was not about an alternative view towards events that happened in Soviet Union. Instead, it was about a systematic policy of coverups and denials -- that is to say, about propaganda. In order to cover the propaganda, it needs to refer to the actual events in question.

Now, the actual events can be reasonably seen as standing alone, and it is not really necessary to know about Przyszowice massacre to be able to understand the Great Purge or use of political prisoner labour in building Belomorkanal. Thus, it makes perfect sense to explain these events in separate articles related mainly with references to common leadership and related ideological background.

However, political coverup of the events was a separate *common* process -- as just two examples, it has been discussed as such by Mikk Titma, a sociologist and Mart Laar, a historian --, and thus needs a common overview article; a common narrative. In order to completely satisfy the letter of WP:POVFORK, this can only be done by combining all the crimes against humanity into one big article -- which is untenable -- or distributing the propaganda aspects among many small articles -- which is doable but unreasonable, as it leads to either duplication of information, which, by itself, is forking, or excessive fragmentation, and thus hampers understanding of the Big Picture of Propaganda.

Thus, an obvious arrangement involves construction of separate articles discussing the crimes (which has largely been done rather well so far by others), collect them into a single category (which has been done partially by others before me and which I hope to complete in a few weeks), and discuss the propagandistic coverup thread common in these atrocities in a separate article that would refer to the main articles, summarise the events and go in-depth with coverup analysis. (As of now, bits and pieces of the coverup analysis are included in several, but not all, of the articles discussing events covered up.)

Unfortunately, this arrangement violates, strictly speaking, the letter of WP:POVFORK, as it separates the bulk of the historical view and the propaganda position in each of the covered up events being discussed, and this violation is inevitable. Digwuren 14:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever. I heavily suspect that's not right, and the bits that are intelligible certainly aren't right. You don't get to write original synthesis by cobbling together irrelevant references. Nor do you get to write original research. Deletion review is that way if you really object to my call. Quit pushing POV. Moreschi Talk 14:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not object, as the article was clearly mislabelled (which was my fault). I plan to reintroduce the article back to main space under a proper name once it has gotten a chance to develop.  This time it didn't get renamed because I was afraid it might be against the policy to move an article being considered for deletion and wanted to wait until the AfD was over.
 * I am, however, interested in specific objections to the position I outlined above, as the content fork issue *will* rise anew when the article gets reintroduced to main space, no matter how good the source references will be. Digwuren 15:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't think so. Just write it neutrally and make sure the reliable sources actually refer to and mention the article title. Then I cannot see how anyone could complain. The deleted content can be found at User:Dc76/project2. Moreschi Talk 15:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The deleted content of the main article is no longer a problem, as I got it undeleted to my userspace already. I'm still waiting for the talk page to be undeleted; at first, I thought it would come automatically along with the main page, but this does not appear to be the case, and there were a number of useful link on the talk page. Digwuren 16:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA
Hey Moreschi. I'd just like to thank you for commenting in my RFA. I know it's been a month since it, but I have been very busy. By the way, I'm now User:R. --R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa
Hello, Moreschi. Thank you very much for your kind support in my recent Rfa, it succeeded! Feel free to yell at me if I ever screw things up =) I hope to live up to your expectations. See you! PeaceNT 04:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Policy of renaming during AfD discussion
Is it considered appropriate to move a page whose deletion is currently being considered on an AfD discussion by the policy? Digwuren 16:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can move the page if you like if you think it will improve the article. Moreschi Talk 16:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Liza Umarova Song File
Hey, thanks for deleting it. I had forgotten that the song file was corrupted and had forgotten to remove it. Thanks again. --Samian 14:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone thanked me for deleting something? This is happening too often. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 19:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Phaedriel Talk Page
Thanks for reverting that on User:Phaedriel's talk page. It isn't a rant about "Christians, white Americans, etc.", it is really what happened to Indians as settlers moved across the west way back when. So, even though it seems like a rant (and it is an excerpt Rick Kerchee Powelson's website) it is actually the truth. 100% of the things said in it are true actually...but not a rant. Certainly not from User:Phaedriel...I don't think she rants:) - NeutralHomer  T:C 20:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I dunno. I'm just a British Mr Plod who thinks you should talk to people, specially admins, before you CSD their userpages. The rights and wrongs of high-flown historical controversies are way over my head. All I know is that you should talk, not troll. Moreschi Talk 20:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with ya there. I am one that leaves messages before changing something on someone's userpage, unless it is vandalism (then that is OK).  I think of userpages like houses....you ask permission to come into someone's house, so you should ask permission to edit someone's userpage.  If someone is breaking into your house, you stop them, so when someone vandalises a userpage, you revert it and it is OK.  Then again, I suck with analogies:)  Take Care.... NeutralHomer  T:C 20:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
...for the comment on my draft essay on ignore all rules. I think it's got to be the most misunderstood policy on WP. Rather than being a free pass to do stupid things, it's an assumption of good faith that anyone who is willing to spend thousands of hours of their personal time editing here is just probably bright enough to think for themselves, without having to consult precedent and case law whenever they make a decision. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Urrrggghhh
/Bishzilla is pleased, breaks out notepad. "Urrrggghhh". Good comment! Must use!  bishzilla      R O A RR!!    19:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Glad I manage to amuse someone, even if in this case "someone" is perhaps not quite the correct word to apply to such awesome city-destroying monsters :) Moreschi Talk 21:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting to character
Just a note to say that you know who is reverting to character again, see Johannes Brahms today's history. Ciao. -- Kleinzach 00:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh
is clearly superior to. I demand you retract it! ;) Riana ⁂  10:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How on earth did that happen? Very strange, and amusing:) Moreschi Talk 11:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR Feedback
I found your edit-comment on 3RR to be interesting. (99% self revert = good-faith).

If a person is reverting themselves (back from 4RR to 3RR) often enough to establish a 99% track-record, then I would challenge whether or not they are editing in good faith, on the grounds that they keep finding it necessary to revert themselves after reaching 4RR. As the rule says, 3RR is not an electronic fence. Bump it once, ok. Bump it twice, hmm.. Bump it repeatedly and good-faith is shattered. There shouldn't be enough self-reverts to establish a 99%, IMO. Lsi john 17:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're absolutely right, and AGF only goes so far.


 * It's just that I don't think the scenario you detailed on my talk actually happens very often. At least, in a year and a couple of months I've never seen that happen. I could be wrong, though. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 18:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Though I was basing my remarks on your edit comment...
 * "this is slightly silly, if someone reverts themselves 99 percent of the time they'll be acting in good faith and should not be blocked."
 * which I now see could have been meant other than how I read it.
 * I read it as: "this is slightly silly, if someone reverts themselves 99 percent of the time, then they'll be acting in good faith and should not be blocked."
 * not as: "this is slightly silly, if someone reverts themselves, then 99 percent of the time they'll be acting in good faith and should not be blocked."
 * Heh, punctuation is important. So, for mis-reading, I apologize. My message was probably as confusing to you as your edit comment was to me.
 * And, I have seen the self-revert (after being reported) from contentious editors who push the 3RR fence. Though admittedly, I edit in some polarized articles.
 * Peace in God. Lsi john 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. And me such a stickler for grammar, not getting my meaning across through faults of grammar.


 * Your editing experience sounds broader than mine. I need to get out more (from opera). Cheers, Moreschi Talk 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Di Stefano
Hi, so why did you ask me to provide a fair use rationale in the first place if you have known all along that this image cannot be used? ("Please remove this template if a rationale is provided. Note that boilerplate fair use templates do not by themselves constitute a sufficient explanation as to why an image is permitted.") Honestly, I'm quite frustrated with that kind of procedure, which I've encountered now several times, as I have better things to do than compose pointless rationales. If, for whatever reason, copyright or otherwise, you do not want any Di Stefano image in his article (I see you have removed and deleted the other one as well, no idea why, you might have written a rationale yourself instead), why not say so right from the start?

I am not a lawyer, and certainly no U.S. or Italian lawyer, and my naivety in this field led me to believe that all that was needed was a sentence like "He also sang Italian folk songs" in the article to be able to use the image after all. All the best, &lt;KF&gt; 20:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded elsewhere. Moreschi Talk 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Swap?
I wonder if you have time to do Sarti's Didone abbandonata using Grove online? I don't have info. In return I can do a Salieri or two, or three (wild promises). . . . -- Kleinzach 03:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

List of important opera companies
This has now been tagged as original research. What do you advise? -- Kleinzach 07:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Beethoven infobox
Hi. I'm curious what's strange about infobox musical artist, and why did you remove it from Beethoven article? --Lošmi 11:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Cuz that's not when he was born, it's when he was baptised. Cuz to say "Classical music, Romantic music" is just plain confusing and misleading, and adds nothing. Cuz I was more than a little dubious about the external links. Cuz I mostly think to copy-and-paste infoboxes designed for pop music over to classical composer articles is a thoroughly bad idea that will only encourage inaccuracy. Cuz there's also consensus against using these things on such articles, and if we are going to use them, the infobox should be tailored towards classical composers. Mostly because Wikipedia articles need to be accurate above all else, and this infobox was inaccuracte. It was also misleading and did not delineate in any proper fashion the changes in Beethoven's music over time. Moreschi Talk 12:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I imagine there are literally gazillions of websites dedicated to Mozart and Beethoven. I'd be curious to know how any one can be considered "official", or in any way important enough to be listed right up front. Moreschi Talk 12:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. I agree about the website. But some kind of infobox should be placed. Is there any that you think it could do, or do you think that someone should create special infobox for a classical composer? --Lošmi 13:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but I don't see why anyone need bother. Infoboxes are not mandated by policy, nor even requested by any projectwide guideline. There's no rule saying we need an infobox, and if they're positively detrimental, they should be left out. For the most part, they usually merely duplicate the lede - the bit that really is actually supposed to summarise the article! Moreschi Talk 18:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Crookes Deletion Review
I requested the DRV for Wayne Crookes. I am somewhat new to this process, and was wondering if there is anything I could have done better. Thanks. --Rjm656s 19:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Um. Well, I don't know whether you talked to the deleting admin first, but if not, that's probably a good idea. In such instances ask if he means the deletion to be a once-and-for-all deletion or just deleting that particular version (will he permit you to rewrite without deleting the re-write), ask for his rationale for deletion, and try to work out a compromise. DRV, in all honesty, should be a last resort. If he says he's only deleting that version and is not averse to a rewrite, then just - rewrite! Best, Moreschi Talk 19:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comon Sense
Thanks! Giano 18:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. These things happen, I suppose we all have to move on. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 18:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Male sopranos
I did think about this before I deleted the soprano cats from Valeriano Pellegrini and Giuseppe Millico. However they were the only two listed and already down as castrati. (Normally a singer only has one cat. - as you know we don't have a 'soprano castrati' one.) You can change it if you like, I certainly don't have feelings about it either way. Even better if you like to reform the castrati cat(s) as a whole! (I did this while working through the whole soprano cat for the bot run.) Regards. -- Kleinzach 09:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For you
For tireless cruft elimination, and showing those damn fair use abusers who's right, I command you to stick this on your userpage. Riana ⁂  11:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary for the page Ilaiyaraaja
I was a regular editor of the above Wiki, which you recently edited. You removed sound clips from the page, which, fair enough, have not been given sufficient fair use justification and merit removal. However, and notwithstanding your subsequent post on the talk page, your edit summary for the Wiki is indubitably rude and uncalled for, and particularly uncharacteristic of a Wikipedia administrator. Your so-called apology for the 'shouty' (a convenient euphemism for an ill-tempered and rude edit summary) serves as no salve; it merely accentuates your immaturity when you resort to apologies or making "amends" after committing a wrong deed (basic intelligence and courtesy demands a person to think before acting and to learn from a prior error). I do not think as an administrator you shall wield the means to "do all sorts of terrifying things" even though you declare yourself as a "Thoroughly Evil Person™". Further, "if I've been a dick..." and "I really can be tactless, cretinous, moronic, and sometimes just plain dumb" then your presence in Wikipedia is likely to cause unneeded friction or disharmony amongst the Wikipedia community, as you have demonstrated. I recommend that you put your act together in a manner appropriate and respectful of the Wikipedia community and general readership. I find it is surprising that you have been elected administrator when you seem unaware (or purposely neglectful) of Wikipedia etiquette guidelines, and so I think it's best that I have this case reported to the Wikipedia Administrator's Committee. AppleJuggler 15:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Replying on your talk. Moreschi Talk 15:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * With regard to the matter at hand: it is not an issue over fair use; we both concur on the point about fixing situations where fair-use justifications are not provided (refer to post above). What the issue is about is proper conduct on Wikipedia, especially proper conduct and courtesy mandated to those granted administrator status. Regardless of whether there is one media clip or a hundred media clips on a given single page, just delete if you deem it necessary and move on. It is your duty if you have so decided to take it upon yourself to quietly carry it out. In fact, as an administrator, it is expected of you to carry out your duty with professionalism; you set examples for the rest of the Wikipedia community to emulate. If you cannot do that, then simply relinquish your administrator status. Separately, and for your information, the dedicated constellation of contributors to the article has been deliberating on reducing the number of clips and providing fair use justification for the rest in this Wiki article. The deliberation has been a thorny and on-going issue, and it had extended into the article's two Featured Article reviews which involved other experienced contributors and administators. Part of the reason for the unusual circumstance of this Wiki, i.e., it having more than the average number of sound clips, is because the artiste it describes has an extremely prolific and diverse output (Frank Zappa, an artiste considered greatly prolific in the Western world, made 75 albums; this artiste has put out close to 900 albums, in various languages, musical genres, modes and styles spanning Western, Eastern and the fusion of both). It has been a very challenging task for contributors to provide a comprehensive and sufficiently representative multimedia portrayal of this artiste's work as elaborated in the Wiki's text. I presume you were unaware of all the above. Out of mutual understanding and cooperation, your apology is accepted and your help in fixing up the article in accordance to fair-use requirement is much appreciated. AppleJuggler 13:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A Penny in return ...
How would you like to have a shot at Requests for adminship? I've seen your contributions around the place - especially when clearing image backlogs - and I've been impressed. It would be an honour to write up an RfA nomination for you. Thoughts? Moreschi Talk 10:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not yet. Compared to other candidates still low on actual content edits vs 'robot' fix edits, lacks policy input, editing and conflict resolution style leaves a lot to be desired, user inclined to have 'shoot first' policy which could prove problematic, also has a tendency to attempt suppression of controversial topics/content for ideological reasons. ShakespeareFan00 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I need more experience :) ShakespeareFan00 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)