User talk:Moreschi/My Archive 6

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


 * American spelling to keep my browser's spellchecker happy.


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


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

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


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

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

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

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Talk:Warriors (book series)
Yesterday you tried a bit of help on WP:AN about the Warriors book series. I was wondering if you'd mind giving a bit more help at the talk page of the series where there's a lot of debate (me v. basically every editor of those articles) about the descriptions of the book covers that keep getting added to the various pages. See specifically Talk:Warriors_%28book_series%29 and Talk:Warriors_%28book_series%29. The issue seems to be WP:ILIKEIT v. WP:OR/WP:V/WP:RS. Could I request you to lend some eyes over there? I need to step away from it before I go on some mass blocking spree or something. Check out the real gems posted lately by. Metros 20:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


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

Torrisholme vandal user:Fettlestick
This is just one of the dozens of socks of user:Graham Heavy. Check out the Torrisholme page history for an idea of the persistence of this person/group. I and others are no longer tagging the users as socks in an attempt to WP:DENY. Cheers! Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


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


 * Yup. Flyguy649talkcontribs 15:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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


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

JP
Right. Ultramarine 21:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Amazing! Ultramarine 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


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

hey there!
Hi!

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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

St. John's University (New York City)
Wouldn't it make sense just to block the edit-warring users (as there are primarily only two) instead of protected the article altogether? --  tariq abjotu  15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably. I thought protection preferable to blocking, as a last resort. They might prefer protection, rather than blocks. When the protection came off, and they restarted, then I did plan to drop the banhammer. But, if you wish to unprotect and block, you have my blessing. They certainly deserve it. I assume they've both violated 3RR. Moreschi Talk 15:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, and TiConderoga had been blocked already for violating 3RR on that article. --  tariq abjotu  15:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Psst.
A present awaits. :) Joie de Vivre 17:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yearg, matey. Thar be no email in the hold.  Joie de Vivre 20:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Undeletoin?
When I was banned, a large number of my large number of userspace pages were deleted. I need those pages back, so I made a list of them. Since you're an administrator, I would greatly appreciate it if you could restore those pages.
 * 1) ‎User:Flameviper/Esperanza
 * 2) ‎User:Flameviper/Flameviper
 * 3) ‎User:Flameviper/Hilarity
 * 4) ‎User:Flameviper/Massive
 * 5) ‎User:Flameviper/NR!
 * 6) ‎User:Flameviper/Random Insanity
 * 7) ‎User:Flameviper/Status
 * 8) ‎User:Flameviper/Whosapeach
 * 9) ‎User:Flameviper/bookmarks
 * 10) ‎User:Flameviper/citations
 * 11) ‎User:Flameviper/edits
 * 12) ‎User:Flameviper/header
 * 13) ‎User:Flameviper/quotes


 * sigh*

Sorry.

~  Flame vip  e  r  19:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Email
Moreschi, could you do me a favor and check your email at your earliest convenience? Thanks, Metros 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied. Moreschi Talk 19:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Flameviper
Hi. I didn't intend to step on your toes or call you out or anything by reblocking Flameviper, so please don't take offense; I suddenly realized I should have said something to you first. Please accept my apologies for not doing so. That being said, I'm pretty surprised Flameviper was as blatant as he was; it wouldn't have lasted anywhere near as long except I was busy all day. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Brandt 2 comments
My apologies I had to reply here because my subsequent edits refused to register on the DRV page due to connection problems and this is more of a sidetrack. While consensus and policy does alter over time to suit the current environment of the community, precedent still plays a large part in making judgement calls. In the beginning days of VfD, deletion discussions are largely arbitrary and guidelines for keeping an article is the result of observations from previous debates on what is encyclopedic to justify an article's existence. Also, in cases where is immense controversy, one should not be surprised that similar situations will come up in future, and when they do what do they use? Something that appears to have worked - previous decisions, or at least a deviation of it where it appears to be consensus. Consensus defines as no significant objections by the group of editors, and as such not taking action or being vocal may be an indication of consent to the status-quo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the range
Ask and ye shall receive ... at least now I won't have to semi-protect my talk page.Blueboy96 13:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good grief ... this guy must have several windows open if he's creating this many socks.Blueboy96 14:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully he'll be dumb enough to post as an anon ... that'll make it easier to whack him for good. Blueboy96 14:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks
for defending my user page. I think I made a troll angry :P. K O S |  talk  19:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Obnoxious feller, that block was satisfying. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 19:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Mail
You probably already know this, but I replied to your last e-mail. --Folantin 10:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you've got a moment, please check this completely unsourced article out. My sources don't have him, but Grove might. It's possible his name should be "Stradella" if, as alleged, he is the son of this famous composer. Cheers. --Folantin 10:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks like someone's trying to pull some kind of Fritz Kreisler stunt here. Or maybe PDQ Bach. Yes, I never had Alessandro Stradella down as a family man and father of five, given his colourful love life which culminated in his assassination. --Folantin 13:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thx, I've already wrote at the Folantin's discussion page, so check there. Szpawq 19:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's one infobox I vote we keep! The misattribution of Camilla is more a common error than a hoax. The writer of the "Viking" article gets very upset that people keep making this mistake. --Folantin 19:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Where do we go? This way. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 08:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the ball is your court! -- Kleinzach 08:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good move. I really regret not knowing about WP:AE when he went on his little point spree back in early May. Unfortunately it's too late to report him for that now. Would have saved everyone a lot of time and effort. --Folantin 13:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" Remember he's on 1 revert per week by order of ArbCom. It's also interesting to note that by his own exacting standards, he doesn't have consensus to use microformats on Wikipedia . --Folantin 13:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied. --Folantin 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

Dy-no-mite
Hi. I created this article a while ago, and I just noticed that you deleted it. Can you explain the deletion process? And was there any discussion / debate that accompanied the deletion? Thanks. I looked at the deletion log, which tells me nothing other than the fact that it was deleted by you. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 01:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Hi. This link should explain how the proposed deletion process works: in this case, I don't think the content has actually been deleted, but transwikiied to Dy-no-mite actually, I see it's been deleted there as well. If you do plan on recreating the article, I would recommend including some references to assert notability. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 16:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

England
Excuse my barging in during your major edit to revert an edit. But Alvikar ignored your "inuse" tag and removed content that should not be removed so I reverted it. Good luck with the rest of your edit and errrrr have fun!! ♦Tangerines BFC ♦ · Talk 19:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm done with that article for now, thanks. Moreschi Talk 19:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wimbledon
Lucky you - I have to sit up to all hours watching it via television. Anyways, don't forget your camera! :) Cheers,  Daniel  11:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wimbledon is what makes the weather in this country worth it. Right, now I'm off. The trolls can go bugger themselves for a bit. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 11:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've heard that's tricky stuff... enjoy your day :) Riana (talk)  11:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


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

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

Template:Did you know
You probably need one or two more because if you look at the main page, there's white space under the last entry. (I'd do it myself but I'm guaranteed to screw it up!).  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  10:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, in my view, that's the templates fault for not adjusting itself, but done. Moreschi Talk 10:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hey, I'm having a little trouble with the user Shikinluv. This user never uses edit summaries. Normally, I probably wouldn't be bothered by this, but this user often makes numerous edits to an article at one time. Sometimes text is removed, sometimes copyrighted material is added, but admittedly, most of the time nothing malicious is done. It's quite a chore trying to sort through the editor's hundreds of edits that don't have edit summaries. Chicken Wing 09:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Left a mention of the option in Preferences. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 10:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just checking....
Was your reply on ANI directed at me or to Sunshine Man? I can't see why it would be to me, but you did indent it one under mine, and if it is to me, could you explain the comment? I don't see the logical progression. MSJapan 11:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not addressed to you in the slightest, it was addressed to The Sunshine Man. Sincere apologies for the confusion. Moreschi Talk 11:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same from me. If only everyone that had worked on the article previously had agreed not to introduce substantial changes and work together to simply revert vandals, there wouldn't have been so much disruption. I wonder what kind of report will appear in the Signpost :) → AA (talk • contribs) — 17:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping that the no edit warring policy doesn't mean we shouldn't rv back to the FA-passed consensus version when in doubt, does it?  Tewfik Talk 18:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no, one bold + one revert is fine; it's when another revert is chucked in that the problems start. Bold, revert, discuss goes into this quite nicely.


 * Thanks for the praise, everyone else: the article's now unprotected, but I'm handing out instant blocks to anyone who edit wars as a compromise. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 18:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Moreschi. Would you be kind enough to explain why you are not allowing a NPOV policy on this article. Langdell 19:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing Islam off the main page
What about removing it off the main page prematurely, because by all counts it should be full-protected and {totally disputed} as well. What do you think?  Evilclown93 (talk)  19:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not necessary, the edit-warring seems to have died down a bit, and the article's at, more or less, what it was before it went on the Main Page. I'm handing out instant 5-hour blocks for edit-warring over it, so I think we can probably scrape through. Moreschi Talk 19:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll watch over it as well. -- Evilclown93 (talk)  19:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I do not understand. The source for the material is the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions edited by Professor John Bowker published by Oxford University Press and widely regarded as one the most authoritative dictionaries of world religions in the English language. You have not explained why you are reverting the edit to what any Islamic scholar would see as a deliberate distortion of the true meaning of the word Islam. Thankyou and peace be with you. Langdell 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * , just don't do so right now. Firstly, your rhetoric to the contrary has not convinced me that the current version of the article is insulting to anyone: you would appear to be edit-warring against consensus; but lastly The Article Does Not Have To Be "Right" Now. This can wait until Islam gets off the main page. Moreschi Talk 20:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't rhetoric it is simply that i am a student of Islam and I am concerned that the lead misrepresents the meaning of the concept of Islam. Since the article is on the front page of the encyclopedia is it not trebly important that the article is accurate? Otherwise one just gets the faintest impression that there is some sort of desire to put Islam in a bad light as is fashionable these days. The lead is not accurate; it presents a distorted point of view. Langdell 20:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's important for Wikipedia that the article is not a mass of revert-warring while it's on the Main Page. Edit-warring on TFA sends out a far worse message than 15 seconds of vandalism that then gets whacked by MartinBot.


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


 * But really, we can come back to this later. Not today. Now, the most important thing is not to revert-war. Moreschi Talk 21:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * well, i don't want to revert war either but being very conscious that Islam gets a very bad press in the western media (unjustifiably so because it teaches very fine things about how to be a proper human being) it is disappointing that a featured article claiming to be encyclopedic allows things to be said which simply would not be tolerated in articles about other religions. And, yes, this does very much relate to politics because the distortions of Islam have put the security of the world in peril. People have been convinced by an utterly phony 'war on terror' by Mr Cheney and his front man Mr Bush for the last six years and have been told that essentially it is the fault of fundamentalist muslims (which it is not). It is very important, therefore, that as scholars we concentrate on what is actually true (which in this case can be verified by looking at authoritative references) instead of what is alleged. All sorts of false ideas about Islam are presented to Westerners generally in order to serve the interests of big oil for whose profits 650 000 Iraquis have paid with their lives. Now, i'm sure you know all this but the point is that Islam means 'entering into a condition of peace and security with God through allegiance or surrender to him'. That is a verbatim transcript from the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. To define the word in terms of peace and friendship (salaam) is very different from defining it as simply submission or surrender to God which lends itself to an interpretation that Islam is by nature fanatical. There are other errors in this article. For example take the following: 'In Islamic theology Jesus is just a man and not the son of God.' This is simply not true. Jesus is regarded with greater veneration than all the other prophets of Islam bar Muhammed and is mentioned many times in the Qur'an. Stories of his deeds and sayings abound in Islamic folklore. To make the throwaway comment as above is misleading, divisive and to even an amateur student of Islam clearly intentionally inflammatory. The section on jihad is such an apalling mistreatment of this very important concept that i am sorry but even the most unsympatheric religious studies teacher would be horrified at the level of distortion. I could give you other examples but the main point is is that this article should not have been presented as a featured article in the shameful condition that it is in. Langdell 22:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

San Diego Natural History Museum
I wasn't edit warring. I have only ever made that one edit to the article. Corvus cornix 20:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that, it's the other two. They've been at it all day. Moreschi Talk 20:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I thought the comment was directed to me.  Corvus cornix 20:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Editor assistance/Review
Please check the latest -it has something to do with arabic roots and meaning of muslim, islam, salam, etc. Mike33 21:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done - basically, this can wait for tomorrow. The edit-warring on Islam has finally cooled down, and I want it to stay that way for another couple of hours. Moreschi Talk 21:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 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 08:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooops
I have just realized that the Opera text I modified is not part of an article, but part of your User page. Please feel free to revert my bad manners unless you think the small changes an improvement. My apologies! Bielle 17:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no, no - you're not a vandal: edit away, edit away! Improve, improve, improve! And even if I didn't want you to, I don't own my userspace :) Cheers, Moreschi Talk 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are too kind. It is more a matter of manners, than of ownership. I appreciate your attitude, however. Bielle 17:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Bakasuprman
In case you haven't seen it on WP:ANI, your block of User:Bakasuprman has been undone. User:Anwar saadat remains blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unblocked as well as per this ANI thread. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  15:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fucking ridiculous. The Indian Cabal needs to put its house in order before they all get banned. Moreschi Talk 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFA/ACL 2
Hello Moreschi, thanks for your support. I find it interesting that, while you were the third person to oppose my first RfA, you were the third to support my second. Thanks for the consistency. :) Acalamari 21:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Somewhat more versed in the ways of copyrights, I believe that undefined should be adequate for the file. --Kizor 08:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


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

ArbCom
Looks like it's got the green light. --Folantin 20:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So I see. Excellent. Moreschi Talk 20:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Best regards. Shalom Hello 22:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You appear to have misunderstood slightly: this is not a noticeboard designed for articles about fringe theories. That would, I agree, by unnecessary: such articles are usually high-profile and generate enough attention for a noticeboard to be superflous.


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


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

Welcome to the cabal
Apparently you're my "acolyte"--. I'm not sure what that makes me, but I hope the job comes with some robes, or a funny hat. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! This guy just does not stop assuming bad faith. BTW, someone troutslap Nishkid64, because the IRC logs as suppposed to be private, not leaked for the benefit of the Indian Cabal! Moreschi Talk 08:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rofl! So you've also joined the cabal. I too am Rama's Arrow's henchman, our loyal master. :-) GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 11:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
While it's a good idea in theory, I'm not sure it would work out in practice, so it's on MFD now. Feel free to comment. --Core desat 05:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * M: I think that it's very important to find a way to bring together editors who are interested in NPOV depictions of fringe theories. We lose a sizable number of good editors due to stress over them, and our articles suffer from POV. But I think a wikiproject would be a more appropriate way to achieve it rather than another noticeboard. I wanted to leave a note here as well as on the MFD page, since I think your creating the noticeboard wasn't a bad idea. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 05:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both of you. Well, we'll see how it works out. I would like a bit more than 9 hours to develop this, but if consensus is that a WikiProject would be better, I'm willing to have a look at that option as well. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 08:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this noticeboard is a means of ensuring Wikipedia policies are followed, it would not be canvassing to put a notice of this MfD on both WP:VPP and WP:AN, as well as WikiProject Pseudoscience, in my opinion. EdJohnston 15:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that posting a few notices on existing noticeboards would be appropriate. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of my undo on AN/I
Sorry about that. I caught the first username in {} after I had undid it, and didn't notice the other two. My bad. Dan 14:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, right. Ok, so that's what's causing the problems. Didn't understand what the hell was going on, my bad. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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


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

My RfA
Hello, I'd appreciate it if you would not use bad language such as the f word on RfA's as you did with mine. It clearly states Please keep all criticism constructive and polite and if I was which I'm not a religious person it could have caused me extreme offense, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL. Qst 18:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You would not believe how tempted I am to reply "fuck off". Knock it off. You're being ridiculous. My fucking was not directed at you, or even at your actions: it was fucking well used merely as an expression of frustration. Like the current usage. IMO, the idea that there is no right or wrong when it comes to BLP is far worse than the odd "fucking" used impersonally. Moreschi Talk 18:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Qst, forget about it, it's over. --wpktsfs 18:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is NO NEED to use that kind of language and I suggest you stop doing it. Qst 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Occasionally, I think there fucking well is. Ever read Trainspotting? One of the great masterpieces of modern literature just wouldn't be the same otherwise. Moreschi Talk 18:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a book. Qst 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This nonsense just shows why you really shouldn't be an administrator. Nick 18:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Shutup, using bad language is a sign of bad communication skills. Qst 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fucking bad communication skills? I'm not the one with the bad grammar here. Moreschi Talk 18:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Qst, you read WP:CIVIL Francisco Tevez 18:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Seriously both of you should stop, Moreschi you know better than this, and Qst, edit summaries like this would have gotten you a block. Jaranda wat's sup 18:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiclous. Stop the edit summaries, stop the flame warring, and stop being idiots. This is annoying me, and it looks like Qst has snapped. Francisco Tevez 18:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do know better. Unfortunately, when people come to my talk page complaining about one use of profanity, that was not directed at them in any sense of the word, they can hardly expect less profanity. I gave the fellow a grilling at his RfA. I don't think he should pass. So, don't come here afterwards complaining that I was too harsh. I wasn't. Catastraphic misunderstanding of BLP can have serious IRL consequences. Hence my frustration. Self-evidently bad-faith complaints are not going to get a sympathetic response. Moreschi Talk 18:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you ever thought of the potential for misinterpretation of your comments? — Kurykh  18:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My comments are designed so that they are not misinterpreted. Evidently, on my own talk page, I failed. I was playing around, which I think is important, because they day we stop playing we die, and that was missed by lots of people. My fault. ANI thread closed, so we can all kiss and make up. Moreschi Talk 18:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Only problem is, he's leaving specifically because of this incident. — Kurykh  18:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that so? If true, I doubt it. My best guess would be he's "leaving" because his RfA failed. Moreschi Talk 18:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can check his talk page if you want. — Kurykh  19:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thread on WP:ANI stated. see. Francisco Tevez 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not leaving because of the RfA, I'm leaving because of editors like you who are uncivil and unwilling to compromise. Qst 19:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreschi, you did seriously hurt him, Qst didn't help you by trolling on your talk page, but you should Assume good faith and apologize to him. Jaranda wat's sup 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

zomg. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Postscript
For drama fans wanting more lulz, here's what happened next: User:Francisco Tevez was blocked indef as a sock of User:Molag Bal. User:Qst was blocked for a month for abusive sockpuppetry, and for being a meatpuppet of Molag Bal. Nice little iniquitous sockfarm got busted.

What a waste of time. Moreschi Talk 14:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And so this begins as the Days of our Wikilives. :-P  Mi r a n da   14:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Mail
Short e-mail. --Folantin 09:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Replied (I only received one, but I presume they're both the same). --Folantin 15:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Routine mail. Mak (talk)  17:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-urgent. --Folantin 15:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied. --Folantin 21:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Rationale
Book cover image is explained in the licensing, what further rational do u require ? PianoKeys 02:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Qst discussion on WP:ANI
Hi Moreschi, I hope you're doing well. I thought it proper to inform you that I mentioned your name when discussing Qst's block on WP:ANI here. For the record, I did think that your comments on his RfA were harsh, but I also think Qst's subsequent actions shouldn't be justified by your tone. I guess I'm just not as blunt as you. I do understand where you're coming from, though. Anyway, I thought you should know about the discussion. Take care, -- Kyok o  06:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the vote of confidence! -- Kyok o  00:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro (2nd nomination)
Hello, I am contacting you because you participated in Articles for deletion/Francesco Dionigi, which resulted in the deletion of Francesco Dionigi. A new article has been created about the same person, Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro. I have nominated it for deletion, and you may wish to read the new article and comment at Articles for deletion/Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nationalists
Don't you love the way they show up to bitch and whine and argue over names and categories, but never until someone else has done the hard work of contributing the actual content? --I'm thinking of that delightful observation you made on your Wikiphilosophies page. Einstein (Albert) was right: "Nationalism is an infantile disease; it is the measles of mankind." Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's so pathetic it's not even funny. I'll have to pin it up on a wall somewhere. All these people do is fight - but I've never seen anything that so orientated towards conflict and not towards content on Wikipedia. It's a fairly trite truism, but the person who wrote that just does not care about the encyclopedia. What a muppet! We need sanity tests before registration, methinks. Moreschi Talk 19:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 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 07:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
for the revert on my user page :) --Oxymoron83 09:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ze dreaded day...
...is indeed August 16. The day I discover whether my future is to be filled with study or shelf stacking.

Anyway, what you think of my prodding plan? I was thinking maybe some informal group of people prodding lots could be quite beneficial (or at lest stop established contributors from creating one sentence articles). Maybe a taskforce of WP:SCISSORS perhaps (probably not; the declared aims are specifically against my idea of random threats of annihilation)? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

TJ Spyke and CS
Hello. I know it's going to sound really weird that you're the first (and probably last) person I'm going to personally bring this issue up to... Since you're the one who filed the CS notice, one would assume you've already made up your mind. However, I'm going to hope that you haven't already made up your mind. Or that, at least, you're the sort of person who's truly open to re-examining a situation with an entirely fresh view. On that CS page, I've tried to put up a defense. Fact is, he's had a lot of blocks, no matter which way you slice it. But I still want you to really open up your mind to the possibility that some of them really weren't valid. Even if you choose they were all valid eventually, just pretend, for at least a moment, that some weren't. For example, when you blocked him, he'd already had a whopping ten blocks. Yeowza. But, I want you to ask yourself if you would have found his edit-warring so offensive if that number had only been, for example, seven. (still a large number, I realize) And in terms of his last block, I want you to think if you still would have gone to CS if you'd known (as in, if you were to just accept as true) that the most recent blocking admin had already previously done an outright invalid block on spyke, specifically because he didn't look at the edit history to spot that the actual vandal was copying warnings given to him, against other people, in the edit summaries. That is, if you knew (and believed) that the most recent blocking admin already had a history of blocking Spyke as a direct result of missing the article history, and missing that Spyke had actually been fighting a vandal, and if you then knew that at least one of the article he's supposedly been edit-warring in now (though not 3RR) has been the victim of repeated vandals and unsourced info for at least a week now (which is why he didn't violate 3RR. He didn't want to get blocked for fighting bad material that might not be self-evident to admins), would you still have come to the conclusion that he's too disruptive? Anyways, I just want you to think about that, and to read my (rather long) account on the CS page... and just really think about it with a fresh perspective. Even if you don't believe/agree with me on everything, just look at what might be true if I'm right. If you still come to the same conclusion, c'est la vie. My only request is fresh consideration. Nothing more. (and I mean it) Bladestorm 21:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What I'm proposing ain't supposed to be a punishment. It's supposed to help him, cuz he keeps going the way he is going, he'll get indefblocked, which would be a pity. Moreschi Talk 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Tell me...
 * Did you actually look into the specifics of the current block before going to CS? I don't mean the block summary, but did you personally check and see if he actually is edit-warring?
 * I know I sometimes get too wordy, so it's easy to miss certain points, but...
 * This admin blocked spyke once before. Spyke, as well as three others, had been fighting a vandal. One of those other three actually blocked the real vandal. However, the vandal used edit summaries that made it look like a content dispute.
 * Tariqabjotu saw what he thought was a content dispute, and mistakenly blocked spyke. He was wrong, plain and simple, and eventually personally revoked the block.
 * For at least a week now (basically, at least since Benoit's death. I have a bad sense of time, so I don't know how long ago that was), Spyke's been fighting one vandal after another, as well as facing people substituting unsourced nonsense into articles. Spyke, though technically exempt from 3RR on overt vandalism, and though he'd normally be given a pass on cases of anonymous IPs adding nonsense to articles, still didn't want to risk 3RR, in case an admin didn't actually go to the trouble of verifying that he really wasn't edit-warring. As such, he still avoided 3RR, even though most other editors wouldn't be held to it. In spite of that, he was blocked anyways. By the same admin who mistakenly blocked him in the past for what he was, frankly, too lazy to find out was legitimate work against a vandal.
 * That's why I want to know if you personally looked into the nature of the current block before filing it. You seem to be accepting it as obviously true that he's still edit-warring, even though he's been making a concerted effort to not break 3RR, and even though the person who blocked him has an established, easily-proven past of misinterpreting valid vandal-fighting as being edit-warring. So, did you really look into it first? Or did you just assume that Tariqabjotu was right? Bladestorm 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the merits of Tariqabjotu's previous block (which was, yes, bad), this current one looks justified. One bad block does not a habitually lazy admin make. Edit-warring up to 3 reverts across multiple articles is really not on. Moreschi Talk 21:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So, for example, he cited the ECW article (the reason I focus on this one, is only because it's the one I have experience with; I'm not a wrestling fan)...
 * You see edit-warring here? Of his last five edits, two were to add 'fact' tags, two were correcting date information, and one was correcting a link to skip the redirect.
 * Is it your personal opinion that those five edits (spanning a couple of days, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) were edit-warring?
 * If you were to see those five edits, across a couple days (or heck, even in a single day), by someone other than spyke, would you have personally blocked them for that? Do you see edit-warring there? (keeping in mind that he never made the same edit twice, and never exceeded three reverts) Bladestorm 22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is: TJ has been warned and blocked numerous times concerning 3RR and revert warring. How many times does he need to be blocked and warned, before something is actually done to change his editing ways? Some blocks maybe invalid: but overall, I believe most are pretty valid. A sanction seems very justified, as just warning/blocking him seems to do nothing. RobJ1981 00:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * An absolute minimum of a quarter of them were outright invalid. It's starting to look like a third of them.
 * What's more, he's shown a concerted effort to correct his behaviour.
 * What's more, Rob, is that you also cited an article where he wasn't edit-warring when he was blocked. In any event, I really want Moreschi's opinion on those diff's I posted. I'm more than willing to discuss issues with you on the appropriate CS page, but I'd prefer to not fill up Moreschi's talk page with discussions not directed at him. Bladestorm 00:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks
Many thanks for your kind support. It makes all the difference. Feeling better :-) Dwsolo 15:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)dwsolo

Mountains
Man, I'm jealous. I have to work this summer and may not have much chance to go climbing. Have fun, and have a great break from all the trolls and nationalists. We'll be happy when you're back. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Snowdonia is so beautiful, even when it's raining (which it almost always is). Nice to get away from the computer a bit...something the nationalists never do, seemingly. They'll still be here when I get back, too :) Have a nice summer. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 18:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirects
Hello again, Moreschi. Where, amid you confluence of redirects is the user page of an administrator. I do feel this is all a bit unseemingly, sorry to be abrupt about it. Being reverted when asking a simple question is unpleasant, you presume that one would be experienced enough to find it. You did not advise me directly. You also appear to have made an assumption on the motivation of my enquiry and comments, and directed me to go somewhere else. Just my wounded observation. Please just supply the reference to you successful nomination as admin. Thanks, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍ contributions  19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We appear to be rather misunderstanding each other here, but Ok. At the moment, I don't have a userpage, just my user talk. Requests for adminship/Moreschi 2 is my successful adminship nomination. I reverted you because your question was, well, not what the noticeboard is for, but while doing so I tried to be helpful and point you in the right direction. That worked, so it seems. I tried to deal with your points fairly and civilly. Given that you stated that you have an interest in fringe theories, I did not think that directing you to WP:WPPS was an unreasonable nor incivil thing to do so, as it's both a useful and responsible project that puts in useful work on fringe theories, or at least aims to do so. I have made no assumptions about your motivation whatsoever. The fringe theories noticeboard is not a WikiProject: it's a noticeboard that's meant to attract discussion on issues relating to fringe theories. Everyone is welcome to contribute and join the discussions on the noticeboard: everyone. Please feel free to do so! My apologies if I have hurt your feelings at any stage; I have tried very hard to avoid doing so, though perfect tact was never one of my virtues. With all respect, Moreschi Talk 20:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Tea
Thanks for replying, Moreschi. Congratulations on the overwhelming support, I believe that is pretty rare. I will refrain from making any further comment on this matter of our discussion at this stage. I hope this is okay, I would be keen to dicuss it again. Let me know when you are back from your wikibreak and I will be happy to resume this, if you wish. Have a nice holiday. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍ contributions  21:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Community sanction
As the person who brought the issue of TJ Spyke on the community sanction noticeboard, I think you should take a look over at something else I have brought there. — M o e   ε  00:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 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 19:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:PS again
Please check out this MFD. Your opinion is welcome and requested since you particiated in the original MFD. /Blaxthos 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You have...
email.... Rlest 13:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ...which I cannot seem to find. This may be because it wound up in Junk and got deleted: you may have to send it again. Sorry. Moreschi Talk 20:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Lucky bugger
I didn't realise how long you would be on break or where you were going until I came along to find something on your talkpage - Snowdonia sounds gorgeous! Very jealous right now ;) Hope you are having a brilliant time of it. Take care, ~ Riana ⁂ 17:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 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 06:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

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 00:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

E-mail
Read before you proceed. --Folantin 09:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Read and replied. Moreschi Talk 14:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Likewise. --Folantin 14:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In turn. Moreschi Talk 14:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

zOMG
Who didn't see that coming? ~ Riana ⁂ 00:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"OIT"
You seem to have wanted to protect Out of India theory, but the protection didn't seem to register somehow. Can you unambiguously unprotect please? The recent flurry of edits was clearly due to trolling, not to anything resembling a bona fide dispute? I know about "wrong version", but seeing a piece on "Notable proponants[sic]" protected should be a giveaway. Protection is for disputes between good users who have lost their temper. Do not allow page protection to give driveby trolls more impact than they already have. dab (𒁳) 12:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Protection was only for 12 hours, it's off now. I agree with you: the reason why I protected was so that nobody blocked the good guy. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 15:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletions
Why did you miss this for your Afd? And in the template, how are the Persecution of articles less worthy of an Afd as compared to the Persecution by group? Please nominate the rest of the 20 articles in the by group too. We want to be nuetral, right? Please withdraw these nominations or nominate all the articles including the of group. You can reply on the AfD debates. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be sure to nominate Persecution of Muslims, Persecution of Jews etc too. I want to hear your thoughts on this. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC

I'm only human and my computer time is limited. Perhaps you might have noticed I've been offline since the Jew nomination? Some of us actually have lives to live and work to do - never mind sleep to catch - rather than sit on Wikipedia all bloody day long. I haven't got the time to AfD everything all at once. Persecution of Jews, at least, is a viable area of academic scholarship. No one has managed to persuade me so far that what I have so far nominated is. Oh, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Moreschi Talk 07:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do it please when you come online next time. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing which says that when one AfD's one article one must AfD every article in the group, especially if some of the articles in the group are valid, and others are total bollocks. Mak (talk)  12:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you voiced your opinion anywhere explaining why the Of group is not total bollocks, while the by is? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not give me orders as to what to do in the time I spend online. The "by" group is more bollocks, simply because there's far more scholarship out there (particularly Judaism-related) related to "of". Moreschi Talk 12:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're not admitting the plain truth that you didnt know that Persecution of Muslims also existed. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What the fuck are you talking about? Oh, now you've got me angry. Of course I knew it existed. I saw the big template. I just think that's a more scholarly topic. And a slightly better article. Moreschi Talk 18:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, yes, I knew you'd say that. I may have thrown a profanity around, but you have violated an even more important rule. You have completely forgotten to assume good faith, and that underpins everything we do around here. Moreschi Talk 19:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 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 09:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSN
I was debating to add the very diff you provided. Seeing that last week was the clincher for me. It seems to be the one time that there has been a slip-up in the careful separation of IPs. It would take a lot now for me to stop thinking Molag=Qst... or at least that they are friends. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You're crazy!
Heh heh, so you've joined in the History of Russia madness too? You must be insane. (I promised myself to leave it alone but I got sucked back in). Cheers. --Folantin 14:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * E-mail. --Folantin 14:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But our prize in today's "Nationalists on the Rampage" comp goes to the anonymous Catalan who made this claim about Cervantes . We should seriously consider having articles on Patrick W. Shakespeare and Brian Confucius who, as any reader of Joyce's Ulysses knows, were both trueborn Irishmen. --Folantin 19:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, start a "Pastoral in music" section if you like. The whole article is in desperate need of improvement so any contributions are welcome (wot no Lycidas? That's got to change in the next few days). I think Linishu was going to do a pastoral opera article but she has yet to get round to it. Maybe start with Italian composers setting bits of Guarini's Il pastor fido (perhaps pastoral in music goes back even earlier?). Most very early Italian operas are set in Arcadia, then we have the French "pastorale heroique" (add your own accents). Whatever the case, go right ahead. --Folantin 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi
hi, moreschi, there are some people reverting the Arameaen people article. and when i revert it back a warning comes. thanksNochi 15:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * hi plese do not revert any information on arameans articel bvefore discussing thank u. Nochi 21:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Balls. You're just adding nonsense. Knock it off. Moreschi Talk 21:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest blocking him indefinitely. He's here only to troll around. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:26 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Moreschi, keep up the great job :) &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:45 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Counter-Vandalism Unit?
Hello Moreschi. I just noticed your deletion of the CVU Wikiproject. I somewhat reluctantly agree with your stance that the motivation of project turned "para-military" but some of the people more involved with that project or page may be surprised to have suddenly seen it deleted with no discussion what-so-ever. Though being bold to improve Wikipedia never hurts, don't you think you should have proprosed this on one of the vandalism talk pages? According to the old talk page the following deletion proposals of that page were as follows:

This page was previously nominated for deletion:

¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, 23 June 2006
 * Speedily deleted, 29 August 2006
 * Deletion overturned, 2 September 2006.
 * Keep, 10 September 2006
 * Ah. Well, all of that was long time ago. People can speedily restore the CVU if they want - I don't mind - but I would prefer that they didn't unless they felt it really has a place on enwiki. IMO it had outlived its purpose. The place seemed nigh-on dead, anyway, so I don't think we're missing out on much. (AFAIK it also used to be Essjay's personal fiefdom, and it's always attracted controversy). Personally, I never saw it do anything useful, and WP:RCP seems to cover everything your budding vandalwhacker needs to know. Moreschi Talk 21:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I kind of agree with you on that but I still think any page like that should be a little discussed before ultimately deleting it outright. Plus this deletion will cause the need for some cleanup work based on the categories involving that unit like this one.  I'll put a small post on the admin noticeboard and see how everybody else feels about it.  I think you relatively are on the right track but it should be a little discussed first.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk)  21:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a bold admin. Failing that I'm one who ignores all the rules: failing that, ROUGE. But go ahead. I doubt anyone will really care, though. Moreschi Talk 21:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * True and I don't think you were entirely wrong in the deletion decision. I went ahead and posted to see if anyone feels differently about the matter.¤~Persian Poet Gal <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 22:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've deleted the Counter Vandalism Unit
Should I get rid of the barnstar, or is there a replacement on the way?  James   Luftan  contribs 22:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm confused - did they have an official barnstar? If so, nuke that, yes. Please! Moreschi Talk 22:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They don't have their own one, they were using the RickK. They really need to rename that - I have no idea who he is, beyond some vandalwhacker who got pissed... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to... However someone put the page back up. Is there an edit war going on?  James   Luftan  contribs 22:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, It is just for historic interest.  James   Luftan  contribs 22:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No; the page was re-instated, as "lack of objection does not constitute consensus". And has been listed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (fourth nomination). Cheers, Dfrg.msc 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Page needs semi-protecting?
An anonymous IP is messing about with Handel's nationality. Now the sentence we have at the moment is perhaps not ideal but I believe there is consensus for it on the talk page. Semi-protection a temporary solution? Cheers. --Folantin 13:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems under control at the moment. By the way, if you want a good laugh check out the article on Topal Osman Pasha. They don't write them like that any more! --Folantin 14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is, if you take away the flowery language it's possible a lot of the info is accurate, but we'll probably never know since we seem to have thousands of Turkish (or Turanian) nationalists and not one specialist in Ottoman history. Check out the talk pages of the Safavid dynasty (all eight archives' worth) to see the former at work (and, no, they're not disputing the finer details of Shah Abbas' economic policy). --Folantin 07:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Another nationalist troll
We have another nationalist troll, he has violated WP:3RR on Ancient Arabs and he even has sockpuppets with him (I think). Clear Arabism, trying to make all pre-Islamic Semitic peoples into Arabs, WP:NOR issues, not citing sources, NPOV issues, etcetera, you name it. I've reported him here. Thanks in advance. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 15:30 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

WIlliam Tell Overture
Can you send that over to a user sub-page for me so I can work on the Spike Jones part? Thanks. Otto4711 14:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please? Otto4711 19:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being so lazy. On the way now, apologies. Moreschi Talk 19:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Farinelli biography
Hello, I would be grateful for your opinion/advice about how the Farinelli page now is. Quite a lot has been added lately, by someone I believe not be a native speaker of English, and I am not sure about the accuracy of their sources. Best wishes, Nick--voxclamans 21:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, I'll take a look. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 21:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. The Cuzzoni article is also very Italianate in style - even if the sources are good and the facts accurate, some editing will need doing to make it into "real" English.--voxclamans 21:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Italian reviser of Farinelli has now replied to say that the source for the revisions is another web-site :"metastasio.com". I've now written to them, asking about their authorship, and hope to find out about their sources.--voxclamans 17:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

DAB's Abuses
DAB is spreading false rumours about me that I am adding unsourced statements to Wiki. My well sourced contribution to Rgveda (2 August ,2007) was deleted but unsourced and false etymology of Rgveda was not corrected in spite of protests. I discussed it on Talk:Rgveda under 'Wrong Etymology of Rgveda' on Aug-3,  DAB refused to mend it (Aug-7); I again asked (Aug-10); lastly I used more explicit words pointing at his errors at 16:35, 10 August 2007, and just 4 minutes after he corrected the error. It proves that DAB has no knowledge of fundamentals of Sanskrit grammar, yet did not rectify his error till I insisted again and again. But this resulted in his ill-will towards me and he called me silly and erratic just two hours later (on Talk:Utpala on  10 August 2007, 15:41 UTC ) without any cause of provocation. It is against Wiki policy of WP:CIVIL. On Abecedares talk page DAB says about me "In terms of general education, he plainly isn't: his opinions are rife with naive non-sequiturs";  it is again a personal attach and insult. In Balance Restore's talk page he calls me the least knowledgeable person in the world. In Dark Fall's talk page he called me insane and crank, because I compelled him to correct his grammatical errors in the opening lines of Rgveda. He has falsely charging me of WP:OR, but is himself keeping some material in Surya Siddhanta which are WP:OR, in spite of my repeated protests. He deleted my active talk on Rgveda aimed at methods for imroving this article which is against Wiki rules. Another user IAF deleted a sentence of DAB's talk just for testing the reaction, and was banned for 96 hours by you just 7 minutes later ! But DAB deletes my talks, deletes my well sourced edits, abuses me everywhere, and nobody can check him !! DAB says that I am putting unsourced statements on talk page and that is why he deletes them. Does he put sourced statements on talk pages ? I have cited only a few instances. He has abused me so many times that a good libel case can be filed in a court of law. But I will not do that. I am just enjoying the hospitality of Wikipedians, being a new user. DAB treats me like a servant, because he does not want a knowledgeable person who can check his errors, as I did (Rgveda etymology). Students guided by me decades ago are now heads of departments, but in Wiki I am the least educated person, silly, crank, insane, erratic, etc, although DAB himself collaborated with me in many articles and I can cite many notes from him in which he calls me a good scholar and editor. Who, then, is erratic ? I have stopped editing Wiki articles which he edits, to avoid his abuses. - Vinay Jha 21:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I really could not care less. You think there are problems with Dbachmann's conduct, try Requests for comment - just don't expect a sympathetic response. The fellow I blocked was guilty of patent harassment and disruption, which we block for. Moreschi Talk 21:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, I have posted an unblock request on behalf of the, but I wanted to make clear that I do so not to question your actions (which I think were completely justifiable), but only with the view of giving the errant user a second chance. Abecedare 19:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but he retracted the threat via email very calmly, so I've unblocked. Moreschi Talk 19:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

E-mail
Hi Moreschi, I have just sent you an e-mail. Can you reply via e-mail as soon as you can, thanks. Davnel03 20:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Got your e-mail, if it flares up again, I'll head to ANI. Davnel03 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 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 20:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not want edit war but DAB is adamant
Look at the first para of Rgveda, there was a wrong reference to Max Muller which I corrected, and DAB removed the whole thing just because I touched it. My action was perfect, but DAB has asked me many a times to leave Wiki and start my own web site ! Why he behaves like so ? What should I do ? -Vinay Jha 21:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

technically, since the threat was made to me, shouldn't be the statement of retraction be directed to me as well? I received an email from VJ, but instead of an apology, it contained more childish sulking along the lines of begging for lifting a ban before biased administrators like you or Moreschi is the last thing in the world I will do. I honestly do not think this user is worth the trouble we invest in him. dab (𒁳) 12:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew
Andrew Van De Kamp has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

WP:CIVIL
See my talk page, DAB has used highly insulting language for me again for my edits in Rgveda which I hoped would have pleased everyone. I corrected many errors in that article, but DAB wants to keep an unsourced statement about dating in the introduction, while I say either you give a source or remove the statement, this statement is not indespensable at the beginning because there is a section on dating later. But DAB answers by abuses. Yesternight, you said no one will sympathise with me, which meant I will have to live with abuses and toleratre wrong edits by DAB. Now what will you say ? -Vinay Jha 14:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies.
My apologies for not being online yesterday, my cold has taken a turn for the worse and I am horribly ill. 4As and a B though, helps to offset it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed my offer for Manchester yesterday, so unless something dreadful should befall I will be spending my academic years 2008-11 there. And if academic study agrees with me maybe I will take Classics after. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/BJAODN
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN
...is mis-named. It should be "bad jokes and unfortunately not deleted nonsense.", i.e. BJAUNDN. -- Hope all is well with you and you had a great hiking trip! Antandrus (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK Note
Hey. Thanks for getting the current update ready, made my job way easier when I updated it. Just a couple things to point out though for future reference. First off, we generally try and go from the bottom up (i.e. 8/13 DYKs would take priority over 8/17 ones going on the main page). There's no rule picking different ones from different days and it's no big deal, just pointing it out so we don't have a bunch of perfectly good ones expire for no reason. Second, and actually the one to remember, make sure you remove the ones you put on the next update from T:TDYK. Thanks for helping out around there though, we've needed more hands there of late. Wizardman 16:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. I'll try to remember about the removing-from-suggestions-page. As regards the other point, I like my DYK picks to be particularly interesting, so I tend to jump about a bit to find really good stuff that isn't an article about the history of the road going around the village green. I take the "interesting" requirement very seriously :) Cheers, Moreschi Talk 20:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed
Looks like it's over. --Folantin 18:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One last fling, I presume. But all we need is one more vote to close from an Arb. Incidentally, there was also this weird flashback yesterday . Seems resolved...Erm, maybe . --Folantin 21:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not particularly urgent e-mail. --Folantin 18:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and Mabbett's predictably ranting about the "contemptible charade" on his talk page despite the ban. Surely this needs fixing. --Folantin 18:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Duly fixed, and replied. Moreschi Talk 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Essay on how 3RR hurts the project and a proposal to fix it.
Hi! I would appreciate it, if you could give me your thoughts on this essay: Accusations of collaboration: 3RR hurts Wikipedia --Alexia Death the Grey 09:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I had come to think of ANI as annoying when it wasn't boring, until this. Tom Harrison Talk 12:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to know someone appreciates my amazingly GSOH (zomg, Wikipedia as dating agency!). Cheers, Moreschi Talk 13:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2
This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Pigsonthewing's editing privileges are suspended for one year. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 18:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Balbina Steffenone
Just curious but where did you find the Grove reference? Two other singers (Claudia Florenti and Lorenzo Salvi) are mentioned as singing in in the first performance of Mexicanos, al grito de guerra - not Steffenone. Best. -- Kleinzach 01:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OIT
Please read what is edited before forming an opinion. All of my sources fit with geenral scholarly consesus. Therfore, if wiki consesus goes against sholarly consensus it is flawed. OIT scholarshipo is divided. Read my sources, and see if this isn't true. Hence I will continue to make balanced changes only Watch844 13:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes: on one side you have the great majority, on the other side the minority. Yes, there is division, but we are here to overwhelmingly reflect scholarly consensus - the views of the majority. Now, stop POV-pushing. Your latest changes were far from "balanced". Moreschi Talk 13:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

History of Russia
It's kicked off again. Another nationalist chauvinist funfest :( . --Folantin 20:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 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 05:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)