User talk:Moreschi/My Archive 7

Francesca Cuzzoni
Have now finished the edit with another image, and a bit more tidying-up. Comments, please.--voxclamans 07:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Have removed "stub status", so please ignore that bit of my e-mail to you of yesterday. Thanks.--voxclamans 09:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I've just done a bit of a "clean-up" myself. I hope any oddities of the prose are only in the quotations. Best wishes, Nick--voxclamans 08:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Undid an edit
I just undid your removal of Riana's section on User:R/EFD. She's actually participated in that "EfD", which I take to mean that she isn't particularly offended by it. If she was, I'm sure she would take care of it herself (similar to how you're perfectly justified in removing yourself from the page; I wouldn't dare dream of undoing that edit). Just giving you a heads up in the interest of open communication. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Riana's removed it again, and I was talking to her privately at the time. No problem, though. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 18:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That works too. Glad we didn't get into an edit war over this; I was going to cry at the ridiculousness of it all if we did. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've wheel-warred over that page already today :) Cheers, Moreschi Talk 18:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Holly Jones
Hi Moreschi: I noticed you deleted the Holly Jones article (log here). Not that I necessarily have an opinion about it, but was there an AFD discussion on this? (I can't find it.)

While I agree with the sentiments on keeping Wikipedia from being a tabloid, this girl's death was a massive media story in Ontario (CBC News even had a lengthy profile of the case). I don't mind having one article for the killer and the victim here, since it's really just one story. But there should at least have been a discussion on deletion. --Saforrest 19:00, August 23, 2007 (UTC)


 * Your redirect to the article on the killer is fine by me. IMO this comes under the spirit of the biographies of living persons policy (which gives me greater discretion as regards deletion) - yes, she's dead, but she doubtless has living parents and relatives who could be harmed by a sub-standard biography of her (besides, what is there to write about her as a person? That she got killed? Some bio!). At any rate, the one-article solution is not a problem for me. Moreschi Talk 19:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to the flagged revisions page.
I don't much care about how that part of the system works. But you need to realize that people will now oppose the proposal because "ZOMG admin control of content!" and "ZOMG we'll never have enought people with the flag! It won't scale". I hope that you'll either revert yourself or respond to every party that makes one of those arguments. ... I thought autoflagging with the ability to remove was a reasonable compromise. I'm not sure what you'll suggest in response to those arguments.--Gmaxwell 20:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My response would be...


 * There are plenty of people who meet those requirements who should not be allowed near stable versions rights.
 * Removing is always harder than giving, see adminship :)
 * Hardly admin control of content. When this rolls out I plan to form a list of people to give the rights to. Non-trolls can list themselves on the list (probably right here, on my talk). and I'll dole out the rights left, right, and centre. Does that cover it? Moreschi Talk 20:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's obvious from the comments on the talk page that this won't roll out unless it is clear that "sighters" are much more common than admins. Do you want to grant sighting personally to most of the 50,000 or so editors who would qualify automatically, or do you have to know them personally first? PaddyLeahy 22:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not know personally, although I do think that contributions do have to given a cursory check. Moreschi Talk 20:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

NCdave
At his request, I have agreed to assist and mentor User:NCdave. This is a result of a suggestion at his WP:CSN topic ban. Just wanted to let you know. --JodyByak, yak, yak 11:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Faustina Bordoni
I've now "done" Faustina, so that's both of these difficult ladies "sorted", I hope! Best wishes, Nick--voxclamans 13:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuzzoni and Bordoni
I am perfectly fine with you changing the rating I gave those articles. However, I think that if you are attempting to convince me that my reviewing technique is bad, you would do best not to suggest that I lack "a modicum of intelligence" or that my reviews are "banal and worthless". Captain panda  23:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Going by the other comments on your talk page, your "reviewing technique" appear not be so much bad as non-existent. Seems to be common fault with these ridiculous "assessment drives". Pure farce, and I'm completely fed up with it. Moreschi Talk 15:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ArbComBot 00:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Moreschi, I apologize for mentioning the dirty L word over there at first, it wasn't my intention and after realizing my mistake I had rephrased it. Since you have rephrased the statement that I thought was not appropriate, I have removed my entrance addressed to you on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren. So I hope no harm was done and we can put this behind us. Thanks!--Termer 08:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thank you. Moreschi Talk 15:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Opera in English
Hi, Smerus has also started working on this article. I've just got in touch with him about your proposed revision. --Folantin 13:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added comments on John Barnett and a number of 20th century composers. Please take wholesale anything you think appropriate and I will make any further changes in your workspace if that is OK. --Smerus 13:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely fine, thanks for helping out :) Cheers, Moreschi Talk 13:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
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 06:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop bullying
I was surprised to read the edit summary attached to your message to me today :"Final warning - thanks for heeding this". It shows that I am working properly due to your threats ! Stop behaving like a bully. I know I will not be able to contribute to Wiki for long due to unwarranted incivility of a handful of megalomaniacs who think new editors are servants of admins. I am not your servant and you are free to take whatever action you like. My students are senior to you, some of them are heads of departments and judges. Working under commands is not in my nature. You are deliberately trying provoking me to leave Wiki, without any reason. -Vinay_Jha 11:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if it came across that way. Now you're citing your sources, I'm very pleased to have you around. Moreschi Talk 12:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency
This morning I unblocked so that he could have his say in the arbitration proposal you've opened. He's left a note on my talk in response. I'll leave him a message now. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 12:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fine. Only fair that he should have his say. Moreschi Talk 12:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for misinterpreting you !
Even from the start I had no dearth of sources to cite from, but all my time was wasted in useless discussions. There are thousands of completely unsourced articles in Wiki. Normally, one starts with a stub, and then expands it. If I did the same, others (esp. DAB) might have asked me to provide sources, or added tags for citation, instead of abusing me. All other problems can be solved if we remain civil. Gentlemen and Civilisations are recognised by civility. -Vinay_Jha 13:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Good luck with your (referenced) work here. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 13:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack targeting you
Toomas Hendrik Ilves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) made a personal attack targeting you in the now deleted article Moreschi. I thought that you would like to know about this in case this user is stalking you and you did not know about it. Jesse Viviano 16:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Somehow I think the real President of Estonia would have better things to do with his time. I blocked this particular troll for impersonation and creating attack pages. Antandrus  (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ant :) I think this may have more to do with the nasty BLP I nuked earlier today than anyone stalking me. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lauren Caitlin Upton
You've claimed that Wikipedia is not a tabloid and therefore deleted this page. However, it bothers me that you just deleted it. There are numerous pages in Wiki that could be considered "tabliod" material. See: Diana, Princess of Wales, JonBenét Ramsey, Laci Peterson (These people are all dead, so lets see some that are alive). See also: Star Wars kid, Paris Hilton, Mel Gibson. These are not deleted. Please explain... Tdwinz711 20:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC) tdwinz711
 * Because Wikipedia is not a vehicle for making private non-notable people look like idiots for no good reason. Moreschi Talk 21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Who makes the determination that she is non-notable? I would think that since she won Miss Teen South Carolina, she is notable. There are plenty of other people that have wikipedia sites that are less notable than her, and some equally so. See: Nikkie Groat. Please advise as to what constitutes a notable person that they may have a wikipedia page. It seems as if it was an arbitrary decision. I understand not wanting people to put slanderous items in there, but having the facts of what was said is legitimate. Lock the page if need be, but to delete it all together is not a viable option. It undermines what wikipedia is all about. Furthermore, she is not private. When she signed up for the pagent (and again when she went on the Today show) she had signed a disclosure statement that allowed her image to be broadcasted. That is how her picture is on the Miss Teen South Carolina website.

OUTRAGEOUS!!!!! This block is outrageous and un-Wiki! Lauren Caitlin is about a TRILLION times more important, beloved and prominent than at least 99% of all the article subjects on this joke of a site.

WHY, OH WHY, are Wikipedia's administrators so freaking a***-retentive and have such an inferiority complex and fragile egos???

Do all of you HAVE TO ruin the fun and enthusiasm of the rest of us members JUST BECAUSE you need to feel powerful and important so desperately?? Are all of you school marm librarian types in wool sweaters with thick glasses, afraid of the thought of romance and fun?

SHEESH.

This Lauren Caitlin Upton Bio page better be approved quickly and available for work. America can't wait any longer for the Wikipedia Administrator Moron Club and assorted other freak Wikipedia unions to get a life.

Don't you people have JOBS, or do you just play with yourselves here while you're playing with and tormenting the rest of us contributors? Nleobold 00:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's on DRV. No personal attacks, please. Moreschi Talk 18:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:HARM and WP:PSEUDO seem quite relevant to this issue. WaltonOne 14:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Flagged revisions and autoconfirmation of surveyor rights
Moreschi, per the discussion here, I re-added autoconfirmation of surveyor rights to the flagged revisions proposal. I invite you to expand on why you think it's a bad idea.--ragesoss 22:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK needs updating
The DYK for today has not been updated in over twelve hours. Please update ASAP! Chris 12:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

sorry
Sorry but I believe they are, and next time be more Civil--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again i shall say some Civility is in order, i did all my edits in good faith, i will stop reporting names and other stuff--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 16:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not been uncivil. I have made recommendations so that you do not waste administrative time on a fairly large scale. Personally, I still don't understand how you welcomed "Tommy's horny tits", but reported "DirtyTony" and "Globalistgirl" - please read WP:U. Moreschi Talk 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * well i didn't see his name did I?, Globalistgirl and DirtyTony are names of a large web sites.--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 16:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * how about L0ser.wiki--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 17:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not block that. Moreschi Talk 17:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * being an admin sounds fun, you don't have to do anything--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, BEGD, that was pretty inappropriate. Being an admin is about using your judgement. Those usernames clearly fall way short of what we would block. I really suggest you brush up on WP:U - I need to read it myself once in a while, rules around here change pretty quick. In the meantime, please don't make below-the-belt comments like the one above. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever! We cabalists sit here all day, resplendent in dressing gowns modelled on Noel Coward's...touch of champagne...friendly, amiable chat on IRC...watch everyone else do all the hard work...decline a few requests on our leisurely time...oh, and in the spare moments, maintain the world's biggest and most trollsome, troublesome encyclopedia. It's the life, I can tell you! You should give it a go. Pass the bottle, somebody... Moreschi Talk 17:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * lol nice comment Moreschi. Riana i did read that but being up for 100+ hours can cloud your judgment a bit, i know what being an admin can be like but i can tell you that i reported them because i thought that they did violate the rules--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, cool. /me lets BEGD huff on her Wikipipe a little. Now, go to bed, 100+ hours is desperately unhealthy, especially for a teenager! (And if you're living in Aus like me, it's late where you are too). ~ Riana ⁂ 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.
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. R Delivery Bot 04:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your user page protection cascading is inadvertently protecting Template:Multicol
Hello,

You have transcluded Template:Multicol into your user page, and because your user page is protected with the cascading option enabled, the Template:Multicol page is also protected, preventing it from being modified. Can you remove the cascading option from your user page? &mdash; franl | talk &#x2724; 13:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe this has been fixed. Apologies for the bother. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 15:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Croatian Wikipedians' notice board
Do you want to say that Serbian Wikipedians' notice board, Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board and other similar notice boards are having right to exist but Croatian is not having this right ?? If you saying that this 2 can exist but Croatian not we do not have about what to talk because you thinking is against rules of wikipedia (POV) !!


 * If you do not speak about that but about User:Votec and article Jasenovac concentration camp my answer is only that edits of this user are that this is his single purpose account, his edits are POV and his discussion with other users is against this wiki rules: WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL . Do you know what is worst in the end that I need to explain my edits which are always confirmed with neutral sources and in the end I do not understand how is possible that user with single purpose account recieve protection for his edits. I do not even want that article be reverted to my version (this do not exist) but to version which has been before Votec POV edits. In my thinking he is sockpuppet of blocked user:Velebit (which is not blocked anymore ??), aka User:Mario.radin, aka User:Guivon , aka User:NovaNova aka....I have asked for checkuser so we will see. --Rjecina 15:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh...look, I've removed both edit-warring sections: both the one on your noticeboard, and both the one on the Serbian noticeboard. I've also started a thread at Administrator's noticeboard to get consensus on this. Moreschi Talk 15:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK I now understand what has been problem :)) Can you please look user page of User:BoDu . I think that his page is having copyright problem ?? --Rjecina 15:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Um...
What's up with the Don Murphy AfD being deleted? SirFozzie 15:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing major. Just life. Back now! Moreschi Talk 15:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okily Dokily. SirFozzie 15:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad box
Sorry for missing the |} at the end of the RFA thanks notice. It looked fine when I tested it, until something was added after it. Oh well. Again, thanks. Edison 22:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:White Cat/Poll forced leave
I value peoples opinions good or bad. I am capable if db-selfing stuff on my userspace. So I kindly ask you to please undelete this. Thanks. -- Cat chi? 11:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Get over yourself white cat - quite frankly, you're acting like a baby. Go and do something constructive.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  11:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why can't people show me the slightest tolerance even within mu userspace? -- Cat chi? 11:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. I will not undelete. Stop playing the drama queen and be a man. Make your own mind up. I'm not having the time of the community wasted to indulge your petty ego. Moreschi Talk 11:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not a man. This isn't about my ego. -- Cat chi? 11:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What you are, I neither know or care, but as sure as fuck this is about your ego. Get over it. Moreschi Talk 11:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets...try to get a grip (in the words of Louis Black Lewis Black).  Voice -of-  All  11:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you mean Lewis Black? -- Cat chi? 11:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this isn't back in black with Lewis Black and neither am I black (as per my profile photo). I just want to review community opinion about me. People do this all the time. Can't I do anything in peace? -- Cat chi? 11:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bollocks. Try here if you want to "review community opinion". What you want is a massive dramafest: you threaten us with leaving, and start a poll on our reaction to this. Will our knees tremble at the prospect of your departure? Well, I'm sorry, but we have an encyclopedia to write. We do not have time to indulge your ridiculous drama. We will not beg or bully. We are simply going to ignore you. You can make your own decisions while the rest of us to do something more useful. Moreschi Talk 11:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool Cat (or Gediz, or however you call yourself now), your antics might have been interesting two years ago, but now they are simply boring. Please stop devising new drama shows and find something useful to do. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Hi, thanks for protecting this article. Could I ask you to review this thread and this (deleted by the editor) and this (likely to be deleted shortly by the editor). The editor is acting as gatekeeper of the article, and is rooting his/her actions in fundamentally-flawed understandings of policy. It is really intolerable abd requires admin intervention. --Rrburke(talk) 20:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a sensitive situation, and I think we should all proceed with care. If we mess up, the McCanns could quite easily sue us to kingdom come and back again. They've already announced their intention to go after one Portuguese newspaper that they allege to have published libellous claims. At the moment, I think "not messing up" means not making drastic changes until such time as the McCanns are actually charged. Please continue talking on the discussion page. Moreschi Talk 20:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not acting as the gatekeeper for the article. Rrburke is upset because I reverted an edit of his and subsequent work has resulted in a much better section. Because of this he seems to see fit to harass me. I did not break the 3RR rule. I removed material that was poorly sourced or contradicted the source already on the article (eg the editor claimed a distance of 200 metres when the source clearly said 120, and there had been significant discussion on the talk page about how to handle this). The fourth revert was the new editor's having twice been reverted assuming good faith and twice more after a warning. None of the material was appropriate or sourced. WP:BLP applies, and is taken very seriously by the regular editors.


 * I removed the warnings because they were inappropriate harassment.


 * It is laughable to suggest that I am acting as a gatekeeper for the article. A quick look at the history will show that the accusation is ludicrous. I have made relatively few edits and even fewer reverts. There are others who are far more active than me in that department. I recently went almost two weeks without touching the article, during which time it was even recommended for deletion.


 * I have told Rrburke I will report him for harassment if this continues. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Making an inexperienced editor aware that his/her fundamentally-flawed understanding of Wikipedia policy is no basis for excluding material from an article is not harassment under any definition. A good-faith notice that an editor has violated WP:3RR, which this editor had, is also not harassment.  I have not posted the violation to the 3RR noticeboard only because your protection of the article mooted the problem -- 3RR is meant to be preventative, not punitive, and article protection obviated the problem.  I really look forward to any claim of harassment this editor might wish to submit, as it would afford me the opportunity to place the entire record on the table.


 * I am not even slightly upset that the editor reverted my contributions. I am, however, averse to an inexperienced editor's basic misunderstanding of policies, guidelines and Wikipedia keywords ("verifiability", "source") being used as the mistaken basis for excluding material, acting as though s/he has been appointed guardian of the article.  I am averse, also, to the editor's characterization of his/her opponent (not me) in a content dispute as a "vandal" and reverting their edits five times, contrary to WP:3RR.  This kind of reversion is defensible only in cases of simple vandalism.  This was not simple vandalism, but ill-advised edits that were probably revertible, but nonetheless could be viewed as good-faith but inappropriate additions -- such edits are never considered simple vandalism, and the only basis for suspending 3RR would be if the edits were simple vandalism.  They were not; they were a dispute about what constitutes appropriate content, so the editor's fourth and fifth reversions violated 3RR.  Notifying him/her in good faith of the potential violation is never harassment.


 * The McCanns, moreover, decidedly cannot sue us for summarizing the published reports of the case, however unfavorably those reports reflect on them. Nothing in the information I tried to include   remotely approached libel: it reproduced reports widely disseminated in the media, quoting a person closely connect with the case.  That is not libel under any operant definition anywhere in the world, and exclusion of it on those grounds is a specious pretext.


 * I really ask you to review this thread to evaluate the editor's understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines -- utterly erroneous understandings s/he has used as the basis for excluding unwanted content. These are not nuanced judgments about which reasonable people can disagree, but plain misprisions of the plain language of the policies -- as any knowledgeable editor reviewing the thread will immediately ascertain.  Excluding material based on these simple misconstruals of policy cannot be allowed to prevail.  --Rrburke(talk) 01:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is for all editors, not just experienced ones. The revert I made was based on the consensus of the editors of the article at the time. In fact, it is Rrburke who is inexperienced with this article as this appears to be his/her first edit to it. A lot of discussion has taken place over the months about how to handle this sensitive subject. We were in the process of discussing who to handle material from people like the aunt, and the consensus (as I understood it) was to leave it out until we reached an agreement. As for understanding of Wikipedia policies, maybe I don't understand them as well as Rrburke. But I do unserstand WP:CONSENSUS.


 * And I do understand that if someone included in an article that Toronto is the capital of Canada, even if they can find a reliable source that quotes this, it can be summarily reverted as not being true. And if it is continuosly reinserted, the 3RR rule does not apply to the editor who reverts it. Facts are important in an encyclopedia, and for Rrburke to suggest they aren't is ludicrous. This is especially true when dealing with an article as sensitive as this one.


 * I am am done arguing with this editor (and sorry that it has come to your talk page). If he wants to make a formal complaint, I will defend myself. Otherwise I will not be wasting any further time with Rrburke's accusations. Harry was a white dog with black spots 06:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't trespass further on Moreschi's talk page or patience. My response will be here.  Moreschi, I hope you have the opportunity to read it and respond.  Apologies again for invading your talk page  --Rrburke(talk) 13:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann - edit war
Nothing fails to surprise me about Wikipedia but this takes the biscuit. This evening, which I thought would be quiet, I took my wife out for a meal and came back to find that all hell has broken out. I have restored the article to its pre-edit war state and I am presently going through the edits to bottom the issues and place notes on talk pages to try to get agreement. Ah well ... TerriersFan 21:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW when the full protection expires then I think that we should immediately restore semi-protection with cascading. We cannot, at such a sensitive time, risk some of the edits that have been made. TerriersFan 23:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you've done this, and yes, I agree. I'll look at the other stuff later. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 15:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidents
I am normally one to be 99% civil but what happened is this. I tagged a new article which was in a terrible state -no categories, no links wikified, no paragraphing no real context thinking I was doing a good job new page patrolling. The user later rmeoved these saying I was premature. I layed back a bit and suggested how he might create new articles -and once he posts them he can't go on at other edits who tag them for clean up if they ar enot wikified properly to begin with. The editor peristed he would attend to it so I though ok cool and left him to it. I returned however several days later and he had still not done it. Now can I be blamed for tagging articles and bothering to fix a problem myself when the editor didn't follow up his word? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     "Talk"? 17:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikification is not that big a deal, and on such a short article it's really not that big a deal. Nor was the version you initially tagged quite that bad. Congrats for doing the wikification, but you did not need to label the other editor "incompetent" in the edit summary. He has acted in good faith. Moreschi Talk 18:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Mail
Replied. --Folantin 20:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

wrong info
Why did you put a block when your info is inaccurate, what you have is completely false, first you have King Booker with the B's, what a idiot whoever placed him there, when Booker is his first name, so he belongs in the K's, when in fact he is suspended, so he should be placed in inactive! Also, I didnt know Queen Sharmell wrestled, obviously you live in a dream land if you seen her wrestle! Benjamin is back to singles competition, where was Haas on Raw, oh, thats right, he is INACTIVE!

Your info is false, and I feel sorry for the newer fans wantiNG to see who is on the roster when they come here, they will be so confused with all the WRONG INFO!

NICKSPARROW —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickSparrow (talk • contribs) 15:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Wrong Version. The article will live for 48 hours until this gets sorted on the talk page. Moreschi Talk 18:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

People were not "fighting" as you call it. The user Cowboycaleb1 was vandalizing the article so only he should be blocked from the page. Please lift the protection because for the next 48 hours the entry is innacurate and in its vandalized state by the perpetrator. Doppy88 20:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a multi-user edit war going back a few days. A spot of protection will not do harm. Moreschi Talk 20:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.
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. R Delivery Bot 20:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WWE roster
Will you please revert back to this revision like the other editors above have requested. Cowbodycaleb is blatantly inserting incorrect material despite warnings and discussion on the talk pages of several editors about what the listing should currently look like. — M o e   ε  22:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for locking the WWE Roster, I was tired of all the people adding suspensions when they weren't supposed too, but Sandman on the RAW brand was released today, so could you or someone else remove him, Thanks. http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/sandmanreleased —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zii XFS (talk • contribs) 00:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The protection should be off by now. Moreschi Talk 12:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for monitoring Iranian Azeris. I believe the new users is also the same guy. He is simply trying to insert a made-up ethnic map from a ethno-political site which contradicts reality. So when I tried to remove it because it violates OR, he simply started his attack. Unfortunate for Wikipedia.--alidoostzadeh 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely (him, not you). Another troll bites the dust...Cheers, Moreschi Talk 12:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost.. he is back under a different username! --alidoostzadeh 20:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alex Bakharev nailed one sock, I've blocked the other. These nationalists do like their public outings, it seems, particularly sock parades. Ah, well...Cheers, Moreschi Talk 21:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep here is the third one that hasn't bee blocked.  Talk about a POV pusher.  Funny thing is this guy as soon he sees the name Doostzadeh (thinks it is Persian) or Bakharev (thinks it is Russian) claims that we are biased/fascist/racist ande etc!. Wikipedia is definitely a magnet for such people! (unfortunately)  --alidoostzadeh 21:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He also vandalized my page . I would appreciate it if possible that it can be protected for a small period from anonymous ip's.  Thank you  --alidoostzadeh 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye, such types are attracted to WP like wasps to chocolate in high summer. User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism is a good discussion of the problem and where it arises most. A good read! I've done the protection for week, let me know if you want it off sooner. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 21:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for the protection. The user is back with two new socks!  Bilghin and Turmus.  --alidoostzadeh 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection for List of Konoha ninja
I had previously requested indefinite semi, but did this get deactivated after your full protection of the page expired? IPs are now able to edit the page and the same issues that led to my requesting semi-protection are resurfacing as a result. Is it possible to reactivate semi-protection? Thanks. Broken Sphere Msg me 22:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for supporting my recent successful RfA. I have been testing my new mop a bit and Wikipedia hasn't crashed yet! Cheers!! -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You have deleted several pages without a consensus.
Defender 911's WikiResource Center:Feeling Upset was fairly deleted. However, you proceded to delete the rest without a consensus. Care to justify this? --The Wiki Loner (Let's chat!) 23:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is one of the things that always gets me about Wikipedia: why does everyone seem to think that "consensus" requires either the definite article, or the indefinite article? It doesn't. It requires neither. "Consensus" is a strong, virile noun that is perfectly able to stand alone.


 * Quite apart from this, several editors in good standing at the MfD strongly suggested that the rest should be deleted, and in all honesty the rest was completely useless to Wikipedia, if not actively detrimental. Common sense also plays a part, I think. There is an encyclopedia to write. Moreschi Talk 10:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, I forgot: seeing as the user in question got banninated in a manner that either indicated egregious stupidity or trolling, I'm certainly not going to undelete! Moreschi Talk 10:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not requesting an undelete, I'm only requesting that we not use one consensus to justify the deletion of the entire project attempt. As for your accusations of alleged trolling, I'll check his contributions and get back to you on that, but I will say this again:I am not requesting an undelete or ban lift, just due process.


 * Also, paste your response to my talk page so I know when you've responded. --The Wiki Loner (Let's chat!) 17:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you're online. I'd say that "Ignore all rules" was followed very well by the defender. Common sense, maybe not. --The Wiki Loner (Let's chat!) 17:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Still, "Ignore all rules" is too general a term. Perhaps "Ignore all rules" is superfluous if rules are set. If ignore all rules is in place, rules have no meaning. Don't use it as a defense; it doesn't belong as one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWikiLoner (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If what you said is true, then explain this, this, this, and this, all of which have a message reading"
 * This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus.
 * They sound like rules to me. Have they been ignored? Not often. And as I said before, "Ignore All Rules" is far too general. I'm not asking for much, just a fair discussion. Maybe (and probably) nothing will change. But if all MfD are to go through the same process, then it's only fair to grant the now deleted Resource Center a fair chance. --The Wiki Loner (Let's chat!) 20:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

All our policies are subject to changes in consensus and to IAR, with the exception of NPOV. The pointless, deleted user subpages of a banned troll are not going to be undeleted any side of the 10th of never. Certainly not by me. End of discussion. Moreschi Talk 20:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Postscript
And in the finest manner of the best comedies, it ended with the naked girls entering the stage the indefinite block (the nudes are Aristophanes). Checkuser confirmed TheWikiLoner as a sock of Defender 911, something that was painfully obvious right from the start, really. Was it the fatal flaw that haunts even the best of men that drew him to this page? Or was it simply outright idiocy? Shall laments be sung on Ida for the passing of the troll? Even if no other does, I shall sing one, for the gods bring terrible vengeance if even the worst of men are not honoured in wikideath. Moreschi Talk 22:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong
Heartening to know there are still a few "normal" wikipedia editors keeping an eye on this article. I was beginning to feel a bit alone fighting blatant POV-pushers. Thanks for stopping by! Ohconfucius 13:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I agree that this one is obviously pushing POV. I've left a message for Kirill asking whether I can ban this person from Falun Gong topics outright, as the arbitration remedy seems strangely worded. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 14:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete a Page
Thank you Moreschi. But now I'd like to know how to delete the page I have created. Bee Coz 16:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just add db-user. Moreschi Talk 16:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

IP socks
Hi. Could you please have a look at contribs of this IP, who reverted the tags on Shushi Massacres? That article was created by a sock account Hu1lee, and Hu1lee and banned user Andranikpasha were the only real editors of that extremely POV article. I suspect they may have something to do with removal of tags. Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 18:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, edits of the new account of strangely coincide with those of sock accounts on Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan). It does not seem to be just a coincidence. Grandmaster 18:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the IP for now, as the article is definitely highly POV! I'll keep an eye on the IP's contribs. Interestingly, WHOIS points to a Swedish location, which is a bit odd, no? I'll look at the other stuff as well. Moreschi Talk 18:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I also noted that. I'm 100% sure that it is an open proxy, which is quite typical for Artaxiad and other sockers. Grandmaster 18:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Checkuser run on Gazifikator comes back negative for now, no other accounts. We'll have to sit tight on this one for a bit. Moreschi Talk 20:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham meetup
Hi there, I noticed you put your name down as interested in a Birmingham meetup. Just letting you know, the date is now set as Saturday 20th October. We really need input on where, and what time we will meet, so comments would be much appreciated on the page. Thanks.  Majorly  (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! Oxymoron83 02:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Style
Based on the recent WP:AN thread I'm going to go ahead and rename the MOS to something less official-sounding; several people pointed out that it possibly won't help, but nobody has made any big objections or allusions that it would be harmful. Please keep an eye out, it is possible that some wonks will vehemently object to this on bureaucratic grounds.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz
User has violated his parole by extending the nationalist edit war to the Literature Template. Please, review. Thanks a lot. Atabek 16:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're a moderator, please moderate.
Dab has no place editing this article. Read his comments under ancient Assyrians about "being ethnic" and his assumption of bad faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assyrian_people&oldid=158531680#Europe_and_the_ancient_Assyrians —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharru Kinnu III (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a moderator, and my job is not moderation. Your complaint is both trivial and irrelevant. Moreschi Talk 17:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover, you seem to be going on something of a pub crawl looking for people who will back you up in your ignominious fight against Dbachmann. Such behaviour is highly unseemly and does not contribute to the encyclopedia in any wise. I would suggest that you find something more productive to do as a matter of urgency. Moreschi Talk 17:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not assume bad faith, I am assuming hysteria (and I rest my case :) --dab (𒁳) 17:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Smile!


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.
 * You only get more because you're a girl. Bah Humbug! Moreschi Talk 19:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There aren't any girls on the internet, didn't you get the memo? Women are men, men are men, children are FBI agents, and all that ~ Riana ⁂ 19:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I protest reverse discrimination! Methought WP was originally a gladiator school for macho alpha males with inline cites and block buttons, not some feminised seller of perfumed smilies! Yeuch! Moreschi Talk 19:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope it really did make you smile, though, my dear sweet man. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
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 03:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! &mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 03:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for deleting my entry on Jennifer Ringo. If I had the time and the attention span, I could have read the rules and regulations and worked out for myself that it wasn't permitted but I don't. So thank you SOOOOOOOOO much for taking care of it for me. Learning through one's mistakes is is so much easier than laborious and tedious self education. Have a great day. Mike Hayes 04:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Next project: List of groups that are treated unequally by not having an 'allegations of apartheid' article about them. mmmmmmmmmmm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike hayes (talk • contribs) 04:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Administrator! It seems youre mentored the article Shushi Massacres. Id like to know if you think the last redirect is OK and its ok to change a title when a lot of sources added and new title hadnt even one citation in the article (I didnt find also any explanation except the one users pov that this name is "neutral"). Is this a editwarring, or not, as the author is another user? Andranikpasha 08:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Del Rev
Howdy, I've sent Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal to deletion review. Regards, Navou banter 12:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Moreschi/The Plague
I found your essay quite interesting. I agree that POV warriors are a big and growing problem (although I wouldn't say nationalism was necessarily the principal source of disruptive editors; those anxious to promote pseudo-science or far-left conspiracy theories account for at least as much tendentious editing). I think you make a good point in terms of why many POV warriors are attracted to Wikipedia; we're certainly a high-visibility site, and many readers assume Wikipedia to be more reliable than it is (due in part to the formal, encyclopedic tone of our articles), a weakness which is open to exploitation by those hoping to spread propaganda. However, I'm not sure what can be done to deal with this problem, and I'm not sure what you meant by the need for "a small expansion in sysop powers". You're right that many admins, myself included, are reluctant to intervene in content disputes or to make rulings on content; the reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, the appearance of neutrality is key; since admins cannot intervene in content disputes in which we are "involved", many of us are extremely careful not to take sides in content disputes. Generally, when edit wars are reported to ANI or AN3, I issue stern warnings or short blocks to both sides, and move on; if I tried to resolve the dispute or to rule on content, I might be leaving myself open to accusations of "taking sides". Secondly, I don't have enough background knowledge in areas outside of my fields of interest to make any kind of definitive ruling on content. Yes, I can tell the difference between sourced, neutral editing and deliberate POV pushing, but it's rarely so clear-cut; often both sides are citing sources, and it comes down to a matter of wording or of undue weight, subtleties which I am hardly qualified to rule on in fields which I know little about. The same is true for almost all admins. A possible solution would be to promote more admins with specialist knowledge and editing experience in certain fields, but again, there might be neutrality issues (real or perceived) in their handling of conflicts. So I'm not sure whether there is a conceivable solution to this problem. WaltonOne 11:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you miss this note? Or did I inadvertently say something to offend you? I only wanted to discuss the points you raised in your essay. WaltonOne 17:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Yes, I agree that reliability is a bigger issue for our credibility than vandalism; if nothing else, most readers can recognise that "FRED IS A BIG PENIS HA HA HA" is not how the article is intended to read, whereas subtle POV-pushing and the use of unreliable sourcing can often compromise Wikipedia's credibility in the eyes of outside experts, while imparting dubious ideas to the less well-informed. I also strongly agree that dispute resolution is a bit of a mess; having done some DR work as a member of the now-defunct AMA, I can attest that the system is inadequate to deal with aggressive trolls, who often win arguments by sheer intransigence and waiting for their opponents to give up and leave. User conduct RfCs are utterly useless, and I also agree with your interpretation of the ArbCom's inadequacy; the trouble is, those who rise to the position of Arbitrator tend to be increasingly cut off from the community, and (as you point out) their inability/refusal to rule on content issues means that many important disputes simply go unresolved. I think there are a couple of solutions that could be applied to deal with this problem: There's a discussion tangentially related to this at WT:RFA at present. WaltonOne 13:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * RfA reform - if we had an easier community desysopping process, we might well be able to promote more admins. At the moment, RfA is difficult to pass because it's so hard to remove admins once they're promoted (ArbCom is reluctant to desysop except in cases of gross abuse); as such, people tend not to give the benefit of the doubt when voting (or commenting, if you prefer) on RfAs, and generally Oppose unless they're 100% sure the user can be trusted. An "easy sysop, easy desysop" culture would probably be healthier for Wikipedia, IMO.
 * As you say, we also need to promote more admins with expertise and/or experience in a specific field of editing. The humanities, which you specifically highlighted, is a particularly difficult area IMO; unlike sciences etc. where there are clear-cut "right" and "wrong" answers, fields such as history and philosophy tend to be skewed by people's political and religious bias, making it near-impossible to achieve NPOV.

My thoughts
I don't really like the word "nationalist" (as it's used like the word "nazi"), partially because it cost a good user a few RfAs. Still, it's a good essay and just proves that the kind of users who use such terms are just hypocrites. Will (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
I passed my RfA, and couldn't have done it without your trust and support. Thank you very much. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   12:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Source removal
Dear Moreschi, I made an edit on Armenian Revolutionary Federation adding 7 scholarly sources to the fact the party is radical. As expected, my edit was immediately reverted  removing all 7 sources, by an anonymous IP, a.k.a. User:Murat45, who also wrote an explanation of his revert at Talk:March Days instead. He is claiming that the word "radical" is not appropriate. However, the WP:WTA clearly does not list the word radical as such. Could you possibly advise on this matter? Thanks. Atabek 23:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Atabek labeling political organizaton as radical falls under WP:NPOV VartanM 02:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Reflexology
I've done a first revision. Strangely, it's a much shorter article when you remove all the advertising and unsupported claims. Adam Cuerden talk 11:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's much better. Now we wait for the howls of the mob...Cheers, Moreschi Talk 13:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Trelldom
How does this article assert the notability of its subject?  Melsaran  (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For fuck's sake, stop wikilawyering. It was written by a highly experienced editor and sysop of 50,000 + edits who knows how Wikipedia works. Stop hiding silliness behind rules. Moreschi Talk 13:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh, what? I have no idea what you're talking about. I just saw an article with "X is a band - Lineup - Discography - External links". I see lots of those articles when patrolling Special:Newpages and they are usually A7-able because they don't assert notability. I didn't know that it was written by an admin, I hadn't even looked at the history.  Melsaran  (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well then I suggest that next time you darn well do look. I always ran google searches before CSD-nomming stuff: still do before deleting. And I checked the history. Please be more careful and go a bit slower. Dbachmann knows what he's doing, usually. We should afford him the courtesy of some time to write. Moreschi Talk 14:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ehm, when I see an article on a band that clearly doesn't assert the significance of its subject, I tag it with db-band, I don't look at the history to check who's the author, look his edit count up, and then decide whether he probably knows what he's doing or not. An article that doesn't assert notability is an article that doesn't assert notability...  Melsaran  (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, at this point I give up. If you can't see the difference between "Should be deleted" and "Doesn't assert notability" there's no point in even trying. FYI, "written by an established editor, sysop and superb content contributor" is usually a clue that the former of the two previous option is false. Moreschi Talk 14:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (To Melsaran) I think the point is that you're meant to check if it's notable and if it is, change the article accordingly. Deleting it gains us nothing. Backsigns 16:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. About 95% of the time, "doesn't assert notability" is a reason for redirection, not deletion. I created this article before I saw the Gaahl section. Now if Trelldom had just been a redirect to that section, I wouldn't have bothered expanding it. For all I care, we can also turn it back into a redirect to that section now. Although I do maintain that "what links here" suggests that there should be a short article in place. The band certainly has notability within Norwegian Black Metal. This is not the high school garage band our "bands" guidelines are aimed at. Either way, there was no call to delete this from under my ass. dab (𒁳) 21:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 23:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Armenia
Hi, could you drop a line to this guy? Thanks, Ghirla-трёп- 21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Already done at AN, so it seems. I'll continue to keep an eye out. Moreschi Talk 13:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks
Hi Moreschi, thanks for watching over my pages and protecting them. -- Kyok o  22:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Viva Moreschi, che sa servir! Cheers, Moreschi Talk 13:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers!
This just made me crack up. That would be quite a satisfactory solution. &mdash; madman bum and angel 16:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol, thanks...we are going to have to watch the contributions of the people who set this monstrosity up. Several are probably prime candidates for topic-banning. Moreschi Talk 13:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pro Milone
Is it obvious?: "Roman law at the time had no distinction between murder and manslaughter" or "In many ways the circumstances surrounding the case were apposite for Cicero, forcing him back to his own oratorical foundations" or "Milo was a praetor at the time, attempting to gain the much-vaunted post of consul; Clodius was a former tribune standing for the office of praetor".

p.2(b) of WP:WIAGA actually states: at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;

Ruslik 10:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Mail
Finally replied. --Folantin 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied. Moreschi Talk 20:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Denial of Soviet occupation
Hi! It seems that already deleted article Soviet occupation denialism has been re-created under new name just about three months after the case. Can you please take a look?--Dojarca 08:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your claim is counterfactual. Do you want to defend the lie in front of the ArbCom? ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 09:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're a great one for assuming good faith, aren't you, Mr Digwuren? Not that I'd have known it was you from the signature. I can't be bothered to speedy this, I'm afraid, too much drama, and I'll have the lynch mob after me (another one). However, the AfD should result in delete, if closed by a sensible admin and if the phase of the moon is right. I will block any single-purpose meatpuppets recruited to defend the thing off teh forums, on the other hand, so I wouldn't advise anyone to try, as is usual practice across WP. Moreschi Talk 18:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Clean slate:
Hi Moreschi, I don't know if you remember, but we got off to a bad start a while ago and I just wanted to say that I'm sorry and that I'd like to have a clean slate in regard to our previous encounters. I think it's safe to say neither of us want to harbor ill feelings to one another, so hopefully this will be an olive branch that is accepted. Anyway, see you around. :) Sincerly, Spawn Man 12:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC).
 * No problem. Clean slate it is. Moreschi Talk 13:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :D I guess we'll see each other around then. That Denial of Soviet occupation AfD was getting out of hand (Honestly, resorting to calling people Soviet lovers?!), so I tried to get them to calm down lol... Anyway, I'm just happy we're cool. Cheers Moreschi. :) Spawn Man 13:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sparta reference
Could you please talk some sense into Tazmaniacs on the Talk:Nazism page about that Hitler-Sparta parallel? Thanks. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:06 26 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

MfD about the WikiProject_ROMacedonia
Hi, I noticed you voted for the project deletion. I'm sorry I noticed this thing a little bit late, please review my comments on the MfD page here and also here, I think we are going to make a big mistake if we delete a whole project because of the To do page dispute. I'm open for discussion. MatriX 22:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.


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. R Delivery Bot 02:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mail
Probably not too urgent but of general interest to some issues on WP. --Folantin 11:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, kind sir
Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! ~ Riana ⁂ 12:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought this was a template. Two identical thanks above raised my suspicions. Isn't this a case of DENY? And yes, I'm in a filthy mood. Folantin will have mail soon, FYI, I'm writing up my reply. Moreschi Talk 12:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Read and replied. --Folantin 10:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz
User:Hajji Piruz is back only revert warring on Azerbaijan-related pages. Please check the new AE report. Does not look like the recent block helped him be more constructive in editing. Thanks. Atabek 15:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * All of those are Iran related topics and I did not violate my parole anywhere. I was gone for a week and a half, I was not blocked for a week and a half Atabek ;).Hajji Piruz 19:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not "walk away" for ten days. I was busy for 10 days and my time was spent on other things. I'm sorry if this seems like "walking off" but there are more important things than Wikipedia and I needed to take care of other things during that period, and to be honest, there may be other times where I will be gone for short lengths of time. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 01:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This is true. However, that does not mean you have perfect license to revert what everyone else has done in the time you have been busy. 12:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Mozart
Thanks, Moreschi, for protecting Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. I think this is not just a matter of convenience, but also quality: it helps maintain a usable page history, unclogged by vandalism. Opus33 17:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I think the semi-protection should stay there. I've done the same for Ludwig Van and Bach. We're more likely to get people to actually think about content issues if they don't have to revert the kids all the time. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 20:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

BenB4
Well gee, it turns out the OTHER editor who also trolled my CU posts during my RfA is ALSO the sock of an arbcom-banned user. Isn't that special? - Crockspot 21:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted a couple of probable socks on WP:AE you might want to check out. - Crockspot 23:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Registration and subscription sites
Hmm, yes sites requiring subscription and registration are to be avoided, see WP:EL. Rlevse 15:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In which case, fuck the guideline, because it's stupid, wrong, and broken. Not that this is your fault, of course :) Cheers, Moreschi Talk 18:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * At the top of the guideline: "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources." --Iamunknown 23:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Caffarelli

 * I have added some more to your very good article, including a picture. Good to meet you at the SBC. Best wishes,--voxclamans 16:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Igor the otter
Thanks. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, my pleasure - completely so. Always as joy to rid Wikipedia of...people...like that. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 19:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"The Plague"
Greetings Moreschi, would you be able to take on another case? We've got a problem with Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) (guess who's edit-warring over it? Yes, exactly, Greek and Turkish users. What a surprise). Perhaps something like what we did on Liancourt Rocks the other day might work? There's a small core of mainly three people (2 GR, 1 TR) locked in a long-standing dispute, and a promising outside newcomer who might actually do something constructive but says he finds the current situation of continuous edit-warring too off-putting. Please have a look at Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). I'm a bit too involved with some related disputes involving the same people to take much admin action myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had a look, and I agree that the current situation is not acceptable. As a result, I've basically copied-and-pasted over your rules from Liancourt Rocks. Hopefully people will buy into this and people can edit constructively without having to deal with godforsaken nationalist edit wars. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 22:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please accept my deepest thanks for both your help and the ego-boo {grin}. My request for a break was correctly perceived by you both; hopefully, the wielding of the clue-by-four will get the message across to the others.  I think a month's respite will give me the time I need to get at least a  skeleton with some flesh upon it ready to move into the article.  I have copied the current version of both the article and the talk page to my sandbox, and will use that as my proto lab.  Thanks again! Most cordially, Drieux 23:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Radionics
Still awful, and likely to remain awful while you have that POV-pusher about. Adam Cuerden talk 13:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007


Automatically delivered by COBot 02:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Greco Turkish War
Hi, user alexiuscomnenus has violated the pre-established 1RR in this article.. I also explained the reasons of my reverting his first edit in the talk page..Regards..--laertes d 17:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing genuine reverts from him, would you mind spelling this out for me in more detail? Thanks. Moreschi Talk 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Laetes, please review my edits. I did not revert anything, I added content and cleaned up a section. Cheers. AlexiusComnenus 14:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The sound of silence
You wrote on WP:AN/I: I always think we should block accounts like this - pseudoscientifical POV-pushing only - indefinitely. I think so too, but if we did that, you'd be able to hear a pin drop in this place! MastCell Talk 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is true. Not, of course, that that would be a bad thing...Cheers, Moreschi Talk 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look?
See Talk:William_Schniedewind. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do. I've dealt with some of this before, haven't I? Cheers, Moreschi Talk 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also appreciate it if you could look at the San Diego Natural History Museum page. Jossi has removed the entire portion of the article dealing with the controversy. I have proposed a version that does not contain a single reference to any blog, but only to the Los Angeles Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune and the Forward editorial by Golb. Clearly this version should be used, instead of eliminating the entire topic.Critical Reader 20:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

P.s. I'm sorry, what I meant by the above is, could you take a look at the San Diego Natural History Museum page in addition to my exchange with Jossi, who is coming out with conjectures about my identity instead of dealing with the question of neutrality in these articles. On the San Diego Natural History Museum page, Jossi has removed the entire portion that you originally blocked from editing. His basis for doing this was that it referred to blogs. But I have proposed a version that doesn't contain a single blog citation. If, with Jossi, you eliminate the entire portion, the article becomes a simple advertisement for the museum.Critical Reader 21:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Rex's Block
Should Rex not be blocked for the remainder of the time he was alotted? You offered him a chance to leave comments about his community ban Community sanction noticeboard and he has done that. Anyways, I'll leave it up to you.He still has exactly 541 hours and 50 minutes of the block to be completed. He has served exactly 34 hours and 10 minutes. Kingjeff 21:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz
Please view my edit here. You're way more familiar than I with the situation here, but on the face it appears to be block worthy. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  16:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan
This user is again removing sourced material and replacing it with original research. And his justification of invented figures without source against CIA World Factbook does not suffice at all. Note that after a 5-day break, he reappeared on October 5th, just to revert me. As this contributor was a party to ArbCom 2, I think it's not right that he can just continue on removing referenced material to a neutral source on Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, without proper discussion and use his 3RR limits. Atabek 10:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I added a report on a gross assumption of bad faith and personal attack by User:RaffiKojian . Atabek 02:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You never do miss a beat do you? I'm sorry, I have classes, I have work, which means I'm not always on Wikipedia for the better part of my life (thank God). I didn't simply pop up to revert you as I have made numerous edits since yesterday on expanding several articles. Stop wasting my time and stop wasting the time of administrators by filling up their talk pages with this nonsensical blather. --Marshal Bagramyan 20:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Moreschi, just FYI, User:MarshallBagramyan continues edit warring on Nagorno-Karabakh War and either removing or replacing the word-to-word quote from CIA World Factbook with his own POV and WP:OR -, , and . I think such uncompromising editing is unacceptable, he is clearly taking advantage of 3RR despite being a party to the recent Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom. Atabek 00:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

About blocking me
I am surprised that you blocked my account (you know that I'm talking about). Majority of my edits were related to David Irving and Holocaust (mainly because of fierce and, IMHO, unfear resistance on that pages which seem POV-pushing to me), but if you didn't seen my other edits, it doesn't mean they don't exist. Please, explain yourself.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; account 2 11:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't bother wasting my time. Please take your scummy Neo-Nazi self elsewhere. It would not be the act of the gentleman to recommend Citizendium as an alternative, so please try Wikipedia Review, where at least you can't do any harm. Moreschi Talk 11:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Naturally, this account is blocked indef. Moreschi Talk 11:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Automated scripts/bots
Actually I was wondering if there was a problem with using them generally; are you supposed to 'clear' them with someone, first? HalfShadow 21:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Troll reposting an attack page
Could you salt this page: Cordosiesa. We have a Spanish troll who constantly reposts the same attack article. I've asked admins to delete it permanently but so far none have complied. Might be worth banning the creator (User:Fendit) as an SPA vandal. Frankly, WP isn't a venue for telling the world about your problems pulling women from Cordoba. Cheers. --Folantin 12:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Languages? Sadly not enough to understand this Welsh page about Breton rapper "Iwan B". I'm really fascinated by the idea of a Breton rap scene. Do they go on about sail-by shootings in their fishing-boats and threaten to "pop a cap in yo' crêpe"? --Folantin 15:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Breton rap...what on earth do they wear instead of Nike? I'm struggling to think of credible options here. Moreschi Talk 22:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Read and replied. --Folantin 21:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

E-mail
Check your e-mail... although you have since answered part of my question. Hiberniantears 20:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Invisible noticeboards
You asked (perhaps rhetorically): "Is there an invisible noticeboard?" In fact, there's a very visible one, on which you and Radionics have in fact been mentioned (e.g., ). You're probably already aware of this, but I didn't want you to think it was ESP at work or anything. MastCell Talk 23:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good heavens no, I missed this completely, thanks for the tip-off. I suppose I had this vision in my head of a grand conference room in the sky, dedicated for the especial use of edit warriors. Such things can evidently exist in reality, however, as we well know...me looks up the page. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 09:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Akmerkez
The current information is incorrect. It says "2 to 2.5 million visitors monthly" but the official website http://www.akmerkez.com.tr/About.asp says "1 to 1.5 million visitors monthly". Also, a vandal wrote that "there are alpacas in Akmerkez" which is funny because alpaca is a South American animal, similar to a llama. The new edit was good and correct, you should read before you revert. Otherwise, "admins" themselves will become the assistants of the vandals. 66.197.221.187 07:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Banned means banned. You are not allowed to edit, you are not above the rules. But yes, I've removed the alpacas. Moreschi Talk 08:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And how are you going to enforce that? I zig-zag between many different countries in the same year due to my work, using many different computers and IP addresses. Luckily for Wikipedia, I'm a good editor whose intentions have always been good, i.e. to write "correct" and "true" facts, with impeccable grammar. I was banned only because of participating in revert wars against trolls, and my not-so-kind conversations with them in my personal message page. Some admins act as if they "own" Wikipedia, which is against the spirit of the project, which is to "share as much information as possible", with the largest possible participation. Reminds me of which, my warning for the Hamburg University linguist who illegally spends his working hours as an administrator in Wikipedia is still valid, therefore I would like to suggest him to be more wise. Ti auguro una buona giornata e spero di non crearti altri problemi. 151.37.178.23 09:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're not the innocent here, you're as guilty as sin and a right troublemaker to boot. Also, that threat just means you got yourself banned from Wikipedia for life, my friend. Bad move. I'll see you in my log of blocks. Cheerio! Moreschi Talk 09:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)