User talk:Erebus Morgaine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi there! Welcome to my talk page
User Page · Talk page · Archive · Awards· Contributions · Edit count · sandbox

  • If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page.
  • Please sign your posts by typing four ~~~~
→→ Click here to post a new message ←←




Help[edit]

{{helpme}}— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erebus Morgaine (talkcontribs)

Hello, you used the {{helpme}} tag. How may I help you? When you've asked your question, please put the tag back so we know to check back. Alternatively, you can join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel to get real-time help. (Click here for instant access.)--Werdan7T @ 07:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Thank you for the quick response! Please forgive me if my question is dumb, it's probably asked 1000 times before so my apologies in advance. I'm 100% new to being a wiki editor and i feel a bit lost even after looking in the help and faq sections, but i've been reading and browsing through Wikipedia for a long time. Here's my question: There is an article in wikipedia that i'd like to add info to, that's no problem, i know how to do that, however i want to link to the source (a newswebsite) where i got my information from so that what i add becomes verifiable.

I have no clue how to do this and what the proper method should be, please help me out and explain as clear as you can, keeping in mind that i have zero experience in this.

Thanks a lot :) Erebus Morgaine 07:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look here and then here. If you still have any questions, feel free to contact me :) Tiddly-Tom 09:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

200.204.146.113[edit]

You followed my vandal 3 at User_talk:200.204.146.113 with a vandal2, did you think my first was out of line? Pdbailey (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! No, if I did I would have left you a message. Normally I almost always start with a level 1 and sometimes a level 2 if the vandalism is clearly not in good faith. At the time i didn't notice the article was the target of ip edits, so since personally I start with a level 1 or 2 and the only warning on the user's page was your level 3, I wasn't sure what to do. I didn't want to give a level 4 because as being a second warning i think a level 4 would be too harsh so i took the middle road and gave a level 2. I hope that explains it a bit. My apologies if i made it feel like you were out of line, that was not my intention. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. FYI, I gave them a level 3 because I have a hard time imagining that when three IPs owned by the same ISP all edit exactly one article in the same way in three days that it is just experimentation by three people. The previous edits also contain evidence that there might be a relationship between the editor and the person the article is about and were more than blanking. I think that's why there is a block now. Pdbailey (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks![edit]

No problem, we aim to please. KnightLago (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

forest fires[edit]

Im just not sure I understand, what in God's name possessed you delete one third of the information on there? I have an important essay and the stuff you deleted were the main points! so if it is possible I would like you to put the info back.thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.60.98 (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not the one who deleted one third of the information, the only edit i made to the Forest fire article was this one a very minor one which changed only one word. I just took a look at the edit history and i believe you are referring to this edit as you can see that was not done by me but by an IP editor. At the time that edit was made the page was the target of vandalism and although the rest of the vandalism was reverted, that edit was overlooked, which happens sometimes when the article gets edited a lot in a short time. I saw you got most of the info back in to the article, great job! If you need any help getting something else back, just let me know and i'll be happy to help you out :) Erebus Morgaine (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For this and this. glad to know i'm not alone! regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 00:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! You are not alone in that, as much as i can understand why some people would want to add about his Yekishim, Wikipedia is not the place for this. Fortunately everyone is keeping a cool head and being civil about it :) Erebus Morgaine (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Dyatlov Pass[edit]

I'm ashamed to admit it, but that had completely fallen off of my radar screen. Give me until the end of the day to follow up on a couple of loose ends. Thanks for reminding me of this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

White power[edit]

Why does a search for "white power" link directly to an article called "white supremacy", which claims that "white power" is a racist movement? A search for "black power" does not turn up anything that indicates that "black power" is a racist movement. Why the double standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.201.5 (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Quit trying to un-do my changes. I'm fixing an error in Wikipedia. The error is that any article about black racial identity, black power, or black movements is cast in a good light, whereas anything having to do with the advancement of white people is called "racist" and is cast in a bad light. Is that kind of double standard good for an encyclopedia? No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.201.5 (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the reason i undid your changes is because of edits like this and this, you replaced the entire contents of the page. Everyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia and we all have different views on how things should or should not be. However since there are many different people with many different views, Wikipedia has policies on how to deal with these different points of view. One of the cornerstone policies at Wikipedia is that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, click here to read that policy and why it's used. If you feel a certain article has an overly biased view you are encouraged to discuss the issue at the article's talk page and engage in a discussion with other editors to resolve the issue. Replacing the content of an article just because you think it's biased or plain wrong will only work counter productive, so if you have an issue with an article, please discuss it before replacing the entire content. I hope that clears it up a bit, if you have any more questions, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to answer. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

?????[edit]

who r u? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.30.149 (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm Erebus Morgaine, and you? :) Erebus Morgaine (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

what the fuck did i do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.179.100 (talkcontribs) 03:15, October 18, 2008 (UTC)

Hi!, this, this and this. If you want to experiment please use the sandbox, thanks! Erebus Morgaine (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

WikiThanks.pngfor reverting the vandalism on my user pages. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem, and thank you for reverting the vandalism on mine :) Erebus Morgaine (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Heavy handed warning[edit]

Hi, I deleted the warnings you posted on Robbot12's talk page because I felt that it was too heavy handed. A page creator is entitled to blank a page that they have created, there is even a deletion request for such an event. Regards LittleOldMe (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the notice. Your deletion has been reverted by another editor, and (for the sake of clarity) I only gave 1 warning, the other warnings were by other editors. However take a look at the user's talk page history and you'll see that my level 4 warning followed a level 3 warning by another editor which seemed appropriate to me since the page they applied to (The Hot Tub Factory) was IMO pure spam. The page of the involved article has since been deleted because it was also considered spam by an admin, so I can't see its history anymore but I recall that there was more then one removal of the speedy tag by the (now blocked) user. Considering all this I believe my warning was, and is, justified. Regards Erebus Morgaine (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


Hey u ever been to Dangar Island, I need to help uncover the truth, THE TRUTH I TELL YOU!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.57.204 (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Userpage Protection Barnstar.PNG The Userpage Shield
I, Eagles247, hereby give Erebus Morgaine this Userpage Shield Barnstar for reverting vandalism on my userpage not once, but twice. Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the barnstar! Always nice to know when my work here is appreciated! Erebus Morgaine (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem. However, I'm not sure how I pissed off that first vandal (I never even made contact with his edits). Anyway, enjoy your barnstar! Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

vandalize pages[edit]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Keith McDowell. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles.

I'm confused. How did I vandalize? --AriesArtist (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If it was your intention to have the page deleted by blanking[1] (since you were the creator) then I offer you my apologies, I didn't notice you were the original author of the page. No hard feelings I hope! Erebus Morgaine (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your work on Vladislav Ardzinba[edit]

thanks for your work on Vladislav Ardzinba, I noticed the vandalism, but you undid it first: thanks ;) 140.120.55.58 (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Erebus Morgaine (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Was CSD-G7 on Category:Hispanic sitcoms a mistake?[edit]

The CSD-G7 on Category:Hispanic sitcoms doesn't quite seem appropriate since 13 pages are linked to that category. Was this a mistake? What was your intent here? The speedy has hung around for several hours now, so I suspect other admins might have the same question?--Mike Cline (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there were only two edits to he page, the first one was the by the page creator and had no meaningful content (Kkkfkkff or something to that extend if I remember correctly), the second one was the blanking of the page by the page creator. After that there were no more edits, that's why I thought the author wanted the page deleted. It looked like a test edit by someone who saw the redlink in one of the articles and decided to create the page to make the redlink turn blue. Since it was a category, deletion would not have unlinked the pages linking to it so I decided to leave the speedy in place. In any case it's deleted now although I understand the confusion it might have initialy caused :) Erebus Morgaine (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

NPPbarnstar.jpg

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello Erebus Morgaine! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.


You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
WorldDigitalLibraryLogo2.png
Hi Erebus Morgaine! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Pranic Healing[edit]

Hi dear Erebus, regarding the Pranic Healing page, all the details and information is derived from books written in the subject and the articles published in journals and presented in conferences. Would appreciate if you can explain why you removed them. I tried to make it scientific and based on valid materials. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hengamehf85 (talkcontribs) 08:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi Hengamehf85, I checked the history of the Pranic Healing page and the only edit I made to it was reverting the editor before me who had removed a large part of the article whitout explanation. So actually I didn't remove anything from the page but added back a part that was removed without explanation. You can see the edit by clicking here. Hope that clears it up! Erebus Morgaine (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error[edit]

"Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.3.124 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Epistula tua non facit sensum! (Also formatted a new section for your message, you're welcome ;)Erebus Morgaine (Talk) 04:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello sir[edit]

(Originally posted by: 49.204.224.55 in between other sections see this dif reposted to keep formatting clean) You removed the content from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_gram#Medicinal_Uses about use of horse gram, I have quoted scientific studies from india which were published and it has helped me personally getrid of kidneys is there something wrong with what i posted? I am a new user and just want to help improve wikipedia and help others.

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia, your edits are appreciated! I believed the edit you made consisted of Original Research, if you feel I was in error, feel free to undo my edit. Just make sure everything you add is verifiable. Erebus Morgaine (Talk) 05:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

vandalization[edit]

what was bad about my edits?

User talk:Arabmuslim

This is the Zionist terrorism +

There is no state called Israel. State of thieves called Israel a basis of the displacement and killing of Innocent nation of thieves basis bloodshed and war And the arrest of people for tens of years to prevent him from claiming The right to life . basis steal the land of the Palestinian people And then steal the land of the Arab-Muslim the entire .State of the thieves do not know the law ..... Does not recognize the law of the United Nations, a state that considers itself above the law . the law is the siege of Gaza And the bloodshed and destruction of houses and killing innocent people and occupying the country This is a country named Israel thieves.This is the Zionist terrorism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arabmuslim series (talkcontribs) 03:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I think you've answered your own question. You also might want to read this Erebus Morgaine (Talk) 04:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

regarding edit[edit]

I deleted content frow Neha Saxena page because i am doing some edit and therefore temp i want to delete the contents. So please allow me to edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dopa18 (talkcontribs) 05:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, in that case it's a good idea to add the {{inuse}} template to the top of the page, so other editors see you are working on it and know what's going on. Erebus Morgaine (Talk) 05:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

i want to delete[edit]

Please allow me editing Shakti Arora and Neha Saxena as being the admin i want to delete those pages...thank you... and expecting a positive reply soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dopa18 (talkcontribs) 06:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what you mean by being "the admin", since I don't believe you are an administrator on this wiki, but if you want a page deleted from wikipedia you can do it here and more info on deleting pages can be found here. I hope that helped! Erebus Morgaine (Talk) 06:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Have removed the nonfactual things[edit]

Hello Sir,

I am continuously removing the content that has been written in order to defame someone and misleading the public. There is nothing reality in it. Also, I am adding the facts of this case and hence removing the nonfactual things. For any further query feel free to contact me.

Regards, Shivani Malik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivani.malik (talkcontribs) 05:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

(Note: account has been blocked indef.) Erebus Morgaine (Talk) 13:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Need help with translation[edit]

Hi, I'd like to translate this article to Spanish, I see it's better in the Dutch Wikipedia.

Do you think you could help me with this?

Thank you --Facu89 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Facu89, I'd love to help out, thanks for asking! However I can't find the article in the Dutch Wikipedia, the closest article in the Dutch Wiki that I can find is a disambiguation page that doesn't lead to an article about paleontology. There is however a more extensive article in the German (Deutsch) Wiki, are you sure you didn't mix up Dutch with Deutsch? If I overlooked the page on the Dutch Wiki, please point me to it. Please advise! Erebus Morgaine (Talk) 12:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I misread. Its the Deutsch Wikipedia where the article is. Thanks for answering and sorry to bother you.--Facu89 (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries! Sorry I wasn't able to help, good luck with the translation and if you ever need any Dutch translated, please do not hesitate to ask. Erebus Morgaine (Talk) 13:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is not spam.[edit]

Because what is, and is not according to your definitions leaves a huge gray area. I was just told that using the talk section is ok.

Astrochologist13 (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't identify a real concrete need to include the website on a specific article. You just copy-pasted it into the talk page of numerous articles and said it was relevant after being reverted. The website is self-published and contains opinion, and not considered reliable on wikipedia. See our guidelines which may help clarify things. It is only when you can identify an actual need that it should be included. This means you have to put forward an argument based on policy for why. Second Quantization (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
This edit is considered spam (and is not on a talk page) as already explained to you here and above by editor Second_Quantization Erebus Morgaine (Talk) 22:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Astrochologist13, no, putting the links on talkpages isn't all right. (Though putting them into articles is worse.) I'm not sure what you mean when you say "I was just told that using the talk section is ok". Do you mean where Mean as custard wrote on your page that "If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it"? Because that sentence told you to discuss why the links should be in the article. Completely different from just adding the links to talkpages. I hope you see the difference. The point of discussing on talk is to try to get WP:consensus there for what you want to do — add your links to the articles — by convincing people that they're useful links. As Second Quantization tells you above, you're supposed to put forward an argument. Mind you, I think your chance of getting others to agree with you on talk is pretty remote in this case, but you can try. Bishonen | talk 00:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC).
I'd like to add just a simple rule of thumb: If it looks like an advert, if it was put there by its owner, and if it has no relevant referential value - then it's probably an advert. François Robere (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank u[edit]

Thank u but I just wanted to add something in depth and detail, u only had one word and no definition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilec98 (talkcontribs) 00:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Mercury poisoning[edit]

Greetings, hey I readded acrodynia because it looks like all they did was add a redirect and nuke a decent amount of content from a decent article, I noticed this after trying to follow a wikilink and being redirected back to the same Maercury posioning article which only mentioned Infantile acrodynia which isn't what I was looking for. Also on that merger proposal only 2 people commented on it and the first person said he only based his infomration on the second person, so really only one person which I think is rather weak. Also I don't agree with the rationale either so I added a Details link and restored the wikilink. If you think that it stiull deserves a merge( I don't think it should be merged) then lets reopen a discussion or something so we dont just revert each others edits. I'd rather leave it separate like it was though because there's good information in the old article that's not included in Mercury Poisoning. So I guess if it does end up being merged then someone should atleast title the heading better and find a better way to add the midding content and citations, but again, I think a See more details here link is simpler and just easier to deal with. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papajohnin (talkcontribs) 21:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, a big thank you for bringing this up in the manner you did in stead of just reverting! Yes, I read the same discussion on the merger and I'm inclined to agree with your rationale. Unfortunately I'm far from an expert on the subject but I believe you're on the right track here. So by all means, please be Bold and make the Acrodynia a seperate article. I do feel however that the original concerns noted in the discussion about the merger (the part about heavy metals in the lead of the article) should be adressed. As it stands now it seems to imply that other heavy metals could also be the cause (which could very well be true, again I'm no expert) if so a reliable secondary source is needed for this statement or it should be removed. I also think the current Acrodynia article would benefit from some general cleanup/rewording, I'm open to work on the article collaberatively, if you feel so inclined. Erebus Morgaine (Talk) 03:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Cool, I'll sweep through it and clean it up then, although I'm in the same boat as I just noticed it after trying to read up on the subject, but I'm sure there's more content to be found. Also, sorry about all the typos earlier. \sim   papajohnin   (talk)(?)  11:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Night Gallery[edit]

I believe the photo of the series Night Gallery should use Rod Serling's image. That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.122.178.11 (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

ILY[edit]

Im sorry to create confusion but ive been in the business for years and it is a widely used term ILY here ILY there ILY ILY everywhere, that is what my new video will be called in honour of you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg eastnorthbrook (talkcontribs) 09:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no confusion, your message was crystal clear, as was my answer. And since you're "in the business for years", why are you searching for this and this on Wikipedia? Erebus Morgaine (Talk) 11:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I think there is confusion I was talking to a rookie and he said he has never heard of it, so I thought why dont I put it on the web for all aspiring pornstars to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg eastnorthbrook (talkcontribs) 10:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

occupied vs disputed[edit]

The international recognised term for the West Bank is "occupied", only Israel want to use "disputed". Wikipedia should go with the International recognised opinion, and not the FO of Israel. "Occupied terretories" is the term BBC use see here: is that good enough for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.130.56.205 (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)