User talk:Moeron/Archive 3

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

Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4

Notice to Guitarist Project members

An Admin, unfamiliar with the project, has nominated our template-Template:Guitarist infobox-for deletion. I have added a vote to keep it...more would help. Anger22 12:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


I think it's better if you don't "subst" fact templates. I could be wrong, but I think it unneccessarily clutters the wiki-text. Thanks, Mak (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi ! Well, leaving the link was not any kind of experimenting, I see as relevant site for external links. As I can see there are some links there that you left, that arent in any case more relevant to article that is. But you're the boss ...and it seems you like to play with "experimenting" and "test" words. Well, enjoy in it then.. Cheers, Almir —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:29, 21 Oct 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Guitarists Newsletter - Issue II - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the WikiProject Guitarists newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Aguerriero (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Crank (film)

Hi Moeron, I just had an edit I did to the Crank Film page reverted. The information I added was correct and as far as I can tell shouldn't have been reverted. Did I make some sort of mistake?

Thanks -- 03:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Strange rejection

If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. -- moe.RON

I added this to the "Love and War" page. It's an unique and serious project in many ways. For some reason it got rejected. / Tomas

I reverted the edit because there was a link to an off-site webpage in a disambugation page. As long as you keep the link out, it would fine for you to add "Love and War", a 2006 short film by Fredrik Emilson. (noticed I also removed the "probably" part, since that is speculation and implies something that is not verifiable). -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 03:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your Revert

I don't feel my edit[1] was a test, as you labeled it, nor do I feel your warning was justifiable. The template you used is for obvious vandalism/tests; my edit was a neutral statement with a reference. The correct course of action on your part would have been to discuss your problem with my addition on the article's talk page. - 01:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This edit was reverted because forums are not a reliable source due to original research. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 01:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You're confusing policies, original research isn't the same as unreliable sources, but you have a point (the practicalities of editing esoteric or popular culture articles means that often what are generally considered unreliable sources are given exception, see: WP:IAR). In any case this doesn't excuse your inappropriate use of vandalism templates, or deletion of the statement (especially considering there's another statement in the same paragraph without any reference.) Overzealous vandalism patrolling isn't the best way to attempt to become an admin, in my opinion, but that doesn't seem to prevent a vast swathe of relatively recent editors from doing it. Sigh. - 02:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
In any case, I've changed the reference. - 02:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I just want you know that I never considered you a vandal, but perhaps a Wikipedian newbie. When this the case, I will use the template:test1 warning, which does not make mention of a vandal, and hopefully directs people in the right direction. For people who ARE vandals, there are other warnings I will use. I just don't want you thinking that my revision of your edit makes me think you are a vandal. =)
As for the sources ... I like the first one, but I am still bothered by the forums link, re: Wikipedia:No original research. However, it gets tricky when you possibly consider it under the sixth point of Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_is_excluded.3F. Due to this ambuiguity, I humbly ask if you would consider removing the forum source and leaving the other to stand for itself. Cheers! -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 02:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
"but perhaps a Wikipedian newbie." I've been editing Wikipedia on and off since 2003. - 02:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I meant to say that is how I view most IPs when assessing vandalism.. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 02:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah right. To be fair, I suppose that's probably an accurate assumption for the most part. - 02:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Article "Test"


there's a typo in your disambiguation page "Test". The bullet "Stiftung Wahrentest Test" is supposed to be "Stiftung Warentest" (without h). The same typo reoccurs in the WikiLink at the beginning of that bullet.

Cheers Klaus —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I see that you are correct and that my reversion of your edit was in error. I apologize and will remove the template:test1 from your talk page. Cheers! -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 02:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Coil Live

dont know what the problem is, i plan on basing it off of this article: i just started on it so i plan on expanding the text into a full article, as well as a comprehensive concert list. AlexOvShaolin 21:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with you "expanding the text into a full article" but when it comes to a "comprehensive concert list", based on WP:NOT and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is generally frowned upon. I will gladly removed the template:prod when you are satified with your edits to this being a complete article. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't subst speedy templates

Please don't subst db-bio and other speedy deletion templates; it makes it slightly more annoying to delete the articles (since the log won't have the self-explanatory "content was: '{{db-bio}}"...' preloaded); it makes it more difficult to remove the template from a non-speedyable article; and some, like db-bio, don't show up properly when substed. —Cryptic 01:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Novels WikiProject

Book collection.jpg

Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding baron.

Firstly, I didn't write anything; the information posted came DIRECTLY FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE, which, I'm sure you noticed, was also added to the page.

Methinks that the reason you consider it to be garbage is because it deals with an openly gay African-American man. Check yourself, love, before you judge others. 01:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Hero

Ahh, I apologize. I reverted the edit because I thought you removed the template:prod without adding to the article. Reviewing my revert, I see that you indeed added a good amount of information. Thank you for pointing this out to me and, again, I apologize for my hasty actions. Cheers! -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 01:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Your deletion on my links

I want to tell you the links I proposed are well-researched, very thorough, contains no hate and would be an asset to Wikipedia. My question: did you read them before removing? Try that short one: , an introduction for my many pages. Note: that site has been posted as a link, for a long time (please don't remove it!) on Wikipedia pages about 'historical Jesus', 'historicity of Jesus' and 'Jesus myth'. Maybe I am not a registered scholar, but I thought Wikipedia was not all about propagating the work of professionals. I consider myself more of a critical & investigative amateur historian, with burning (but not blinding) passion about the history of very early Christianity. And my approach (and background) should be commanded in a field "controlled" by many scholars (most of them on a payroll) with very different opinions & theories (which would prove that scholarly works, in this specific field, may be the problem, not the solution). I must admit I am very annoyed when my pages are rejected, mainly because some existing links are of bad quality, very biased or totally irrelevant (Check the last link on the 'Ignatius of Antioch' page --'Ignatius of Nerdtreehouse'). (BTW, I would love to attract your attention on these bad links, after reviewing them, of course). I did participate about one year ago into editing the 'Jesus' page. But that was very discouraging, with my work being often chopped down by evangelical Christians, even after some very long discussions. Doing so, I declared my own name (as I do on my website, with my personal email) and I had my own Wikipedia ID (which I forgot). I hope to be in contact with you. Please note I can have my sites posted by someone else (in compliance with Wikipedia policy) and my webpages are ad-free. Bernard Muller, —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I was about to write pretty close to what Andrew c says here. I will also mention that WP:EL mentions that when dealing with your own site, be it self-published or your company, it is generally accepted to first bring the page to light on the talk page of the page your wish to have it added to. Then, users who contribute to the page can discuss it and decided whether to add it as a reference/external link. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 02:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the editing of the Lake Central High School page

Did you really read the page? Or just my recent addition? Do you really think the original Dyer High School building ws built in the 1400's??? Before the U.S. existed? Do you think they really have billions of students??? This whole page is a farce. I suppose you think the freshmen center was built in 1747-Before the United States was officially founded and our educational system did not even have a formatted high school system, therefore no FRESHMEN!!!!

Thanks for your vigilance in ensuring the truth on these hallowed grounds! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted to an edit on the page before the above such lunacies were added. Thank you for pointing out these long term vandal edits. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 01:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk page warnings

Hi Moeron. Twice in two minutes tonight (or maybe its morning or afternoon for you - whatever) you've warned users whose vandalism I've reverted. If you used the standard templates, this wouldn't be a problem at all, as it is irrelevant to me who warns a vandal in most cases. However, the templates you're using specifically use the text "edit that I reverted" - as you can see here and here, I was the one who reverted the nonsensical additions, and we're going to hopelessly confuse newbies if we say we've reverted vandalism someone else nabbed. I'm not sure if it is possible with VP2, but if it is, I'd like to request that when you warn a user with a warning that involves the text "edit that I reverted" you make sure that you were the one that reverted it. Not a big deal of course, but it would make things easier on them and me. Thanks. Picaroon9288 02:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns with WP:VP2, but the problem seems to come when two editors are quick to act (which is a good thing!). Since VP2 is still in early developement, there is no way to "shut off" the 'edit I have made' function and/or check to see if someone has reverted at the same time as me. This isn't the first time this has happened (once or twice with AntiVandalBot) and I really wish there was something that could be done to make sure that I was the one who made the edit before leaving the warning. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 02:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Flavor Of Love

I was expressing a widely held opinion shared by most viewers. I am trying to teach the individuals in question that you cannot get on national TV, and make a complete ass of yourself, without consequences. It is better that I do this, then find them and beat some respect and common descency into them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

What you added in and what I removed is WP:POV unless backed up by reliable sources, since Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 00:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

bullshit! If wikipedia was factual, why is it that it can't be used on a senior project paper?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

That sounds more like a question your teacher/professor should answer (if he hasn't already). -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 17:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging

I noticed you tagged several image (Image:Vict2.jpg, Image:ChelseaOwen.jpg, Image:JCPlay1.jpg, and Image:Me in sunset.jpg) with {{subst:orfud}}, although they were released into the public domain or under the GNU license. Just wanted to let you know that I reverted your changes, because {{subst:orfud}} only applies to fair use images. --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


This is a sock puppet for numerous other banned accounts. Feel free to indef him any time he pops up anew. Rklawton 20:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I will keep an eye out for varitions of the name on the new users log. Cheers! -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 20:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fat Bastard

In the Commerical, It was advertinsg that it is crazier to not sign up for DirectTV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 04:28, 10 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Moeron is god

You deleted a reference that I included on The Planet of the Apes page, linking it to an actual editor of the New Republic magazine. When I tested the link, I saw that some fool from Australia had posted a self indulgent discussion about himself and his favorite tenth grade teachers. If you are going to delete my comments from The Apes page, please delete the horseshit posted by the Aussie on a legitimate journalists page. You are the reason Wikipedia can never work (as am I) - you are selectively editing out horseshit of which you do not approve while intentianally leaving other content, which is clearly horseshit, in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 04:33, 10 Nov 2006 (UTC)

CVG Deletions

Of course. Sorry if I didn't add them to the list properly, and thanks for your message. Andre (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Both accounts have already been blocked by other admins. Thanks for your vigilence. -- Longhair\talk 04:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Slow response

Hi moe.RON. Sorry for the one week turnaround, but I've finally responded to your question on my talk page. Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with. ×Meegs 03:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting my external link adds?

It says: (Revert to the revision prior to revision 84730512 dated 2006-10-31 00:04:43 by Eggplant999 using popups)

But the site i'm linking to does not have pop ups?

--Eggplant999 00:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Eggplant9999


Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Uruguay-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining the Uruguay WikiProject? It's a group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Uruguay-related articles.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask at the Uruguay project talk page, or feel free to ask me on my talk page.Wesborland 02:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ambar - deleted and then restored

Not sure if this has been pointed out, but it looks like AfD screwed up. Just to start the ball rolling and institute a culture change, I'm trying to get all admins closing things at AfD to remember to check the page history of an article before deleting, so that drastic changes in the nature of a page are spotted, and also urging those voting at AfD to do the same. See the following for details:

Copied to closing admin, restoring admin, deletion nominator, all who voted in the AfD discussion, and the AfD talk page. Carcharoth 23:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VI - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for uploading Image:RobDerhak&Emma.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok 01:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

i have a question

Your article on five points is exactly the same as another one i found on line. Which came first. --sean 11/06/06

In reference to your comment on my talk page, the reason they are the same is because uses the same information taken from Wikipedia, which is allowed under the GDFL lisence. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 00:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Just a note- your monobook.js page is now adding itself to the unassesed cvg articles category, due to the edit summary on your tabs. Don't know what, if anything, you want to do about that. --PresN 05:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I was confused at first why it was adding me, then I figured out that in my monobook code, I had [[Category:Unassessed ...]] instead of [[:Category:Unassessed ...]], and since monobook pages don't contain categories at the bottom, I never noticed it before. It was also showing up at the category for unassessed novel articles. Again, thanks for pointing this out. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 18:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Phish originals missing from song list

Tooth and Nail, Rebirth, Somantin, Bubble Wrap, In a Misty Glade, etc, are all real songs that are missing from the list. Listening to these songs as we speak. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 03:58, 10 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Can you point to somewhere that verifies this? -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 04:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

John Warner

Please check edits before reverting them. Wikipdia has an article under the title Dick Obenshain but not one under Richard Obenshain. My edit was not vandalism but a correction. Whilst patrolling for vandalism is a useful contribution to Wikipedia, reverting without taking the trouble to check an edit first is a waste of everyone's time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 04:47, 10 Nov 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected all instances of Dick Obenshain to Richard D. Obenshain. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see it was a redirect. Would it make sense to also create Richard Obenshain as a redirect? 04:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Done and thanks for pointing out that it should be made. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 04:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. And that's shown another article linking to Obenshain's - Karl Rove (he really is behind everything). 05:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Lasorda

The quotes section of "Tommy Lasorda" said it needed citations. I did a quick Google search for the one of the quotations and found it on Tommy Lasorda's blog on Here is the link I provided which contains said quotation (under the post, "The Rivalry" ): [2]. What went wrong? 05:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on WP:RS#Using online and self-published sources, blogs and forums are not viable sources for verifiying information for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 05:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry about that and thanks for the alert. I'll be sure to check with all applicable standards next time. 05:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If you ever have any other questions or concerns, let me know. Cheers! -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 05:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

[3]: In general, you should not correct people's spelling on talk pages. - Jmabel | Talk 04:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fakir005's request

Noticed your reply to Fakir005's request regarding Zedo on ANI [4]. In case you're interested, there's a considerable backstory here and here. Don't want to pull you in, but just in case... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Genesis and Sega CD

Hello, could you please explain me why exactly you're removing the Sega Genesis and Sega CD from articles? I'm a bit confused here since the names were about equal well known/unknown. --32X 02:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am fixing so that they don't go to Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis ... I am trying to keep everything else that same, so if something gets messed up with the post linkage, please feel free to fix it (ie. If it was changed to [[Sega Mega Drive]] and should be [[Sega Mega Drive|Genesis]]). -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 02:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Devendra Banhart

As you said in a previous comment, Wikipedia is based on "verifiable" information, not necessarily (or solely) true information. Likewise, my edit to Devendra Banhart's page, while included in jest, is verifiable, as it has appeared in print (college papers, but still)... so maybe if I put it in quotes it would be OK (*rolls eyes*). It's certainly more verifiable (and "true", for that matter) than such comments as "Banhart also was one of the younger musicians responsible for 'rediscovering' the music of folksinger Vashti Bunyan" which you seem to allow, WITHOUT citation of any sort. And need I mention the millions of other Wikipedia entries where such things are allowed? There is TONS of false information circling around the internet originally from Wikipedia... and you don't seem to be cracking down on that, now do you? Point being, get off my back... you obviously don't know what you're doing or what you're talking about. Frankly, it wouldn't even be "defamation", because Banhart has cited Marc Bolan as an influence MANY times (as is already stated in the entry), and likewise most Banhart fans also like Bolan... so if anything, it's complimentary. The fact remains, he HAS been called "Marc Bolan, Jr." IN PRINT... so whether or not that's important or worthy of being in an entry, it IS, nonetheless, verifiable and true (I know many people who do actually call him that... jokingly, but still). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 08:25, 28 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Donkey Rhubarb

Hey, what's the deal with removing the Youtube vid for Donkey Rhubarb? How am I vandalizing the site by showing people the video that the article described? 04:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to your concern, please see WP:V, WP:OR and, specifically, WP:RS#YouTube. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 04:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you lost your mind? I understand that maybe showing people some youtube video that claims to have "facts about the JFK assassination" could be a problem when trying to be accurate, but when the article spells out what to expect to see when you see the video, and the video delivers just that, how much of a problem can there be? Do you require verificaton from RDJ himself or something? This adherence to pointless beaurocracy is more nonsense than the average piece of vandalism. 04:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The Addams Family (Game Boy)

You've tagged the screenshots with public-domain tags. Unless you can show that the developers/publishers released screenshots into the public domain, then I'm afraid that they're incorrectly tagged. They should be fair use, and include a rationale, like the cover-art. - Hahnchen 18:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

If you'd look at, you would see that the users of Rotten Tomatoes agree with the edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 05:38, 26 Nov 2006 (UTC)

That may be, but Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth and that means that reliable sources must be used. In this case, forums do not apply as reliable sources. If you can provide reliable, third party sources, then your edits will be premitted. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 05:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Will you allow it to remain with something saying there is controversy about the forums and it's administration, and an official update may be added when proper verification is shown? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 05:53, 26 Nov 2006 (UTC)
As long as you follow the above policies and don't use forums as your sources, yes. Also, make sure not to violate WP:NOR and WP:POV -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 05:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


You reverted edits by an anon, probably using a vandal proof software of some sort, and got 5 of the edits. I applaud that. However, you did miss one (Something about the PSP being made by Tyler technologies, rather than Sony). I'm pointing this out so that you don't think I'm overriding you on something.--Farquaadhnchmn(Dungeon) 00:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Larry Sabato

I edited the Larry Sabato page, changing "he knew Allen had used a certain six-word racial epithet to refer to Arican-Americans" to "he knew Allen had used the word "nigger."" I don't understand why this change was reverted. How is replacing a euphemism vandalism? I thought the change would make the page more informative, but for some reason you consider it "non-sense." What gives? --

-- 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)