User talk:Moriori/Archive 4

April 2014
Hello, I'm Moriori. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Pākehā because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Moriori (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * the whole page, needs to be reworked to bring it away from emotive and speculative writing, towards one which fits in with wikipedia. Think you'll have to aggree tho, needs a load of contributions to tidy up the page and make it impartial. 217.169.27.120 (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How on earth did you think your edit which I reverted was impartial -- namely --"The New Zealand Pākehā All Blacks, are however considered a racist outreach of New Zealand culture unlike the accepted New Zealand Māori All Blacks ."? There is no such thing as "The New Zealand Pākehā All Blacks". Also, don't plonk specious information into an article and add a citation needed tag. If it needed a citation, why didn't you include one instead of creating work for others. Moriori (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "There is no such thing as "The New Zealand Pākehā All Blacks" -- Exactly, which is why it suits the current article. Actually, there was a team called the New Zealand Natives in the late 1880s.  The Natives had originally been called New Zealand Māori but, a bunch of white skinned New Zealand born were selected so the team was renamed.  It was after this, the 'Maori' All Blacks came back into fashion and at the time it was mooted that a Pākehā only representative team should also be created. 217.169.27.120 (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm prepared to wait. Moriori (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Considers vs treats
The source states The Army still reportedly treats Manning as a man... While it is week aka the reportedly bit, it uses the term treats which is implies how they act in regards to her instead of consider which would be how they think of her. To jump from one meaning to the other seems like synthesis to me. PaleAqua (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * EC.Yes, the reference does say that. But it does not say the army "will continue to treat Manning as a male". We can't possibly know that because no-one is quoted as saying so. Nobody even knows if the army has discussed the court decision and decided on its policy on how to treat Manning. We would need a ref for Wikipedia to say "the army will continue to treat Manning as a male", otherwise it is Wikipedia making that statement. And Wikipedia doesn't do that. Moriori (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And to be honest it a bit of prediction as well to talk about the future... should be reworded further to be how they currently deal with her, and may how sources expectations etc. A subtler change such as dropping the will seems like it is probably called for. The more I think about it, we may be looking at slightly different bits of the phrasing. PaleAqua (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep, guess we were. Sorry. I still think "considers" is the wrong word as we likewise have no direct source the what they think vs how they act. PaleAqua (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hat Trick
The Golden Sombrero adds on to the hat trick reference. The previous sentence gave no references and stated players "jokingly" use it for striking out three times. The Sombrero is a bigger hat and the player would have to strike out four times. It adds useful information on how the hat trick is used in baseball and by extension the golden sombrero (three strikeouts = hat trick; four strike outs = golden sombrero). I didn't cite a reference because I figured the link to the Golden Sombrero had references. I am new to this and I don't think I have a user name. 24.252.73.200 (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, and welcome to Wikipedia. What is a problem is that this article is about positive achievements of threes, and adding an "achievement" involving four negative somethings doesn't really fit the purpose of the article. Hope this helps. Moriori (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I humbly disagree. It is true that the hat trick is generally an accomplishment, but my interpretation of the article is the context of a hat trick in the sport in which it is used. You did not delete the portion about the hat trick in a negative context, and the golden sombrero is a logical extension. Though I do understand if you do not see it this way. Keep up the good work and thank you for helping make Wikipedia what it is. 24.252.73.200 (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Kiwifruit
I removed a hanging sentence fragment that was not related to the paragraph it was in. You reverted it. Just curious as to why? 208.90.40.114 (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I see. I have restored the bit that mentions the New Zealanders changing yang tao to Chinese gooseberry which I thought you must have removed in error. So, I have answered your question. Could you answer my question I left on your talk page, namely, "what is ingratiated food?" Moriori (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i changed it to "Due to the criticism and the associated public pressure the regulations that dictate how food is to be irradiated as well as the food allowed to be irradiated vary greatly from country to country" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.40.114 (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

WTF????
Why did you revert my edit to my own talk page?

I hope that there was some extraordinarily good reason. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * WTF INDEED! The edit history shows that I made the revert, but please be assured I did not deliberately make it. After considerable head scratching, and looking at the time my edit was made (9.34 last night my time) I guess that as I lay in bed with my iPad looking at recent changes, and scrolling up/down the list, my thumb accidentally hit the rv.  Please be assured this was not intentional. Regards. Moriori (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. The curse of the iPad :)
 * Mistakes happen, and luckily I spotted this one quickly. Sorry I was a bit growly in my complaint, but thanks for bring so nice about it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

July 2014
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:2014 Oso mudslide, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I used to think the iPad was sliced bread personified, but it is definitely not easy to use when editing Wikipedia. When thumbing a scroll down a Watchlist it is sometimes easy to hit a rollback or whatever without knowing . Please be assured I did not consciously make that edit. Mea culpa. Moriori (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * When I saw your talk page and the past experience you have, I WAS surprised. Glad it was unintentional.  I do understand about editing with a tablet.  It does pose problems at times.  No harm, no foul.  Feel free to remove the warning above and consider your mea culpa completely accepted.  -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  01:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Big thumbs, eh? :-) Okay, I understand, no problem. But one comment, for Winkelvi: I understand you were doing the right thing, and I appreciate that. But your rapid-fire response precluded letting Moriori self-revert, which would have amply demonstrated that it was an unintended error, etc. Just saying that sometimes it is useful to not be right on top of things. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Was your reversion last night at New Zealand State Highway 1 another iPadism?- gadfium 22:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh no. Slips! I really must be more careful. Have reverted . But then again, I might be bullshitting, because I guess I am one of those pathologically dishonest kiwi Wikipedians. Moriori (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we should get some T-shirts printed. "I'm a pathologically dishonest kiwi Wikipedian because I insist that articles match the sources."- gadfium 22:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Tauranga
I believe you cannot provide any physical evidence as to the exact settlement date of Tauranga and therefore your theory of it being in the 13th century is highly optimistic and inaccurate.
 * You go first. You justify your edit which reversed a long standing date supported by other articles. Moriori (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

My edit to microwave oven
Could you please tell me how it is not constructive? It was well referenced, and provided useful information that could not be found in the rest of the article. 101.169.127.242 (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article you refer to is about microwave ovens, namely Microwave oven.


 * 1) In the lead about microwave ovens you wrote "Microwaves are known for their use in nuclear weapons". Maybe, but microwave ovens are not
 * 2) In the lead about microwave ovens you wrote "a single microwave has enough energy to destroy a large town". But hardly a microwave oven
 * 3) In the lead about microwave ovens you wrote "They can also be used as sex toys...and as a food source". So can combine harvesters, but....
 * 4) In the lead about microwave ovens you wrote "The religion of Itanimulli worships microwaves a holy deities".
 * Any one of those individually could be challenged as irrelevant in the lead of the article. Taken together as a whole, they definitely deserve collective zapping in my opinion.


 * And oh yeah, the Illuminati religion may worship microwaves, but not your Itanimulli. Moriori (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How are any of those irrelevant? Also, did you actually even read the references provided? They offered blatant support of my conclusions, and were all written by qualified professionals. Oh, and the Itanimulli actually do, as a matter of fact, worship microwave ovens. I speak as an ex-member of the faith. 101.169.127.242 (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Great. We look forward to you creating the article Itanimulli. Moriori (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have time for that; however, I did add a request here. If one of you editors could get onto that, it would be great, thanks. 101.169.170.152 (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ho Ho Ho. This edit doesn't surprise. Go away, Yes Minister is on.  Moriori (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, really? "Ho ho ho"? "Go away"? Really? You can't be bothered listening to my perspective, so you decide to act like a child, instead of an admin of the most well-known and highly-regarded wiki there is. You know what, no more trolling for me. I'll go do some productive shit IRL. Sorry to bother you. 101.168.85.59 (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Governmental lists of cults and sects: Revision history
I would like to know what disturbed you about the footnote. The document from the French Government is an official document and is in the possession of Subud France and is in response for inclusion in this list according to the reference. It is a valid footnote giving further information for Subud being on the list. This is a damaging list that the French Government says is not official in anyway. Subud has worked to overcome the wrongful inclusion. I have not removed it from the list as that would be wrong, but instead included the factual information to clarify it. I believe that this is not incorrect as it stood in my version and would like you to undo the removal, if you agree. If not, please tell me as to how this should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mweissie (talk • contribs) 10:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The information you inserted was an unattributed statement from you, not something sourced to a RS. If you look at the refs used in the opening pars of this section, you will see the information they display in the refs section below is sourced. For instance, ref # 17 appears as "Raffarin, Jean-Pierre (2005-06-01). "Circulaire du 27 mai 2005 relative à la lutte contre les dérives sectaires". JORF n°126 du 1 juin 2005 page 9751 texte n° 8 (in French). République Française. p. 9751. Retrieved 2007-07-26." However, you can not "correct" my removal because it was not wrong. The section French parliamentary commission report (1995) is referenced itself, so each entry does not require an individual reference. Moriori (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Would it help if I uploaded the document itself and then referenced it? I did see the overall reference of the retraction by the French Government but I have the actual document. This is a very strange situation in France and Subud has worked to try and sort it out. They say that the document was not meant to be public (but it was), and has no legal footing but it affects people. Probably some others on this list are not BAD organizations and tarred by this document. I am kind of new at this and ask your help to do this right as I see you have years of experience with wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mweissie (talk • contribs) 07:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope. Read my last sentence above. Moriori (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not as the actual document would be interesting to someone researching on the French Government and "cult witch hunting" to see how they responded to individual complaints (very interesting) but I bow to your greater understanding of these things. I also did not see anywhere the reference as to why some are Red and some are not. I assume that this is that these organizations do not appear in the later document, but this is not explained and possible should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mweissie (talk • contribs) 10:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have left info on your talk page, but also, see WP:RED. Moriori (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sellers: two questions...
As your an admin, perhaps you could explain: Clearly you disagree with me referring to "reaching a level" of incivility, but what level would you say "FUCK OFF" is on when said directly to two editors? Personally, I would put that on the same level as any offensive profanity, which is at the gutter bottom. Also, being on the receiving end of the "FUCK OFF" comment, would you not say that agreeing to "FUCK OFF" and then suggesting that the offending editor also "FUCK[S] OFF" is a simple way of agreeing to do what the other editor wants? They used the profanity first, so I would think it unlikely that they get offended by a return bat, no? — Cassianto talk 6:49 am, Yesterday (UTC+12)


 * At the Sellers talk page I urged all three of you to cool it, as an uninvolved observer, not admin. Had I been dealing with this as an admin I would have left a warning on your individual talk pages but consequences of that would probably require time which I simply don't have. I also don't have time for trollish posts, so don't do so here again. Moriori (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of rollback
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to refrain from your inappropriate use of robllback as you did on the BLP noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not guilty. Or not intentional anyway. Sorry Viriditas, I am using an iPad this afternoon and it seems I inadvertently do the Big Thumb trick sometimes without knowing. While scrolling. I need to be more careful. Thanks for reverting. Moriori (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert, I refactored. There is a difference.  Anyway, thanks for explaining. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please explain
Hi Moriori, why did you revert my user page to a 2-year-old version here? Your reversion was unhelpful and I've undone it per WP:User pages. If there's a problem with the contents of my user page, please post on my talk page first; there's a fair chance I'll remove or amend it. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * EEEEEK! The history clearly shows me as making the edit, but shit man, no way. I simply can't explain it. And as for going back two years, that's just as mysterious. Please be assured that I did not deliberately edit your page, and I can't explain how it happened. Moriori (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries; I thought this was rather a strange and random thing for such an experienced editor to do. There's no harm done here; thanks for replying. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the reason it reverted to a two year old revision is because rollback reverts all continues edits by a user so the revision from two years ago must of been the last time someone other than you edited your userpage -  NickGibson3900 Talk 01:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of rollback Comment


Lixxx235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

It's very nice to meet you!

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

By the way, mind you explain this use of rollback that restored malformed content and was obviously made in good faith? Please ping when replying. Cheers, Thanks,  L235 - Talk Ping when replying 05:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh no, not again. I am having Big Thumb problem when scrolling down my watch list on the iPad. Not intentional. You know, I guess this anomaly might be more widespread than I think. A way around it would be for editors needing to deliberately press Rollback twice to activate it. That would prevent accidental one-press activation on the touch screen. Yeah, I know, editors could be more careful too (before someone chimes in with a sarky), but it is very easy to make this error without knowing you have done so. Moriori (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, good to know. Next time though, if you didn't intend on reverting the edit, please self-revert, and if you intended to make the reversion, please make a dummy edit after you made the rollback to explain why you reverted. Happy editing! Cheers, Thanks,  L235 - Talk Ping when replying 21:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, it should be very easy to tell you have rolled-back an edit. It takes you to a screen saying "Reverted to version ### by ___" or something like that. Just FYI. Cheers, Thanks,  L235 - Talk Ping when replying 22:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. A couple of minutes ago, using my iPad, I did a test scroll of my watch list. I pressed rollback on your last edit here, and kept on scrolling without any message coming up such as "Reverted to version ### by ___". I then pressed rollback on my edit, without continuing to scroll, and it suddenly took me to my contributions page, again without any message like "Reverted to version ### by ___". Weird indeed. Moriori (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What gadgets do you have on? Cheers, Thanks,  L235 - Talk Ping when replying 01:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When I did my little experiment about an hour ago, I was using my iPad which is wifi-ed to my iMac. But when I have had problems in the past, it is when I am using the iPad and the iMac is shut down. No other gadgets. Moriori (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Stephens Island wren
Someone I know made the recent anon edit to this page using my LAN. However, I would agree with his edit, and not with your edit. If you would check (It's easy, as there are 'Pedia articles to help you) you would see that although all songbirds are passerines, NOT all passerines are songbirds. Was Stephens Island wren a songbird? Unfortunately we shall never really know as they are extinct. However, we can be sure they were passerine. Perhaps you wouldn't mind reverting your edit reversion? -- A LGRIF  talk 14:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The edit I reverted was made without explanation. I checked, and saw the information was referenced by the following -- "Millener, P.R. (1989) The only flightless passerine: the Stephens Island Wren (Traversia lyalli: Acanthisittidae). Notornis 36(4): 280–284." So I restored it. If you have better sourcing to say it was not a songbird, then please remove the info, but explain why. Cheers Moriori (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

hat trick
How is that "unconstructive editing"? Those are the colloquial terms. Educate yourself on the game of hockey. Plenty of Wiki pages list colloquial terms on pages... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.248.202 (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your edit was unexplained. It was plonked into the start of the intro. It was unreferenced. The words trick and hatty which you added are not the colloquial terms. Maybe in a localised sense, but hardly universal throughout hockey. If they were, Google would have a screed of mentions of them. It doesn't. Moriori (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Still, to label it as "vandalisim" is unthinkable. If you don't think it was a useful edit, then explain why, don't automatically accuse me of vandalism. Secondly, they actually are the colloquial terms. That's actually the very reason you can't find results on Google - they're colloquial. And if you need references for that, why didn't you also ask for references on the alternate format of the term (no hyphen)?98.114.248.202 (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding vandalism -- you're right about automatically. The edit summary for my rv of the article said "Reverted edits by 98.114.248.202 (talk) to last version by Hamish59". The summary for the edit on your talk page said "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Hat-trick.". No mention in either of Vandalism but unfortunately the template message itself contained the word. I am sorry it offended you. Moriori (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier
Moriori, you improperly reverted my edit. See MOS:NUMERAL. In the sentence, "The steam-generating system will use fewer than 200 valves and only eight pipe sizes," I correctly changed the eight to 8 and explained the change, clearly, in my edit summary. You reverted my change and cited "MOS," but the main MOS does not cover this issue. MOS:NUMERAL says (I copied the formatting, too):


 * Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures:
 * &bull;    five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.
 * &bull;    86men and 103women, not eighty-six men and 103 women
 * &bull;    There were 3 deaths and 206 injuries (even though 3 would normally be given as three) or Three died and two hundred six were injured (even though two hundred six would normally be given as 206), not There were three deaths and 206 injuries

"200 valves and only 8 pipe sizes" are comparable quantities, so they use the same form, either words or numerals, not a mixture. This is consistent with other style manuals, which sometimes say that in the same sentence, numerals and words for numbers are not to be mixed. I am changing the eight back to 8 to comply with Wikipedia's style standards. Holy (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Shows you what I know, doesn't it! I have always used the general MOS rule "whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words" which is the style we used in the real world in New Zealand, Australia and England where I worked in the media. It became part of Wiki MOS on 27 January 2004, but I don't watchlist things like MOS so had no idea of additional usage subsequently added which you have pointed out. I think it should apply to lists/infoboxes and such but not the article prose. No matter, I know now, and thank you for pointing it out, and reverting my incorrect edit. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've seen this rule, or a close variation of it, in every style guide in which I've bothered to look, but I've probably been looking in just U.S. guides. Thanks for your gracious reply. Holy (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Closure of Formula 1 2015 season German Flag dispute
I have proposed a closure to the dispute as most parties seem to have understand the opposing views and simply disagree with them and there appears to be a consensus, as an uninvolved editor I would appreciate you weighing in here. SPACKlick (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes you did
I didn't remove any information regarding 11th Field Artillery Regiment. Only added very valid information. Please show me where I was incorrect... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfhound4Life (talk • contribs) 05:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes you did. See this edit where you removed the lead from the article. Your problematic edits have been reverted several times and you risk being blocked for 3RR. I suggest you step back and consider what you are doing. Also, when you post a new message to a talk page, put it at the bottom of the page, not the top as you did here. Moriori (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Stephen's island wren
Please cease your counter-productive editing of the article Stephen's island wren, it WAS driven extinct by the lighthouse keeper's cat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10FCollier (talk • contribs) 13:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have left you a message on your talk page advising you stop removing referenced material from an article and replacing it with unreferenced contradictory opinion. Moriori (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Cease your erroneous editing of the article Stephen's island wren, your knowledge of it is bad and you should feel bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10FCollier (talk • contribs) 23:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, this user has been warned he will be blocked if he again removes referenced material and replaces it with unreferenced material. Moriori (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Cease erroneously editing the article Stephen's island wren you are wrong it WAS driven to extinction by the lighthouse keeper's cat https://sites.google.com/site/qitranscripts//transcripts/2x02 go to the bottom of the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10FCollier (talk • contribs) 13:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have left a response at his talk page. Moriori (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

2014 russian grand prix temperature edit
I am the person who made the edit that you reversed, though I was not logged in at the time I made it.

The °C->°F temperature conversion formula for a single specific temperature is "F=1.8*C+32". This works correctly for a statement such as "right now, the temperature is 12°C (54°F) outside". But it does not work properly when you are calculating a temperature interval (either drop or rise), so "the end of the race will be 12°C (54°F) cooler than the start" is a mathematically incorrect statement. It's a bit easier to see when the C value is '0': "the end of the race will be 0°C (32°F) cooler than the start" is what you would see if the normal formula is used.

The correct formula for temperature interval conversion is "F2-F1=1.8*(C2-C1)", which drops the "+32" portion of the standard formula since you are only measuring the ratio of C to F for an interval conversion, since the "+32" is simply an offset between the specific temperature "0°C" but has no bearing on the interval of "0°C". Therefore the correct statement would be "the end of the race will be 12°C (22°F) cooler than the start" or "the end of the race will be 0°C (0°F) cooler than the start".

Using the example in the article, if at the beginning of the race it was 21 °C (70 °F), and the expected drop during the race is 12°C, then at the end of the race it would be 9°C (48°F). And 70°F - 48°F = 22°F which is what you'd get from the interval formula "F2-F1=1.8*(C2-C1)" -> "70-48=1.8*(21-9)=21.6≈22", not 54°F as the article originally stated. And 54 - 22 = 32, which is the "+32" part that gets dropped from the normal °C->°F formula when calculating an interval.

I imagine there are hundreds if not thousands of articles on Wikipedia that include this type of mistake, not only because the formulas embedded into wiki editor are very convenient to use, but even outside of Wikipedia it's an easy mistake to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capedcadaver (talk • contribs) 01:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have made a very important point which I admit entirely went over my head, for which I apologise. I think this needs wider exposure so I am moving my first post, your response, and this post of mine, to the article talk page. Moriori (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Just an FYI, in case you wished to comment... I reported 174.23.143.201 for POV-pushing on North American P-51 Mustang by repeatedly changing "African American" to "black". —Josh3580talk/hist 00:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I see he has been blocked. Watchlisted even so. Moriori (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account
Hi Moriori! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Universal Medicine
Dear Moriori. Have updated rationale/details of UM photo as you requested. Disappointed they are trying to frustrate the fair use of their logo. 2013Ca55 (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will reply within an update at the article talk page. Moriori (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

OK do what you like with regards fair-use logos. Delete them and disregard the concept of fair-use. I am disappointed you didn't assist in the matter and help find a better fair-use logo for the article to use. I'm calling you a wrecker rather than a contributor. Oh and BTW don't tell lies. Thanks copyright clown! 2013Ca55 (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To have fair use of anything surely we need to know where it came from and if it truly represents what it is meant to represent. When you uploaded the image your edit summary said "Insert UM representative image". We don't know, or can't know where it came from and we cannot establish if this IS anything like the actual "Universal Medicine" logo.


 * Your "wrecker", "liar" and "clown" comments are noted. Moriori (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "The very first policy listed on the Wikipedia policy page is the following. Edit. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
 * Didn't you say this? Lol 2013Ca55 (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I sure did, and still do. The difference is that you missed the words "prevents you from improving or maintaining". You were doing neither. Moriori (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, you are an editor who "prevents ... improving or maintaining" WP. Why? Because you are one who would support the shutting down of a complete support website due to one false claim of image copyright by a bully. Shameful that you subscribe to the misuse of DMCA in order to censor free thought and support for sufferers. Anyway another editor on talk page assisted with the issue, unlike your good self. Perhaps its time for you to quit WP as your actions contradict your quote above. 2013Ca55 (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

balerina
is profession and professional title. do some reading before reverting. 50.9.97.53 (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, it's "ballerina", not "balerina".

Secondly, on your talk page I explained my reverts - "I have again reverted your edits to Pavlova, in which you changed ballet dancer to ballerina. If "ballerina" was the norm in English we would have an article with that title. We don't. "Ballerina" is a redirect to our article called "Ballet dancer" because that is the norm in English." There are no articles in this English Wikipedia called ballerina or prima ballerina. Please revert. Moriori (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh darn, again
The big thumb scrolling the watchlist has caught me out again, totally unintentional. Sorry Gadfium, and thanks for fixing DerbyCountyinNZ. Moriori (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk page warnings
Hi there! Just a quick note re: this edit: users, even disruptive ones, are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page. Yes, it does require a brainy editor to check a disruptive user's edit history, but them's the breaks. A completely blank talk page (i.e., one that doesn't have a "Create new page here" notice) is a sign that there has been some talk page activity, and an experienced editor typically thinks to check. On the other hand, when a user blanks his talk page, it is considered proof that he has read the content, and thus that he knows not to be disruptive again. Anyhow, enough of my chatter. WP:TPG for more info. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm butting in here; this talk page is on my watch list (I don't remember why). Yes,  is correct, users can remove warnings from their talk page.  However, other users can also reinstate those warnings, and should, if there is an obvious reason.  Replacing warnings in this case was appropriate; this editor was blocked indefinitely 13 minutes later.  See WP:IAR and especially WP:COMMON.  --Gaff (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You got it in one Gaff. I reinstated the complete history so that in the event of further disruption an admin would have a complete record of goings on on his talk page, without having to search around. Geronimo. Moriori (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree. This is likely to fan the flames and cause the reverter to get in a 3RR situation, for which they could be sanctioned. Restoring talk page warnings is not exempted. A more prudent approach is to watch the editor and let our normal processes work their magic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? I guess you are replying to Gaff. But you removed my earlier reply to his comment which I agreed with. Care to restore my comment and reformat the page? Moriori (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Something is playing up, indeed. The edit history shows that your last edit to this page inserted two paragraphs, but neither shows up here. Moriori (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

One peed off Scotsman
British War, British spelling. Regards, WCM email 09:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey WCM. I can't amend an edit summary. Just as well because I'd probably make it "UK" war, "UK" spelling. :( Cheers. Moriori (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be more careful when editing talk pages
No edit summary or other explanation makes what is already an improper removal of a comment from a talk page even worse. Please be more careful. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, but believe me it was unintentional, not deliberate. The big thumb problem when scrolling on an iPad. We can't block someone without going through more than one actions, so maybe we shouldn't be able to rollback anything without hitting rollback more than once. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Big thumbs: Check this out:  User:MusikAnimal/confirmationRollback-mobile.js.  It will allow rollback on mobile but require confirmation.  Another script User:MusikAnimal/rollbackTouch.js blocks it altogether on mobile apps.  --Gaff (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I had guessed. The mistake was caught before you could correct it yourself. I've had similar problems and I'm always misplacing my stylus. --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment
I replied to your comment on my talk page a couple of hours ago, in case you forgot to check the watch box (which I often do). --Trifler (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Cricket World Cup
I removed the table again, since it is unsourced, and WP:NOTSTATS says we don't need lists of everything. I've opened a discussion about it at Talk:2015 Cricket World Cup. For what it's worth, I think it's better off at List of 2015 Cricket World Cup statistics. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The system works. The info is discussed, and there is consensus. Moriori (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations
There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Yucca
Hi Morioir, Thank you for notifying me about my failure to provide a reason for editing the Yucca page. I noticed the photo for one of the species was erroneous and was originally uploaded to Wikipedia for its correct species, that of an Agave with a similar species epithet. I corrected it on that species page and gave a reason, but rushed to correct the Yucca page and neglected to provide a reason there as well. Lophiomys (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Moriori (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Congrats
On being an admin for 10 years. I placed the first support vote!- gadfium 05:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Gadfium. Ta, then and now. Moriori (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Don Brash
I note that you have have reversed my carefully considered placement of Brash's conscientious objection in context, on the paradoxical pretext that a placement in context is supposedly out of context.

Let me explain my logic. Having occasion to review conscientious objection in New Zealand, I went to the list of NZ COs, and then looked at each entry. When I came to Brash, I was bemused to note in scanning page after page of parliamentary politics there seemed to be nothing about conscientious objection. A second scan sometime later, with special attention to the period of his youth (when a man of his age would most likely have been a CO), got me no further, leading me to conclude that allocation to the CO category was either a misunderstanding (it happens) or some attempt at a prank (it happens).I therefore deleted the category allocation.

A day or so later I saw that the category had been reinstated, so I wondered whether someone had now inserted evidence of conscientious objection. Scanning the article once more, but again finding no CO allusion in his youth, I steeled myself to go through it line by line until, buried somewhere towards the end, I found a half-line reference, in a reported speech defending some political action, to his having registered as a CO at age 18, decades previously.

I realised immediately that it was no surprise that I had had to spend so much time digging out the reference buried so deeply out of context, the context manifestly being the chronological stage of his life when he was a CO. As I understand the purpose of Wikipedia to be to help people find facts rather than make them obscure, I immediately inserted an appropriate CO reference in its logical context - his age 18 - but left the original reference in its place for anyone interested in the context of his speech rather than conscientious objection per se.

I have always presumed that putting things in context is logical and helpful. Perhaps you could explain your apparent preference for keeping them out of context. Mountdrayton (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The context is that Brash is known as, and will be remembered as, a banker/politician.


 * Among other things he was a conscientious objector at age 18, patron of Amnesty International Freedom Foundation, demonstrated against the racially-selected South African rugby team touring New Zealand (1981) and the New Zealand All-Blacks rugby team touring South Africa without Māori team members, washed his own laundry in his hotel-room basin while on taxpayer-funded overseas trips as Governor of the Reserve Bank, and voted Labour in his early years. All of those points are mentioned in the text of the article, but not in the lead where they would be totally out of context in relevance/importance to the article. Moriori (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply, which unfortunately misses the point.


 * Firstly, I did not interpolate my mention of conscientious objection in what you call the "lead" to the article (and what I was taught to call the "standfirst"), the introductory overview. An introductory mention may be appropriate in some cases, but I agree it would be inappropriate for Brash, and I am puzzled by your commenting as though that was what I had done.


 * Secondly, the context of Brash's conscientious objection was not that he was either a banker or a politician; it occurred well before both those careers. I therefore inserted the reference in its logical, chronologically and developmentally ordered, place - the section on his early life. The fact that there is a reference later in the article which needs to remain as relevant to a different context, is purely incidental. Conscientious objection is part of his "CV", irrespective of any public mention of it he made in later life.


 * Thirdly, you suggest that his conscientious objection is no more worthy of reference in its own chronological context than the four other matters Brash mentioned in his cited speech. Such suggestion leaves out of account two important factors:
 * 1) Registering as a CO was, and is where it still applies, a significant, conscious, legal act.
 * 2) Doubtless because of the status of that act, it qualifies for a Wikipedia category, unlike the other matters mentioned, important though they may have been.


 * As you are probably aware, there are some hundreds of individuals categorised in Wikipedia as COs. Examination of such articles reveals that the CO aspect is almost invariably treated in one of two ways: either in its chronological place in recounting the life, or in a summary of aspects outside the subject's main career. I write "almost invariably", because Brash's article is the only one I have seen out of hundreds where conscientious objection has been hidden away in a section where one would not ordinarily expect to have look for it.


 * I thought the distinction in the case of Brash might have arisen from carelessness. Your conscious action in again hiding away his conscientious objection hardly serves Brash well, and diminishes Wikipedia's reputation for easily available information.


 * Precisely what good and useful purpose was served by reversing my minuscule interpolation? Have you, as an Administrator, no interest in usefulness? Mountdrayton (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You didn’t add the info into the lead but in the second sentence immediately following the lead you added info that was already in the text.


 * Don Brash is mainly known for being a banker and politician, not CO or other things. We don’t belabour a point to give undue weight. Read WP:BALASPS.


 * Your last question is irrelevant because I was not acting as an admin, simply making a copyedit that any Wikipedian is free to make. The question is an insult which I didn’t appreciate, so don't post here again. Moriori (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit to my talkpage
why?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not intentional Maunus, sorry. big thumb when scrolling down the watchlist on the iPad. Moriori (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, no worries then.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

My editing was NOT disruptive
My editing was HONEST and SINCERE asking the concept of American Left & American Right Politics; including their individual non religious biased parties and non state only parties whilst explaining their policies, politicians and chances of election.

You're a  bully

Zeff, Zeff! (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Zeff, Zeff!
 * For the record -- Zeff, Zeff! has been indefinitely blocked by another editor. Moriori (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll
You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks. Have responded. Moriori (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

untitled comment
I dont appreciate your candour and tone of your message regarding Invercargill Airport. Over the last year I have helped expand this article and do appreciate corrections. However as reading here I have noticed that you have attacked other users that you seem to disagree with. I will report this to Wikipedia. (AlexCherr72] 11:41, 28 September 2013)
 * AlexCherr72 I disagree with your edit which deliberately changed the spelling of the word "destination" to "defstination". I reverted and left you a message re unconstructive editing.  Moriori (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

August 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=675386307 your edit] to Ngāi Tahu may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hg
dont edit anymore pls Maikelelel (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

??????????Moriori (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Myanmar
I'm myanmar citizen.Where are you from? ျပည္ေထာင္စုျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံေတာ္ you wrong And many others burma letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zopic Hadisk (talk • contribs) 21:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Where I come from is irrelevant. I am a Wikipedia editor who observed and reverted your edits which you made without edit summaries or explanation on the talk pages and without references. I left a message on this talk page but I see you have removed it, but that doesn't matter because the warning is in the history.


 * I see someone else has reverted your change to Myanmar, and I am reverting your changes to Myanmar Navy and Myanmar Army. Do not restore unless you explain why on the talk pages, other wise you risk being blocked from editing. Moriori (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

ျမန္မာလိုေျပာစမ္းပါဟ မင္းျပင္လိုက္တာေတြ ျမန္မာေဖာင့္တလြဲေတြခ်ည္းပဲ ဘိုေကာင္လဲဟ!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zopic Hadisk (talk • contribs) 21:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm a myanmar Moriori. I know my language. Don't Attack me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zopic Hadisk (talk • contribs) 22:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Good Night.See you! :)[ ေကာင္းေသာညပါ(Good night)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zopic Hadisk (talk • contribs) 22:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep edit... for your browser fix. Not for my browser :) Keep edit... For U.S browsers Welcome from myanmar! (sorry for my MM(+95) browser fixed.UMZH 02:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zopic Hadisk (talk • contribs)

Māori people
Thanks for your correction on Māori people for the term "Rohe" in a header. I should have asked the question - what is this? rather than thinking I was correcting a misspelling.Parkwells (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blair Tuke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Burling. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't Look Now
Hello Moriori, Thank you for your comments on my Talk page - which I have now deleted, as I felt your comments were an over-reaction. My reason for the initial revert to the edit was that I felt, and still do, that the previous text was correct and acceptable. The reason for my second notice was that the IP was hardly constructive in their comments. There are far too many unconstructive IP "edits" orginating from India. However, if you wish to change, I will have no further objection. Case closed. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Moriori, thank you for noticing the unconstructive and frankly *racist* comments made by David Johnson, including the threat to ban me for supposedly 'vandalizing' Wikipedia. He has also repeatedly attempted to delete all discussion of the issue from his talk page, terming them an "over-reaction". (Someone has reverted his white-washing attempt for now but I'm sure he'll get rid of all the adverse comments against him soon.) Frankly, I am no English grammar expert and have never claimed to be one, unlike David who makes the laughable assertion that he knows more about the language simply because he was born in the UK. If he claims that everyone born in the UK is an automatic linguistic expert and knows more than any student of the language from elsewhere in the world, I haven't heard of anything more ridiculous. Honestly, I wouldn't have cared about this so much if only he had rejected my edit with a simple explanation of *why* it was incorrect as per English grammar rules (probably too much to expect from an ex sales guy), instead of accusing me of being a vandal, threatening me and claiming to be right simply by virtue of his nationality. As for tarring all Indian users with the same brush simply because some compatriots of mine have supposedly made dubious edits (according to him, whose judgement I can hardly believe at this point), that's just more evidence of his racist attitude. Utterly shameful that new users interested in improving this great resource have to face such editors. No wonder so many contributors are turned off, and the loss is not theirs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.57.12.242 (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

David J. Johnson
I am deeply disappointed that when an editor makes an outrageously racist comment and then attempts to cover it up, two other editors come to his assistance and you, an admin for 10 years, take no action. It's disgraceful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_J_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=690766875

And, I'm afraid, you will note that you're wrong about the syntax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.176.202 (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I whakapapa to Moriori (hence my name) and to Māori so I know a bit about racism and can differentiate between deliberate and unintentional, I think. When I saw David J Johnson's remark that he was reverting "someone in India claiming to know more English than English" I mulled over it for a while, had a flick through his edit history, and decided it was probably frustration in action, not intended as deliberate insult. No, it wasn't nice, and I told him it was a bit off. I left him a subsequent message saying I noticed he had warned the IP that he may be blocked the next time he vandalised Wikipedia, and my comment was that the IP's edits looked like good faith edits to me. I think David Johnson will take my comments as cautionary advice and give more thought to his comments if faced with a similar situation in the future.


 * Regarding grammar, I commented only on the grammar of the disputed sentence, supporting the IP's grammar. You even supported that version too. Sure you did, when you said it  is grammatically correct. Don't introduce irrelevancy. Ka kite ano.Moriori (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Tombaugh
In course of interacting with you just now, I glanced at your user page. Pluto was discovered by Clyde Tombaugh; Robert was his brother. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

IP vandal
I hope you will not object; you just gave an IP who had posted seriously offensive vandal images over the user pages of several editors a 24-hour block. In view of the nature of the vandalism I upped the block to one month. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection. We unknowingly both blocked him at 11.29am (my time). I tried to tell him the reason why but was edit conflicted. I was trying to advise that if after my block expired he continued with his vandalism he would be zapped big time. Re Tombaugh, don't you hate it when that happens? Cheers.Moriori (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Changes to George Adamski Wiki Page
I have made numerous cited edits and additions over the last few years to the George Adamski article supporting the skeptical (majority, mainstream) view of his character and career. I noticed that you have also made some edits and comments on the talk page. A new editor, "Wiki0004125", has recently started to add pro-Adamski material (apparently to provide "balance"). The material is cited, but most of the sources are of dubious reliability, such as "UFOTV" and Adamski's own books. I'm not opposed to balancing viewpoints, but in this case Adamski has long since been so obviously exposed as a fraud that I am concerned that this editor's additions are supporting an obviously inaccurate viewpoint. I am particularly concerned with his additions regarding "a government coverup of UFOs," which he writes "some investigators believe continues today", and his claims that some "experts" believe that one of his UFO photos is genuine (sourced to "UFOTV"), and that Project Blue Book reported a UFO sighting around the same time as Adamski supposedly saw a UFO. As you are an experienced editor (I am not), I wanted to bring his edits to your attention, respectfully request that you check them, see what you think, and perhaps revert or edit his changes and additions if necessary. In my opinion, the article before his changes and edits was actually quite good, and certainly a huge improvement over where it was a few years ago. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. 192.154.64.244 (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Moriori
And may your holidays be [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvfhoWIPoVw merry and bright. . . .] Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop bullying me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakehapig (talk • contribs) 04:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Not copyvio
Short sourced quotations are not copyvio, I hope you understand that now. We have them all over the encyclopedia. Doug Weller (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this. Sure, we have them all over the encyclopedia and to me that's a copout, an indication many editors don't have the writing skills to create informative prose. And sure, short quotes are occasionally ok, but undesirable from a source which is clearly marked with the copyright © sign. Moriori (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Moriori!


Happy New Year! Moriori, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Many thanks Liz, and you have a great one as well. Moriori (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI Mr Maggoo
I have referred Mr Maggoo to the Wikipedia:Administrators'noticeboard. You are invited to discuss. WP:ANI Turtletop (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Scott Dixon at Baltimore.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Scott Dixon at Baltimore.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Report to admins on IP editor "Claudia"
Hi Moriori, you may wish to read and comment on my complaint to admins about the IP editor known as "Claudia" at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Your thoughts would be appreciated. BlackCab ( TALK ) 04:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

ABBA
Hi! I just wanted to inform you, that your edit unfortunately got deleted again: --Kmhkmh (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I see. If you thought my version was better then you could have reverted. Moriori (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not do that yet, since I have a latent edit war with that user since August last year and he would have immediately reverted it anyway.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

DDT
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia so I hope I'm doing this correctly. You recently sent me a message saying my edit to the DDT page was vandalism, and I'm wondering why that is? The sentence is missing a word at the start, and I tracked back edits until a point where the original sentence was there. Please let me know!Kingofxbox99 (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa, and I apologise to you, especially being a new editor who I welcome and hope will stay to become a productive contributor. You will notice I have moved your message to the bottom of this page, which is where new messages are posted. I also inserted the DDT header which i created by typing in ==DDT== . If you type User:Kingofxbox99 into the wikipedia search box you will see where you can create your own account, and be  properly welcomed. Moriori (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! No worries, I was just confused. Glad we cleared it up. Also, thank you for the warm welcome! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofxbox99 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)