User talk:Moralis/Archive 2

optional question at your RFA
Hi Moralis. I've asked a question at your RFA that you may choose to answer. I'm being a bit of a trouble-maker by asking it, but please be assured that my intentions are good. (I will be !voting support regardless.)   Buck  ets  ofg  01:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that message on top of your RfA. Er rab ee 09:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Teenagers Single
Can I ask why this was removed? It was properly sourced.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeamOverload (talk • contribs) 13:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Re: Teenagers
I guess I see where you are coming from, it's just that many of us have known AbsolutePunk to be a reliable source. I will await official confirmation before re-adding it though. TeamOverload 19:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The original mediator got WHAT?
--Kim Bruning 22:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Bluefield
I'm not sure if my block is lifted or not, but it is letting me add a comment on your talk page, so I'll take this opportunity to say my piece while I can. I will state unequivocally that I haven't left any anonymous comments on your page or on any other users page as far as I can recall. In terms of being blocked in the past, that may be a result of me using my laptop at a public library and at my school. I know I have never personally been blocked or banned before as Bluefield or in any other manner. I apologize again for posting the picture on the other editor's page, but my frustration got the best of me. I will say that I don't believe that act in any way detracts from my editing disagreements with the other editor, and that I still believe he had displayed "ownership" over the entires, but I will not be engaging in any more dialogue with him on the matter. Have a good weekend. --Bluefield 20:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Eugene Ionesco
I did not revive the mediation, as it was not dormant. I'm afraid that obviously you can't take over this mediation, since you've expressed views on it.--R613vlu 21:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have since turned over the mediation to Editor Assistance. However, the mediation was in fact dormant- it had been over a month since there was any active discussion on the case page or on the talk page. Furthermore, the only view I expressed was the opinion that Wikipedia policy supports your position, which is an acceptable comment for a mediator to make according to WP:MedCab. While I don't understand your reasoning in reopening the discussion, I realize that it's now active again and I hope you find an acceptable mediator soon. --Moralis (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Please feel free to say on the mediation itself "Wikipedia policy supports your position". That would be helpful.--R613vlu 21:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

New userbox
I saw that your user page links to Universal Life Church. I just wanted to drop you a quick note to let you know that I created a new userbox that you can add to your user page should you wish. is the template to add. GreenJoe 19:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA
I have looked over the RfA and I understand the genesis of the format, but that does not make it any less objectionable. I cannot in good faith support such a procedurally deviant nomination. Admins are first and foremost executors of community consensus. Andre (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:MCR
Hello Moralis, you are a very active contributor to WP:MCR and I would value your opinion and possibly help with the project. I think it is time that we step it up and really get out there as a project and edit some articles. I have started a topic for a revamp for the project at here. Not many people are active within the project and I think we should try and change that and try and become more organized. Any help is appreciated!  Orfen   User Talk | Contribs 23:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Simply not angry
Hi there as you know I posted the following to your RfA and I post a copy of it here to reiterate that I am not simply not angry with you in the slightest. My !vote is always made with consideration towards all of the candidate's attributes - including but not limited to his or her edits. Please don't ever feel that you need to come out swinging with me (in terms of rebuttal of assumed anger on my part) because that is not the case nor will it ever be so. Indeed as my previous registered edits will show - if you gain adminship even though I Opposed, I will be one of the first to congratulate you - and wish you good luck. (herewith my comment posted from your RfA) ... *Quick return - Not sure where you are picking up that I am angry with you. Nothing is further from the truth. I just wanted to ask you a facts question directly - to confirm for myself that you probably couldn't provide any facts. I appreciate that you are getting harrangued from several quarters but I can assure that I have absolutely no hositility towards you - but as you say you are probably being reactionary and that says a lot more about your candidacy than your lack of any proof regarding anon IP edits. -- VS talk 01:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Teenagers Single
I do understand how you are fed up and annoyed with removing the information. I myself am always reluctant to add new singles that are not sourced and I have frequently had to revert it. While a source that can be traced back to My Chemical Romance or the label would be better, WP:RS states: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Also at WP:V: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field." Unless I am very much mistaken I would say the information now falls underneath these two policies as neither source is un-reliable, just not direct information from the band or label. Before no reliable sources could be found but now these sources are starting to pop up and that is why the information was sourced and now being added. If you disagree and truly believe that the sources are unreliable due to it not being from the band I am willing to revert the information with you but sources are now available and being added and that was the reason I have now become one of those that are adding the information. I apologize though if I have gotten you annoyed or something to that effect as I felt the time was right and sources were now available and while the sources may not be from the band or label they aren't necessarily un-reliable by the policies.  Orfen   User Talk | Contribs 21:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While the radio website may not source where there information is from, I did some snooping around and on this page there seems to be notablity and a certain trustworthyness in the website. Also if you snoop around their articles they source a lot of different places such as Billboard.com and while no specific article on "Teenagers" can be found I think with them sourcing their information in other articles and with the page provided it makes them trustworthy. Regardless if we decide to keep the information or not the single is at least said to be released in the next couple of days so we'll know for sure when we get a release.  Orfen   User Talk | Contribs 21:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist your archives too?
Well, now I've seen a good reason to add archives to your watchlist. (mentioned here) I'm off to watchlist mine. BTW: By means of that round-about circuit I ended up back at your RfA, though I ended up !opining 'neutral' - I have to admire someone who didn't flee the masses! (messes?) Shenme 20:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Antioxidant article mediation
Hi Moralis

You don't have a usable email where I would have preferred sending this note privately – it's ok if you want to extract it from your talk page and carry on via Wikipedia email with me.

I stepped back from the mediation because it was stalled by Tim's heavy-handed position. One can see from his history on the Antioxidant article and discussion not only that he is intelligent and very dedicated to this topic, but also obstinate, opinionated far beyond reason, close-minded and self-appointed dictator of the article. He is both arrogant and naïve, making reasoned discussion with him frustrating and unproductive.

You can see from his latest Compromise Version: 1) he abandons literature where positive effects of antioxidant supplements were found in large disease or aging studies (because he obviously has unreasonable bias against stating beneficial effects), 2) he uses confusing description and bad writing; and 3) he reverses mediated paragraphs back to the position he wants.

I could itemize several mis-statements and jabs he has made about me, but find it negative, futile and a diversion to argue these. Tim seems to have endless time and relentless tactics to drive across his wishes. It is an unpleasant experience to collaborate with him.

As mediator, you have a role to help establish balanced information for the layperson reader – the main goal, I believe. You should not have to read the meta-analysis (as Tim wishes for his snowjob tactics), but rather browse the revised text as what you, your parents or any curious encyclopedia user of average intelligence would want to take away from this article.

It may still be a difficult task to determine what is best for the article, in which case you might call in a second administrator for another opinion.

My final points are simple:

1) the “old” clinical trials (1990s to 2006 are not really old, but Tim wishes to dismiss them for this reason) I cited in disease-specific positive results from using supplements are like investments paid and still at work in our behalf as tax-payers by the NIH and FDA who regulate and approve such multi-million dollar research. In other words, when completed and published, those studies are our government's best statements about what science has learned from clinical trials. They cannot be ignored; 2) Without stating these results as I've tried to do in an easy-to-read fashion, the article conspicuously omits what nearly everyone in the public believes – antioxidant supplementation works – let's at least give some examples from the published research; 3) the JAMA meta-analysis is subject to far more criticism than most publications receive – it is worthwhile to state this because it was a news jolt that shocked the public.

Below is another revision of my last offering for this mediation. Kind Regards -- Paul

Revised section

These harmful effects may also be seen in non-smokers, as a recent meta-analysis including data from approximately 230,000 patients indicated that β-carotene, vitamin A or vitamin E supplementation was associated with increased mortality, but saw no significant effect from vitamin C.[132] Conclusions from this study, however, have been questioned due to the wide heterogeneity of patients already ill with varied diseases studied in different trial designs, treatment dosages and durations.

Also, the results of this meta-analysis are inconsistent with large studies such as the SU.VI.MAX trial showing no positive or negative effects of antioxidant supplementation on cause-all mortality[112][135] and with numerous clinical trials demonstrating that antioxidant supplementation improved conditions against a variety of diseases, aging and morbidity. The following are a few examples among many published reports:
 * malnourishment in children
 * cancer
 * vascular disease
 * immune deficiency
 * stroke
 * age-related dementia
 * aging

Other literature showing lowered disease risk resulting from antioxidant supplementation is summarized in ). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul144 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Incredible that the brazen Tim would ignore your message that you are away from the mediation for a few days and take matters into his own hands by re-inserting the text he wants back into the Antioxidant article, without final input from you or another administrator/mediator or me. His action today makes my point: this man can't keep his fingers off the keyboard, behaving like a vane egotist and reckless despot within a community of collaboration. He ought to be blocked for a month or longer. --Paul144 20:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship nomination
On this occasion, your request for adminship nomination was not successful. I hope that you will continue your useful work on Wikipedia and perhaps consider standing again in future. Remember, many users who opposed your nomination are simply keen to see more of your contributions! Warofdreams talk 17:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see that didn't go through. Most people seemed supportive and I'll expect that if you try again with more editing experience on this account you will have fewer problems. Perhaps you could find a Good Article you are interested in and try to bring it up to FA? On the mediation, I don't think this is going to go any further, judging from Paul's comments above. Thanks for your efforts in this one, but I'm not all that surprised it didn't come to a conclusion, as it was a particularly technical dispute between two editors with very different points of view! If you need any advice on biochemistry-related subjects or need any admin tasks done in the future, please don't hesitate to get in touch. TimVickers 18:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry bout your RfA :[ mcr616 Speak! 21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Commiserations Moralis - but I do hope you are enjoying your two day break. I look forward to seeing your continuing edits and your candidature for RfA in the near to medium future.  Best wishes -- VS  talk 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you have a nice break, I wish you the best of luck with any further RfA's you make in the future. Camaron1 | Chris 18:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My Chemical Newsletter

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

mcr616 Speak! 21:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Clear Consensus?
Please, explain how six editors arguing for exclusion of Non-Christians and six editors arguing for inclusion represents a clear consensus for inclusion? Cleo123 07:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for having taken the time out from your other wikipedia activities and external life to try to mediate the discussion. I regret that you found the situation to be not significantly improved by your efforts, but I honestly cannot believe that your mediation can be in any way faulted for that. I had earlier given a barnstar to recognize the efforts of the previous mediator, which the party who started the headline immediately above this one chose to interpret as an attempt at bribery, so I cannot see myself doing so again, lest it be "interpreted" by that party again. But I believe I and several others are grateful for your efforts, and did want to thank you for your work. I wish you the best good fortune regarding your further activities here and in life in general. Also, if you believe I could ever in any way assist you in some matter relating to wikipedia, I would be honored to do so. Thanks again. John Carter 14:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, thanks for dropping by and getting a taste of this madness. Glad you had the sense to get out with your sanity intact. Nick Graves 14:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "As opposed to some of us," Carter said, conspicuously drooling on the keys while typing. :) John Carter 15:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why ask questions if you don't want answers?
I find it interesting that you requested that this discussion "move forward." You specifically said:

"Further discussion, if you folks want to come to a conclusion rather than arguing forever, should focus on whether the list should include former Christians, or only current Christians. I think the question at hand can be best presented like this:"

"Is this a list of notable Christians who became Christian by conversion or a list of notable people who have become Christian by conversion?"

"Please refrain from arguing the same tired points for the rest of eternity. I can't mediate between parties who aren't willing to move forward. There is still a good argument for the exclusion of non-Christians as a whole, but really, can we leave the Dylan thing alone and focus on the big picture? --Moralis (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)"

And you went on to say this:

"By this, I meant that those who seem to believe that the list should exclude people who are no longer Christian should feel free to pursue that argument in a way that does not involve WP:BLP, as their opinion is still equally valid and this discussion is far from complete. --Moralis (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)"

What I find so interesting is that I tried to present my argument as to why those who are no longer Christian should not be on this list. How do you come to make a somewhat outrageous comment like:

"Cleo and Bus stop, you two are indeed very loud, but talking a lot does not mean that there are any more of you."?

Did you not want either of us to participate at all? Did you not really want to hear my reasons why the article should only contain those who are presently Christian? If not, then why did you ask that I explain that point of view?

Bus stop 18:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom
I have submitted a report on User:Bus stop on the ArbCom page here. As an individual who was involved in this debate, your participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Drumpler 17:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And he changes the page the way he likes it -- when mediation hasn't even been resolved

 * AND NOW HE EDITS THE PAGE THE WAY HE LIKES IT BEFORE OFFICIAL ARBITRATION WAS RENDERED!!!!!!! I think this is PROOF ENOUGH of his attitude towards Wikipedia. He's right, everyone else is wrong, and he's going to do WHAT HE LIKES even before any decisions have been made. I think that alone proves my point. JAF1970 23:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Moralis. I realize JAF's comment above is several days out of date now, but I'm a little disappointed in the lack of response by any mediators past the first couple of comments in this issue.  Since the argument between JAF and me continued and escalated within the mediation page as well as on article talk pages, I came to the conclusion that he was unwilling to mediate (he has flatly denied that he did anything wrong, except to be "a little gruff" with me).  As such, I've filed a request for arbitration and have included more than 30 diff-links as evidence that he has been uncivil toward me and, quite possibly, broken multiple WP policies.
 * JAF's accusation that I broke mediation turns out to have been unfounded - another user outside of our dispute (User:Andrevan) came in and removed two sections of the article while I was offline (traveling), but JAF brought the accusation against me in several different places in the exact same way as above, and he has thus far refused to acknowledge his mistake at all, much less apologize for it or change his behavior.
 * Anyway, thank you for helping. I definitely welcome more involvement in the issue - I want to get it resolved so we can clean up the mess on several article talks and get back to normal editing.  Given how things have gone recently, I have no confidence that things won't just blow up again the next time I make an edit he disagrees with. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your VandalSniper Application
Good day, and thank you for applying to use the counter-vandalism tool VandalSniper. I am pleased to inform you that your application has been accepted, and you are now approved to use the tool.

Feel free to download the program, and be sure to read the features guide, if you have not already done so. Please bear in mind that VandalSniper is a powerful program, and that misuse may result in your access being withdrawn by a moderator.

Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions, and welcome to VandalSniper!

Kindest regards, Anthøny  (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Notifiying about a vote
Hello. The article Stereotypes of whites, which you helped writing, is being nominated for deletion. If you want, you could state your opinion here. Thank you. M.V.E.i. 21:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call
Melon ‑ Bot  ( STOP! )  18:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Cactions tool
Moralis, just to inform you, I've released a long-overdue upgrade to the cactions tool, which you should be able to see already (Ctrl-F5 if not). The tool should still work just as before, although you will need to update your JS to the new configuration system to keep the original tabs functionality; see User:Haza-w/Caction tool for the documentation. If you find any bugs or have any queries or feature requests, please get in touch. Thanks, and enjoy! haz (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

+Rollbacker
✅ per your request. Enjoy using huggle, and make sure you read WP:ROLLBACK before using it Fritzpoll (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Copyeditor!
I am in need of copyediting help quite soon on 2008 Belgian Grand Prix, an article currently on a GAR hold. If there is any way as an independent editor you could help out on said page, I would reward you handsomely... Apterygial (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group
Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page. Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Message from the My Chemical Romance task force
Hello!

You may be interested to know that the WikiProject My Chemical Romance has recently been transformed into a task force of WikiProject Emo. Please visit the task force page to see what's new. This move allies the task force with a larger WikiProject that handles much of the administrative overload, thus allowing task force members to focus on the most important activity: article improvement.

The project's membership list has also been moved to the new task force page. If you see that your username is in the "Inactive/former members" section, please do not take offense; this is because you no longer appear to be active on Wikipedia. We may also take the liberty of removing the member userbox from your userpage if it appears there, to prevent you from automatically appearing in Category:My Chemical Romance task force members. Of course you are free to rejoin the task force and re-add the userbox at any time if you would like to become active again.

For active editors, it is our hope that this change will help spur you to improve articles related to My Chemical Romance. You may have noticed that the old My Chemical Romance project userbox on your user page has automatically changed to the new task force userbox. We may take the liberty of fixing the template link on your userpage, to avoid redirects.

Thank you and we hope you will continue to support the My Chemical Romance task force!

--IllaZilla (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China (Pre-1911) copyedit request
Article with lots of information. I(Creator)'m interested in promoting it to GA status. Can you help copyedit it? Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

NEW CATEGORY PAGE
Hello Washington-user!! What do you think of this category? Either on a scale of 1-10 or with commentary. Let me know through the "Special:EmailUser/" section. #TTiT# 11:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Traveller-in-Tacoma (talk • contribs)

Welcome back
Welcome back Moralis, I was wondering what happened to you, it has been almost a year. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Corselet
I think that your recent edit to Corselet improved the page significantly; I did not realize that there was that much room for improvement in the article. Personally, I think that the current revision is very acceptable (but of course I thought the same thing about the old revision). Mario777Zelda (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting elections
You are receiving this notice as an active member of WikiProject Scouting. To change your status as a member, please edit WikiProject Scouting/Members.

Rlevse is retiring as our lead coordinator; see Stepping down as ScoutingWikiProject Lead Coordinator. Election for a new coordinator will be held after the new year. If you are interested in nominating yourself or another editor, please add the name to Project coordinator election.

Yours in Scouting

---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

homosexual v. gay
Hi Moralis. Your user boxes rock. Just wanted to call to your attention the preferred use of "gay and lesbian" over "homosexual". This is in regard to your changes to the Madeline Davis entry. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:IDENTITY#IdentitySee and http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200810/the-terms-homosexual-and-the-n-word. Thanks--Aichikawa (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Gatchaman
Hi

Cna I just point out that I had done that article a few hours before you and the copyedit required tag had been removed ? 

How did you get to do the edit - was the list of March 2008 articles not updated ? It seems that you replaced the "copyedit required" part of the tag with a date of 2008 ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol - ok m8 - if you have had it there for four hours and it is one of the earliest (ie March 2008 etc) it is always best to refresh the history first to check no-one else has worked on it - I did a similar thing a few weeks ago - no harm done :¬)
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

disruption
i am not disrupting it YOU ARE

I have to warn that Richhno to stay away from my project, Vanity Kills.

Please do not bother me (or any other team member) with this crap again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.9.235 (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Template
Before I continue, does Template:Membership/Mexico look about right? --Moralis (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks perfect. Now while I did remove some of the optional parameters (since I doubt Mexico will ever join the African Union =D) this however isn't really necessary as long as a membership or pre-membership date is not provided. So it is perfect. :) Keep up the good work and let me know if you run into problems. -- とある白い猫 chi? 08:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Long and undeveloped"
That description was actually meant to apply to that section of the street, not the whole street. But ... I of course defer to someone who's actually been there, vs. me, who has to go with Street View.

That view was perhaps what I based that on. I realize there are houses on the west side but ... the point is that the view from them is, significantly, blocked by trees. The idea is that that section of street would be a perfect section of street to park a car if you wanted to tell a story about your son not being there when you came back from your trip to get the gas your car allegedly ran out of with an extremely low likelihood of anyone seeing anything that would contradict, or tend to contradict, your account.

Do you have any ideas for better wording? Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

English words and Latin transliterations - not the same thing
hey, Im alex who recently erased those 'words' from several articles about cities in my country.

could I please know the reason why you are reverting the changes?

purpose of my edits is simple. transliterations into Latin taken foriegn languages are not English words. example.

city Львів (Ukrainian lang), English name - Lviv (based on https://geonames.usgs.gov/) Russian name - Львов. transliteration into Latin (Latin, not into English) of this Russian word is Lvov. Chinese name - 利沃夫. transliteration into Latin (Latin, not into English) of this Chinese word is Lìwòfū.

by removing my edit, you claim that Liwofu is an English word. transliterations are not English words. it distores the spelling between a language pair, for example Ukrainian-English, it is just incorrect to put one more or two+ more languages in between.

Example. Washington. in Ukrainian it is Вашингтон. so if i transliterate that Ukrainian word into Latin(!) it will be Vashynhton. is Vashynhton an English word for the US capital? no. its not a word. same applies to those examples i erase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.200.143.183 (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

PS: based on the US gov. body there 3 types of geonames in general

Kiev  (Conventional - C) Kyiv   (Approved - N) Kief   (Variant - V)

for those articles where i was removing latin transliterations presented as english words, none of those latin transliterations is (Conventional - C) form.

My edit to Owen's Defence
Didn't think this would be controversial. In chess, the sides are White and Black, and so the squares are called light and dark to prevent confusion. The sentence referred to a "white bishop" when from context, "light-squared bishop" was clearly meant. I don't have the book in question, but even if it actually uses "white", the correct terminology should be used to make the sentence easy to understand for others who don't possess this book. 2.24.119.42 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * A fair perspective, I suppose. Sorry you got caught in my BS filter. To be honest, it only struck me as a test edit because it was one word from an unregistered user with no contribution history, and because the existing word 'white' made perfect sense to me at first glance. Thank you for being diplomatic about this. I've restored your edit. --Moralis (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Xavi
Hi, I had listed sources for the correct way to write his name, according to Catalan naming customs. User:Mattythewhite had initially reverted them, claiming they were unsourced -- which they indeed weren't. However, I couldn't respond on his talk page, because ip-users are barred from editing/adding replies there. I did add the sources in the comments to the edit, but they were lost apparently, which makes it difficult for third parties to grasp what the reason for the edit was. The new revert was followed with the comment that Xavier is Spanish. So is Carles Puigdemont, but they're bot Catalan and the latter's name is written correctly (thus my reference to his Wikipedia page), while Xavier's isn't. It helps checking the respective Catalan wikipedia pages, because others like Carles Puyol are also listed incorrectly on English wikipedia.

Here are the sources for my name edit:

Cheers.--141.88.239.237 (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sportschau, [FIFA WC 2014 squad profile]
 * Goal.com, [Euro 2008 Legends: Xavier Hernández]
 * Ran (Sportsendung), [Datencenter: Xavi]
 * SB Nation, [Getting to know Xavi Hernández]
 * RTL (French radio), [Xavi: l'étoile file sans éclat]
 * beIN Sports, [Xavi has left the greatest possible legacy]
 * FAZ, [Das demütige Genie]
 * Zeit, [Xavi, das Genie mit dem Dackelblick]


 * Those look like decent enough sources to me, but I can't find them anywhere in your edit history, and the existing sources all have his name without the article. If you'd like to change it, make sure to cite those sources. You'll probably find it easiest to use Template:Cite web.


 * On the other hand, the existing sources, which have his name without the article, include FIFA. I have no dog in this fight, but if it turns out to be contentious, take it to the article's talk page. At any rate, your edits were reverted because you were altering a biography of a living person without citing sources, and for no other reason. If you repeat the change with a valid source, and the change isn't controversial among others who work on the article, fair enough.


 * Incidentally, the style guide does not mandate inserting an article between family names, and plenty of people don't use one. We aren't going to add an article to a person's name which they don't use themselves. --Moralis (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: May 2021
--evrik (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: July 2021
--evrik (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: October 2021
--evrik (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: May 2022
--evrik (talk)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: July 2022
--evrik (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: August 2022
--evrik (talk) August 1, 2022

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: January 2023
--evrik (talk) January 16, 2023

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)