User talk:MorganaFiolett/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Cordial Greetings

I'm not sure what it was I did wrong, but looking back at my history you seem to have reversed nearly every edit I've made to any articles in the past month. I've never really bothered to set up a username (figured anybody could make small changes if they cite sources and explain changes). I'm sure you're not doing it maliciously, but it's getting depressing seeing everything reversed without any real explanation. Bitter enough to quit and leave a note, but I don't hold a grudge. If I decide to start using this site again, I'll probably create an account so I can get more detailed feedback if necessary.

8/25/09 Kai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.146.241.93 (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether this reply will ever be seen I don't know, but I'm particularly confused. There's no overlap in our contributions in the last month, and I have hardly made any reversions anyway. Mistaken identity perhaps? MorganaFiolett (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Batman Stories

I hope you will consider your statement about the Batman stories which are proposed for deletion.

You suggested that two of the stories should be 'given a chance' as they could be built upon. However you considered the Ten Nights of The Beast article to be the weakest of the three articles and still considered that it should be deleted.

I'd like it if you could review the changes I have made to this article (the weakest of the three) and consider whether, if given time each of the three articles proposed for deletion could be extended to become valid.

ThanksOO7Samurai 21:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Passive aggression?

That really going to work? All it says is just "warn the offender" i've seen discussion pages laden with warnings dating to last year. Zerocannon 11:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Roald Dahl

I apologise for my edit summary, it was really a release of frustration. The Anome blocked my account by mistake, and then when confronted about it claimed his block was because of the "context" of my reversions. Sadly he failed to take into account that in over zealously reverting my edits he returned the pages to vandalised versions which pretty much destroyed any possibility that he was reverting solely because of the context of my edits, later compounded in that he failed to correct his mistakes despite being notified of them twice. He then locked my old talk page to prevent any criticisms of his actions. If The Anome has simply admitted his mistake rather than making excuses none of this would have sufficed, but as stands this is the sad situation we have ended up in. 58.164.7.68 08:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just wanted to personally thank you for all your clean up work. Its hard for me, when I am in the fury of expression or thought to cross my T's and dot my I's. Your work makes wikipedia look much more professional, and erodite. And also thank you for looking into the recent edits. That is the first front against vandalism. Artoftransformation 12:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I won't be so rude as to slap a 3RR template warning on here, as I can see your edits on the NIN page were done with the best of intentions, and feel free to delete this message as soon as you have read it.......however you seem to be on 4 reverts within the last 24hrs on that article, and someone might be an ass about it and report you. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the 3R rule but I think I have a fair few legs to stand on when it's reverting vandalism on today's featured article... MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If it was reverting blatant vandalism, then of course you have no issues...I didn't really check the content of the edits you were reverting, so I can't really comment on if it was vandalism or not. If it was a content dispute, then the 3RR applies. Anyway I hope some idiot isn't really anal about this and reports you, as it seems a shame to get a decent editor blocked. Anyway, I hope you understand that I was in no way, trying to bust your ass, I just didn't wanna see you take any shit over this..latersSennen goroshi (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, aside from the linear/liner typo, yeah it was all pretty blatant vandalism, so I reckon I'm ok. Thank you for the heads up though. MorganaFiolett (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Carey Barnes

Thanks for letting me know about the hangon tag. I did advise the user on their talk page that they needed to add the curly brackets, but didn't feel it was appropriate to add myself (and assumed it would look as if I'd added the hangon tag anyway). I'll try and be more helpful if it happens in the future Gaffertape (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of PFP

Thanks. I think I'll userfy it thought to get it out of everybody's way. :) Abyssal leviathin (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me?

Catholic user Cuchullain continues to censure the article Religion in the United States. --Esimal (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

He censures also advices in his talk. --Esimal (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi. I just wanted to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

number of countries in europe

You initiated a discussion on the Europe talk page, which you have seemingly abandoned afterwards. I can imagine you are interested to see what has been discussed in the meantime as we might be approaching consensus. I have to admit that only very few people were involved. So, an additional opinion would be appreciated. Tomeasy (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I asked because I wanted an answer for something I'm writing- I've been watching the page and it seems pretty obvious that there really isn't one answer! MorganaFiolett (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Warsaw Old Town

Thanks for the heads up about the coordinates given for this article. The earlier coordinates added by the bot were taken from the Spanish-language wiki; as you say, they seem to be some way off. I've relocated the coordinates for this article in what I hope is the correct place. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could take a quick look to check if I've got the right place. -- The Anome (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of Countries

Thank you for trying to help me out on the Europe talk page but I still believe that circa # of countries is just not the right thing to use.Based on what can you exclude countries like cyprus and the likes? I do not know exactly which ones you are excluding as no one has ever stated, but I am just guessing that cyprus is one of them. If you wish to keep the circa 50 then I strongly believe that you should explicitly state which ones are included/excluded and why. Also mentioning it only on the talk page does not make any difference if there is not a note that asks people to actually SEE the talk page to understand the situation.--Coniatis (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have responded on the Europe talk page as well, but basically... the point of using "circa" is not to specifically exclude or include any particular countries. We can't use an exact number because there isn't one, universally agreed, exact number- as stated in the article, there are no agreed boundaries for what is and what isn't Europe, and there are disputes over a number of countries- not just Cyprus, and I'm not sure why you seem to have jumped to the conclusion that this is about Cyprus. It isn't mentioned only on the talk page- in the lead paragraph of the article itself it currently states that Europe "hosts a large number of sovereign states (ca. 50), whose precise number depends on the underlying definition of Europe's border, as well as on the in- or exclusion of semi-recognized states." I'm not sure how we can be any less vague about an ill-defined figure. MorganaFiolett (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MorganaFiolett. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback.
Message added 16:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ukexpat (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Password Change

I was trying to edit an article today and was shocked to find that I had been temporarily banned. I looked on my edit history and found that I had recently been vandalising articles. Obviously this was not me. I came to the conclusion that somebody new both my password and username so I was wondering how I could change my password so as to avoid future blocks. Thank You Very Much. --Thephantomphantom (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I owe you an apology

for vandalizing your user page. It's just that you were asking for more interesting vandalism and I had just said to someone, "If something is not worth doing is it worth doing well," when I stumbled onto your page from somewhere and it just fit. In the little village where I live people have recently begun naming the specific syndrome or even form of mental illness that they have that explains their bizarre and otherwise unacceptable behavior. I can make no such claim. So instead I must beg your forgiveness and hope that you will bestow it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I will admit I was a little confused... but I wouldn't have called it vandalism per se, since it wasn't in any way offensive. *shrug* Meh. If you want forgiveness, you're welcome to it. :) MorganaFiolett (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

...... well it did cause you to up your vandalized count, so, as Bob Marley said, "Who the cap fits, let them wear it." Carptrash (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Purple, my favourite colour :) Since you called it vandalism, I thought I might as well count it ;). MorganaFiolett (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MorganaFiolett. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, MorganaFiolett. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)