User talk:Morningmusic

Thanks for your support! Arniep 22:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings
While you are encouraged to be bold, it is also advisable not to undertake drastic changes. As regards spoiler warnings, see the MoS Guideline, the guideline discussion page (including archives), the template discussion page (including archives) and the templates for deletion page for more information. And remember to be civil and assume good faith. If you have not already done so, now might be a good time to read the Introduction and the List of policies --Oden 08:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Moderate Party
Your edit to the Moderate Party article at 21:34 on 7 November 2006 (here) is considered a form of vandalism (link vandalism). Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages you risk being blocked from editing Wikipedia. However, if your edit was the result of a mistake you can ignore this warning (and please be more careful in the future). --Oden 08:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Bible article
Please do not add spurious spolier warnings to articles. Justin Eiler 19:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Copy from User talk:Oden
== So you're a Lord of The Rings fan ==

What does that have to do with anything? Why is it always the fanboys who want spoiler-warnings everywhere? And why did you revert my helpful update on Moderaterna? Morningmusic 19:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What I am or am not is irrelevant (no personal attacks). Undertaking major edits without forming a consensus (which you did when you started removing spoiler warnings from several articles, regardless of their content) is disruptive. The same is true when you start adding spoiler warnings to articles where there is a consensus that there should not be spoiler warnings, see Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler_warning for instance.
 * Your edit to the Moderate Party article (here) was an apparent link vandalization of this encyclopedia. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right.
 * Your contributions so far seem to be intended on disrupting Wikipedia in order to illustrate a point or a form of trolling. Try to learn what the consensus is first and then try to influence it if you feel it is wrong (and remember to be civil and assume good faith).
 * If you make the same edit three times you risk violating the three-revert rule and being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Blocking an editor from contributing to Wikipedia is not done as a punitive measure but done in order to protect the encyclopedia from a harmful user.
 * Sincerely, Oden 09:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Copy from User talk:Justin Eiler
== Spoiler warning on Bible ==

It's Wikipedia policy to add spoiler warnings wherever anybody might be taken by surprise by narrative details. Think of those who have not yet read the book. Morningmusic 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not Wikipedia policy--spoilers are a style guideline, and apply only to articles about narrative works. You might also want to review the policy about causing disruptions to illustrate a point. Justin Eiler 20:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And this is not a narrative work? And your point about disruptions is weak. I dislike spoiler warnings, but I dislike inconsistency even more. "Inconsistency is the hobgoblin of a deranged mind" as some famous politician once said. Morningmusic 20:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the Bible is not a narrative work--it is a theological assemblage of works. Frankly, I'm not concerned with your likes and dislikes, and your quote about inconsistancy is not Wikipedia policy. Please abide by the policies, and please stop disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Justin Eiler 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparent trolling
Your edit to the spoiler warning guideline talk page (here) and spoiler warning template talk page (here) are apparent bad faith edits or examples of trolling. --Oden 09:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)