Loading AI tools
User:M.V.E.i. has created a sockpuppet, User:PocketMoon, after being blocked. See and in the Oleg Blokhin article. Also see the Talk Page conversations.--Boguslav 01:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 |
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) |
Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).
You have mail Hiberniantears 21:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks! Hiberniantears 21:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
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.
Now starring on ANI . --Folantin 11:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
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 DenizTC 13:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
More mail, new, unrelated topic. Hiberniantears 15:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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)
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)
Some sort of training session, this? :) Have a good break. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 |
Thanks, My Archive 8! 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) |
|
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)
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.
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)
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)
I don't see any changes. Are they going to happen? Ruslik 05:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
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 seems to be identical to Mediawiki's , 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.
- 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 seems to be identical to Mediawiki's , 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
One more report , 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)
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)
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! —— Eagle101Need help? 19:30, 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)
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)
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)
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)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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)
 |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Uh-oh. Check out Miyokan's deleted comments about me here . 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)
- BTW, you have mail (not that urgent). --Folantin 12:50, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Um, right (!). Incidentally, his previous incarnation was Ilya1166. --Folantin 20:39, 5 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. 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)
- 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. This kind of antagonism and routine assumption of bad faith has no place in Wikipedia. Martintg 00:52, 7 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)
- 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)
- 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)
...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. . 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 . 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): [. 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 " 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 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. . --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 () 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)
- 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)
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" 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", and, "I hope our revolution will receive such POV praise as Lenin is given in this miserable article". 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)
- 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", and, "I hope our revolution will receive such POV praise as Lenin is given in this miserable article". 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)
...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? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
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 | |
| 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) |
Read and replied. --Folantin 09:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
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..` By C. J. Lowe, M. L Dockrill Published 2002 Routledge ISBN 0415265975-- --laertes d 09:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Delivered on 12:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
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)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Adam Cuerden talk 05:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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)
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)
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.
- What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
- Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
- Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
- In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
- 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)
ResolvedThanks, 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)
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)
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)
You may be interested in this village pump discussion regarding your message in the watchlist. Lurker (said · done) 16:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
ResolvedThanks. 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 is late. Can you help? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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)
Talk:San Diego Natural History Museum. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Critical Reader.
Hi, Template talk:Did you know backlogged six hours (a full cycle), your attention would be appreciated. Benjiboi 22:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
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.)
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)
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)
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)
Hi, Could you please have a look at this: [] Thank you in advance. --Aynabend 07:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Might be of interest. --Folantin 09:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Delivered on 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 21:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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)
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, James086Talk | Email 13:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Trust, but Verify. That means legal docs (esp. tax docs), not shinyhappy wordses. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 17:51, 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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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)
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)
Can you please, take a look at this ? 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)
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 . 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)
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)
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)
Ok, noted. Kirill 16:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
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?
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Will do. Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
Hi Moreschi, I have collected some evidence that Adil = Ehud, here you go . 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)
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:. 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)
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)
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)
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)
- Fair enough. Careful not to get bitten by anything while digging. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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)
...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)
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)
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)
Please also see this Ehud (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have no good reason to think you're a sockpuppet of anyone. I simply found the number of reverts in your contribution history excessive. I also found Tigran's recent incivility and hostility excessive, so you'll notice I put him on civility supervision (as it's now termed). I do think, to a certain extent, there needs to be a level playing field here. I know full well you've assumed a reasonable amount of good faith, which is why I've deemed the supervised editing and civility supervision remedies irrelevant. It's only for six months anyway - revert less during that time-frame, or try discussing before reverting (which you are not required to do, but it would be nice), and I'll take it off sooner. Best, Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Trying to prove your loyalty and righteousness by abusing wronged users is smart. really. I wrongly thought you shared to some amount the moral rectitude of respectable scholars like dab. I am afraid I am wrong, you opportunist kiddo. 59.91.253.50 (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Come, come, Kuntan, that's just a little harsh, don't you think? Besides, it's also a tad hypocritical, unless you've got a good sock somewhere editing the encyclopaedia constructively and well. You don't seem to realize that your IP disruption simply does more harm than good. It wastes time and accomplishes nothing. Give it a rest. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Have any time to move the next update to the main page? Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks anyway. Archtransit (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Andranikpasha, a user you had once banned indef is causing problems at List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia. I thought you'd want to look at the Arbitration enforcement page. -- Cat chi? 00:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Correction, White Cat is causing problems by insisting on using propaganda sites as a reliable source. I request that you look into his recent behavior. Which incidentally started after I uploaded Armenian Genocide pictures into commons, White Cat just deleted the Armenian Genocide memorial image from commons and requested the ones in wikipedia to be delete as well he is a known denier of the event. VartanM (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Moreschi, Since you had offered to keep an eye on the India page, I thought I'd bring to your attention some persistent flagrant edits being attempted on that page by user:Nikkul. This user first tried to add some nationalistic fluff in the lead (see this discussion on Talk:India). He has now unilaterally removed mention of poverty, illiteracy, and malnutrition from the lead (sentences that have been part of the stable article for more than a year). He is well aware of the consensus (on the India page) that edits, especially controversial edits, be first discussed on the talk page, but has chosen to ignore it. user:Nikkul has had a checkered history on the India page, including being banned for sockpuppeteering. I have already warned him on the talk page to not persist in these edits, but he doesn't seem to listen. I am on vacation and don't have the time to keep taking him on, so I'm bringing him to your attention. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me just say that what ever I do is based on other entries. I added a sentence on India's economic growth because it has brought tremendous change in India's social, cultural, demographic and economical sectors. Also, the China article goes on bragging about how China is an emerging superpower and the world's 2nd largest exporter and how its nuclear status, vast population, reserch and development base, blah blah makes it a superpower. This is also true for India, but I have not added this stuff in because it is not worthy of being included in the intro.
I added a section on foreign relations because 60 other nation articles have it. If Pakistan, China and Bangladesh can have foreign relations, why can't India? I have taken away the sentence about social problems in India because no other featured article has such a section, even for poor nations which are featured.
Fowler keeps looking at featured articles to try to defend yourself, so look at the facts: Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Israel, Japan have no mention of social or other problems faced by the nation in their intro. Of the poorer countries, Cameroon, Chad, Indonesia, Libya, Nauru, Pakistan, Peru, South Africa, Turkey do not discuss social problems in their intros. All of them are featured. Why then should India? Now that Fowler doesnt have any support, he has tried reporting me to an admin!
He has persistently kept reverting my good faith edits Wikipedia encourages everyone to be bold. Why then does he consistently keep reverting all my edits? At one point, he has even supported a claim to stop edits on the India page. This just goes to show that his opinions and actions are misguided.
Also, this user has an unfavorable outlook on India and would like to make India look bad. He has done this in the past with this edit and many others. I mean this user has always said that images should be featured or very very good quality and then, he adds an image of the dirt poor in the economy section when he knows that such photos should be discussed before adding and when he knows that this does not show true indian economy. This user has a history of being rude and has had questionable and rude conduct in the past.
He has told me I should be ashamed of myself, in the past. This user keeps reverting my edits for no reason. Nikkul (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This comment pretty much implies that all of the editors who have been working hard to improve this article aren't serious or interested in scholarship. I think that's a bit rude, would you please consider rephrasing to make it less... inflammatory? futurebird (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- No. We are supposed to comment on content, not contributors. I've done exactly that. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't reinstate my changes that Folantin reversed. I merely clicked "Save" twice on the initial post because I didn't see the changes. Apparently, the instant I made them, Folantin reversed them, then my second quick click to post put them back. - - Folantin and I have been exchanging messages since that fast double post and reversal. I was sure he had taken care of the second one, too. Charvex (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I wasn't planning to revert the second edit Charvex made until we had first had a chat. (Also, I couldn't resist the temptation to leave those Cavalli and Lully operas in what I believe to be their rightful place on the list for a couple of hours! ;) Very bad of me, I know, and I hope the gods of Wiki policy will forgive me). --Folantin (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, no problem. Thought it must have been something like that. As for Folantin, the gods of Wiki policy are merciful, but from thou sure and swift they will demand penance! :) Cheers, Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 14:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi I believe perhaps you didn't check here (maybe I am wrong?) Please check the comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.176.73.68 Since I don't like curse words, I won't type them here. Some of the words are simply provocative. 72 hours is really light. This is the typical type of user that is basically impposible to work with I believe this ip is the same []. This guy has been doing this for a while. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I concur. That guy is never going to turn into a good editor. His only function is as a purveyor of unintentional hilarity. "These stinky idiots!" . Quite. --Folantin (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also please check this , this guy I believe is the user Moorudd. I don't care about his constant r.v. end edit warring (he has broken 3rr many times), but his name calling is really much more serious than 72 hours. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is - if that were an account I would have blocked it indefinitely - but the IP may be shared and there's little point in blocking it for longer. He'll just head over to a new one, these types always do. I could be wrong though - if he does come back after the 72h I will block for longer, but chances are he won't and I have to bear potential collateral damage in mind. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also please check this , this guy I believe is the user Moorudd. I don't care about his constant r.v. end edit warring (he has broken 3rr many times), but his name calling is really much more serious than 72 hours. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like your thoughts on this edit by Neutralhomer (and related edits at WBXX (FM). He seems to be engaging in revert wars again using twinkle despite the actions of a week or so ago. He's also threatening to revert CFD templates. Do you have any thoughts about this? Thanks, Metros (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked him for 24 hours, and another admin has detwinkled him for 264. Bloody nuisance and annoyingly trivial. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I had warned him and was about to go back to block and saw your block already. Thanks, Metros (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You may be want to see this, as it relates to User:Neutralhomer utilizing Twinkle to remove WP:CfR tags from categories. JPG-GR (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, there. I uploaded this awhile back for use on the Bebop article. You deleted it because it didn't offer a fair use rational, but I'm confident it is legitimate fair use and I'd be happy to provide one. Cheers, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. Do we have a decent guide to writing fair use rationales anywhere? Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline looks OK, and User:Riana is a wonderful person to talk to about these if you want any help. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 23:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
What happens when the founder and the sole maintainer of a wikiproject gets indef banned? VartanM (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Some pretty urgent e-mails. --Folantin (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, You recently put me on revert parole do to the Tsourkpk vandalism. I think you may have a bit of confusion. I have never done edit warring and always include edit summaries. As a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit I have been correcting vandalism to articles. Here is what I posted on the ANI thread.
Tsourkpk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Repeated vandalism in many articles. Has been warned numerous times however has chosen to delete many warnings on talk page. Has been warned to Level 4. Examples of vandalism:
- removing sourced academic study calling it vandalism repeatedly, .
- added incorrect text that is unsourced to article repeatedly ,
- made changes against talk page decision
There are many other examples. What is striking is that all of these changes were made in about one hour.
I think it is clear that I am not the one doing the vandalism but it is rather this user that has been doing blatant vandalism. Please reconsider the revert parole on my account as I do not think it is needed nor do I deserve it. Ireland101 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- What the flaming photon? Do you have any idea what vandalism is? Any idea at all? I strongly suggest you go to Wikipedia:Vandalism and read it. And again. And again. And again. Also for your information, use of edit summaries does not preclude edit warring. You've been edit-warring across multiple articles as part of content disputes - not reverting vandalism, sorry. Vandalism is stuff like adding links to hawtlesbiansex.com in the middle of George W. Bush. Gah, it's stuff like this that persuaded me to delete the CVU a way back.
- Future Perfect's evidence of your edit-warring was quite compelling and your revert parole is thoroughly deserved. Your opponents, however, will not walk away from this unscathed either. Rest assured. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- What I do not understand is why I was the only one put on edit parole, I think that is a little unfair. Ireland101 (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- You will be joined by others shortly. I'm still figuring out who. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- What I do not understand is why I was the only one put on edit parole, I think that is a little unfair. Ireland101 (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the first thing he does after a 3 month absence. I'm not even going count on how many articles. "there is no such thing as Artsakh except armenian name of Azerbaijani region. It is clear attempt to legitimaze illegal entity" See here VartanM (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herndon%2C_Virginia#Economy. I think that explains it. John Reaves 00:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Aha. Yes, that makes sense. Thanks. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Greetings Moreschi, can you clarify what you said about the above wikiproject in that won't exist for at least another month? It was created a few months back by user:Armenicum. Did he forget to dot an i or cross a t when creating this WikiProject? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC) EDIT: I just noticed that you enforced a one month moratorium so I guess that's what you meant by the project won't exist for another month. I assume this is a moratorium on the wikiproject only and that we are free to make edits on Karabakh related articles (I wasn't a party to the arbitration). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Closing the whole project is an overkill, you could've just asked me nicely. I still don't see anything done about the mass-reversion of Parishan. VartanM (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Overkill? I don't know the meaning of the word.
- Feel free to edit (which does not mean edit-war on) NKR articles, but I fail to see why you can't just use WikiProjects Armenia and Azeri for the purpose. Creating a specific WikiProject for the subject staffed only with Armenians is really not going to make for a more relaxed atmosphere. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 |
Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
 |
- Hmmm. I did spend New Year's Eve sitting at my desk working on my translation of the Iliad. Arduous and wearying but very fun in places, particularly when Homer starts talking about lead poisoning. Happy New Year to you, Riana - and may your block button never fail you. Cheers, Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about your ArbCom candidacy as well, Moreschi; I think you would have made a great arbitrator. Regards. Acalamari 18:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you expressed interest in the Birmingham meetup last October. Just letting you know, another UK meetup is in planning stages, here. We need input on where and when we will meet so comments would be much appreciated. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. -- Cat chi? 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just noticed White Cat's comment at the Arb that "MIPT is rather incomplete for [ASALA attacks] 1975 and prior". Hmm, could it possibly be because the ASALA didn't exist before 1975? Might explain why the list is a little spartan in that period. And this comment comes from the very same editor who was recently warring to have the statement that the "ASALA were founded on January 20, 1975" included on the page. Although he previously fought to include attacks from 1968. Hilarious, but an utter waste of everybody's time. Wikipedia may be "the encylopaedia anybody can edit" but aren't you at least supposed to know a bare minimum about the subject in hand? And possibly have mastered the elements of chronology, i.e. time goes forwards not backwards...--Folantin (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- See, this is why I've been going on about the absolute necessity of IQ tests before registration for at least the last year. It's exactly what Kelly Martin once said to me all over again: "The big difference between open source and Wikipedia is that [with open source] you had to demonstrate that you had two braincells to rub together before we gave you commit access". Maybe you should also have to demonstrate that you're not a flagrantly obvious Turk nationalist trying to shove your genocide-denying agenda at us before you edit Armenia articles - of course, such an obvious conclusion seems to be beyond the scope of most people. Gah! Well, at least it provides the odd laugh now and again ;) Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No any hope for a result, but anyways: can you make a comment if this note by User:Grandmaster: "I think the history of disruptive activity of Andranikpasha across various Wikimedia projects, including vandalism in English wiki, should be reviewed by the admins." here is a violation of Wiki policies or not? FYI: he used a "request on meta" link provided by you. Andranikpasha (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I could do. It's certainly a violation of policy if the allegations are inaccurate. However, it doesn't seem as though they are. Are they?
- Regardless, your past conduct here and elsewhere in months and years of previous time is not especially relevant, though it does provide useful context. It's your conduct here and now that matters - as it does for us all. Best, Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think, untill Grandmaster hasnt any fact that Andranikpasha vandalised EnWiki (cu didnt say such a thing!), it is a violation. Andranikpasha (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, look. This is very likely you, according to the meta checkuser. That IP gets blocked here for vandalising userpages of editors you have a history of conflict with. Quack quack. Now, admittedly, that was a while ago, and matters have changed quite a bit since July. However, Grandmaster's statement seems accurate, and hence no policy violation. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Really, very likely!? A friend of mine looks like Leslie Nielsen. Anyways he's not the actor. Just no fame:) Dont want te remaind you about assume good fight and WP:Civility, you know them better. And that there wasnt User:Andranikpasha ... in July to vandalise EnWiki, so maybe rather Andranikpasha is a sock of that IP but surely not a vandal... As I asked earlier, I didnt hope for more. Anyways, thanks for research! Andranikpasha (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I wish I had been aware of this page before it got closed, but I've commented below your close, Moreschi. If I still need to clarify my findings further please advise. ++Lar: t/c 15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you might find this interesting. In December the US congressman Adam Schiff (author of the H.R 106) met with group of Turkish political leaders. This is how the Today's Zaman covered the storyUS Democrat Schiff ‘surprised’ by Turkish side of Armenian story. The same day Schiff responded by a press release and a letter to the newspaper Schiff Blasts Mischaracterzation of Meeting With Turkish Delegation. To which the newspaper followed by Schiff refutes deputy’s account of meeting.VartanM (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Re Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement, are you done with this and can we archive it or are you still considering restrictions/revert parole? — Rlevse • Talk • 03:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Currently showing 8hrs+ Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Moreschi, thanks for granting me rollback rights. I appreciate your trust and promise not to engage in any wheel wars, despite the roundness of this new ability. --Kyoko 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problemo. I find it difficult to imagine anyone less likely to abuse the tool than yourself. Good luck! Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 14:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've decided that in cases where some explanation is helpful (such as removing POV... like earlier today, if you check my contribs), I'll use undo or popups, and in cases where speed is more important than explanation, I'll use rollback. At least I'll try things that way and see how they work out. Thanks! --Kyoko 14:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I recommend you do not grant rollback to contributors who do not need it and have not asked for it without even telling them. As can be seen here, this has the potential to lead to confusion. Thanks – Gurch 08:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see no problem with dishing out rollback randomly - it is useful only if you ever use it once in a blue moon - but in future I'll drop people a note via email. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you want to add a link to the above draft on the protected page or not. Your call as protecting admin. Hiding T 14:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just a suggestion... The whole thing's pretty heated right now. Might be a better idea, to let it cool off for a couple days. Moreschi, you made a good call, now that I've had a few to think about it. SQLQuery me! 14:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Hiding, I've done as you requested: I don't think that can really hurt, but now we'll no doubt see edit-warring over the draft poll. Though if that actually does happen I'll go on a big blocking spree :) Cheers, Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 14:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Love the image, hopefully the humor will help defuse the situation somewhat. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Please consider re-visiting Talk:Heinrich Hertz#jewish ancestry. I'd be interested in your feedback about the suggested edit strategy I've proposed. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Vote. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed it hasn't been reverted tho it should be. Bstone (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This is hilarious, I've adopted it. --Jack Merridew 13:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
IAF has been blocked for one week due to continued revert warring and disruption. I am informing you because you have blocked the user for similar issues in the past. Vassyana (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, for heaven's sake. Why was this one unblocked again? The indef block should have stuck. We're not going to get productive contributions here, are we? Bah! Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thought you'd be interested in knowing that the above request has closed, particularly in the conclusions regarding possible separate cases. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ooh, boy, the arbitrators have very badly fucked this one up. Morons! Now I'm going to have bring a couple of fucking brand new cases to sort out the remaining problems. What an absolute fucking waste of time. Bah! Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 10:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- While this might not help you immediately, I thought you might be interested in this proposal. Bstone (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Moreschi. Would you agree with what I wrote here? Carcharoth (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you do mean to bring the cases you mentioned above, it might be a good idea to indicate to some of the parties involved in the previous arbitration about them. Just a thought, of course. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Moreschi. Would you agree with what I wrote here? Carcharoth (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that Taulant guy. The arbs are emphasising the need for admins to be "uninvolved" very much these days, so I'll probably need to come back to you about the Balkanians from time to time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want something pretty obscure to work on, see what Grove says about Armenian opera. I created it using Grout as the main source but some of the dates vary between that and the other sources I've seen. No hurry, of course. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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) 08:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'd be grateful if you could tell me why I've been blocked. This is probably a mis understanding Sincerely, Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, you are not blocked. If you were blocked, you couldn't edit this page. You are banned from editing 3 Falun Gong-related pages for 3 months because you've consistently violated Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, in addition to disruptive edit-warring and additions of copyright violations in order to create some original synthesis. You also seem to be something of a single-purpose account, with a fairly long history of causing trouble on FLG articles. However, if you do try to edit these 3 articles, you really will be blocked. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
When did I violate "copyright"? And which of the particular info I recently added was not factual or poorly sourced or POV? I guess you arrived at your conclusion from talk page discussions. Please see my edits and see what copy right violation or POV pushing I have done as some people accused me of. Infact if you look at the content of the edits and decide you can see who are doing POV pushing. Things are presented without sources, what is said in the sources are presented in a way that distorts what is said in the sources, relevant material is kept out of the article with several excuses, and even language showing personal bitterness is used. In particular the content I added to the tiananmen sq incident page recently doesnot violate any "copyright". It is material / content of historical significance. Presenting it in an encyclopeadia is not copyright violation. Some people with a very strong bias argue that the copyright of the video "belongs to CCP"! Anyway just look at the content I introduced and decide for yourself. This is the version of tha tianamen sq page after the edits I did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident&oldid=184911613
I understand the animation would fit better into a subsection than the intro but other than that what POV pushing/copyright violation is there? Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to know if am allowed to contribute to the talk pages of the above three articles. Dilip rajeev (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sir,
- Pardon me if this topic is not relevant now - but I wanted to clarify that the image I introduced was not a violation of 'copyrights' as some users had accused.
- On the right is the image I added, which, I believe, carries content of high relevance to the article.
- According to US law Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, there are 4 factors:
- 1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (This image is not for commercial)
- 2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (The source is from Television news program, which has already been broadcasted to the public multiple times.)
- 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; (the image is only several seconds of original work. If we use the whole video or substantial portion of it, then it may not constitute fair use.)
- 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. (Considering 2, and 3 above, there's not much effect upon the market value of original work since the original work is not for commercial purpose.)
- Kindly see the cases below too .. http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html
- Sincerely,
- Dilip rajeev (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia. Our rules on fair use are stricter than are technically required by law. There already are 4 fair use images on the article as it stands: that's probably one too many, and you'd be very hard pushed to justify the inclusion of another - particularly when you seem intent on using said video to push your POV. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I posted a request for unprotection on the RPP page. Check it out and offer some opinions. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Delivered sometime in January 2008 (UTC). SatyrBot (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I came back from a weekend trip only to find yet another complaint about Taulant23 (talk · contribs). Just a heads-up. Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I never vandalized nor attacked the wrong user,Albanias page its been attacked by Greek nationalists so they will claim lands or erase the history of the Albanian people.The page its a mess and so far no one has said or done anything to fix it.Wikipedia has lost her value only because of them.I'm disappointed that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is clearly taking sides in this dispute. Perhaps he's been long enough to these topics to have lost the balance he should have as an administrator? One day justice will prevail and thank you for your civility parole guide.--Taulant23 (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
p.s. just look at history, User:Megistias just deleted sources,as he call the author "source-Pseudohistorian Edwin E.Jacques" & no one says a thing,how can you reason with these guy?
- You have been banned numerous times.You have insulted,lied and vandalised a number of pages and you continue to act in the same manner.I use sources and you dont.Jacques was a priest and not a historian.The admins see history of pages and you should stop lying to themMegistias (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Moreschi,
I've proposed an amendment to Wikipedia:No original research that would strengthen (or more accurately, reiterate) the requirement of editors to reliably source interpretations of images in articles. This would particularly apply to depictions of allegorical or symbolic artworks or artifacts, where the meaning was not immediately clear or was subject to differing interpretations. You can see the text of the proposed amendment at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images - please feel free to leave comments.
Another editor involved in the discussion has suggested providing an example of "an actual ongoing dispute to illustrate the problem". I believe you're active in editing or monitoring articles in controversial subject areas, and I was wondering if you were aware of any such ongoing or recent disputes. It would specifically have to concern something like an illustration of unclear meaning, which editors were disputing what it represented, maybe because of a lack of reliable sourcing about the image itself or about its interpretation. If you've come across anything like this scenario, could you please chip in at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Moreschi,
Glad to see that you working to defuse the dispute atmosphere within this topic area -- by imposing 1RR on Jewish lobby. As you may know, we recently set up WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration with a general mission of trying to foster collaboration and ratchet down the contentiousness. It would be very helpful to have some uninvolved admins on board. I would really appreciate it if you would add your name to the members list. Even if you'll only be contributing through your usual duties (as with Jewish lobby (?)), your presence and support would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your consideration -- and for being the first on the block to implement the ArbCom decision. HG | Talk 23:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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) 00:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
... for The Cure: Albanau (talk · contribs) aka 83.177.66.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Identity now practically self-confirmed , . Has been doing hit-and-run revert attacks on Arvanites every few weeks or months for over two years, after a month-long orgy of revert warring on the same issue back in 2005 (). (Incidentally, guess who his main opponent back in that war was...?)
Was warned by me today (see the IP's talk page, with further evidence links), contined revert-warring afterwards. No signs of learning. I'd personally say, given the history, that only a full topic ban will help here, but that's up to you, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Can't believe this: Macedonians (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Is there something in the water today that makes them bite? Full moon?
Jingiby (talk · contribs) has a distinctive history of tendentious editing, he was one of the people who actually triggered the Macedonia case, so I guess he can be considered warned anyway. Revizionist and BalkanFever seemed to be somewhat more reasonable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, quite a massacre today. Poor fishies. As someone said the other time, what did the poor trouts ever do to anyone?
- Anyway, have a nice weekend. We'll see how we can make shift without you, without destroying the 'pedia. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops, sorry I keep bothering you about this. I think we might need to review BalkanFever (talk · contribs). On looking closer into his role in today's edit war, it doesn't actually look that bad. He made four edits (, , , ). First one was inserting a longish passage that apparently he thought had earlier been deleted, but which he effectively duplicated. Second was a self-revert, removing the same passage again. (Or removing its duplicate from the other position? Can't see through it.) Three and four were in a fast and apparently confused sequence, trying to sort out the confusion about the missing or duplicate text. Edit summaries indicate he was genuinely trying to sort things out in a cooperative way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
User: 92.9.165.237 seems to be another Harvey Carter sock puppet. Thanks for helping arrest some of his attacks. He appears to be incorrigible. FWIW, he's back as User:92.11.124.129 and 92.8.51.179 (He is the Eveready bunny.) Bzuk (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC).
Why are you selectively picking the Armenian POV over the objectivity of the article? You reverted back what I did because of the many Armenian nationalists that argued with me about it, why is this? I thought you wanted to stop the edit wars of nationalists? Let me explain to you what I mean:
I didn't add something like this to the article: "Most Western historians do not recognize the Armenian genocide", this is POV. I removed: "Most Western historians recognize the Armenain genocide", this is POV. There is no source of this, and it is speculation... Do you disagree? I think a good wikipedian would remove this as well, since it is making the conclusion FOR the reader. I was under the assumption that Wikipedia is made to present facts, and not a journal or tabloid, am I wrong?
Just because a lot of my edits are about history doesn't mean I don't like contributing in other subjects it simply means I'm a newer wikipedian. Yeah I don't know how to make color names and all that stuff, but it really annoys me that people get their information from wikipedia, when these statements like "Western historians recognize the genocide" have been invented by organizations like the Armenian National Committee of America. Arsenic99 (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Bah. I've had quite enough of Turk nationalists messing around with the Armenian Genocide article. Your edits here are not really helping. As it happens, most Western historians do count the Armenian Genocide as historical reality - this is not that hard to cite. I agree that Armenian nationalism is a problem on Wikipedia (NKR, conflicts with Azeri nationalists, various linguistic/historical issues), but not here. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a vandal, and I'd appreciate it if you understand that I didn't vandalize Armenian Genocide article, what I did was remove one or two POV lines. Most Western historians do NOT count the Armenian Genocide as a historical reality, and if you do believe so please list them and we can compare. The fact is, these "western historians" are non-existent, when you ask multiple Armenians this, they don't know what to say, because it is NOT a reality. So far the only one that was ever mentioned to me as a "Western historian who support the AG theory", according to an Armenian is Daniel Panzac, who apparently says that there were 1.5 million Armenians before WWI, and in another place says that 1.5 million Armenians died after the war, leaving survivor numbers to zero. What kind of scholar says such unrealistic things?
- A citation for someone that says "Most western historians do count the Armenian genocide as a historical reality", is clearly biased and simply a POV argument. I can say something like "Most historians believe in the spaghetti monster", and cite to a couple historians that I have convinced to write this down, and it would become a wiki-reality. While it may not be the best example, I was under the assumption that Wikipedia doesn't make the "conclusion" for the user, but rather present the facts to the user. Just because many Armenian Genocide books by Armenian authors exist, doesn't mean that the Western historians believe it to be true, it simply means Armenians are extra devoted to convincing the world that there was a genocide on their people.
- Now, let me ask you, do you not notice that the AG article on wikipedia, is mostly cited to books of Taner Akcam and Peter Balakian (Peter Balakian isn't even a historian, wow). Does this not strike you as odd? I never agree with people that vandalize the AG article, but I do agree that the article is indeed lacking neutrality and is supporting a theory that is still in debate amongst historians.
- Watch this video, just for fun, even if you don't believe Dr. Bernard Lewis a renowned historian on Islam and the Ottoman Empire is right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG70UWESfu4
- What harm can it do? The Armenian genocide article is contradicting real historians that have many works on the Ottoman Empire. While it supports citations and views of people who talk ONLY about the Armenian genocide, and their own credibilities are very questionable.
- I'm not trying to argue with you or convince you that you're wrong or right, (because you are an intelligent person, and I'm sure you have a lot of knowledge on the issue as well) but you must see the Armenian propaganda that is revolving around the internet, while the voice of the Turks is crushed and immediately labeled away as "denialists". How can we reach the truth if we continue to omit the words of historians like Dr. Geunter Lewy, Dr. Norman Stone, Dr. Justin McCarthy, Dr. Bernard Lewis, Dr. Stanford Shaw, and many many other historians, simply because there is a large population of Armenians around the world who write books about how their people suffered while ignoring the suffering of Turks simply because they are Muslim?
- I hope you will at least respond to my points and prove me wrong or simply tell me a better point of view and won't just brush me aside and ignore me like many Armenians have done in the past. I'm hoping we can reach some sort of agreement on what is POV and what is fact, and what should or should not be on this AG article. Thank you for your time and effort! Arsenic99 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note the edit and the edit summary. VartanM (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize for not leaving a more detailed edit-summary. But let's face it, what does him receiving an award have to do with his credentials? Vahakn Dadrian, the Armenian historian, received an award from the Armenian government does that mean he should be discredited? Why aren't you going around including such works of propaganda in Vahakn's page? Oh wait, I forgot you are trying to push an Armenian POV on ANY article that remotely relates to Armenians. Erik Jan Zurcher received an award from Turkish government, yet he believes in the Armenian Genocide, so does that mean we should question Erik's credibility too? — talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Now it's time to get back on topic. Moreschi, you and I both know that the following statement in the Armenian Genocide article is POV, so please let's remove it: "and most Western scholars and historians accept this view.[3][4] The majority of Armenian diaspora communities were founded as a result of the Armenian genocide." There is no list, no foundation to say that a majority of Western historians accept this genocide view. Especially Western historians with Ottoman expertise do not believe in the genocide label. It goes to show you that this statement is there to push a certain POV, create a conclusion in the reader's mind that "well if you don't accept this too, then you're not smart", and wikipedia is not a tabloid or a journal that is there to convince people of a POV, it's there to present facts. And this is not a fact. Do you disagree? You cannot disagree because then you are saying that since there are a lot of Diaspora Azeris, that means that there is an Azeri genocide too!!! You also cannot disagree because that would mean you have counted every single historian and scholar and compared their views. So let me summarize by saying, that it is POV, and if it isn't POV, then that means you are giving me permission to add lots of random counter-conclusions for people in many pro-Armenian articles.
- Furthermore, you can cite pro-Armenian articles on writers saying "a majority of western historians agree with the genocide label", but this is speculation, it is not a verifiable fact, citing it will not make it true, it is an opinion of article writers, I can cite you articles where this isn't mentioned as well.
- Here's an edit of VartanM, him and his buddies continuously edit articles to push an Armenian POV. Such as this one where he is trying to change wording so that he can conclude FOR the reader that the Armenian genocide is not a point of view based on some historians, but a fact that shouldn't be "denied". — talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've noticed you've banned Ghanadar galpa as a sock of Hkelkar, I recently was blocked for 24 hours for editing Indophobia, I was blocked, primarily I think to balance out his blocking (GG) - the guy who blocked me has not even explained his reasoning to me. In light of GG's banning and his masking as a serial abuser and mischeif maker, would it be possible to remove the record of my block log? - Which I feel is a blemish on my record here at wiki - and which I believe was incorrectly applied, or is to remain forever to tarnish my name? Your thoughts would be appreciated :-)
Regards
Pahari Sahib (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Block logs are not usually expunged: what I have done is, by blocking you for a second, left a note in your block log saying that you were reverting Hkelkar and that the previous block was unjustified. Hope this helps. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, that is much appreciated :-)
- Regards Pahari Sahib (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Moreschi, this question is somewhat unrelated to Wikipedia; I ask you because I recall that you are familiar with opera, but do not feel pressed to answer. What recordings of The Magic Flute you would recommend? I would prefer a full recording, with the spoken dialogue, if you can recommend any such recordings, but a more loosely-interpreted recording would be fine too. :) Thanks, Iamunknown 07:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, a few recommendations. It's a very personal issue and your preferences matter. Here's one: EMI, fine cast, no dialogue (in all honesty I think you're better off without) - but apparently slow tempi. I am no fan of slow Mozart - some are. Your call. This DVD has Gruberova - surely worth thinking about. Here's an interesting one: translated into English, with the dialogue, (useful if you're not fluent in German) Charles Mackerras (quick tempi assured), stellar cast (John Tomlinson and Simon Keenlyside - two great singers, needless to say!). Lastly, another DVD here: it's the ROH 2003 production that I'm going to see a revival of on Saturday: Simon Keenlyside is again Papageno, and David McVicar's productions are always great fun. Colin Davis is going to be the slower end of the tempo range. Any use? Best, Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
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/Ehud Lesar/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/Ehud Lesar/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 03:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on regarding whether or not the following image should be a part of the Poverty in India page. Most Poverty in *Country* pages do not have any images, at most 1. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus has brought many images showing extreme poverty in India and has tried to mislead people into thinking this is the way a majority of poor Indians live. There is a vote in which your input would be appreciated. You can find this discussion here
I feel that the the Bodhgaya Beggar image does not represent poverty in India correctly because:
- The beggar in Bodhgaya image does not accurately depict poor people in India because they do not look like this. This man is an exception. To say that this man represents all poor people in India is very wrong. A small minority of Indias poor are disabled. Most living under the poverty line work long hours fishing, farming or as construction workers. This picture shows a man whose legs have been broken. Unless a majority of India's or even a fraction of the poor have legs like this, the image is irrelevant and undue to the poverty in india page.
- Poverty and Disability are not connected in any way. There are thousands of super rich people who are disabled.
- There are 11 country articles on poverty
- These have NO images: Poverty in Pakistan, Poverty in Africa, Poverty in China, Poverty in Australia, Poverty in Canada, Poverty in Malaysia, Poverty in Switzerland, Social issues in Brazil,
- These have 1 image Poverty in the United States, Poverty in France
- The Poverty in India page is the only one with more than 1 image. And the only reason for this is because User:Otolemur crassicaudatus has brought more and more images onto the page.
- This user is being uncivil and unyielding. This user has tried to have my user page deleted because it said America is priceless!
- This image is being used by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus to display his dislike of India and to mislead people into thinking that this is the plight of millions of poor Indians. This user has often added images showing extreme poverty to many India relating articles. Even though this user knows that poverty is present in every country and that extreme poverty is not a fair representation of the Indian economy, this user has previously tried to add an image of children washing their clothes in a mud puddle to the economy section of the India page. This user has added this image to the poverty section of the Economy of India page, when a graph showing poverty would make more sense.
- WP:Undue says:
- We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.
This can be applied to this because a very tiny fraction of poor people in India are disabled. Most work very hard trying to make a living for themselves. This image is misleading. Nikkul (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Moreschi, in your talk page this user has made wild accusations on me. I will request you please read the relevant sections on Talk:Poverty in India to give you an inside in this user and to understand who is incivil. The Bodggaya beggar image is more appropriate than others because:
- You may know, many beggars live a condition like this, many of them have various disabilities.
There is no "typical" definition of poverty, or beggar. There are abled beggar, disabled beggar. The purpose of the article is depicting poverty. The other beggar images which this user want to place deleting the Bodhgaya beggar image are not good quality, one is B&W, and the other depicting a beggar girl in Ladakh. But my objection here is that Ladakh is quite different from rest of the country because of its geographics. Majority Indians live in plain. And this Bodhgaya beggar image is showing poverty at its most extreme level. It is not right to conceal the situation of poor men like this, it is the truth, the reality. This image touches the heart of the reader, which is a real situation. Yes not all beggars are disabled, but is this an argument? On the other hand it also can be said that not all beggars are abled. Our job here is not to understand who is abled, or who is not. But to find a good image which is representative of many.
- This user is repeatating his arguments and has taken a densive position by his ad hominem attack on me. Any one do not agree with him, here I am trying to depict poverty, and he is labelling me as Indophobic. There are other editors who honoured me for my contributions. The only reason given against this image that "since all beggars have not messed up legs, this image is undue". But it is an anti-individualistic argument. So what if not all beggars do not have messed up legs? The fact is that such secenes is a reality and it would not be right to conceal it. Such scenes exists, it is the truth. If it is reality, if such scenes exits, then an article depicting poverty i.e. "the condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water", only those images should remain which clearly illustrate this fact.
- This article is not depicting India, depicting poverty in India. So such image is not deriding India, it is illustrating the poverty in India. This image, I think, will be very appropriate. This user has informed many partisan editors, like User:Bakasuprman about the image. I will also request you check this user's contributions. I have told you why I am supporting the includsion of this image. Regards. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This user also informed this to banned Hkelkar socks like Ghanadar galpa. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Moreschi, I will also like to tell you that this user is continuously making wild accusations on me in multiple talk pages. This user was proved to be problematic previously. User Fowler found it problematic to deal with this user. His only contribution in wikipedia is blaming other people and going in huge debate on inclusion of image. Yes it is true that not all beggars are disabled, but it is also true that many beggars are disabled. Is it right to conceal it? I am sympathetic to the poor. Such scenes does exists in India, it is not misleading. There are many poor beggars like this. There are other images in the article showing abled poor. So I don't think this image will be misleading, but give the article a balanced approach covering all the sides. Your right judgement will be appreciated. Thanks and regards. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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) 04:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you please update DYK - I would do it, but one of my articles is in the next updates list and I want to avoid conflict of interest. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Your block of Clearsight came quicker than I thought it would but it was very appropriate. : Albion moonlight (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Feel like coming back to the Meowy report? I'm about ready to scream. Thatcher 14:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Closed the discussion and banned them all from AE for 4 days. They can either serve out their bans in peace and quiet, or fight elsewhere, like here, where comments can be more easily refactored. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding your comment on the Discussion page of AE, titled "Armenians and Azeris". When saying "you're all banned from this page for 4 days" are you saying banned from the discussion page, or banned from the project page as well? The former is implied by your words. I'm just worried that you are going to come after me for some questions I've placed on the project page after Thatcher's post. Maybe also change the title - as it is now, it's like saying "No Blacks for 4 days". Meowy 18:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, I've since striked out my questions on the AE project page Meowy 20:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jingiby. Regards, Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Moreschi. Would you mind to take a look at this user's recent contributions: Aivazovsky (talk · contribs) moved the article about Nakhchivan and and a couple of dozen related pages to a new title without any discussion and consensus on talk. The previous title was a consensus made with participation and by initiative of this same user. In addition to that, he made removal of other consensus wording in that article. I don't know what was the reason for such sudden change of mind by this user, but in my opinion any dramatic changes and page moves in such troubled articles like Nakhchivan should be discussed before any change is made. I would appreciate your opinion on that. Thank you. Grandmaster (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like the problem has been resolved. Sorry for disturbing. Grandmaster (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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) 08:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I used to consider editing the mainspace on Wikipedia to be worthless, but I saw Veropedia and it gives me an actual motivation to edit Wikipedia. Sure, Wikipedia will destroy it, but at least it will be enshrined in all its glory on Veropedia -- an actual "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," not a "pseudo-encyclopedia website."
I'm emailing you right now. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
When you say "email you" and "use the contact info at veropedia," do you mean veropedia.info@gmail.com? ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nah, just Special:Emailuser/Moreschi. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 11:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Per your earlier suggestion for my participation in a certain mediation group, it may be reaching its ugly arm out of the mud to grab me anyway . LOL. Antandrus (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you have participated in Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates in the past. There are now two candidates and the project appears to be abandoned. If you could look at the candidates and vote it would be appreciated. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 00:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm vaguely aware that there's a dispute over whether the Illyrians are ancestors of the Albanians. I've come across a new article (Albanian words with Illyrian cognates) that strikes me as a POV fork, but I don't know enough about this dispute to be sure. Can you take a look at it, or do you know a reputable editor I could ask? Thanks! // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this guy a banned user? Corvus cornixtalk 00:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Another sockpuppet of Hkelkar? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Moreschi, I am not sure you noticed that I was not editing the Wikipedia since last year and enjoyed 1.5 months a stress-free and happy life. However, something happened recently that prompted me to check back in. That something was an unsolicited email I've got. It was sent to me on the behalf of the Arbcom and it asked me to join the workgroup entasked with hammering out the guidelines to address the nationalist and cultural wars that plagued the Wikipedia for years. Since I fully appreciate the importance of this issue and consider it one of the two that are the most dangerous for the project (the other being "supersecret" power games of the Wikipedia wanna-be leaders) I decided to give it a try.
However, something else hit me, particularly the rants you vented yesterday at the "ever improving" #admins channel discussing with an "arbitrator emeritus" the fact that I, among others, was picked for this task. I gather from your comments that you were very unhappy about arbcom's choice. I also gather that you were even annoyed to a degree that you used the word "bastard" referring to me. I wonder whether we can straighten this all out here, at your talk page.
What exactly do you think gives you right to talk like that behind my back in the medium where I cannot confront the accusation and defend myself. Do you think it is a proper way to act, gossiping and disparaging people behind their backs shielded by the prohibition to post logs? I was not even active for so long but still you attacked me so ruthlessly! You also spoke disparagingly of another editor at that time (and of the entire arbcom too) expressing regret of being unable to "control" the process in full because of my participation. What exactly did you wish to "control"? How exactly would you "control" all the others at the workgroup? Was it in fact you who "controlled" the account that utter those words at #admins? Were you thinking clearly at the moment?
To put it briefly, how could you possibly do all this to me and the whole Wikipedia? I would appreciate the truthful answer. TIA, --Irpen 01:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Moreschi, I noticed you were on. Would you be willing to update DYK? It's loaded and ready to go. AgneCheese/Wine 09:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted if you got my reply to your reply to my question. I used my inbuilt reply function instead of the Special page, and I don't know if that works or not. BalkanFever 23:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Some people need to be taught the ABC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee finds that the blocks on User:MatthewHoffman were unjustified. It also states that Vanished user's adminship will be waived at this time. Vanished user may regain his sysop access by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards. If regained, he will then be placed on parole with regard to both conduct and admin tool use for a further period of six months. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 13:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Moreschi. The NK Wikiproject has been revived, please see: I believe this will lead to escalation of tensions between Azerbaijani and Armenian communities, like it did a month ago. I don't understand what has significantly changed since the time of the last discussion of this subject that require restoration of this Wikiproject now. I would appreciate your attention to this issue. Thank you. Grandmaster (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Grandmaster, I revived the project because I believe it adds a lot of value and things seem pretty calm. They will never be totally calm. I plan to add some userboxes to the project that don't have a flag for those participants who have a problem with the flag. From my recollection this was the formost concern. If you have any other concerns please feel free to drop me a message in my talk page. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I still don't see why members of Wikiproject Armenia need this project to edit articles about NK. So far I received no reasonable explanation. Grandmaster (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not part of Wikiproject Armenia and I imagine that others who aren't part of Wikiproject Armenia might also join (hopefully some from Wikiproject Azeri as well). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- You can join either Armenia or Azerbaijan wikiprojects if you really need a wikiproject to edit the region related articles. I still don't see why this wikiproject is required and how it would be helpful. Wikiprojects should not be divisive. And I highly doubt any Azerbaijani users would join that Wikiproject, since there's Azerbaijan wikiproject to coordinate editing of articles about our country. Grandmaster (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not part of Wikiproject Armenia and I imagine that others who aren't part of Wikiproject Armenia might also join (hopefully some from Wikiproject Azeri as well). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The project is going to fuel a new conflict, which will waste more community time and resources. To preserve neutrality, contributors can spend time to contribute to Armenia or Azerbaijan projects, and topics relating to the region of NK can be addressed in those contexts. I don't see why not being Wikiproject Armenia is any reason for Pocopocopocopoco, he can always become a member, or was he refused? Atabek (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The project isn't creating conflicts, and its not gonna waste anybodies time unless you chose to waste your time fighting about it. VartanM (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are going to award this as a barnstar and expect that Azerbaijani users would join this wikiproject? Grandmaster (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't get this. Again, why should there be any conflict? The Republic of Northern Cyprus has its project like others in similar situation as NKR. Why not NK? That version is a compromise, keeping the map and keeping NK. The name Artsakh represented that region for over a millennium, NK is modern name. Besides The Northern Cyprus republic also has its map. It's population has chosen to have that map. By bring the Armenian and Azerbaijani community you are stearing the conflict yourself. VartanM (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not stirring it, those who promote it do. That project has the flag of unrecognized "NKR" everywhere, how can you expect that people representing different views would be cooperating within that project? Do you really expect Azerbaijani users awarding that barnstar to anyone? Grandmaster (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're changing your argument, when in fact you're absolutely not open to this. This actually confirms that for you no such project should exist, whether it has a map of NKR or Swaziland. The first thing you do after its revival, is to go warn an admin and claim it's not good for the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities here. What do you want the admin to enforce? There is no such policy as those you claim. Face it, all other disputed regions have their categories and their wikiprojects why should NK not have one? If you are going to provide a valid argument, go ahead, but using the escalation of tensions between Azerbaijani and Armenian communities card wont work this time. VartanM (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
VartanM, there is no point to create project NK, when the territory is claimed by Azerbaijan (legally) and Armenia (illegally), and there do exist Wikiprojects for each country. What's the objective of creating another hot spot mess? Just to push another Armenian POV that Karabakh is "independent"? That's not neutral. I want the admin to freeze the project or forward it as it was before, because restoration of it is going to waste everyone's time, including that of admin. And before your next response, reread your statement "you chose to waste your time fighting about it", be polite and assume good faith.Atabek (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ossetia
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abkhazia
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Transnistria
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Kurdistan
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Taiwan
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Silesia
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Kosovo
Let me know if you want to see more. VartanM (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Check Wikipedia:WikiProject Abkhazia or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Transnistria. Neither of them have any separatist symbols there, which makes them open for anyone. The one for NK is clearly created for promotion of pro-separatist POV and not for objective coverage of the topic. Grandmaster (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should go over WP:AGF. VartanM (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not just my opinion, admins and third party users told you the same a month ago: This project has the separatist flag all over the place, how could it be neutral and non-divisive and help editors cooperate instead of arguing? And so far I have received no reasonable explanation why wikiprojects Armenia and Azerbaijan are not fit for the same purpose and why we need another project to cover the same topic. Grandmaster (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should go over WP:AGF. VartanM (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Grandmaster, I already said on this talk page and on the arbitration page a month ago that I'm going to add addition templates and I will also add addition awards that don't have the flag. I already mentioned on the arbritation page the reason why this project should be separate. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Abkhazia, Ossetia, Taiwan, Transnistria and Kosovo are territories where separatists seek independence and are de-facto independent. Karabakh is a matter of conflict and, in fact, war between the two recognized states of Armenia and Azerbaijan. NK Armenian separatists do not deny their intentions of unification with Armenia, in fact, are wholly dependent economically, financially and militarily on Armenia. Hence I don't see why Wikiprojects Azerbaijan and Armenia are insufficient to discuss the relevant articles on the disputed territory of 4,400 square kilometers, but need a separate project for that? Palestine is absolutely irrelevant in this context, it's not a separatist territory, as the designated regions of Palestinian administration were never officially part of Israel, and Israel does not claim them. Atabek (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Atabek that is all pretty much false. NK is not claimed by Armenia. NK doesn't wish to unify with Armenia or any other state. NK is a state with close ties to Armenia much like TRNC is with Turkey.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 00:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Grandmaster, you and Atabek just above claimed you had a problem with the project itself. So you either have a problem with the project or with the map. Don't expect me to accept that you have a problem with both which would mean that you won't ever accept such a project when all others have theirs. Now if your problem is the map itself come to my talkpage and we will discuss about an alternative. But if your aim is to close the project then our discussion wont go anywhere. VartanM (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is with the project itself. Why we need this when we have the ones for Armenia and Azerbaijan? Why those who signed up for this project all of whom are supporters of the separation of NK from Azerbaijan cannot cooperate within the Wikiproject Armenia? This case is different from any other separatist region, as the Armenians of NK want to unify with Armenia, which de-facto occupies the region. And all the separatists symbols on the project page clearly show that it was created to promote a certain POV. Even admins agreed with that when they put this project on hold. Since I don't see anything changing there at all, what's the point in revival of it now? The purpose of any wikiproject is creation of a certain venue to help users cooperate on improving coverage of a certain topic. You already have one, why do you need another one? Grandmaster (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Grandmaster, as I've said above please read the good reasons made in the arbitration page for a separate wikiproject. You seem to keep repeatedly bringing up the same question. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I see no reason why I would continue this discussion. VartanM (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- And your reasons were dismissed by the admins back then: What has changed since that time? Grandmaster (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please read the entire section and not just the sections that support your point. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem with both the project and the separatist POV map used as its icon, which does not even reflect reality but only Armenian claims. For example the POV map used as icon of this project contains part of Goranboy district of Azerbaijan (formerly Shaumian district of Azerbaijan SSR), which was never part of Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region and was never controlled by Armenian forces (and isn't controlled now either). So this icon is just an example that using this project, VartanM, Popocopocopoco and few other supporters of it are essentially trying to push Armenian nationalist propaganda on Wikipedia. As was explained before, there is no need to push POV with separatist projects. Karabakh is not an entity, it's a land, officially part of Azerbaijan with mountaneous (Nagorno) part claimed by Armenia. The war over it was between Armenia and Azerbaijan. There is no way a farmer militia of 100,000 people can fight against a country of 8 million and win a war, perhaps, there is a lot of illusion over this POV being pushed by Armenian contributors all over Wikipedia that they start believing in it themselves. But there are 4 UN SC resolutions openly citing involvement of Armenia in the war as are peace negotiations conducted between Armenia and Azerbaijan, not between Azerbaijan and some puppet regime established in Armenian-controlled region. When president-elect of Armenia is a participant (including in all relevant atrocities) of Karabakh war, what kind of "independent NK" and/or self-defense are we talking about? And how much of this POV do we have to tolerate or listen to? Why not just develop the articles under Wikiproject Azerbaijan or Armenia? If the intention is to nevertheless keep this separatist POV Wikiproject, then there must be some reasonable way of preserving neutrality, not pushing one-sided nationalist POV leading to nowhere but to another wave of edit wars, POV or OR pushing. Atabek (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
If we have a wikiproject on an artificial state such as "Azerbaijan" with a fictional national identity, I see no reason why we shouldn't have a wikiproject on the Nagorno Karabakh Republic. It's an established state with more democratic institutions than the cleptocratic state of Azerbaijan, which by the way NKR defeated. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Azerbaijan is recognized by nearly 200 countries of the world and is a member of the United Nations since 1992. It has century-old experience of independent statehood since 1918 (of which Karabakh was a province by the way). "NKR" is a puppet state, claimed by one of the warring sides as a result of military confrontation and complete ethnic cleansing of the other side. It cannot sustain without military, logistic and financial support from Armenia, that's why the corridor to it was fought by Armenian forces in first place. In this context, "NKR" is even more dependent than other separatist creations of "Abkhazia" and "South Ossetia". I hope you review these facts as well as appropriate UN resolutions before making claims such as above. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
True, Azerbaijan is de-jure recognized, but de-facto it's an artificial construct which is on its path to disintegration (NK's seccession was the first step). As for NKR, its army humiliated Azerbaijan's military way before Armenia could even support NK (i.e. the 1st half of 1992). The policy differences between NKR and Armenia prove that neither is a puppet state of another. As for financial support, no state can survive on its own. For example, Azerbaijan heavily relies on foreign oil companies as well as Turkey.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- How come i get WP:ARBMAC and the other guy gets nothing when its clear he wanted to achieve this?Megistias (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Because he had not been warned. Next time he plays silly buggers, then he gets the stick. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- How come i get WP:ARBMAC and the other guy gets nothing when its clear he wanted to achieve this?Megistias (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 7 | 11 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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) 08:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Moreschi, in consideration of the somewhat major news that Kosovo has declared independence, could you suggest an image change for ITN that would be appropriate? I see you're pretty involved in the situation about now, and seen as you've got quite a bit more experience than me.... :) Regards, Rudget. 15:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I have unprotected the above page. Your reason for protection was "pre-emptive" while the protection policy says that protection should never be used pre-emptively. Please make sure in the future that you do not pre-emptively protect pages, as it keeps helpful editors from editing the page. Thanks and if you have any questions feel free to contact me. – Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 00:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, for heaven's sake, please try not to be quite so pompous. You do actually know what happened yesterday, yes? Kosovo was pre-emptively semi-protected as well: go and unprotect that and see how much vandalism you get. If you have no clue as to what I'm talking about, read a newspaper. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 12:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hehe, I dont think I have ever been called pompous before, thanks. And of course I saw what happened, but what is the point of protecting an article that hasn't been vandalized yet, let alone was only created a couple days ago? All you are doing is stopping our most productive editors from editing. I would rather wait for vandalism, than protect, instead of pre-emptively protecting a page, then having an IP come with breaking news and wanting to put it in the article and find out s/he can't and we lose a productive editor. I mean go look at the history since I unprotected, there hasn't been any vandalism, and comparing this article to Kosovo is not very accurate. I mean how many vandals are going to even know that this article exists?
- All that set aside, we do have a policy against pre-emptively protecting articles, and yes maybe Kosovo deserved a little WP:IAR, but it is hard to justify WP:IAR in this case. Oh and on a side note, I just want to remind you that sometimes calling someone "pompous" can be misconstrued into a rude remark. Now I dont give a shit what people call me on Wikipedia, so I don't care, but you and I both know there are a lot of others who wouldn't find that remark as funny as I did. But whatever, just a friendly reminder. Again, I want to reiterate that if you are going to protect an article pre-emptively, please weigh the costs with the benefits and remember that a little vandalism never killed Wikipedia, we can always block or protect after-the-fact to stop what is happening. Cheers! – Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, don't have a sense of humor do you? After I wrote that "I still have 2 edits to go..." I didn't make any edits, it was obviously a joke, since I didn't act on what I wrote (also, when I joke around, I write :)), by the way, the Arbitration committee only mentions me in a very marginal sense (accused me of something that has later been proved to be a false accusation), and I am NOT banned from editing Kosovo-related articles. If you look at my history of editing Kosovo articles, you'll see that most editors consider me a serious user who does not support Kosovo independence, but does look at facts in a neutral sense. I keep my bias at home, or strictly on my user page, unlike most users from the Balkans. Please provide a direct link to where I'm banned from Kosovo-related articles. --GOD OF JUSTICE —Preceding comment was added at 20:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello sir, how are you? The reason I am here is because I am getting very irritated by Megistias.Look what he did: Skanderbeg Serbian? I mean come on man Serbian?? Last time he said he was Greek, now Slav. This needs to end. I tried hard to communicate with him. You and Future taught me a lesson as how to be a better Wikipedian, so I do have hope that you guys know how to communicate with him. If he does not listen to Future Perfect imagine me. What else can I do to help? I don't think he will never change. Please, help Wikipedia to be a better place.With respect to both of you,--Taulant23 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- talk User:Taulant23 saying "It's on his blood" referring to meMegistias
- NOw we know who wrote these on my page and many more ,
, Megistias (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- FYI Moreschi the above edit by Megistias was also placed at AN/I. I have responded there and pointed out that all the anon edits quoted by Megistias are from an ISP in Sweden whereas Taulant23 claims to be in LA, California. I've also asked both parties on FP's talkpage to remain civil and in particular for Megistias to refrain from posting in Greek here on the en Wikipedia. (Just to save you having to chase down edits here there and everywhere). Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 09:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Moreschi, can you please look at the edit pattern of User:Eagerbeaver434, Special:Contributions/Eagerbeaver434. I fear it is a possible Hkelkar sock. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You know, I never understood that either. I've finally decided that its because such chaps are never exposed to the humanities - so they're never able to understand how to evaluate sources critically, and that undercuts whatever rationality they may otherwise have acquired. The greatest argument I have ever found for a couple of years of a broad-based liberal arts education - which I previously never believed in - is the critical thinking ability of the average product of an Indian engineering college. Rudra and Dab puzzling over it as well. Relata refero (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please read it all.talk on you me,future and Megistias (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
ass is at it again. 59.91.254.89 (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Does this user have to request for an unblock ? Haphar (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, his block should have cleared by now. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 09:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you, please, take a look at this, yet another unrealized conspiracy theory and . I think the disruptive behavior of VartanM violating WP:HARASS and WP:AGF continuously, making up conspiracy stories should be seriously reviewed. Otherwise, it's taking quite a bit of community's time to respond and defend users from outright baiting along national lines, the valuable time which instead of ArbComs could be spent on article contributions. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- On this one I'm going to pass the buck. As far as I'm concerned it's the arbitrators and arbitration clerks that are responsible for maintaining discipline on their own patch. Their call as to what to do. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- How about inflammatory, incivil and racist comments made in your talkpage. VartanM (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- You mean those made by Tigran? Grandmaster (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- How about inflammatory, incivil and racist comments made in your talkpage. VartanM (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
What's inflammatory original research is the invented map which is used as icon on that project. I don't see what's racist about telling the truth that Wikiproject Karabakh in its current form and shape is nothing more than Armenian POV. And POV, by the way, means non-neutral point of view, everyone holds one as much as everyone has a right to disagree with one. For balance, there is WP:NPOV policy, which does not seem to be reflective on current Wikiproject Karabakh. Atabek (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Talking of POV pushing Here you add first Christian state as an obvious answer to what is on Armenia article lead. Here you add first genocide, something which was up until recently on the lead of the Armenian genocide article. Your within norm baitings have never stopped, your various such intimidations have never cought the eyes of the administrators. It’s immature.
- Your reverts by claiming materials have been deleted when none have been actually deleted can not be considered as accident anymore. After Thatcher topic ban, you still continued to bait members by such actions. Here you double add the information accusing Antranikpasha to have deleted it when no such thing was done.
- Just recently you are making various controversial edits to provoke, for example Persian members , and back to Armenian members baiting , , , , , .
- Those were done only recently and are obviously meant to provoke members on the middle of an arbitration case. Your even more recent edits on Osroene are even more obvious, when you claim removing redundancy, when the clear purpose of your edits were to remove the word Armenia from the lead.
- It is because of your bogus, very bogus and false reports such as this here, that your very severe disruptions have been left unanswered, because any legitimate concerns on your behavior will be tagged as some dispute from both sides. VartanM (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
VartanM, I don't understand why you bring this up, but my edits at Osroene and Herero and Namaqua Genocide are based on scholarly sources. I don't see how this relates to Armenia at all, when the cited material comes precisely from various scholarly sources cited there. In second article, I don't see why would you deny the right for the suffering of Herero and Namaque people at the turn of 20th century to be known to the world just because I edit it. Moreover, in Osroene, I even incorporated facts about short period of Armenian reign during Tigran. Your claims against multitude of references brought by me on those pages are in bad faith apart from the fact that you were obviously stalking my edits on those two pages.
Meanwhile, I would like to attract the attention of Moreschi to a disruptive non-neutral POV image made up and uploaded by VartanM . And Andranikpasha, reinserts this image calling it "official map", along with removing a reference to CIA World Factbook associating it with "my memory from Stalin times" on talk page :). I hope both users will assume good faith and cease their disruptions. Atabek (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you please, take a look at this edit . Tigran removed handful of references, on which I spent time finding and adding. He is essentially trying to hide the references that Osroene was the first Christian kingdom. Note also, this is the only article he came back to edit after 5-day absence . And VartanM was complaining my edit unrelated to Armenia above. Don't know how to deal with situation when contributors are absolutely unwilling to discuss edits even on unrelated pages.Atabek (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a well known, firmly established, strongly supported fact that Armenia was the first Christian state. Being the first Christian king and the first Christian state are different things. Your complaint is frivolous.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is no reference that you brought so far but only non-sourced claims. Armenia adopted Christianity in 301A.D., while Edessa/Osroene, according to 4-5 references I brought, did so by 201 A.D. So bring references, instead of plain reverts with removal of sourced material. Atabek (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hkelkar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.253.196 (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 |
||
| Thanks for your dedication and your consistently good judgement. You are making a big difference.
Also, I have only just now become aware of Veropedia. This is a very promising approach. Rather than the usual forks by burnt-out editors walking away in frustration, it attempts to harness the great strengths of Wikipedia's model while offering remedies for its great weaknesses. In this it is vastly superior to "Citizendium", which may have none of WP's weaknesses, but also none of its strengths. (in all except in name: "Citizendium" is patently silly, but "Veropedia" isn't so great either -- shouldn't that be "Alethopedia"?) Either way, I really hope the project will gain momentum, and might perhaps form synergies with WP's own article assessment procedures (such as, showcasing "Veropedia approved" diffs on-wiki). dab (𒁳) 08:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC) |
It seems Megistias has finally decided not to quit or go on his wikibreak after all – but he is still hell-bent on ignoring your revert parole. Here , he is breaking 1RR; this wasn't discussed on talk; here , , , he broke not just 1RR but 3RR. Some action needed, I guess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I saw your comments on WP:AN but didn't get round to responding to them in time. I agree with your assessment - it's clearly been taken over entirely by Armenian nationalists. I can't imagine Azeri editors finding it a particularly hospitable place. Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo had a similar problem and got deleted for a similar reason. I recently reconstituted it on a more neutral basis and sponsored it myself. I'd suggest that you do something similar with Karabakh. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed this template as well, which is still plastered all over NK-related articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Gentlemen, please give Wikipedia:WikiProject Karabakh a chance. From my understanding the only concerns about it from user:Grandmaster and user:Atabek was the templates with the flag on it. I was already working to resolve this (see here. That project was not taken over by Armenian nationalists, I am not an Armenian nationalist, I'm not even Armenian. I believe this wikiproject can add a lot of value to wikipedia and I believe it was going to get participation by many other people (such as myself) that aren't part of Wikiproject Armenian or Azeri. With Kosovo independence I think that there will be a greater interest in Wikiproject Karabakh. Rather than shutting it down, please suggest ways to make it neutral. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I want to add the references and material in the corresponding articles,Music of Epirus & Polyphonic song of epirus.Is this reverting? Does this count as reverting?Megistias (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is any kind of edit a revert?Megistias (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, for heaven's sake. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and Help:Reverting should explain very clearly what is and is not a revert. Don't be willfully obtuse. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok i am changing them per their talk page.Megistias (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Moreschi. Would you have time to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#FA lists up-to-date?. I made some silly amateur errors there, and Kleinzach suggested I ask you to help out. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I've drafted a set of naming guidelines for Kosovo, loosely along the lines of the earlier WP:MOSMAC, which I created ages ago. Could you possibly take a look and see what you think? It's been a pain drafting them, and I'm sure I've not got everything right first time around, but I would very much appreciate your views in the light of your experience with ethnic conflicts. Please see User:ChrisO/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Illyria. Started by ArberBorici (talk · contribs · block log). BalkanFever 08:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- (Butting in) Hmm. Very little is known about the ancient Illyrians and most of what is should already be on Wikipedia (should be but, as I found at Illyrian mythology, that isn't always the case). If this is a bona fide project with enthusiastic members focussed on ancient archaeology rather than modern politics then I'd expect its tasks to be fulfilled in the near future when they've put all the very limited genuine information about Illyria online. But, as we know, such projects can also serve other purposes...:) --Folantin (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, but I unfortunately I suspect the latter.....BalkanFever 10:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- The map used in his icon is found in all nationalist albanian sites.map.I cant believe it hasnt been deleted yet.Megistias (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm certain a map entirely in the Albanian language is out of place on English Wikipedia too. --Folantin (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- If this does turn into POV-pushing club, I'll nuke it, but I'll be surprised if it attracts enough participants for that to happen. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm certain a map entirely in the Albanian language is out of place on English Wikipedia too. --Folantin (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you protect/semi-protect this page against an anonymous IP (or various IPs) who keeps changing "Anglo-Irish" to "Irish" in the lead? Anglo-Irish isn't just any old ethnicity, it has a specific historical meaning as our article on the term makes clear. The IP has been told this in the edit summary but refuses to "get" it. Obviously a Swift scholar. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have the impression that you implicitly enourage me to resort to anonymous IP editing with your actions, handing out same punishment for registered users and anonymoyus clones. Would you be satisfied if anonymous IP will edit EE articles instead of RJ_CG? I'm being not entirely serious asking this question, although I should admit that temptation does exist. By the way, I was truly impressed that my pretty technical slip (which started as usual, with me introducing sourced content not adored by Estonian editors and them reverting it without further discussion) encouraged you both to hand out 2-week block and to propose rule tightening here, but personal attacks and insults liberally dispersed by Estonian editors did not deserve anything more than 24-hour bans. RJ CG (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Look, the IP only gets 48 hours because that's his first offence, as far as I am able to tell. You, on other hand, with your rich history of edit-warring and blocks, get longer because these things do escalate. You have received your just deserts, I think. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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) 08:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
After seeing your comment on her RFB, I am inclined to oppose - I do not wish for a shemale to be a 'crat :P Will (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The dangers of always talking in metaphors! Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
