User talk:Moralis/Archive 1

A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Moralis/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Simplified Ruleset
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Wikipedia Glossary
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango 123 17:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Userpage Templates

Here I am acknowledging that I made an oopsie in forgetting 'subst:' in some userpage templates a few hours ago. It was late, I was tired. Sorries. If I can find the errors I'll be correcting them. Moralis 09:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism Reversion

Why don't you join the talk page? --Aminz 01:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so if it comes to that, but I don't really want to get into the debate on the content of the article. What it comes down to is that you've started and are perpetuating an edit war. That's all I care about. Moralis 01:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should not just appear on the page and revert. That is a revert war. Please join discussion. --Aminz 01:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My initial reversion was because I considered your continued backup to the same version of the article (which you authored, and despite dispute) to be vandalism. In fact, I was prompted to view the page by the #vandalism-en-wp-2 channel on the Freenode IRC network, which reads an automated feed monitoring Recent Changes for potential vandalism. According to Wikipedia:Reversion, explaining your reversion in the edit summary vs. on the talk page is acceptable. I therefore stand by my decision not to join the fray on the talk page, as I have no desire to dedicate any great length of time to the issue, or to join the flamewar which is emerging there.

I then decided to leave the reversion, because the version which you presented involved blanking several sections and replacing them with conflicting viewpoints. Regardless of your citation of several sources for your information, removing such huge quantities of text from the article was not appropriate. Placing {{fact}} tags would have been a much more appropriate solution, and would have allowed you to include your information without damaging the work of others. This furthered my belief that you were a simple vandal and your continued reversions were malicious.

I do realize now that you were making a good-faith effort to improve the article, and for that reason I apologize for the conclusion which I had formerly drawn. However, because you've felt the need to continually revert and deface the article, and removed so much disputed information from it (over and over and over) I stand by my decision to revert the article. Out of respect for your request, I will be adding to the talk page a note on the edit war and a request that editors request mediation before persisting in this back-and-forth reversion, but in the meantime I'd ask that you find a way to add your content without blanking others'. -Moralis 02:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moralis, according to the policy OR must be removed. Fact tag shouldn't be added to it. --Aminz 02:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are confused. A {{fact}} tag adds a little "citation needed" display after text where a citation would go, like this^{[citation needed]}. Doing this to what you suspect is original research is proper etiquette, as you can't know that there isn't a source to support that information. Somebody might have one. You should give them a chance to show it. At any rate I've stated that I don't want to be involved with this already. -Moralis 02:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please study WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V --Aminz 01:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how these articles are relevant to the issue at hand. Regardless, I no longer wish to be involved in said issue. -Moralis 02:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not joing discussion is a classic revert warrior sign. (→Netscott) 02:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I resent that comment, never having looked at the article before my single reversion. What happened to assuming good faith? -Moralis 02:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therapy cap

Reposted here, went on another username of yours I think...woops.

Thanks for the notice. Please discuss specifics. Since the information is mostly derived from legislation, government agencies, and medical associations that encourage the use of their material (ie: if they lobby against a specific law). --Jbanning22

Thank you

Thanks for reporting:) Hopefully he will soon be blocked.--TigranTheGreat 09:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the backup support on my userpage. You even incremented the vandal count on my userbox. What service! Caper13 04:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Mauryan Empire Page

Hello Moralis,

I do not see how these changes qualify as vandalism. The complaint I lodged regarding how the contributors who added greek and aramaic to the languages section was also voiced by others including Pavanapuram. Greek and aramaic were hardly the dominant languages in the northwest of India, as there too a western dialect of Prakrit was widely used. This corresponds to the citation below of "The Age of the Nandas and Mauryas". To say that Greek and Aramaic were the only two other languages used in the empire does a disservice to the countless others on the subcontinent. The complaint here is that the contributors that rerevert have a track record of attempting to dilute the Indian character of the topics. That is the concern here.

Regards,

Devanampriya —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.255.116.109 (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Moralis,

I've only been reverting back to a previous article on account of the Languages section. I haven't been paying attention to the whole chanakya chandragupta debacle that is going on and am frankly not interested in participating in that. I think some of those changes must have slid in during the edit war. My concern is the Languages, a discussion point that had been echoed by other contributors as well on the talk page. I am perfectly fine with just that change, but a change that is indeed valid. Also, I'm not being dishonest here and was rather disappointed to see you apply that term to me. I assure that my concern here is factual validity and am not involved in removing massive amounts of material from this article. I will make the necessary edit to languages without reversion, which according to your message, would consequently not merit a vandalism accusation. I trust that this would be in line with wikipedia standards. Please let me know if there is anything else.

Regards,

Devanampriya (talk · contribs)

I apologize if you were offended by the accusation of dishonesty; I often find it difficult to assume good faith with regards to another user who has not. I will review your edit, but I do not expect that, if you are only altering the languages section, there will be any cause for concern. Again, apologies. --Moralis 06:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moralis,

I suggest you check Devanampriya's edit history for the Indo-Greek article... Giani g (talk · contribs)

Hello Moralis,

I just noticed the tacit accusation by user Giani G. He has confused justifiable edits (as the material posted then is not mainstream and is disputed by several schools of academics).

Nevertheless, I actually wanted to discuss the mauryan empire page again. As you will note, I respectfully abided by your point regarding the revert war and only made changes to the language section instead. Accordingly, having sought your counsel on the matter, and other users having noted them, it was my understanding that the dispute was resolved. I now see that the other user has gone back on his word and reverted those changes. I am fine with continuing the edit war, but another individual has attempted to curtail the editability of the article by adding some new template. This to me violates the aims of wikipedia, so I wanted to bring that to your attention.

I know you are busy, and this may seem like splitting hairs, but there have been a number of users who have attempted to hellenify all India related pages. I have no problem with the greeks, and am in fact a fan of the byzantine empire, but my concern here is accuracy. As sourced by one of the experts on the topic, Nilakantha Sastri, the administrative language of the empire was Prakrit. There were thousands of others, but Prakrit was used from Afghanistan to Bengal and Kashmir to Karnataka. These individuals are attempting to make Greek and Aramaic official languagues when they were not. The court language was Magadhi (Eastern Prakrit) and this was used by bureaucracy of the empire.

Your thoughts and assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Devanampriya

Yes they let JKelly know also

Did you get my response? They emailed me first and approved. Later Jkelly told me for them to email permissons@wikipedia.org themselves. So they did and approved and let me know that they did. Ararat arev 22:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so those 2 pictures will stay right? You wont remove them right? Thanks. Ararat arev 22:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thank you. Ararat arev 22:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? Howso?

How can you call this vandalism? I was asking about a disruptive user. An admin has now, minutes later, pinpointed him as the reincarnation of a permabanned editor. See, for instance [1] and all the admin-reverts of his edits. - Mauco 21:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This exchange was the result of an error on my part, having confused the vandal for the vandalized and vice-versa. Please see User talk:William Mauco for more information. --Moralis 03:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regulamentul Organic

I am not. I am reshaping the content. Dahn 01:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moralis, plase cut me some slack. I am being told that I misused references, and am summoned on the talk page to add or explain them. I have created all of that text and am called upon to explain it. You will note that the user who added the original tag has not reverted my edits - and I had removed a sentence that wa splaced in there by me (all of the article was originally created by me). I cannot see any way out of the supposed problem than actually editing the article. Dahn 01:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for intrusion, I just want to say I am supporting Dahn in this. Those intial reverts which were rather misunderstandings (and understandable, being a featured article Dahn wanted to get it back ASAP in a tag-less state). Daizus 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Dahn has a history, and it's not of removing his own sentences...! Check out the Xenopol article

Barnstar!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your work on The Black Parade and helping me (and everyone else!) with Daddy Kindsoul and his stupid POV tag, I'm giving you a barnstar! Have a great day! mcr616 _Speak! 00:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. I was thinking about a wikibreak after dealing with Daddy Kindsoul and his trollish remarks on my talk page, and seeing you shut him up made my day! ^_^ mcr616 _Speak! 00:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Moralis! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrb ^talk 08:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation of IABSM

As I said, the notability debate is over. Isn't it? I haven't put the notability tag in since the person who originally inserted it withdrew it. As to moving on, how is mediation going to help that? Mediation deals with issues of page content.

And it probably makes more sense for you to repsond to this question on the mediation page. Larry Dunn 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from TooFatLardies

I would like to inform the mediator here that Spamjaguar has informed me that he has now been blocked from posting on Wikipedia, apparently at the instigation of Larry Dunn. Not really an ideal way to conduct a debate.

Throughout this whole farce I have attempted to treat the whole thing as an absurd joke. I did email Larry Dunn to ask him why he was removing refrences to our company and our products, the details of that correspondence have been seen. At all times I was courteous and polite in my correspondence with Larry, something that cannot be said about his replies.

I appreciate your input Moralis, however I will say that if Larry Dunn continues to vandalise sites by removing references to companies and rule sets based entirely on his personal preferences then I shall not hesitate to report him to the Wikipedia authorities to stop him doing this.

Frankly a blind man can see who is at fault here, and if Larry's sense of self-importance is so disproportionate that he cannot accept the views of the majority then we are clearly dealing with someone who is beyond reason.

Richard Clarke TooFatLardies

Comment on reactions to Mr. Dunn

Hi there. Ta for taking this on. You thought that the reaction of some of the interested parties calling for the blocking of Mr, Dunn's editing priveledges seemed a little harsh. I think that might stem not only from his comments and actions during this, but also to comments on our talk pages. Like this quote

"Stop vandalizing Wikipedia, as you have in your recent edit to Miniature wargaming). If you edit like this again you will be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Larry Dunn 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)"

The impression I got was that Mr. Dunn felt he had the power to do this, and as such it was a threat, it did not endear Nr. Dunn to me nor did it give me the impression that he was a fit custodian of editing priveledges. Hurcheon 19:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IABSM - Thank you for your efforts but

You may have closed the case but Mr. Dunn appears to remain vindictive, looking at his contributions we see today this set of entries on Spamjaguar, who has apologised for these outbursts and has taken action against the account user who made them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spamjaguar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hurcheon (talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC). oops, sorry, forgot to sign Hurcheon 04:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have apologized for my username's actions, no matter how funny they were, against Mr. Dunn's user page. His actions after that public apology speaks volumes about his true nature. It appears he has decided to continue to behave in a way that goes against the ideals of Wikipedia. Thank you very much Moralis for you time and good sense, ...but I do not believe your words of reason and civility will keep Mr. Dunn from continuing with his latest vendetta. I hope I am wrong, but...Spamjaguar 23:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll be more specific about Larry's conduct, I will be happy to mediate (if possible) or, if necessary, help you report his behavior through the proper channels, provided it does violate policy. --Moralis (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Dunn, appears to feel the need to "get even" in some form or another. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spamjaguar&action=history

He continues unabated even after a public apology still believing, I must assume, that I am Mr. Clarke, over whose wargame rules system this whole issue began. His continued behavior indicates a basic difference between the ideals of the Wikipedia community and his idea of controlling what he views as his domain. I would be happy to communicate directly with you, Moralis, and provide references regarding my experience within the wargaming community both for the recreation community and professionally, but I will not, under the circumstances, provide them on this public forum. I will also explain the relevance of this last comment privately. Spamjaguar 19:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have stopped, for now. I'll keep an eye on his contribs. If he continues to be disruptive, I'll report him to the proper channel or I'll let you know how you can. For now it looks like he's been pretty petty, and it looks like he's done. --Moralis (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your exchanges above, you have shown considerable sympathy with a user who had obviously set up an attack account, "spamjaguar," which was recently indefinitely blocked for just this reason (which, incidentally, had nothing to do with me -- I never asked for the account to be indefinitely blocked; other wikipedians seem to have noticed it). You seem to have been swayed by meatpuppeting, which does not set a good precedent.

Your heart seems to be in the right place, and it's a thankless job being a mediator, but really. You observed yourself in the mediation that there was obvious meatputtpeting going on here, yet then claimed that I was out of line for having pointed the same thing out. Mediation means not taking sides, and you seem to have here by claiming that I am being "petty," and promising to "keep an eye on me" -- this promise made to users who established accounts to meatpuppet or, worse yet, to blatantly vandalize wikipedia. Larry Dunn 21:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at your account and I note that you have just turned 18 years old. I'm sorry if I've been too critical of your mediation; I should have taken your age into account. Larry Dunn 22:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Guerrilla Mediation Network

I can't claim to be a terribly experienced mediator, but I've developed a somewhat inexplicable interest in it, after starting out with small disputes that never made it to MedCab. What's it take to join up? --Moralis (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Moralis: Thank you so much for helping out! It's really very simple. There's no mediator list. Just keep an eye on Category:Guerrilla mediation cases which lists active cases (the request tag adds the talk pages to the category); and then go and mediate them on the article talk pages. It's worth noting the Guerrilla Mediation Initiative is meant to be the absolutely most informal mediation system on the planet, and so there's no fixed format the mediation takes - it's entirely up to you. When the case is finished, you remove the tag. That's all there is to it!

We are, however, missing one vital ingredient - mediation cases. :) So, if you come across any that look like they need mediating, just whack a {{guerrilla-mediation-request}} tag on the talk page followed by your initial mediation blurb. I do, however, reserve the right to be a big bad guerrilla dictator, and manipulate things as I see fit. :-) Thanks a lot for your help, and I look forward to working with you soon. Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I was gonna nominate you for adminship, but I just wanted to see what you thought first. Leave me a message on my talk page if you'd like to go ahead with it! mcr616 _Speak! 01:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll start the page. Best of luck! mcr616 _Speak! 01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nom's at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moralis. All you have to do is accept on the page. Good luck! mcr616 _Speak! 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see why you would need an entire WikiProject to back you for an RfA. It's my opinion that if you are a good editor then you should get to be a sysop. I mean, asking an entire project to back you pretty much would be canvassing. I don't think it's necessary, but if you want my help to get any of the WikiProjects to help you, just leave a note on my talk page! mcr616 _Speak! 14:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

Good luck to you on your RfA. From one low-edit-count-having vandal fighter to another; Regards, ➪HiDrNick! 02:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation: Eugene Ionesco

This should not have been closed. There is conclusive evidence that Ionesco himself said that his mother was Jewish. [2]--R613vlu 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was evidently some confusion here. There had been a contributions on 5 April [3], and on 6 April there had been a request for a new mediator [4], so it would not have been appropriate to say on 11 April that it had been inactive for some time. It is unfortunate that you cannot now be the new mediator, but thank you for your interest.--R613vlu 12:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation: The Anarchy Battlefield

I saw you have opened the case, thank you very much, really appreciated. I was a little bit worried as the conflict seemingly are escalating as Talk:Anarchism#Culling the source-spam and Talk:Anarchism#MFD comments requested has been instituted by one party. How are you going forward? Are you going to contact the two currently active parties of this conflict(User:Anarcho-capitalism and User:Infinity0? Lord Metroid 15:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation: The Herd With Colin Cowherd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-06_Colin_Cowherd STS-1 is once again running roughshod over a Colin Cowherd article and deleting sections he doesn't deem appropriate, regardless of whether they belong or not.

I'm not sure who this IP user is. Since they only seem to be concered with posting negative opinions of me, I suspect it could be one of the users that got blocked for attacking me. STS01 20:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW.. User Bluefield was blocked today for multiple personal attacks. I tried to be civil but was forced to seek help. --STS01 20:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are full of shit if you believe STS01 has handled the Cowherd pages correctly or done anything positive for Wikipedia. His edits are those of a lunatic fan and hurt the purpose of Wikipedia.

I'm not user Bluefield, just someone who doesn't agree with STS01's attempts to remove anything he does not agree with from the pages. If you look through his editing history, you will see that not only has he done that, but he has also vandalized many pages in the past.

The above user may be a sockpuppet vandal and has been warned. --STS01 18:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]