User talk:Moriori: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
→‎Maori: new section
Line 40: Line 40:


I have responded on my talk page. Cheers, [[User:Spy007au|Spy007au]] ([[User talk:Spy007au|talk]]) 04:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I have responded on my talk page. Cheers, [[User:Spy007au|Spy007au]] ([[User talk:Spy007au|talk]]) 04:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

== Maori ==

Why did you revert my adding of Maori as illogical. Regardless of whether the page is moved, the spelling with no macron should be in the lead as an alternate. [[User:OttomanJackson|OttomanJackson]] ([[User talk:OttomanJackson|talk]]) 16:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:15, 30 July 2012

Thank you for the personal attack Moriori. I feel that my name implies that I use a dictionary to define words I am unsure about. Like, for instance, the word Indigenous. This word means 'originally of the land'. American Indians are indigenous as are the Inuit of Canada. Maori, however, are from Hawaiki, as per their legends. You cannot be indigenous as well as from another country, otherwise EVERY person in New Zealand would be indigenous. Hence my edit of the Maori wiki page. If you wish to continue personally attacking me, that is fine, but I suggest you change your name from a race of people who no longer exist so that your attacks can be seen as valid. Dunedingenius (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone else has reverted you today, making it three different people reverting your six edits to three different articles. Read Indigenous peoples. And then read Moriori to see just how laughable is your assertion that Moriori are ".....a race of people who no longer exist". Moriori (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that another editor has subsequently warned you re vandalism. Moriori (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and abuse of administrative powers

Hello, Moriori. I came here to comment to you about your editing of Staines. I was going to point out that you have been edit warring. Before deciding whether to simply give you a warning or to block you, I looked further into the relevant history. I was, frankly, astonished to discover that you were the administrator who blocked another editor in the same edit war. (Evidently that is what BWilkins referred to, above.)
You have been involved in an edit war. I am sure you are aware that doing so is grounds for a block. You have blocked another editor for a week for participating in the same edit war. You have further compounded the problem by blocking when you are involved, which is a breach of policy. It seems to me, therefore, that a block of at least a week, if not longer, would be justified. However, I have blocked you for just 48 hours. I take it that it is unnecessary to inform you how to appeal a block if you wish to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also take a look at this. The comments on my talk page are almost bordering on personal attacks. I'm also surprised that I never expected this user to be an administrator. Something should be done about this. Till I Go Home (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice to see the article has stabilised. The name change paragraph is little different to what I was pushing for, and the pov synth I objected to has disappeared. There are still some problems with the article because of unreferenced information. Moriori (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The RickK Barnstar
For finally seeing there are more ways than one to skin a cat.

I have been here longer than 10 years now (first as IP), editing sporadically really because I actually have work to do. I have always winced every time the project lost some of its vitality when productive editors like RickK became disillusioned with bullshit and left. He's been followed by many, many others, Andy The Grump being the most recent.

I’m not perfect, and I can take my lumps if deserved. I was blocked for breach of policy. It made me think of quitting, not because I don't think policy counts, but because I don't believe “policy” always comes before protecting Wikipedia. But I thought no way, quitting would be a copout bigtime. So I am staying, and I will edit according to policy, but I will apply policy as well. When I need another admin to intervene you can bet your bottom dollar the first name that comes to mind will be JamesBWatson.

The very first policy listed on the Wikipedia policy page is the following

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

That RFA

Hi, good comment on that RFA, but I think you'll find that Arbcom only zaps the rogues, not those who go rouge:) ϢereSpielChequers 18:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I thought that when I sprayed the keyboard with aftershave before hitting send, that people would know what I meant. Darn. Moriori (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Randi GA nomination

I have started a GA review of an article to which you have recently contributed. Any help in addressing the concerns raised in the review are welcome.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lamason

I have responded on my talk page. Cheers, Spy007au (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maori

Why did you revert my adding of Maori as illogical. Regardless of whether the page is moved, the spelling with no macron should be in the lead as an alternate. OttomanJackson (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]