User talk:Moreschi

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

Subpages:

Recently archived[edit]

Please check the archives for anything older. Moreschi (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Email[edit]

I emailed you with my university IP locations. I am not sure what else to tell you. If you have any extra questions tell me and I'll do my best to answer as truthfully as I can. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm being a cranky pants so I want you to know I've searched your name in the noticeboards and wow. I completely get your suspicion given what you seem to deal with alot especially with me being pretty savvy and AR being a long term editor with lots of unfriends. If you want me to try and hammer down some of the previous IPs I used I can try. I'm also ok with emailing you the operating systems and browsers I've used. That way you can check me out for peace of mind. Drop a message if you do. I'd rather get that cleared up than have a cloud of suspicion hanging on me. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. It had crossed my mind you could possibly be my old friend User:ResearchEditor making a reappearance, as recovered memory is rather his topic-area, but it seemed a shade unlikely based on your edits anyway and I am now perfectly satisfied that you are 1) not RE and 2)acting in good faith. Many thanks for helping to clear this up. Best, Moreschi (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. You were nice about it and given what you deal with a lot I can completely understand. Thank you for being gentle about your suspicions and giving me the chance to clear things up. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ opened[edit]

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess the price one pays for offering unbiased outside thoughts every now and then is these notices :) Moreschi (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

recent closure[edit]

Hi. I was, you might guess, a bit disappointed at the close of Politics in the British Isles. One part of your rationale suggested that the title is politically charged; this may be the case, but we have kept History of the British Isles and dozens of categories in that tree; and consensus is to use the term as a geographic grouping when it properly refers to the entire British isles (which the article did). In any case, if the title was *really* inappropriate (in spite of books using the same name), then a rename could have been considered (I had proposed something like Multilateral relationships in the atlantic archipelago. So I guess I'm not clear on why an article about the multilateral and bilateral relationships between the countries in the archipelgo, besides Ireland-UK relations, is worthy of deletion - you yourself noted the existence of sources (there are even academic research centers devoted to the topic); the British-Irish Council as a multilateral body - and tons of ink has been spilled talking about the multilateral politics of that and associated bodies. As to the content, I barely had time to write it, as it was nominated for deletion shortly after being created; and all of it was copy/pasted to Ireland-United Kingdom relations and then jealously guarded there intact by the same people who were voting for deletion! So they actually seemed to like the content... Finally, did you see the recent news articles I added to the bottom of the discussion? These were just a taste, illustrating multilateral and bi-lateral politics and relationships that were clearly *not* Ireland-UK. Finally, pending further discussions, would you mind restoring the article to my user space? Even BHG had mentioned she was not opposed to this. anyway I'm just hoping to hear more about your rationale, and whether and how the article might be reframed so it could survive on its own; I just can't see it as just part of Ireland-UK relations... Thanks! ps: I had meant to add this to the 'academics' section[1];[2] a quote "The development of Irish–Scottish studies has offered a productive means ‘of moving beyond an often debilitating and obsessive concern with [both countries’] relationship to England, and so of opening up new horizons’" There is so much more... --KarlB (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course I will happily restore the most recent version to your userspace.
As regards further rationale for the closure...clearly the term "British Isles" is somewhat loaded, but this is mostly true purely in a political context. I don't think too many people would have problems with the term in a geographic context, beyond the Irish nationalists, I guess. The problem is that the very title of this piece links "politics" and the "British Isles" together. This is just going to be a drama magnet, and more likely a very vicious battleground.
The bigger problem, however, is one of scope. This felt like it was supposed to be in part a "Description of the current political trends as far as the bits of the BI deal with each other", part "Political history of the British Isles" (which might just about be an article, I guess, a subpage of History of the British Isles), part "new trends in the scholarly analysis of the politics of the BI". That's about 3 different potential pieces all rolled into one, with predictable results. What was deleted definitely had some usable content, but as you yourself recognize, I think, it needs reframing. Good luck. Moreschi (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope you don't take it the wrong way if I put this into DRV. I haven't decided yet, but it's one course I'm considering. Best regards. --KarlB (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Naturally not. I almost expect it with controversial, tight closes like this. Though please note that I am not trying to bar you from creating some future version, although I think a different title would be best. Moreschi (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, a few follow up questions, if you don't mind.
  1. You stated above that there was an issue about the title of the article. If you (like others) see that as a problem, isn't a rename the more appropriate path?
  2. Secondly, you said the scope is a problem. Scope was the main contentious point of debate with RA/BHG; the question there seemed to be, are Ireland-UK bilateral relations sufficient to describe the scope of all of the inter-country political activity that occurs in the archipelago? You seemed to agree, stating "I am not persuaded that this is not better handled as a series of "bilateral relations" articles"; but couldn't the same argument be made about Politics of the Caribbean or Nordic countries for example (which has a politics section that could be expanded? I guess I'm not sure why 'bilateral' was judged by you to be sufficient here, esp given existence of multilateral bodies amongst the exact countries described by the term British Isles.
  3. Finally, I'm not sure I understand your conclusion re the academic approach; "Clearly such scholarship exists, but it does not seem extensive enough to support the burden this article would place on it" - please recall that this article has only existed a few days, and we have only scratched the surface of the literature, and I mainly added the academic section there as a stub to help establish the notability of studying politics in the British isles, to show that others have taken a similar approach (since the raison-d'etre of the article was under seige) - but I actually think post-nationalist archipalegic studies itself merits a whole article. In any case, there are several academic research centers set up to study culture, relations, and politics in the British isles using an archipelagic perspective; I'm sure others exist, it's not always easy to find in google because they use many terms "northern archipelago", "atlantic archipelago", "these isles", etc etc but they certainly exist - and I don't think any of them would say they're just studying British-Irish politics (ps: FWIW the restored article now lives here: User:Karl.brown/Politics in the atlantic archipelago). Thanks! --KarlB (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Always happy to answer questions. Taking these in order:

1. If the title was the only problem but the article itself was adequately scoped (with just a misleading title), then a rename would be more appropriate, yes. I do not think such was the case here. 2. I do not necessarily see the "scope" issues in the same way as BHG et al. The article, as it was, certainly had scope problems, but I am perfectly open to persuasion - and indeed you make a good case - and that this is not all reducible to UK-Ireland relations. The problem - as I see it - was not that the article was useless expansion of whatever UK-Ireland relations articles we have, but more than it was trying to do too many different things at once and was completely unclear about its goals in the process. The result was something of a nightmarish mess. 3. One way to narrow the scope to something more usable would be to write just such an article on "post-nationalist archipalegic studies", which sounds like something we might benefit from. The "burden" comment relates to this; the scholarship in this area can probably stand a more narrowly focussed article, but not one so sprawling and wide-ranging as we had. Best, Moreschi (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that it was a "nightmarish mess"; several people complimented the content, and several people where were 'opposed' to the article (RA, Snappy) jealously guarded a copy/paste of the same exact content in Ireland-United Kingdom relations (carefully copying over any new edits to the original as they came in...) as a ploy to prove their point that it was a fork, so I don't think your assessment of it as a "mess" was a consensus view. Also please recall that the article itself barely had time to attract other editors to the cause; who is going to spend time editing an article currently planned for deletion... I guess I'm sad it never got a chance, and I feel political correctness had a lot to do with it. Anyway thanks for your responses, I'm considering next steps now. --KarlB (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Politics in the British Isles[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Politics in the British Isles. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KarlB (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

User:E4024, yet again[edit]

Would you be so kind as to revoke this user's talkpage access, as he is using to try to get others to revert-war on his behalf while he is blocked [3]? The guy is unbelievable. Athenean (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Athenean (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Re Ywreuv[edit]

Thanks for the offer to block Ywreuv if he continues stalking me. Should I come straight to you if it continues? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Moreschi (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

BozokluAdam[edit]

Since you blocked Bozoklu, you should know of two edits done by IPs(both are located in Tokat, Turkey)[4][5], both of which have an anti-Persian POV. This may not be enough to initiate a sockpuppet investigation, so I thought I should let you know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 opened[edit]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 6, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Merging Michael David Weiss article with Puncture Movie article[edit]

Hello, I wrote a reply on the Puncture movie discussion, could you address. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forcemagic (talkcontribs) 05:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Article probation[edit]

Hi, is [6] by the Fringe case? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed religion manual of style[edit]

There is now a proposed Manual of style for religion articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. I have some reason to believe that your own expertise in dealing with matters of nationalism might well be of use here, given the large number of groups out there which deal substantially with what might be called ethnoreligions. Any input you might have would be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Moreschi. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 22:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Sædontalk 22:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar[edit]

I rather doubt you have the feintest idea of who I am; to the best of my memory, we've never had any real interactions. However, I did leave you a barnstar about three and a half years ago now shortly after an ancient debacle between you and a certain administrator took place. I had been aware of your activities prior, but I was never really keen on anything you contributed at the time. Nevertheless, I felt inclined to recognize at the very least your continued passion and hard work for the site. I could just present you yet another barnstar by just saying something nice and leaving it at that, but I came here for honesty's sake as well. The barnstar I initially gave you at the time was not without reservation.

There was a phase when I was virtually obsessed with Wikipedia's more political aspects, which meant that I'd go as far back as 2006 and familiarize myself with some of the affairs that went on over the years (especially when they related to administrators getting desysopped). When I'd looked into the ArbCom Elections of December 2007, I checked out your candidacy at the time and the first line of your candidate statement was what struck me the most: "I suspect for many I’m something of a controversial figure..." Certainly you were, simply by virtue of your activity throughout the site. Now here's where my brutal honesty comes into play. I'm not going to pull any punches when I say these things — back in 2008 and early 2009, I was not especially thrilled with many of the things you'd done. Yes, you were dedicated to the site and I acknowledged that, but you nonetheless came across as somebody who simply ought not be an administrator. I found you exceedingly uncivil, crass, and heavy-handed in both actions and words. Whenever I saw you getting involved in a dispute, I couldn't help but feel uneasy because I found you had something of a tendency to exacerbate situations rather than mitigating them, so to speak. I had the impression that the mere notion of there being genuine people reading the snarky comments you had directed at them was lost on you. I mean not to offend you when I say these things, but I do feel context is important in what I'm trying to insinuate here.

As I'd begun seeing you around again after a general hiatus since 2009, my impression took a drastic 180° turn. I started noticing your more diplomatic side, and that's when I realized that you are in fact somebody who truly does care about the collegial environment of this site. Even when I disagree with your actions (and there are many such occasions), I can at least feel reasonably confident that you had done them after careful consideration without letting your emotions cloud your otherwise solid judgement. The very rare occasion that I do see your name pop up on one of the dramaboards (ArbCom, AN/I, etc), I take the time to read through whatever you've written because I know it will be sensible, reasoned, fair, and tactful. Sure, you can be tough, but not without justification — conspiracy theories, racism, harassment, and abrasiveness simply have no place on this site. All things considered, I now consider you to be among Wikipedia's most invaluable assets, and a true paradigm of what a Wikipedian ought to be.

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For all the hard work you have done over the years in developing classical music articles, turning away nationalists with axes to grind, starting the fringe theories noticeboard, and helping to provide ArbCom rulings with a backbone through your capacity as an administrator, I hereby award you the original barnstar. You definitely deserve it.


Take care, Master&Expert (Talk) 07:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of RFC/U concerning Youreallycan[edit]

I'd like to notify you, as a previous blocking administrator, that I've initiated a Request for Comments/User concerning Youreallycan (talk · contribs). The RFC/U, which mentions your block, can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan. Prioryman (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Working page[edit]

I'm not quite sure of the history of Talk:Astrology/Workpage, but can it be deleted? It contains rather a large amount of claims which violate WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll[edit]

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Armenian Genocide[edit]

Just a heads up that I removed the parenthetical requirement that even a single revert must first be discussed on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines[edit]

Hi. There are, at present, no particular clear guidelines for religious material here, or, for that matter, guidelines for how to deal with ideas in general, particularly those ideas which might be accepted as true by individuals of a given religious, political, or scientific stance. There have been attempts in the past to draft such guidelines, but they have quickly been derailed. I am dropping this note on the talk pages of a number of editors who I believe have some interest in these topics, such as yourself, and asking them to review the material at User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion and perhaps take part in an effort to decide what should be covered in such guidelines, should they be determined useful, and what phrasing should be used. I would be honored to have your input. John Carter (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xenotalk 04:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014[edit]

Hi Moreschi. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Falun Gong listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Criticism of Falun Gong. Since you had some involvement with the Criticism of Falun Gong redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 09:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Global account[edit]

Hi Moreschi! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)