User talk:Moderatelyaverage

Regarding WP:COI on certain articles
There are articles here on Wikipedia that are controlled in an incredibly strict manner (verging on violation of WP:OWN) by a few "select" editors who, in real life, are well-known and self-confessed members and supporters of the articles' subject, but, in a blatant display of dishonesty, choose to hide this fact from other editors, administrators and arbitrators, thus violating WP:COI. Editors of this kind often have a propensity to violate WP:GAME, if it suits their "mission". --Moderatelyaverage (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting back on the whole WP:COI issue, when I see an editor clearly violating WP:OWN in an article, I immediately will start to wonder if the person has any connection with the subject of the article. So, I'm going to google his or her username, especially if that username happens to look like a real-world name. And if I see this exact real-world name being connected with the subject of the article in question, then I will have every reason to believe that there is a clear violation of WP:COI and WP:OWN at the same time. And if the person that violates WP:OWN and WP:COI has misled Wikipedia arbitrators to punish those who have pointed out the WP:COI and WP:OWN violations, then we also have a WP:GAME violation and the arbitrator in question has proven to be utterly inept at arbitrating, since he (or she) has failed to investigate matters, has taken someone's words at face value without doing the slightest bit of research to see what's going on in the dispute at hand and has been tricked into an unfair decision. Sorry, but that's the way it is. --Moderatelyaverage (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Sarah (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Fix
I've fixed the 'merida'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Both for trying to improve the article and for the fix. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I try to do my best. Did you know there are more then 200,000 recorded typos in the articles? I've got a bunch of flagged false positives for names and foreign words, but I'm not infallible as you see. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised by the number of recorded typos. We have editors of varying levels of proficiency in the English language, which I think could explain a significant percentage of the spelling and grammar errors. Then we have simple typos... There are many occasions in which I wish I could find someone with greater knowledge on an article's subject matter or with a better grasp of the English language than me to cross-check for factual accuracy, spelling, syntax or even wording. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Souvlaki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Lamb


 * Steve Rothery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Takamine

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse guest survey
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 00:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/SentientContrarian for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the case. So, just because I'm Greek, opinionated and happen to have worked (with such users as User:RJFF and User:Dolescum) on the Golden Dawn article, as well as the Meligalas article, I'm accused of being a puppet? Greece has at least a million internet users. Many are active in discussions regarding the far-right (a part of the political spectrum that I detest). The evidence is, at best, circumstantial. I don't know the users you are referring to and am unaware of their editing history (I saw that one of the users I am accused of being had edited several entries 6 years ago, long before I created a proper account - until that time, I was experimenting in the Sandbox as a mere IP editor, trying to learn the ropes before committing to become a Wikipedian). Oh, and discussing with the "Bougatsa42" user once (and even agreeing with him) does not make me the same person as him. Furthermore, I have contributed numerous other edits to all sorts of different articles, ranging from passenger aircraft to computers and from music to dogs. I also would like to point out that my main interest is copyediting, perhaps much more so than anything else. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, on my references to the WP:COI, they were not made in reference to Takis Fotopoulos (of whom I have no knowledge whatsoever, therefore I can have no opinion on - be it negative or positive), but in reference to conclusions I reached by reading (and editing) the Saint-Gobain entry. Read my contemporaneous edit of that article's talk page (which is clear evidence of my awareness of that article and the COI issue brought up by other editors regarding a former employee of the company, who served as a single-purpose account with the sole intention of editing that particular article) and you'll see exactly what I'm referring to. So, in other words, it was this section in the talk page of the Saint-Gobain article and not a dispute of other users on a person I have no knowledge of and no opinion on. The time stamps confirm it, too: I edited the talk page of the Saint-Gobain article on 12:44, 4 April 2012 and edited my profile to reflect the opinion I formed based on what I saw there on the same day, between 21:25 and 22:33. The evidence is all right there on my user contributions. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem right to me, for you to attack and blame a fellow defendant, who is just trying to defend himself, but then, what do I know?Bougatsa42 (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not attacking you, I'm separating my position from yours. There's a rather thick and visible line between these two things. I don't know how you acted in that dispute you had with the other guy. I don't know how he acted. What I do know is that I found myself involved in a mess that I never participated in. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You're saying one that I deliberately created this mess, and two that I am deliberately involving you.

I think you are being very stupid. It is quite clear that there are people out there trying to make sure there own version of events gets across, and will stop at nothing to ensure this. Trying to make me look bad only plays their game.

Frankly, at the moment I feel that I have blundered into a lunatic asylum.Bougatsa42 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You really don't understand the mentality here, do you? With this confrontational attitude, you're not going anywhere. On the internet, one of the oldest truisms is that the oldtimer is always right and there's very little leniency towards newcomers, especially if they appear to be confrontational. You need to bring facts to back up your claims and complaints - and you need to do this detective work yourself; don't expect someone else to find evidence to help you, because no one cares. The way I see it, you're not playing your cards right at all. You went in, barging in like a bull in a china shop, accused other users of being affiliated to the former royal family and, even if your intentions might have been good, you didn't offer something new to the discussion. Where are the citations? The references? The secondary sources? You did a very poor job of improving the articles you were involved in and I don't want to become "collateral damage" just because you angered someone, causing him to start thinking that you may be controlling other accounts as well. The way I see it, even though you might have had good intentions, your contribution was not constructive. Much as I don't like the fact that I was not contacted by any party that might have felt my actions were wrong, I have to point out that you didn't behave properly and immediately jumped the gun. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Last edit by Moderatelyaverage (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)