User talk:Moreschi

Now back from a lovely week away in Dorset (some great stuff hacked out of the Jurassic coast and added to the ammonite collection) and accepting requests for Veropedia accounts again. Along with your request, please supply your email address (you can email this to me if you don't want to disclose it publicly), and before you ask, make sure you're not a troll (most people aren't, so you should be fine), and that you can string a coherent sentence together (most people can do this as well). Great article writers are very, very welcome but you don't have to be one, as a lot of the work is copyediting wikignome-style. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 21:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on User:Moreschi/The Plague? All comments welcome.

Admin philosophy is here, general thoughts are here. Work currently in progress: User:Moreschi/Workspace 1.

• • /Archive No.1
  • /Archive No.2
  • /Archive No.3
  • /Archive No.4
  • /Archive No.5
  • /Archive No.6
  • /Archive No.7

Recently archived

Please check the archives for anything older. Moreschi ^Talk 20:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

User:M.V.E.i. has created a sockpuppet, User:PocketMoon, after being blocked. See [1] and [2] in the Oleg Blokhin article. Also see the Talk Page conversations.--Boguslav 01:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, checkuser came back positive. Moreschi ^Talk 10:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

		Ready to swab the deck!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 03:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

Mail

You have mail Hiberniantears 21:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks! Hiberniantears 21:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Moreschi ^Talk 21:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Go Away

Where do you advice us to go exactly? Arbitration being the highest dispute resolution process makes it impossible for us to "go away". We have concerns and problems, which need to be addressed. And ignoring them will only make them worse. Also just out of curiosity can I ask you why HajjiPiruz was blocked, for reverting or not justifying his edit? --VartanM 22:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That thread was not productive. It had degenerated into nothing more than everyone whinging at everybody else - the participants in the wars, and the admins trying to keep the battles under control. No one really had a genuine complaint. Write some articles and next time someone really does something wrong, come and talk to me rationally and reasonably.

I have no idea why Hajji Piruz was blocked. I was not involved in that decision at any stage. Judging purely by his block log, he seems to have exceeded his revert limitation. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 22:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Now starring on ANI [3]. --Folantin 11:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Kalkan

Hey, can you please (semi)protect Kalkan? It seems to me that since July 2006, some anons have been reinserting the same commercial unnecessary links. In my opinion, it would be best to remove all external links now, but I leave it upto you. Last few times, I left one link, as the article is short on references. I think that was a mistake in handling that anon. I vaguely remember some wiki website where one requests page protection. Which site was it? Thanks Deniz^T_C 13:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorted. In future, try WP:RFPP? Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 13:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

More mail

More mail, new, unrelated topic. Hiberniantears 15:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protection

Please disable the "[cascading]" option on your userpage, as it causes some templates to be protected as well. Cheers, Melsaran (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it ~ Riana ⁂ 16:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK Update needed

If you are online an update is overdue and DYK has a backlog. Could you do the update?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 15:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

FL Main page proposal

You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination this year. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual main page will resemble either an excerpted list format or an abbreviated text format. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Views of the So Called Armenian Genocide

Thanks for closing that. I was really getting tired of tagging all the anon SPAs. Mr.Z-man 19:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick infusion of common sense solves many problems. If they start causing more problems, just gently place them in front of my banhammer. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 19:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness you closed this AfD! Bearian 19:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In an ideal world, a bot would automatically delete articles which incorporate words to avoid (e.g. "so-called") directly into an article title. MastCell ^Talk 20:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"I do hereby nominate Riana to rollback and block Flavius B until such time as I return."

Some sort of training session, this? :) Have a good break. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thanks, Moreschi! Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was a success, and I look forward to getting started! Hiberniantears 17:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision can be found at the link above. Bharatveer is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked as set forth in the decision's enforcement provision. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 19:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The right decision, I think. Should kill off the disruptive editing without landing us with a new sockfarm to deal with - Kuntan and Hkelkar are quite bad enough as it is. Thank you. Moreschi ^Talk 19:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Phoenix 15 (Talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Amygdalohippocampectomy

Hello you have provided a pass for a good article nomination for the article Amygdalohippocampectomy or AH but not removed it from the GAN list nor added it to the Good article list. Should it refer to the 4 ways to select for the surgery, none of which are mentioned namely the the sylvian fissure, the superior temporal sulcus, the middle temporal gyrus, and the fusiform gyrus. 1, 2 Kind Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by SriMesh (talk • contribs) 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Help

DYK has a red warning! It's boiling over! Needs update! Mrs.EasterBunny 20:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. Red warning has been fixed. Mrs.EasterBunny 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Pro Milone

I don't see any changes. Are they going to happen? Ruslik 05:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but only when I have the time to get around it to it. I'm pretty busy at the moment and don't have the relevant reference material immediately to hand anyway. Whatever you do in the meantime is your choice. Moreschi ^Talk 08:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Veropedia

Sorry to hear you are leaving, I'm off to different pastures new too. Why doesn't Veropedia have a wp article? I hear Danny is running it, is it an official Jimbo thing, or an ad hoc 'diamond mining' operation? --Joopercoopers 01:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ad hoc diamond mining, certainly not anything to do with Jimbo. Hey, why don't you sign on? We'd be delighted to have you on board, let me know if you want an account. All Vero "editing" takes places here, so I'm still around WP quite a lot, but trying to stay away from all the tedious drama. We could certainly use someone with your fantastic editing skills. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 13:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's tempting if Jimbo's not involved - I'm out of WP in part, because of the laughable management that has let the 'lunatic take over the asylum'. But I'm just slightly dubious as VP's address [4] seems to be identical to Mediawiki's [5], I wonder if Jimbo's realised his projects a busted flush and set up Veropedia to plug the credibility gap? If this is not the case, then yes please. You can email me if you prefer. Kind regards --Joopercoopers 11:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe Danny's sent you an email about this, but for everyone else here's the explanation: that address is actually a postbox. Danny, who's running Veropedia, lives near the WMF offices, as he used to work there. WMF get their mail sent there, and as Danny lives so near to the postbox, he uses it for Vero as well. But Veropedia has nothing to do with the WikiMedia Foundation or Jimmy Wales, nor would I be involved if it did.

Speaking for myself, I would love to have you on board, as, I'm sure, would Giano and Bishonen. Please let me know your email address and we can set you up with an account. Moreschi ^Talk 20:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, the post-office box is a bad idea- it just looks really bad. I would strongly suggest that another post office box be used. JoshuaZ 01:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you get my e-mail about a few articles, etc?--voxclamans (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM

One more report [6], this is really turning into endless task, until parole is applied to everyone equally for constructive editing. Thanks. Atabek 01:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can Atabek explain which policy or guideline I violated. Another baseless report. VartanM 03:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, it took Atabek two days, since his return from WikiVacation to report User:Fedayee, User:Andranikpasha, User:MarshallBagramyan and me. If this isn't a battleground approach I don't know what is. VartanM 06:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I suppose some think I am a son-of-a-bitch, but I am definitely not. If people are kind ot me, I am always kind in return. I do try very hard to let most trolling roll off me, but there does come a point that it is very hard to ignore. Anyway, I appreciate you unblocking me recently...I was offline the entire time anyway, so was rather surprised when I was blocked for removing a warning about the impending block simply with the edit summary of "bye"...oh well.--MONGO 05:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Really, the failure of the arbitrators to give us any sort of clear resolution on the matter of attack sites is more to blame here than any one person, or persons. Moreschi ^Talk 13:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Veropedia thanks

Hi Moreschi, thanks for the account. I went over there, and now I'm so confused! The help system there needs help. Is there a "Veropedia for Dummies" somewhere? --Kyoko 12:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Another question: there's a forums link. Does that require separate registration? --Kyoko 12:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll deal with that later. I get the feeling that I'll still be more active here than there, because the learning curve is much steeper there. Thanks again. --Kyoko 12:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Its still in development, you are free to stop on at http://en.veropedia.com/irc/irc.cgi. I can help you over IRC, we might have some bugs in our system, who knows! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Curious. I never heard nothing about this Veropedia thing, and it was only by stalking your edits (I wanted to find find out if you'd found other bad links to Strathcarron) that I tripped over it. I must be living in a cave. If you are after subject experts, User:Dr Steven Plunkett is a genuine, published, Anglo-Saxonist, and expert on things East Anglian, and a nice guy too. He's been a bit under the weather, but perhaps you can tempt him to try Veropedia. Toodle pip! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Angus! Good to talk to you again! I will certainly talk to Dr Plunkett and try to get him on board, thank you for the heads-up.

And while we're tempting him, how about we try to tempt you, eh? It's fun work that benefits enwiki, as you'll see if you check out the FAQ here. Have a read through that and check the site out generally. Please do let me know if you want an account to upload stuff and I'll get it it done ASAP. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 23:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also recommend Antandrus, if you haven't already snagged him.  :) --Iamunknown 23:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Got him, though he's been busy recently and I don't think he's really had much time to upload stuff. What about you, though Mr Unknown? We don't have you, do we? Would you consider signing on? All help is welcome. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 23:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Undelete request

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shining hope for community. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Brian 13:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

For your kind words regarding my revision of the Propertius article. As my user page shows, I'm an amateur classicist, and am interested in these kind of projects, and it seems the new Veropedia is the place to do this seriously. Since you are "out of the office" for the week, I'll direct my request for an account to one of your suggested admins. Again, Thx Chjones 60656 20:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for advertising Veropedia on your userpage. Unusual reason yes, but it has given me hope and purpose when editing Wikipedia. I now know the hard work of dedicated users won't dissolve into garbage and be ridiculed with graffiti. The quality can be preserved! GizzaDiscuss © 09:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Moreschi ^Talk 08:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC Fairness

Hi Moreschi:

I'm putting this note here so as not to clutter your ArbCom Election Q & A page. As noted there, my question re RfC fairness was not aimed at you. I'm asking all the ArbCom candidates the same question.

Having said that, my only experience of the RfC process has been in two Homeopathy RfC's so I certainly had those in mind in asking my question.

My concern about fairness did not come from your ruling as an admin.

During the RfC's about Whig and Sm565, I raised issues of fairness relating to 1) editors with double standards and 2) an admin (not yourself) who was very obviously not neutral in a particular discussion and yet made a ruling in the RfC.

I don't know if the unfairness I perceived in those two RfC's changed the end results much, but it certainly gave me a poor impression of the prevailing standard of fairness.

Thanks.

I gave you this long explanation to be as clear as possible on this. If you want to explore this further, I'm available, but I'm sure you have more urgent matters on your plate. Good luck in the election. Wanderer57 01:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time to let me know of this. I suspect there are still issues on which we differ, but we can leave those for later, and you've certainly taken a lot off my mind. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 08:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your answers

While I'm not giving out any rankings for candidates' answers to me questions in terms of how good the answers are, I can say that your answers have thus far been easily the most entertaining. All in a very good way. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers :) Moreschi ^Talk 08:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

wtf?

Eh? Who did you block for one month? Do you even know what a dynamic IP is? -Kn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.254.21 (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if I block two-thirds of the subcontinent. I just want you gone. You fail to understand this very basic point: coming from you, what you say has no credibility. So you might as well keep quiet. Moreschi ^Talk 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Then do us some lulz with that two-third block and honour your own words by deleting a couple of articles I wrote. I won't call you names in spite of your puerile ejaculations (here and on the mailing list) because you support an encyclopedia à la Dbachmann, rather than à la Hindu retards. 59.91.254.63 03:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Candidate_statements/Moreschi/Questions_for_the_candidate#Question_from_Dihydrogen_Monoxide_.28answered.29_.28more_questions_added.29

U got question, lulz. — H₂O —  00:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

ZOMG, dude, your questions, like, totally, kick ass! Sick stuff, baby. Moreschi ^Talk 14:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom elections

As Aragorn once said, you have my sword. Your userpage is one of the truthful pages on the wiki, full stop. Will ^(talk) 15:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad someone appreciates it. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 15:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the plague and the constant EE war... can you have a look over this RfC? Will ^(talk) 16:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Moreschi. I see you're going for it: good luck. I feel compelled to mention that there's an extraneous apostrophe on your candidate statement (one of the "it's") that you may like to address? I don't correct other users' posts, particularly on such an important and personal page, but I'd hate you to lose support from any pedantic floating voters! --RobertG ♬ talk 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for picking up on this. Now I feel like an idiot - fix your own grammar first before you point out logs in the articles of others, copy-editor! Cheers, and thanks for the "good luck" message. Moreschi ^Talk 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ultra-nationalist alert

Uh-oh. Check out Miyokan's deleted comments about me here [7]. Ben Velvel had a hand in writing the Russia article too. 'Nuff said. Worth keeping an eye on? --Folantin 14:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, just from reading the article, even if I hadn't come across this. Moreschi ^Talk 20:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, right (!). Incidentally, his previous incarnation was Ilya1166. --Folantin 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with this edit - it IS pure speculation. How can people know with certainty what Russia/Gazprom's intentions are? Russia/Gazprom maintain that they are simply seeking market rates and no longer want to subsidize other countries, yet as I can see you two both instantly believe the reports that they are using it for political leverage. You need to stop playing the 'nationalist' card all the time.--Miyokan 01:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for being less than impressed. No one takes those denials seriously, as you very well know. All that needed was a reference to one of the billion-odd analytical articles in highly reputable papers that have been published on this topic recently. Moreschi ^Talk 10:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you just reinstate the NPOV tag on the "Russia" history section? I'm on three reverts. As you know, it's riddled with bias. --Folantin 11:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you have mail (not that urgent). --Folantin 12:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Those 'billion odd' media reports mean nothing, analytical articles or not, the fact remain is that they are remain purely speculative and hypotheses. The idea that Russia wants to stop subsidising ex-Soviet states and receive market prices for its oil and gas is not so farfetched to dismiss. I have read plenty of articles (non-Russian) which agree that Russia is justified in not wanting to subsidise ex-Soviet states. By the way, the political leverage argument might have been more convincing if Russia had not have increased the prices to its allies, Belarus and Armenia, as well.--Miyokan 13:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I find Folantin's referring to Miyokan as "ultra-nationalist" an appallingly undeserved attack on editor's character. As for seeing the history repeat itself when FAC of History of Russia was derailed, I share Miyokan's view that there are some similarities. First, editors insert the referenced but POVed or WP:UNDUE or otherwise tendentious info that is out of place in the article with such a wide scope. This is followed by a revert war to "restore referenced information". Then, the other side is forced to add more to at least give appropriate context to those references, thus sacrificing the brevity and the text flow to restore the NPOV. But with the article's flow being violated, the article cannot qualify. This is a valid concern and this has happened before at other FAC's as well. --Irpen 17:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh you do, do you? Birds of a feather flock together as ever on Wikipedia. I have one inestimable advantage when editing articles on Eastern Europe: I don't come from there. What's more, I've actually read history books on the subject by scholars who didn't die in the 19th century. The two articles under discussion have severe POV problems and any expert on the subject would tear them to shreds within seconds. There is no way they should be on our main page as examples of the best we can do. Of course, users like Ben Velvel and Miyokan have no conception what neutrality is. Miyokan's response to my comments was to fantasise that I was a Georgian. This whole nationalist mentality is corrupt and it's ruining huge sections of Wikipedia's content. I've had enough of it. --Folantin 17:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's all nice and dandy but if you choose to reply to my posts, please address the concerns it raised. I am impressed by your claimed background and all but your boasting about it is somewhat off-topic. And so are your ill-considered remarks about some birds and Wikipedia which are both off-topic and inappropriate. --Irpen 17:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's all on topic. As Moreschi says, this is the plague wrecking Wikipedia. The content problems won't be sorted until we fix this underlying problem of nationalist gang warfare. I attempted to follow Wikipedia policy on History of Russia by using references from up-to-date scholarly sources in English. Ben Velvel and Co. didn't. This is the way NPOV should be fixed round here, not by coming to some compromise between warring national factions. (Hey, I'm not boasting about my expertise either. The average sixth-former could make a better job of some of these articles than the current crowd. I'd really like to see genuine experts come here to write these pages but they tend to get driven off by all the nationalist lunacy. Who can blame them?). --Folantin 17:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the more I think about this, the more I'm riled at you, Irpen. I used to have respect for you as an editor but now I see exactly why ArbCom pulled you up for violation of AGF. I attempt to maintain a modicum of neutrality and I get attacked in xenophobic terms by two Russian nationalist editors who are hardly the jewels in Wikipedia's crown. You naturally jump to the defence of your compatriots (or fellow Russophones). This is another problem with the nationalist gang warfare round here: even the half-decent editors will stick up for the rotten apples if they're on the right side. --Folantin 20:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You too huh? Funny how the same handful of editors seem to crop up again and again at centre of all this EE angst. In the past I've been called an Estonian ultra-nationalist, even though I am from Australia! Sheer lunacy. Just recently I was reported by Irpen to ANI for moving a page as innocuous as Estonian pirates to Estonian Viking Expeditions. The move was done after quite an extensive RM discussion and a compromise was found. See the gory details here Talk:Estonian_pirates#Estonian_Viking_Expeditions. He even reverted my attempt to close off the debate over the initial move proposal I initiated, which was obviously now a dead horse. [8] This kind of antagonism and routine assumption of bad faith has no place in Wikipedia. Martintg 00:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, yeah, the idea that some editors might have a general interest in history and aren't here to put the most positive spin on their nations' pasts is obviously completely alien to some Wikipedians. They seem to have their own unique interpretation of policy too: WP:SOAPBOX = Wikipedia is a soapbox; WP:BATTLEGROUND= Wikipedia is a battleground; WP:RS = use Russian sources, especially 19th century ones or Soviet-era school textbooks; and - a new one- WP:AFG = assume Folantin is Georgian (I like to edit wearing my big papakhi, eating lavash and listening to my Katie Melua CDs while my mafia friends are out stealing Russian editors' cars). --Folantin 08:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

...or something along those lines. I'm astounded by the way people seem to be turning a blind eye to faults in the Russia articles; it was essentially a propaganda piece in a big way, and even though it's improved, there are still considerable issues, not least with the use of sources (19th-century Russian stuff should not be used, what's wrong with modern scholarship? Nor should Britannica, come to that, or at least not to any great extent. I'm uneasy about citing fellow tertiary sources, and while you might point to my extensive use of Grove, that's not only specialist but often more of a secondary source than it is tertiary, not to mention the fact that all articles are written by experts). I'd be unhappy with any article that was evidently written with such an obvious agenda in mind passing FAC. Moreschi ^Talk 17:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, I waited for a while (with some astonishment) to let you guys enjoy this friendly discussion not interfering for some time but I figured I would comment at this point. First and foremost, this very thread was started in a grievous attack mode. Calling someone an "ultra-nationalist" is serious stuff. Using Folantin's terminology, very few editors are truly "jewels in Wikipedia's crown." Granted, Miyokan is not one of them but also none of us at this page are. For jewels, look for editors who rolled out dozens of FA's or so (I can name some) and none of us yet pulled it off and unlikely will. My initial observation about Folantin's using this page as a forum to attack another editor stands but it only got worse by his further posts. He invokes the sloppy ArbCom decision from the case the ArbCom totally screwed up and he knows that. The particular FoF about Irpen and AGF is sufficiently commented by the community here, here and here. What's more, Folantin engages in further sarcastic mode badmouthing Miyokan more since the format of this page (third party's talk) allows to do that with near impunity, unlike at ANI or article's talk page. I am not here to defend Miyokan's POV, which is obviously very Russophile, but the editor puts a great deal of work into the article, sources his edits and if you have any issues, Folantin, use normal DR channels rather than third party talk pages where you can resort to such attacks with near impunity.

Not surprisingly, as soon as Irpen is bashed at any page, Martin quickly shows up, even if it is out of the view page which he quickly finds in some mysterious way. So, Martin just made an "innocuous good faith move" but an "antagonistic" Irpen, with his "routine assumption of bad faith" reports him. Well, diffs don't lie and Moreschi, can see the deleted edits in diffs too.[9] . This was an assessment from an uninvolved third party and Martin's continuous denying does do him credit.

As for the Moreschi's reaction, I am, frankly, surprised. A user uses this page to launch an attack on another contributor and there is no clear and open reprimand from the page's owner. Perhaps there was some criticism in email communications that ensued (I hope so) but the attack made on-wiki calls for an on-wiki response to get a message through. There does not seem to be any sensitive material to warrant taking the communication off-line and it does not bode well with the ongoing ArbCom run, especially since lack of transparency in decision making is often considered one of the major problems of the ArbCom's modus operandi. --Irpen 16:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I'm sorry to be able to confirm from experience what ArbCom says about your failure to assume good faith. I expected better of you. Miyokan was the first to attack me as the difference linked at the top of the page shows [10]. He then accused me of being a Georgian nationalist POV-pusher. I've checked his block log: under his previous incarnation of Ilya1166 he acquired four blocks for arguing over things like the size of Russia's army in relation to the rest of the world and (inevitably) the bloody Bronze soldier of Tallinn. I reserve the right to to call a spade a spade. One thing I can say in Miyokan's favour is that he is not as bad as Ben Velvel, whose side you also took against me. I attempted to inject some neutrality into those articles and was accused of belonging to the wrong gang. I repeat: I do not come from Central or Eastern Europe and I don't have a dog in these fights. You, however, do. It's no great secret that various "national" editors back those on the "right side". Here's a disgraceful instance (to your credit you were not involved. as far as I can see): [[11]. The user in question was allowed to flame on for another three or four months before his inevitable block. (And yes, I'm quite aware that the "other side" can behave just as disruptively. Digwuren thoroughly deserved his ArbCom ban). --Folantin 16:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Folantin, I am not going to run around every page you post to defend myself against your new accusations (this time that I "supported" Ben Vevel against yourself.) I've seen many fantasies posted around and if I jump to debunk each and every of them, I would be left with no time to do anything else. "The difference linked at the top of the page [12]" was not an attack on you. You are not called any names there and this is an editors observation, fair or not, which you may want to argue with but you can't call it an attack. I have not seen him calling you a "Georgian nationalist POV pusher" but even if he did, you have no excuse to retaliate in calling him a "Russian ultra-nationalist" and even less so to do it not to his face but at the third party talk where he may not even find (or answer) your accusations. I read the current talk:Russia and I must say Miyokan's conduct there is much better than yours and if you want to accuse me in being partial, ask anyone. Your not coming from EE does not make you a better editor and does not make you better anything at all to boast about it. As for Digwuren, I have no opinion of whether he should have been banned (I asked for a way to curtail him) but ArbCom thoroughly blew that case as it has done with most all complex cases because it is not really functioning and is unable deal with complex issues.

You for some reason choose to invoke the MVEi's incident even admitting that I have nothing to do with that. I can add that I was repeatedly involved in trying to curb MVEi in the past. I am here long enough to not expect apologies and know better than to respond to every single wild accusation and the only reason I commented here was that this is the page of the ArbCom's candidate and I find his involvement in this discussion disturbing. --Irpen 16:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You inserted yourself into this discussion from out of the blue without bothering to check up on the background. Do your own research before you start sticking your oar in other people's arguments. This editor has clearly got a bee in his bonnet about Georgians and Estonians [13] and I'm supposed to believe this has nothing to do with nationalism? The only problem with the ArbCom decision was its utter toothlessness. Quite a few more editors should have been booted out if content was our real concern. Talking of content, FA is a complete lottery. I'm still amazed that the History of Russia article managed to pass with three or four paragraphs about post-Soviet Russia and not one mention of the war in Chechnya. Quality control and the most basic knowledge at many of the Russian historical articles seems non-existent. --Folantin 17:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: And here you are defending Ben Velvel on the History of Russia talk page, including his use of 19th century sources in Russian in a Featured Article. [14]. --Folantin 17:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

PPS. Thanks for finding this link. I find it so important to be preserved for the record that replaced it with the permanent url that won't expire. This shows the same conduct problems, Folantin. You accuse another editor is no less than "xenophobic views" (literally) and attacked the respected sources on the wholesale basis. I agreed back then and I would agree any time that WP:UNDUE is an issue of a very high priority in any controversial topic but my criticism of your conduct was totally valid and, in view of this repeated occurrence when you resort to attack other editor's character so grievously as accusing them is xenophobia, you have a lot of self-reflection to do. --Irpen 21:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

FA is a lottery but writing great articles is not. One can tell good content from bad content whether the article carries an FA label or not and if you want to become a "jewel editor", invoking your terminology, you better pull out some great articles instead of bad-mouthing editors and/or boasting how well-versed you are in history topics. The latter boasting has zero value, btw, as Essjay case has shown.

The diff you bring this time ([15]) is indeed an unfortunate slip. Still, you manage to misrepresent that one too. Firstly, you are not called there a "Georgian nationalist". This is just not there. The observation of the editor that Russia-related topics are attacked by certain editors whose countries were subjugated by Russia in the past is true and for some examples check Molobo's edits to the History of Russia, Tyutchev, Ded Moroz and even Russian-Japanese War, check Piotrus' edits to Russian Enlightenment or, best yet, Digwuren's edits to Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya (the topic that has no relation to Estonia whatsoever.) It is wrong to mislabel all Estonians, Poles, Georgians, Russians as POV-pushers but editor correctly reports the observation about those from these communities who are POV-pushers. There is nothing we can do about that. You in turn, come to a third-party talk page and attack this editor ruthlessly and the owner of the page does nothing about it. That's my main point. --Irpen 17:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't own this page. I have no control over what people post here and have no more authority on this, my user talk, than I do on the rest of Wikipedia.

In all honesty, I find little sympathy for Miyokan. He's got 4 blocks in the past for disruptive editing, all relating to Russian topics AFAICR, and, Irpen, verifiability does not equate to neutrality. Reviewing the edits the impression I get is of violations of NPOV, WP:SYNTH, and in particular the "undue weight" clause. These are fundamental polices being violated here, and when allied to a blatantly nationalist POV, as you yourself acknowledge, we have a problem. Russia was much, much worse (I'm not sure how much of this is Miyokan's fault, but he must bear some responsibility) until it started copping serious flak at the FAC for glaring POV issues. Even now the sourcing is inadequate and several POV issues remain. It would be a complete waste of my time to try and fix these problems because I know how much resistance I would meet, and I'd rather spend my time sorting out Gluck, where at least I don't have to worry about nationalist edit-warring.

Nor do I have an axe to grind here. Digwuren's ban was deserved (just remembered that I deleted Soviet occupation denialism, didn't he write that?); I was the one who got rid of M.V.E.i; Martintg's attacks on you, Irpen, leave me cold. I didn't take any notice, you needn't have done so either. My personal background leaves me fundamentally disinterested in online Eastern European ethnic warfare, except in terms of the disruption it causes on Wikipedia. A sustained pattern of POV-pushing, such as we're seeing from Miyokan, (yes, if you want diffs, I can provide plenty) can never be justified. You yourself said Miyokan's edits were Russophile. This is a persistent violation of NPOV, which is our most important policy. There's a problem here that needs to be solved. The bias in Miyokan's edits cannot be brushed under the carpet. All this is pretty straightforward stuff, but I guess you're entitled to disagree with me. Either way, see you in less than a month - but please consider what I have said about neutrality in the mean-time. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...}

P.S - I would dispute that the ArbCom isn't functioning. It is - just functioning very badly. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict - reply to Irpen) Right, so an editor assumes massive bad faith about me and I'm supposed not to call him out on his motives. Firstly, you are not called there a "Georgian nationalist". That's sophistry. The implications of what he said are obvious to anyone not blinded by bias. And pointing out the absence of the Chechen War from an article on the "History of Russia equals "boasting how well-versed you are in history topics"? Anybody with the slightest knowledge of the subject could have spotted that glaring omission. You then go on to attack my contribution history, about which you know next to nothing. I never descended to that type of ad hominem with you, Irpen. I used to think you were a pretty decent editor. Obviously national chauvinist brainrot can affect even the best of users. BTW I asked Moreschi to keep an eye on that page because he has a well-known interest in combatting the "nationalist plague". --Folantin 18:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, I never said you have any special "authority over this page". But as an administrator, and especially, the Arbcom candidate, you have a responsibility to react to posts like those by Folantin, wherever they are posted. Accusing fellow editors in xenophobia and "ultra-nationalism" is no small beer. In only few grievous cases this may be justified and Miyokan, jewel or not, gave no excuse to be called such names. Of course you cannot be everywhere and react to every policy violation around. I don't have a problem with that. But when someone uses your talk page to post such stuff and your reaction is not to reprimand the attacker but give him a pat on his shoulder and send him an email of some unknown content, I do have a problem with such reaction.

X-phile editors are part of the Wikipedia reality. It is also a part of an academic reality. The most widely recognized modern historian of Poland, Norman Davies is widely considered to have Polonophile views, a charge he does not even deny. Miyokan's edits do sometimes violate WP:NPOV but so are edits of most everyone and so may even writings of the respected historians, from Davies to Jan T. Gross. I was not closely involved with the current Russia page but reading its talk it is easy to make up one's mind on who acts worse there, the "non-neutral" Miyokan or arrogant Folantin. The problem of possible non-neutrality of even best-sourced edits is a real one and it does need to be solved. I proposed the solution to an ArbCom once but Arbcom is "too busy" to even read the cases they rule on, much less comment on them. Whatever the solution is, it's not what Folantin's was doing at the article's talk and even less what he posts here. --Irpen 21:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Miyokan, jewel or not, gave no excuse to be called such names". He gave plenty of excuse. I'm not messing around protecting the finer feelings of users like that (per WP:SPADE). "...so may even writings of the respected historians, from Davies to Jan T. Gross". Read our policy on WP:V, which both of those historians pass with flying colours. I wrote this only today regarding these edit wars: "[We must] insist on the enforcement of Wikipedia's policies, especially verifiability and reliable sources. Priority must be given to up-to-date sources which have been peer-reviewed and/or issued by respected publishing houses. Ideally, sources should be in English. This is an English-language encyclopaedia and the only language we can rely on all editors having in common is English. References in articles on controversial topics to sources in foreign languages (especially if they are not widely spoken) should be avoided if at all possible. Improving the quality of sourcing will inevitably improve the article". That is what I attempted at History of Russia. My experiences there made me very wary of investing more of my time and energy trying the same thing on Russia. You continue your personal attacks on me (you can't even spell my name correctly). It's been pretty obvious where your sympathies have lain all along. You, a Russophone, will back your fellow Russophones. I don't have to justify my actions to such an "impartial" observer any further. You are part of the problem here. Further discussion would be futile and I consider this conversation at an end. --Folantin 21:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I initially thought of not responding since Folantin claimed to be leaving a party but since he came back after that, I guess he chose to change his mind. First, I apologize for misspelling his username. It was totally unintentional. I corrected that.

As for the rest, English sources have an advantage of course, because they can be checked by more people but so are the online sources. However, insisting on only English sources' being used because others are "inconvenient" is the same as insisting on using the online sources only (because those are also easier to verify). There are plenty of books that are out of print (and I don't mean just the 19th century ones) that are very difficult to get one's hands on to verify, even more difficult than to find someone who knows a foreign language to verify the reference. So, we should use English sources when we can and we should use non-English sources when their usage is warranted. The reputation of the source's author and publisher is all that matters for the source compliance, not the language, and I would use works of Aron Gurevich who, according to the University of Chicago Press, "has long been considered one of the world's leading medievalists and a pioneer in the field of historical anthropology"[16] in articles hundred times over someone's Ph. D. thesis even if the latter is available online and is published just last year. Same applies to old sources. They may be used under specific circumstances and with the due care as I explained multiple times. including in the link I gave above. This discussion belongs elsewhere though. --Irpen 23:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I'd simply feel a good deal more sympathetic if I didn't think mostly everything Folantin is saying is corrent. I'm not a complete blockhead; unlike most admins I am capable of looking at content, and the edits of Miyokan and Ben-Velvel do give me a queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach. The nationalist pro-Russia bias can be smelt a mile off. Why not call a spade a spade? This is flagrant POV editing. It's a much more serious problem than Folantin calling out these people. I'm not especially bothered about what names you call these fellas - can they please just stop infecting Wikipedia with their bias? This is the real problem - why you will not recognise this, I don't know! Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, rather than baselessly scream that I am a POV pusher, show clear examples of where I have displayed "flagrant POV editing". Irpen, I hope you saw my comment in the other topic below, where Moreschi declared that I had turned Russia into a heavily biased pro-Lenin article. Moreschi declared "several instances of shoddy sourcing and peacock language relating to Lenin, a tag here is justifed", [17] and, "I hope our revolution will receive such POV praise as Lenin is given in this miserable article"[18]. Such comments are worrying to say the least, given that the only time Lenin is referred to in the article is, "After Lenin's death in 1924..." and, "While Lenin called for world revolution, Stalin and his supporters began to move away from earlier Bolshevik policies and towards Socialism in one country, which taught that the Soviet Union should aim to build socialism by itself, rather than work for world revolution.". Yes, Lenin certainly is given gushing amounts of praise in that article. This shows a clear assumption of bad faith towards me by Moreschi.--Miyokan 08:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Miyokan, when you put this article up FAC it contained the following statements: "Lenin emphasised the importance of bringing electricity to all corners of Russia and modernising industry and agriculture. He was very concerned about creating a free universal health care system for all, the rights of women, and teaching all Russian people to read and write". The source: Lenin himself. It now contains this (as if there were any difference between Lenin and "the Bolsheviks" up to his death): "The Bolsheviks introduced free universal health care, education and social-security benefits, as well as the right to work and free housing. Women's rights were greatly increased through new political, civic, economic and family codes aimed to wipe away centuries-old inequalities at one stroke. The new government granted women full right to vote, passed divorce and civil laws that made marriage a voluntary relationship, eliminated the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children, enacted employment rights for women equal to those for men, gave women equal pay and introduced universal paid maternity leave. Soviet Russia became the first country in the world with full freedom of divorce, and where abortion was legal." (Women were granted the "full right to vote" in a one-party state? Wow, generous. Maybe we should add a bit about how Lenin and his comrades gave every Soviet citizen their own chocolate teapot too). I will take no further part in the Russia FAC. If it passes, that's just further proof the whole FA process is broken. Russian (or Russophone) users have prevented me from adding NPOV tags to this article. I don't intend to get involved in a futile edit war. The tags aren't really necessary anyway, since the bias is plain to see. --Folantin 08:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the Veropedia logon. Will start getting myself acquainted. Is there a problem uploading articles that meet the criteria but aren't on the "todo" lists? AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

None whatsoever. Pop culture trivia is generally avoided, but encyclopedic material that's not on the lists is more than welcome. Moreschi ^Talk 10:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK red alert!

I see that you may be online or edited within the past hour. DYK is late! Next update is full and ready to go. Help appreciated in moving to the main page. Thank you. Archtransit 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this prestigious Defender of the Wiki Barnstar because you have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 20:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Mail

Read and replied. --Folantin 09:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Pontic Greek Genocide

Hi, could you check this article, the citations that i added are from serious academical works of historians without any pro-Turkish bias at all, Arnold J. Toynbee and Taner Akcam. So that is most definitely not a case of nationalist `plague`..And article has been in this shape for over months..

However that is exactly what these two users, Kekrops and Nikosilver, has been doing in several articles and now in that one. They dont discuss anything, and occasionally show up making unrelated comments or keep repeating the same things giving the impression that they actually participate in the discussion when in fact they dont..

You can see the `debate` in here: Talk:Pontic Greek Genocide# Kekrops

There are other sources as well, seemingly from a non-pro Turkish perspective, about the atrocities of the Greek army in the same period of time:

`The short-sightedness of both Lloyd George and President Wilson seems incredible, explicable only in terms of the magic of Venizelos and an emotional, perhaps religious, aversion to the Turks. For Greek claims were at best debatable, perhaps a bare majority, more likely a large minority in the Smyrna Vilayet, which lay in an overwhelmingly Turkish Anatolia. The result was an attempt to alter the imbalance of populations by genocide, and the counter determination of Nationalists to erase the Greeks, a feeling which produced bitter warfare in Asia Minor for the next two years until the Kemalists took Smyrna in 1922 and settled the problem by burning down the Greek quater..` [19] By C. J. Lowe, M. L Dockrill Published 2002 Routledge ISBN 0415265975-- --laertes d 09:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Policy on tagging

What's the policy on NPOV tags? In other words, are there any rules on who gets to remove them? --Folantin 11:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish there were a policy on NPOV tags. Tagging warfare of all kinds is, as we know, becoming increasingly common, but we have zero policy on this. I remember having a long conversation with Digwuren, of all people, on this. It was about the one thing we agreed on; Wikipedia has to work out a code of practice relating to tagging issues. Something else to add the to "to-do" list. Moreschi ^Talk 12:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, shame. I'm not asking you to get involved in a revert war and reinstate it, because this is a waste of time. It's pretty obvious this guy is misrepresenting his own sources (see talk page for details - it's not just the "Georgian" stuff, you really have to compare the linked reference to get the full flavour of the monkey business going on here). I think any objective reader can see for themselves the blatant bias without needing a tag, so we shouldn't worry too much. There's no way this is an FA. I thought about taking it to GAR, but maybe we should leave it as a Good Article as a testimony to the wonderful effectiveness of the GA crowd ;). --Folantin 12:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

GAR? I should certainly hope not! This is a wonderful stick to beat GA around the head with when the revolution comes! I hope our revolution will receive such POV praise as Lenin is given in this miserable article. Moreschi ^Talk 12:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it your comments about Lenin's alleged glorification in the article hilarious ("several instances of shoddy sourcing and peacock language relating to Lenin", and "I hope our revolution will receive such POV praise as Lenin is given in this miserable article") given that the only time Lenin is referred to in the article is "After Lenin's death in 1924..." and, "While Lenin called for world revolution, Stalin and his supporters began to move away from earlier Bolshevik policies and towards Socialism in one country, which taught that the Soviet Union should aim to build socialism by itself, rather than work for world revolution.". Yes, Lenin certainly is given gushing amounts of praise in that article.--Miyokan 14:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Early Soviet history in limerick form

There was a great Marxist called Lenin,
Who did two or three million men in.
That's a lot to have done in.
But where he did one in,
That grand Marxist, Stalin, did ten in.
(Robert Conquest) --Folantin 14:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protection

Moreschi, please could you (temporarily, if you like) remove the cascading protection from your userpage, I was trying to edit User:Sagaciousuk/Verobox/verofy to make the Veropedia into a plain link, but I couldn't because of your userpage protection. Could you please take it off for a day or two so I can do it? Cheers, Qst (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, als; you may wish to check out User:Qst/Veropedia, I hope you'll reconsider cutting down your editing :) Qst (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Veropedia Request

Please could I have a Veropedia account? My e-mail address is XXX, and I'll (hopefully be able to copy-edit when time allows.

Yours,

microchip08 15:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK update

The DYK update is over 9 hours too old. I have updated the next update (I've done it before). Would you please update immediately from the next update if you are online? Royalbroil 16:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 12:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

3-revert rule

User:Reginmund has violated the 3rr rule at Gilbert and Sullivan both on October 28 and today. Can you help? Thanks! -- Ssilvers 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked him already for 72. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for contributing to the talk page discussion. I don't understand this violet riga person. We have discussed this to death, and what he/she wants to do is basically to put a piece of trivia in the G&S article that is dealt with elsewhere. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 45	5 November 2007	About the Signpost

Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit	WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 3, Issue 46	12 November 2007	About the Signpost

Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far	WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Quandary

Hi, I just read your post on the Talk:India page. I sincerely hope your intervention will help cool things down a little on the India page. One of the big problems, as I see it, is that there is a group of editors, who are out to hype up the contributions of both the Karnataka region of India and the language of that region, Kannada. Part of the quandary for me is that they don't seem to heed Wikipedia policy about reliable secondary sources, and I don't know how to proceed with them. Thus, earlier today, I showed them here, that the authors they want included are not notable (by a long shot) when compared to some other writers who are not mentioned. But they remain unresponsive, feeling perhaps they can make up in numbers what they lack in sources. I asked them if they would consider a Wikipedia mediation, but they didn't go for that either. All these editors: user:Sarvagnya, user:KNM, user:Gnanapiti, and a few others like User:Dineshkannambadi and Amar seem to turn up at the same time on different pages. They have in the past been accused of colluding and at least two of them, user:Sarvagnya and user:Gnanapiti were once asked to not edit the same articles by the presiding administrator at RFCU. In fact, they all appear here on ANI even as I write this. Frankly, I don't know how to proceed, when confronted with this form of herd editing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thespis (opera)

Hi. The Thespis (opera) article has been nominated for promotion to FA. Marc Shepherd and Adam Cuerden have both done a super job with it, and I can't imagine that there could be a better researched encyclopedia article. Please take a look and let us know if you have any comments. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

bad cop

Moreschi, since you seem willing to take a few troll-infested topics by the horns so to speak, how about try your hand at Afrocentrism too. This article is a mess several classes below India at its worst, and attempts to "debate" have proven fruitless for about two years now. dab (𒁳) 14:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus, what a mess. I've read through that now - not much that isn't painfully POV. I can't even begin to count the number of policies this one violates. I haven't had time to check out the users involved and conduct issues, so I don't know as of yet who wrote the worst of the POV nonsense, but I strongly suspect some judicious bans might well be in order. Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:India

Since dab, a well known and respected member of the community, has suggested that I seek your audience on your talk page. Here's the deal:

• You made an inflammatory post on Talk:India which is clearly an intimidation against some of the valued and established long-term contributors of the project.
• My response was challenging the validity of the aggressive comments you left on the talk page of the article.
• ... which was removed by you a few hours later with the edit summary: If you disagree, take it up with the ArbCom. This is common practice and has been used successfully before. There's no question of abuse, since I'll be the one doing the enforcing.
• What I would like to know is, from where have you have derived the validity of and how do you seek to justify admin abuse as a means of settling the dispute?
• Would you like to rethink, in the interest of the project, of your position as an administrator in this case, since you have been involved in India-related disputes as an "uninvolved administrator" for a long time now which highlights, your more-than-peripheral involvement in the dispute.
• My aims and intentions with this dispute are crystal clear – I want a peaceful and amicable dispute resolution in conformity with the policies and the process. Apart from that I would also like to see administrators giving due respect to fellow contributors to the project, rather than using blocks as an illegal and punitive measure against them.
• I am still interested in your response. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • By common courtesy, you should have just refactored NHN's comments, not completely removed them. I understand your anti-nationalism campaign, but honestly, removing another administrator's comments (an administrator who has done lots to fight SPA, trolls and edit warriors on many India-related articles) just because they are in disagreement is in bad taste. This is a discussion and he's allowed to comment on what he thinks is right and wrong. You can't honestly expect that everyone will agree to every rule you proposed. Also, I don't think you should be the one enforcing the rules as indicated in this edit summary. That should be left to uninvolved administrators who do not have previous relations with the editors of the article, or have any biases. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, how are edit summaries like [20] even going to help the situation? Either, block a user for 3RR/edit-warring or don't block at all. Snide comments just escalate tensions, Moreschi. Also, if you have issues with those editors who revert war on a number of articles, take it to ArbCom. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• As far as I know I have no previous experience with any of the editors currently fighting at India. Nor do I have any personal biases as regards the subject matter (don't care two hoots, actually). It's very rich for you pair to have the temerity to lecture me on "being involved" - when I'm the one who doesn't care about the subject matters, nor in this case I have dealt with the editors before (unless Baka and Anwar turn up, in which case it is slightly different. As of now, however, they haven't).
• My post on the talk page was simply a fairly common thing I, and other adminstrators, have been doing for a while now on particularly contentious articles that have a long history of edit-warring over. I have blocked people under such arrangements, in the past, with no protest. When I asked another administrator about his application of virtually identitical rules when dealing with another (non-India-related) nationalist fight that later ended up at ArbCom, he pointed out that not only did the ArbCom know (and where fine about it), but if I may quote: "Don't worry, what we're doing is just a creative application of the rule that edit-warring is disruptive and disruption is blockable. What exactly makes an edit disruptive depends on the situation, and we just provide a few clues to editors about that...".
• Essentially, I suggest you two leave me alone and let me deal with the problem. Clearly, the approach you have been trying for the last couple years, softly-softly, has not worked, so it's time for some new measures. You don't like it, take it up with the ArbCom. I'm not overly attached to my sanity or my adminship - what I do care about it preventing disruption. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If you've seen my contributions, you'd know I don't even get involved in India-related disputes, unless I'm asking to mediate or protect pages. As I told you before, these things won't help, unless you go to ArbCom. Enforcing your own set of rules, as done by others on various other articles, might work as a temporary measure, but it surely won't assist you in the long-term for your crusade against nationalism. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Nothing will ever really get rid of the nationalist plague (actually, I don't think that's the problem here - it's simply unscrupulous editing practices) but something like this, if it institutes a tradition of more thoughtful editing on India, will help that article for sure, and hopefully act as a benchmark for other places. Sure, Big ArbCom Cases might be more appealing in a phallogocentric way, but not necessarily more helpful :) Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well spoken, Moreschi. "Phallogocentric." Now there's a word I haven't seen in a long long time; since my days with the Lacan-Derrida crowds of long ago! Just stopping by, nothing on my mind. Cheers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 00:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nicolas-François Guillard

Since you're working on Gluck, can you have a look at this? Someone created a stub on him and I worked it up, but it's unsourced and needs checking. Cheers. --Folantin 10:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the useful things about Grove is how remarkably librettist-friendly it is. I'll add another para later, so at least we'll have a decent short article. Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Banned from Afrocentrism and talk page

Please see here. If you reject the efforts of good-faith editors to compromise and reduce edit-warring, I have little choice, and seeing as virtually all your edits involve pushing the same POV, I have little sympathy either. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Where are the instances of my POV pushing at Afrocentrism? You've made a charge. Substantiate it. Point them out. I don't want your sympathy. I expect you to act as a responsible admin. deeceevoice 20:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through your edits and can quite clearly detect a recognizable POV pattern behind them all (not just to Afrocentrism). Seeing as you won't accept the 1RR everyone else has signed up to, there's no point letting you filibuster on the talk and waste time on the article any more. I'm not really in the mood for arguing this, so if you don't like it, try ANI. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You're making excuses for a completely wrong-headed and precipitous act that is completely without justification. It's a simple request. You've charged me with POV pushing at Afrocentrism and imposed a rather drastic penalty. It's perfectly reasonable to expect you to provide the diffs that caused you to come to such a decision. This has nothing to do with your "mood." I couldn't care less about your mood. I find your comments here unresponsive, high-handed, arrogant and totally off the wall. What is at issue here is your responsibility as an admin to justify your actions. Do it. deeceevoice 21:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I've got so many wikidramas boiling around my head I don't have time to deal with your tedious wikilawyering. Your incivility and tendentious talkpage time-wasting are quite clear for all to see, as are your attempts to insert as much of your own opinion as you can get away with. You don't like it, try ANI. I'll provide diffs there if I absolutely have to. Right now, I'm trying to write articles in between wikidramas, which is enough of a chore as it is without you wasting your time, and mine, on this page. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

How did you find out about the edits you reported for deeceevoice? Did another user ask you to take a look at the page? I'm sorry if it seemed like I was accusing you of anything at the notice board --I just think it's better to say up-front when you are involved. So, that leads me to wonder how you decided to single out those edits as problematic? I think that there were other users who might deserve a report on incivility. What do you think? futurebird 03:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Advice

I think that maybe they have archived the discussions on Deeceevoive and Dbachmann prematurely. I don't think that this was the intention, but I, feel as though I'm being "shut down" and left out in the cold with my questions and very real concerns unanswered. I'm really angry about the way that this whole thing has turned out because the double standard seems so blatant and clear. Deeceevoive and Dbachmann were both rude and both (almost) broke 3RR, but deeceevoice is banned for a YEAR and the concerns about Dbachmann are dismissed shortly after they are posted. It's absurdly unfair in my eyes. It's not helping that Dbachmann was also rude to me and implied that I was a troll. I work really hard to make constructive edits and to respond to others with respect. I don't know how anyone could mistake my edits for trolling.

But, maybe I'm not seeing the entire picture. So, I'll start by asking you for some advice: What can I do to draw attention to this unfairness and have it addressed in some way? I feel that I need to do something because otherwise it's hard for me to maintain faith in this project and work with the other users here. I hope that made sense. -- futurebird (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Bubonic fun

I've really enjoyed your stuff on the plague. Given all the magnificent material here for me to interest myself in, it's quite something that your own original observations kept me engaged so long!

I guess one thing I wanted to offer, is that some of the most fascinating and enlightening things I've discovered on Wikipedia have been nationalistic sentiments, nationalistic myths or even informative nationalistic perspectives. These aberrations themselves can be quite educational! Sometimes even more so than facts. And when someone knows how to wield Wikipedia properly, they have the opportunity, not just to look stuff up to access the dominant radical's perspective, but to get a sense of the whole of the political backdrop of the subject itself, by examining the edit history. Glass is half empty when we note that there is little Wiki info on Chrysostomos of Smyrna, but it overflows when we investigate the backdrop of the void.

So cheers! Enjoyed your observations. DBaba (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm glad to know people are reading this essay - when I blow my brains out I shall, it seems, have the comfort of knowing I left at least one thing of value behind to the world. You are absolutely right about the educational value of nationalist fanaticism from a sociological viewpoint (quite apart from the entertainment value). If Wikipedia achieves nothing else it will certainly at least have added to the store of humanity's collective self-knowledge of the human psyche - even if it fails as an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia as the great explorer of the subconscious? Oh, so that's what Jimbo meant all along :) Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Homeopathy#Canvassing

Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

dcvoice and molag

No wonder you're on my soapbox. Burn the red tape. Will ^(talk) 13:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This means a lot, this does, coming as comfort right in the middle of storms and tempests with an apparently effortless ability to multiply themselves. Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is true that we need more admins who don't take shit from trolls, such as you. And Elaragirl said she'd be unsuitable for adminship... Will ^(talk) 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan

Hello, Moreschi. The blocked editor has violated the 3-revert rule again. Would you please take a look? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked him for a month yesterday, and that's his final block before we remove him permanently from the scene. He's showing an almost limitless appetite for fighting over trivialities, which we just can't have - for one thing it's disruptive, and for another intensely boring. Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 47	19 November 2007	About the Signpost

An interview with Florence Devouard	Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals"	News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: History
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address

To make a long story short, I just discovered Veropedia and immediately went to see if "Gettysburg Address" made the cut - and it's your FA. Nice! Does that mean I might be welcome as a contributor there? Kaisershatner (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK!!!

Resolved

Thanks, anyway! Archtransit (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK is way overdue. It has been 13 hours since last update. That means one complete cycle has been missed and the next cycle late. Please help. I saw that you edited recently so I am contacting you. I am contacting more than one person due to the extreme lateness ! Red alert! Thank you.Archtransit (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Mail

Not that urgent (with the possible exception of one bit). --Folantin (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Brief reply. --Folantin 16:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Watchlist-details

I've updated your formating here some, making it a bit less <strong>, adding bullets, and removing whitespace. When adding a new message to that page, there is a COOKIE_ID counter to increment, when changed it will reset the [dismiss] option. While this is an interesting new contest, I think the all bold was overwhelming. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, much obliged. I'm quite the technofool, so I really do appreciate your help. On my first try I managed to wipe out the bar down the side...Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist advert

You may be interested in this village pump discussion regarding your message in the watchlist. Lurker (said · done) 16:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding User:Moreschi/If

Hi, I've listed User talk:Moreschi/If at MFD over concerns it breaks WP:UP#NOT. Sorry for not discussing with you before listing it, I wasn't aware that was the etiquette. -Halo (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If I had two heads like you, Zaphod, I could have hours of fun bashing them against a brick wall...

Arrrgggh, for crying out loud, this is sooo petty. Please excuse my frustration, but really. How many people do we know who won't contribute to Wikipedia because they fear their good work can get so easily trashed? Surely anything that counteracts that feeling is A Good Thing. Wikipedia articles get improved, get stable, get reviewed. How is this a bad thing? This is all entirely related to Wikipedia, massively beneficial for Wikipedia - and I get told I'm spamming. I don't even have a financial stake in Veropedia. Why am I not getting paid to edit?

All I'm asking is that you measure up the pros and cons of this as it affects the encyclopedia. IAR exists for a reason...Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider changing your signature, and just linking to the subpage from your main userpage or something like that? As things are, it seems kind of spammy, even if your intent is good. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do change your signature; WP:CANVASS footnote 1 points out the community consensus against using signatures to link to wikipedia discussions, and I think the principle is equally applicable to this link in your signature. GRBerry 15:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I thought it was odd and a bit of an annoyance to go through an extra page when trying to reach your talk page. Just an idea. futurebird (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Resolved

Thanks. Archtransit (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK is 10 hours late, which is almost 2 cycles missed. I;ve moved hooks to the next update. Can you help and place them on the main page? Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

DYK is late. Can you help? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 48	26 November 2007	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you take a look and give a hand?

Talk:San Diego Natural History Museum. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Critical Reader.

Thanks, ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK backlogged again

Hi, Template talk:Did you know backlogged six hours (a full cycle), your attention would be appreciated. Benjiboi 22:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom table with portfolio links

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I took the arbcom links from User:Moreschi/Statement and put them in the table. However, they don't really show good arbitration or conflict resolution skills. Do you have anything to show in that field? — Sebastian 22:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)

Callmebc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Good evening, Moreschi. I have received a private request to look into your block of the above user, who you indefinitely blocked last week. I understand that he has been particularly abusive, but could you outline some of the situation around your decision to implement this final block?

The user's particular concerns seem to be that there was insufficient discussion undertaken prior to this block on a long-standing editor (of course, I disagree with this point - there's no doubt that BC has been a disruptive contributor). Cheers, Anthøny 17:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems he's been banned - there was an AN thread concerning this. The consensus there, which certainly reflected my own opinion, was that this chap was not capable of editing collaboratively, and his contributions seemed to consist largely of edit-warring, POV-pushing and uncooperative editing on a pretty narrow range of topics. Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Bactoid

Hey, there. Just wondering if you'd care to comment on this user's current unblock request. They're claiming a "friend" got access to their computer. Seems a bit odd that said friend would find their way to ArbCom elections, so quickly, but there is some history of contribution on the account, so I figured I'd ask for your input. Thanks in advance. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Left a note on his talk page. Thanks for posting here. Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Given your previous interest, you might like to know there's a new development. – Luna Santin (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Apparently you know something that I don't. Have you been spreading the false rumour that I was associated with the Investigations list, or are we being trolled? Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We're being trolled. I know full well that you were not associated with wpinvestigations-1, nor with cyberstalking to the best of my knowledge. The list I gave to a few people of the investigations membership list, that somehow then wound up on Wikipedia Review (I can only assume that this is what happened, and I'm very slightly annoyed about this), did most certainly not have your name on it! Apologies for the inconvenience. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And I've blocked the trolling IP. Some people never learn, do they...Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

user: Aynabend

Hi, Could you please have a look at this: [[21]] Thank you in advance. --Aynabend 07:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration: notification

I've placed a request Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration#Matthew Hoffman for an Arbitration case, in the matter of User:MatthewHoffman, in which you would be a party. Charles Matthews 08:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann at arbcom

I noticed that you commented on this case. I think you should also mention your involvement in the case: that is, your involvement in getting deeceevoice blocked. I'd jump in and say something myself, but I thought it'd be better if you did it so it won't come across like an attack. I just think it's best for everyone to know what stakes are involved and keep things out in the open. futurebird 15:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Veropedia question

At WP:MILHIST, we're bouncing around some ideas regarding the potential for closer cooperation with Veropedia; since you've been fairly prominently involved with it, I was hoping you might be able to offer some comments on this discussion (or might at least know whom we should ask). Thanks! Kirill 16:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Mail

Might be of interest. --Folantin 09:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK backlog

If you are free, it would be great to update WP:DYK. I would do it myself, but I still don't understand the process and with articles in the running, I don't want to fall into a conflict of interest. Thanks. Tiamut 14:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 21:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 49	3 December 2007	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner	Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open
Possible license migration sparks debate	Featured articles director names deputy
Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed	WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay"
News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: LGBT studies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about Veropedia

Hi, from what I've heard and seen, Veropedia seems a good idea. The way I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong) articles are edited here at Wikipedia then uploaded there if they meet the Veropedia quality standards. Are the Veropedia policies identical to Wikipedia policies regarding content like NPOV, MOS, NOT etc.? Thanks, James086^{Talk | Email} 13:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Bradley Joseph

Hi, when you took out fair use sound prepping for Vero upload, it created a few red errors in ref links so I fixed them, and just moved the first instance used for the refs. But I wanted to let you know in case you need the most updated version. Thanks for all you do. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kind words. No apology is necessary. It was no problem, I knew what you were doing, and for such a worthy cause, and well worth the wait. Your contributions are invaluable. Cheers! ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Hey, Moreschi, I noticed DYK's fallen about a day behind where it really should be, so try, if possible, to get the updates as close to on-schedule today as possible, so we can work through the large (but worthy) November 30th, which needs at least one more update after this one to clear of the worthy noms, and start trying to get back to speed. I'd do it myself, but, well, have an essay to write, and it's a pretty slow thing to update. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

I'm baffled by this edit and your edit summary. Can you explain what you are doing? --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you help move some artricles?

An old friend of ours (Nrswanson) has been creating all caps titled articles: Coloratura Soprano, Spinto Soprano, and Dramatic Soprano. Would it be possible to move them to Coloratura soprano etc.? Thanks if you have time. -- Kleinzach (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Serbian nationalism

Hi, I read your "Plague" article, and was wondering if you can tell me what to do about this situation. I recently reverted a couple of mildly nationalistic edits by User:Србија до Токија on the Kosovo War page. I then took a look at his user page, and I've never seen anything quite so militant on Wikipedia. In case you're not up to speed on your Serbian, his user name translates to "Serbia to Tokyo", which is a 1990's era far-right slogan. While I understand that users have rights to free expression, some of the userboxes on his page (especially the one equating the Albanians and the KLA with terrorists) seem to cross the line to personal attacks. Is there anything that can be done about this? Thanks a lot! Dchall1 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Christ. That is pretty bad. Well, perhaps we should count our blessings. At least he's spelled out his POV beautifully for us. Wikipedia educates the world? Yes, one clueless nationalist at a time...(quoting Dbachmann). It never gets better, does it?

More concretely, I think it's probably best to leave the userboxes alone. This may be painful, but I think we will find them useful. I'll keep my eyes open and...ah, see what I can do :) Cheerio! Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Veropedia edit

For the record, I consider this type of editing to be unacceptable. Wikipedia content should not be substantially altered in the interest of third party websites.--Eloquence* 21:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ask me if I care two furry fucks. How many Wikipedia articles have I fixed this way? 50? Added references? Cleaned up bad fair use? Fixed the spelling? Copyedited? Fixed dabs? Removed broken links? And what thanks do I get? You wasting your time and mine. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a legitimate edit to me. Removing Fairuse material should be encouraged. We /are/ a free-content encyclopedia after all. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Moreschi's right, and ^demon's affirmation of his stance is right too. Sorry Erik, you're quite wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Haute-contre

As you may have noticed, I've been doing a bit of work lately on alto and countertenor. I've now had a go at haute-contre - what do you think?--voxclamans (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Love it

[22] You've got the idiom down! Marvellous! (I do enjoy your periodic updates to that page. They're usually spot on, too.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 50	10 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia dragged into German politics over Nazi images	Wales comments on citing Wikipedia produce BBC correction
WikiWorld comic: "Kilroy was here"	News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Greater Manchester
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

veropedia

Hi Moreschi, very long time no chat. :-)

Who gets the money Veropedia makes?

No, I mean, who really gets it? I eat little two-dollar lunchboxes for most noon meals. I live in a dorm for teachers. I work my tail off... for free ... and is someone getting a nice cushy paycheck from the sweat of my brow? Got tax forms to prove they aren't? Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To date the question is really moot, because Veropedia has only been a financial drain on myself and a couple of my close friends who have supported me in this endeavor. Total earnings? Considerably less than one dollar. That is intended to pay for our server, contest, legal fees for registration of the tm, etc. For information about where the money will go if it starts making money, why not check our FAQ? Danny (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Many entrepreneurs are willing to eat a loss during the startup phase ("take the risks involved to undertake a business venture"). If Veropedia is for-profit, then there are zero-point-zero legal restrictions against someone pulling down a fat paycheck, should it become popular. That would be legal, but immoral. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Veropedia is being run off the backs of volunteers who believe in the project, mainly because they feel that Wikipedia is engaging in some legal but immoral acts of its own. I somehow suspect that if Danny started trying to make money out of it, all Veropedians would all immediately jump ship once more onto the next Veropedia until we find a perfect system. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Having met Danny in real life, and experiencing first-hand his extraordinary devotion to the project, the passion and enthusiasm he brings to it, and his desire first of all to bring a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia to the world, all I have to add is that there is no way he is intending to use the volunteer labor of the contributors for his own financial gain. You are free to believe me or not -- but here I am willing to assume the best of faith, for one of the best of people. Paraphrasing La Rochefoucauld: it is more dishonourable to be suspicious than to be deceived. You're in good hands folks. Antandrus (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that Veropedia has the for-profit status for legal reasons, so that it can get revenue from ads, which are used to keep the servers running. It would be great to have some sort of confirmation from Danny about this. Caveat: I'm a Veropedia contributor too, mostly in name only. --Kyoko 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Trust, but Verify. That means legal docs (esp. tax docs), not shinyhappy wordses. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's already a number of companies making money off wikipedia's content without giving anything back - googling "User:WilyD" I can find a host of companies mirroring my own userpage in a for profit context with ads hereherehere and so on - mainspace pages considerably more. Beyond that - Veropedia is a new company, so it has not (I believe) filed any tax forms yet, having not been around for a tax cycle. If you concern is that companies are making money off of Wikipedia, they are, yeah. It is, actually, part of the point of free content. WilyD —Preceding comment was added at 18:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Counter-tenor

Hello, At your suggestion I have removed the video links to Youtube, but would be grateful for some legal advice about this. Come to think of it, if it is OK, it would surely be everywhere on Wiki already! Hope you got the e-mail I sent to your googlemail address All best, Nick--voxclamans (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Imcompa

Can you have a second look at this unblock request? It comes from an IP you've hardblocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Shrug. Your call. The IP was absolutely Hkelkar, and he does have a limited number of IPs (hence the lengthy block). The user really doesn't look like him - I can only suggest a shared IP, perhaps university accommodation? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI on BC

this is a valid complaint. How is that disruption and indef blockable? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Because he's not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia, is he? Oh, and hadn't you noticed that is very evidently a sockpuppet? Gets to ANI using diffs perfectly on first edit? Come off it. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

He probably is someone else, but his complaint is valid, so his edit is legit, you come off it. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As an outside view, I'll say this: The block does not appear to be a valid block. The users first edit was to ANI, yes, however the user was clearly making a valid complaint. The fact that you consider a valid complaint "disruptive" (which you must otherwise the block would not have been issued) reflects very negatively on your judgment as an administrator. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll add here that, even if the account is an alternate account (formerly a sockpuppet), that wouldn't necessarily justify the block either, per current WP:SOCK policy. Per the WP:SOCK that existed before a few weeks ago, this block would be utterly unjustifiable per a sockpuppetry claim. --Philosophus ^T 15:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Since when did I ever read policy? I'm astounded by the lack of common sense here, and the sheer quantity of knives out for Betacommand. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

CM, this discussion is not about getting the knives out for Betacommand. This is about the fact that some of us have been trying for a while to ensure that people can choose to make dangerous comments without compromising their other on-wiki work. This sort of block doesn't help that. (I share your disdain for policy-wonking, but the fact is that policy has become increasingly important over the past two years, and us ordinary writers can't ignore it any more when it is increasingly written by, and becomes a tool for, pushers of marginal POVs.) Relata refero (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I am prepared to remove the block on Lurkington, to make it clear that a block of even a SPA for making a valid complaint is not appropriate. I do not want to continue the drama over this unnecessarily, perhaps it would be simpler if you unblocked the account yourself. DGG (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Shrug. I don't care either way, since I'm quite sure that account, having served its sole purpose, will not edit again. If you want to unblock I'm not going to wheel-war, since my block has served its purpose as well. We've lost no encyclopaedic contributions, I'm certain of that. If you want to make this pointless procedural gesture, go ahead. I could not care less. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan

A recent discussion that you contributed to is being recycled on the talk page. Please take a look. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 51	17 December 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication
Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed	Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee
Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge	WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam"
News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Plants	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

It's overdue and I see you may be online. Would you move the next updates to the main page? I added a hook to fill it. Disclaimer: I have no DYK hooks pending, just helping out. Archtransit (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM

Can you please, take a look at this [23]? Generalizing all people of one ethnicity as having a "bazaar mentality". I am not sure how many times do people, contributing at their own free leisure and time, must get insulted this way, before AE takes action on User:VartanM and User:TigranTheGreat's disruptive attacks along ethnic lines. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

One should take a look at your words calling the entire people of Nagorno Karabakh puppets of Armenia. VartanM (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, you went as far as reporting the mediator to ANI. Thats gotta be a first on AA history. VartanM (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Chaps, attacking an ethnicity is only indirectly a violation of Wikipedia policy, but it's annoying and not something we want to see too much more of (Wikipedia ain't a soapbox either).

Arbitration enforcement is getting stupidly clogged up with your battles. At the moment it ain't all really working, I think you'll both agree. Perhaps we need a new approach. Here's an idea. I'll be full-time mediator and admin-enforcer to the Armenia-Azeri fights for a fortnight. If you accept, fine. If so, however, we're going to have work out a system whereby I get told where the latest fights are breaking out, because I haven't got every single Armenia-Azeri article listed. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, I agree with you. But this is another attack [24]. I am not sure why VartanM is so angry and is trying to attack everyone, but if he believes someone is some Adil (before he assumed several others, including me, being Adil too), he needs to calm down and file a checkuser, instead of generalizing people along ethnic or personal lines. His statements about Ehud Lesar are really demeaning. Atabek (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, that Ehud is Adil isn’t even a matter of belief but confirmation. We brought it up during the last arbitration and it was ignored. Some of Ehud’s theories are specific to Adil. It should be noted that Adil registered another Jewish name the same month Ehud was registered, and Ehud resumed editing only after the other account of claimed Jewish origin was blocked.

Ehud is always there the same day conflicts happen and right on target at the right articles. Who besides the Azerbaijani lobbyists like Adil Baguirov call Khojaly a genocide? Who besides Adil here had claims over Sevan, positions not even addressed by Grandmaster, not that I recall, while such questions were brought forth by Adil.

So again, Atabek’s claims of another attack are baseless, Francis was the one suspecting him at first, and it is no secret that everyone who has seen Ehud contributing is 100% sure it is Adil. Vartan should not be blamed for the arbitration committee’s refusal to even study the case of Ehud. Tell me what should be done there. - Fedayee (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, I don't believe your name was mentioned anywhere in my report. So may we know why you're a participant in this thread if not for engaging in battles along national lines? Again, instead of endless conspiracy theories about Adil and Ehud being the same person, it's much simpler to just assume a good faith and file a checkuser. Otherwise, since all of you are always involved in same threads and pages shall we claim that you're VartanM, Andranikpasha, Steelmate, MarshallBagramyan or maybe even, banned Artaxiad with his 34 confirmed socks? I would think that checkuser is a more constructive and professional approach. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Callmebc at WP:ANI

Moreschi, since you blocked User:Callmebc last, would you consider my requirements at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_of_Callmebc reasonable? I doubt he'll agree to that last one but what the hell. I think I'm being too nice but then again, I don't know how crazy he's been. Frankly, I'm too much of softie some days. =\ -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Commented at ANI. Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc

I've started a discussion about unblocking Callmebc, per a discussion I've had via email with him. There's a thread here which you, as a blocking admin, might want some input in. --Haemo (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Commented at ANI. Thanks for letting me know. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dbachmann ArbCom

Ok, noted. Kirill 16:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

De-TWINKLE

I don't think that was necessary. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

oh, nice...you protect it so I can't readd. Real mature. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not strictly necessary, but it's surely better than being blocked, no? Besides, you really weren't using TWINKLE appropriately - save it for the obvious vandals next time, please. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the protection is for 96 hours only. I think this beats having an ugly scar in your block log. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would have taken the block...that way I would have TWINKLE when I got back....but I will take it.

I like it when the user is "experienced", it isn't vandalism. JPG-GR was linking to a website that wasn't even close to correct (wbxxb95.com and the station is on 104.9) and he had the station listed as owned by Cumulus Broadcasting. The FCC license said CapStar, which is a licensee of Clear Channel Communications. The website even had the Clear Channel logo. So, when I seen that, I considered it vandalism. Even if the station was called "Mix 104.9", it didn't matter. Everything he added to the page after the fact would be considered vandalism as well. We can't tell what is and isn't.

I tagged him with a Warn2 (since he should know better Warn1 was too petty) and because he should know better than to add crap like that, he reverted and I tagged him with a Warn3, he reverted a third time and I tagged him with a Warn4 and a 3RR warning. The 3RR warning, believe it or not, because I didn't want him to go over that "4 revisions and you're out" line. He reported me to 3RR...and I get punished? That one bothers me. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

But it's not vandalism, is it? If he's wrong, prove it to him on the talk page. Discuss. Don't just flat revert right up to the electric fence of 3RR and hand out these stupid little templates with an mock-rollback tool that's supposed to be saved for vandals. Oh, and that fair use rationale isn't good enough, either, so you can stop using TWINKLE to revert BCBot there. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would, honestly I would. But when I post to his talk page, it is instantly archived. Take a look. So, I know if I post anything, it isn't going to get answer. I could, yes, post on his talk page asking "why do you have this station listed as Cumulus when it is owned by Clear Channel" and "what proof besides the website do you have that the station is carrying this branding". But what do I do when my questions go unanswered (which I completely figured they would) and he continues to revert? Yeah, that isn't assuming good faith, and that is a "bad mark" on me. But honestly, what would I have done?

Also, I reverted that just before you ix nayed TWINKLE. BetaCommand and I have some problems over the F-URs. He doesn't like the way I do mine and refuses to explain how they are to be done. So, I don't know what to tell ya there. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you leave bile-filled personal attacks on his talk page, to complement the silly warning templates, he will archive them instantly. Good for him. I recommend staying civil and using the article talk page.

Re your fair use rationales - they aren't detailed enough by half. Have a chat to Riana, she's quite good about these. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Last check Riana had left Wiki. :(

The comments I left JPG....I wouldn't call them "bile-filled" or "attacks", I call it me being really pissed off. Especially at a user that should know better and since he checks and double checks everything, he should have caught that. If he see it and switched it to Cumulus anyway, that, in my opinion, is vandalism. But again, what do I know.

Also, would you mind adding Popups back? I can't tag anyone or revert with popups. I actually just use them to see what an edit is without click on the page. Make things ALOT easier. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No will do, you can just revert or tag manually for 96 hours. 'Twill do you no harm whatsoever. Now, vandalism. As far as I can make out, this gentleman you're arguing with is acting in good faith - ergo not vandalism. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I kinda figured, no worries. As far as JPG-GR is concerned, I can't agree that he was acting in good-faith. With the history him and I have here, there is no way I can say whether he is acting in bad faith or good. That is a bad mark on me because I am not assuming good faith, but with him, I can't. His actions sometimes make me wonder if he is acting in good faith or not. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely comfortable with allowing Neutralhomer to revert at all, even without the use of "tools." The tools just aided his blind reverting. The reverting itself is what's disruptive. Metros (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

My only comment on the matter - I have no intention to communicate on my talk page with someone who (a) trolls my edits, (b) blindly reverts despite explanations to support edits, (c) "templates" me as if I'm a n00b, and (d) most importantly, has a lovely yellow bar on his own talk page that says any comments by myself will be instantly deleted. Any discussion regarding edits in articlespace can take place on articlespace talk pages. JPG-GR (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes Metros, let's treat the editors like they haven't a clue what they are doing. If you don't want me to have TWINKLE or anything else, take it up with WP:AN. But I don't think you can take the "undo" link away from a user completely.

JPG, that nice yellow bar is there in direct response to your "insta-archiving" of anything (snarky or polite) I add to your talk page. If you want to talk to me, I will gladly take you name down from that. Also, if you don't want me to "treat you like a n00b" as you put it, then don't treat me like one either. I think we have been here about the same length of time, so we are in no way n00bs. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see Riana has put the popups back. There's more mercy in the one corner of her heart that concerns itself with Wikipedia than in all of my pit of darkness - you should bless her clemency thankfully, as I don't think you really appreciate when you've got it good. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick question re: WBXX (FM)

Thank you, Moreschi. Now, here's the question - should I wait 24 hours to be safe before updating the info in the article as reflected on their website, or am I good to do so now?

(I figure it's best to wait the 24 hours, but if outdated information can be corrected safely, why wait? I've already heard NH's opinion on the matter, but I don't exactly go to him for interpretation of policy). Thanks again. JPG-GR (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, wait 48, and discuss on the talk page before that. Just my approach :) Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I said 30 hours, but 48 works. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Olive Branch in the Shredder

I extended an olive branch to JPG-GR and, of course, my post went unanswered and was "insta-archived". I think you see why I don't bother talking to him. It does no good. It is pointless to have a one-way conversation. Ya can't blame me for trying though.

So, I ask, what do I do? You suggested talking to him. I tried (with olive branch in hand) and it was archived. What do I do? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Forget about it, accept not all people accept apologies within a short time of the offense, move on? Plenty of other people to talk to/articles to edit. ;) You did your part, and that's the best you can do. (sorry for the talkpage hijack) ~ Riana ⁂ 22:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Use the article talk page. If I were him I wouldn't want to talk to you either, really. Judging by your talk page he can't talk to you. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Keeping a comment up on your talk page that says you'll delete any of his posts doesn't instill much reason for him to keep your comments either. Metros (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You all have a point. But like I said, that was in direct response to him doing what he is doing. I think I am going with Riana on this one. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just do what Riana tells you to do, to the letter, and then you can't possibly go wrong! Crikey! Now, peace and quiet here for a bit please! Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Jewish apostasy

Hi Moreschi. I noticed that after closing the AfD, you also deleted JE material as non-reliable. I guess I'm a bit concerned about how you're wearing two hats here, as both adjudicating admin and as editor. Since I think JE is often reliable and useful, I think there may be a chilling effect on my/our editing there if the closing admin pronounces JE as unreliable. Do you know what I mean? I don't want to try to use JE in a manner that may now appear as confronting the AfD conclusion. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not bound by precedent. Good thing to remember that, for everyone.

My problem with JE is this - it's outdated scholarship and, almost by virtue of definition, hopelessly POV. Exactly the same problems beset Britannica 1911 and and the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913. These things are not good enough to use for Wikipedia. The JE also appears way too Jew-centric to be of much use even in simple biography, reading through its take on Martin Luther. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the 21st century. We should use up-to-date, reasonably modern and neutral sources that are not hideboud by the prejudices of our grandfathers. That's quite apart from the factual inaccuracies these things tend to have, and either way, the JE article the WP article was based on was awful. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, which I appreciate. But are you expressing WP:RS policy or your own assessment? You also didn't address my main concern, which is about whether it's better to stay clear of editorial content judgments when closing an AfD. Be well. HG | Talk 23:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the keep and rename bit was in line with consensus - the stubify bit was largely my own invention, but then I'm a very rouge admin. We must have something in policy about these geriatric sources, surely...Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what Moresci says here has been the general consensus at the RS noticeboard. These sources can be used, but only very carefully. In this case, the old JE definition of the terms could be demonstrated not to be appropriate any longer. 05:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden

In the interests of moving forward, I have made a rather long post on the Talk:Rachel Marsden page. It is my hope that you (and others) will participate in the discussion. Thanks. Victoriagirl (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I've had intended to address your edit summary in which you describe a "massive edit war". Although this is correct, I believe a review of the participants is warranted. One side opposes the inclusion of information garnered from the a news story in a reliable source, The Toronto Star. This side is composed of:

• 70.68.151.228 (talk · contribs) (single purpose account with a history stretching back to 21 December 2007)
• 208.77.91.8 (talk · contribs) (a user since 8 October 2007, with a rather troubled history)
• Republicon (talk · contribs) (single purpose account with a history beginning at 18:35, 23 December 2007 - 31 minutes after 70.68.151.228 reached the 3RR limit. I add that 70.68.151.228 has not been heard from since).

Those who appear to promote the inclusion include:

• Church of the Sub-Genie (talk · contribs) (a single purpose account with a history stretching back to 21 December 2007)
• Jossi (talk · contribs) (a multi-purpose account with a history beginning 16 April 2004)
• Vancouver dreaming (talk · contribs) (a multi-purpose account with a history stretching back to 13 July 2007)
• and myself, (Victoriagirl (talk · contribs), a multi-purpose account dating from 20 March 2006).

I believe these facts to be of some relevance - and, therefore, wanted this information to be recorded. Victoriagirl (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Due to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden, there are some extra complexities here that need working through. I think we can all take a break from this article for Christmas, but then quite a lot of thought, tact, and care will be needed. It's worth noting, by the way, that although Arthur Ellis is banned historically his edits to this article appear to have been OK. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence on Adil's sockpuppetry

Hi Moreschi, I have collected some evidence that Adil = Ehud, here you go [25]. I started adding the evidence, I will be adding more depending on how much you request if this is not enough. I am really amazed that no one sees anything in Adil's game. The reason I don't want to add all the evidences at once is that, from experience, I know it won’t even be read. - Fedayee (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The return of sm565/Orion4

User:sm565, whom you indeffed for disruption on the homeopathy page, and who later returned as checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet User:Orion4, is continuing to disrupt Talk:Homeopathy as IP address 74.73.146.24. The connection between the IP and both these accounts is made obvious from these two diffs:[26][27]. Not sure what you feel like doing about this, given the current climate regarding blocks of disruptive SPAs, but I felt I should bring it to your attention. Skinwalker (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for a week. I rather doubt this will get me desysopped, though you do never know these days. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard thread

Hi there is a thread on the admin noticeboard here, which involves a discussion of unblocking an IP you blocked. Addhoc (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Shrug. My block of the IP was perfectly normal. I'm a bit dubious about blocking Irishguy, though: if the IP's edits weren't vandalism they were certainly bloody close. If you want to unblock them both, couldn't care less. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As it happens, completely agree, the IP should have been blocked. I'll unblock both accounts, because that seems the easiest way of unblocking Irishguy. Thanks again! Addhoc (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

SSP

Hi. In this you referred to checkuser evidence. Can you state something about it here: Wikipedia:SSP#User:M.V.E.i.? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Faking logs comment

Hi Moreschi. I noticed the "faking logs" comment at the request for arbitration. Where was the discussion about that? From what I've seen on-wiki (not really getting involved in off-wiki stuff), there was an old comment from September 2006 that Tony hasn't denied or admitted to (instead not being able to remember what happened) and a more recent comment referring back to that, which stirred up old wounds. Faking logs is easy to do. What is needed, if you want to go down that route, is to assess the reliability of the source of the logs. Carcharoth (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't really say anything about this at the moment. I haven't got enough info, though I'm looking for more, and some of this will need to come out on-wiki if Tony isn't going to get lynched for stuff he may not have said. What a mess!

All this off-wiki nonsense, is, however, only relevant as far as reputations and drama are concerned. The on-wiki silliness is rather more serious and there certainly is enough there to warrant further digging. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Careful not to get bitten by anything while digging. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That rather reminds of a line from Irvine Welsh's Trainspotting: "He's the kind ay cunt thit mugs cunts, no gits mugged fae thum". Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 52	26 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wales appoints six arbitrators	Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Plants
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to tell...

...because someone (I think) interrupted your comment, but if you were the person who brought the Tom Lehrer humor to WP:AN, congrats! That was pretty cool. Made me laugh, anyway. MookieZ (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye, that was me. Good old Lehrer - complete quotefarm, right saying for every occasion :) Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection of Neutralhomer/monobook.js

He's asked me, saying the protection hasn't expired, and since I don't know anything about this and you made the protection I'm deferring this to you. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel was away, so I asked another user that was available and the monobook is unprotected now. Take Care to you both...NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert parole for Ehud Lesar

Dear Moreschi, thanks for your post on my user page. While I understand how complicated it might be for administrators to mediate between regular users, I'd still like to ask you for clarification on putting me on revert parole. What specific Wikipedia rules do I seem to have violated? As far as I know I've always assumed good faith with all of the Wikipedia users; never insulted anyone, never broke any Wikipedia editing rules, etc. All of the so called "evidence" users Fedayee, Tigran and Eupator have been posting on various pages do not have any grounds. All of the mentioned log-ins at/near/after/before user Adil Bagirov's posts/log ins on Wikipedia, all of his travelling information, his views cannot be taken as anything. All of the users have to start at some point in time by creating an account, editing, contributing. If today you have a number of Armenian and Azerbaijani, Jewish, Russian, American editing/reverting/starting the very same articles. It shouldn't mean they are all related just because they log in and contribute a few minutes later, a few hours later, a few days later, should it? Again, Moreschi, I'd like to request my the parole is lifted, for I don't really see any reason for being limited. Thanks Ehud (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)