User talk:Moriori

Re: Interesting

Hello. You have new messages at Hydroxonium's talk page.

Hone heke

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

We?Wi Ripa?

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

To answer your question

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

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

Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

Village stocks

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

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

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

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

ManawatuNZ

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

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

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Merge discussion for Erasmus Mundus

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

Te Kooti

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

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

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