Jump to content

User talk:Moreschi/My Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blue Mosque, Yerevan

[edit]

Hello Moreschi I was looking for an admin who was a bit used to Armenia-Azerbaidjan issues, and I saw your intervention on WP:AE. I'm not a regular contributor on wk:en (I'm on wk:fr, where I'm an admin), but due to some pov-pushing on wk:en invading other wks, I have been involved in discussions about Blue Mosque, Yerevan. Could you have a look at the history of this article ? An ip can't stop reinserting an OR (see talk), pretending this is consensus on talk (which is not). Best regards, Sardur (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that some anon has been POV-warring by repeatedly replacing the well-known Turkish name of the mosque with an obscure (and allegedly Azeri) name spelt using the modern Azerbaijani alphabet. Meowy 02:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Namsos

[edit]

With regard to your block of Dacy, do you see any good faith editing coming from Namsos (talk · contribs)? Please check his contribs, nothing but persistent edit warring, and this is his latest rv after the long absence, without any edit summary: [1] Grandmaster 07:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His latest rv? I hope Moreschi will check the words that Namsos removed ("a region of Caucasian Albania, which") and check the cited source in which they were claimed to be from. No such words exist anywhere in the source! The source is invalid anyway - much of it is derived from Wikipedia articles - note the map - and probably vandalised ones. "In the 20th century, the indigenous population became a minority as Armenians migrated into the province" we are told in that source. An astonishing statement, considering the truth is the exact opposite! Meowy 02:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which source? There was no reference to any source in the intro, as the article explains further down that the region was also a part of Albania. The intro is just the summary of the article's text. In any case, Namsos appears to be a sock account, I'm just not sure at the moment who operates it. He is just a revert machine. Grandmaster 05:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The revert of Namsos is supported by at least one other user (me) who thinks that the edit of Gradnmaster was a POV (see the relevant talk). Namsos indeed left a question mark as edit summary which IMO is enough when you remove a rare POV. --Vacio (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Namsos very conveniently appears after the long absence just to rv, and a question mark cannot be considered a useful edit summary. It is enough to check the contribs of this user to note a certain behavioral pattern. I just wonder, if the reason for Dacy's indef block was his revert on Nakhichevan khanate, then what about Namsos, who makes no useful contribs, and his only contribution is reverting controversial articles? Grandmaster 06:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, as far as I can remember Namsos has reverted Artsakh only 1 time, you Grandmaster did it numerious times. --Vacio (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not. But this is not just about reverting. Dacy also reverted only once, but was blocked indef. This is about the general editing pattern by Namsos, who does nothing but edit war. I think the block of Dacy was too harsh a measure, and if users are blocked on such basis, then users like Namsos are much worse offenders. Btw, he is not the only one. Grandmaster 08:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, socking by Namsos has been confirmed by CU some time ago: [2] According to the admin filing the request Namsos was involved in a tag team edit war. Looks like it is Hetoum I (talk · contribs). Even if not him, some established or banned user seems to be behind that account. Grandmaster 11:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tutankhamun

[edit]

Greetings. I noticed your comment at Talk: Tutankhamun, so, presumably, you've read my entry. Your diatribes about what you presume to be "Afrocentric" POV-pushing aside, I'm wondering what you think of it and -- errors aside -- the forensic archaeological evidence I've presented in support of an indigenous, Black Tutankhamun.

Seriously, Moreschi, when you have a moment, I'd be interested to know. deeceevoice (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I think the evidence on Tut of Deeceevoice is quite interesting, and I would like to propose that an article be created specifically to air this evidence (and also for others such as Cleopatra etc) separate from the mainstream "scholarly consensus" article. 41.245.58.47 (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thankspam

[edit]
Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denbot (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out...

[edit]

...if you want more evidence of our self-selected "RfA community" "in action" [3]. LOL Even Esperanza was more relevant to Wikipedia than this. --Folantin (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chaldean Catholic Page

[edit]

Hello Moreschi, recently there have been many members who have been 'contributing' to the page, they have been putting their own POV in the page. I came to you because it seems that you were involved at one point. I am asking you to get involved (if you want) to protect the page as of now, and help the sides seek a resolution. Malik Danno (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

[edit]
The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 4 24 January 2009 About the Signpost
Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices 
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet 
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered at 04:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

An image

[edit]

How do you think, is this image a "fair game"? It tells about a living president Saakashvili: "he will meet the same death". I am not quite sure if mainspace is a proper place for that.Biophys (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the image is found on Cyberattacks during the 2008 South Ossetia War, nowhere else, as it is mentioned within the article as one of the most notable aspects of the hackings that occurred during the war. It's a fair use image used to illustrate that article, nothing more. --Russavia Dialogue 21:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re PW

[edit]

Sincere thanks! No blame attached to anyone; it's a niche topic - a historical curiosity even - and as it wasn't affecting many editors, it's understandable the dispute slipped though the net. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, although after the ANI thread I should have probably kept tabs on this guy. Still, it's all over now. Moreschi (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite... I wasn't aware a block left editors free to continue to make disparaging comments about others via their Talk page. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: WP:ANI has intervened with a warning to stop soapboxing Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troll

[edit]

Moreschi, this is pretty strong language, and I am not agreeing with your assessment.[4] Could you please consider ratcheting back the rhetoric? --Elonka 21:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Tundrabuggy is currently number 2 on my list of people who should be banned, but aren't. A more harmful partisan in the I/P articles it is hard to think of. I have never seen him take one reasonable position, be open to any form of compromise, do anything other than flame and stoke tension on talkpages, and, well, yes, be a troll. Even Jaak and PR on their worst days weren't as bad as this guy. Moreschi (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR follow-up

[edit]

Not sure if you are still following the RFAR on posturewriter, so letting you know here. Would you have time to respond to this? Several points there, but the one about leaving block notices on talk pages is one that I think should be done, especially as posturewriter has said they only edit at weekends (roughly) and they might confuse your block with the earlier one from WMC. Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with. Moreschi (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for leaving the note on the user's page. On the philosophical point of the difference between an indefinite block from an admin, and a year-long block and topic ban from the Arbitration Committee following a case (you covered that here by saying that you are not limited in that way), it's my view that disruption in a limited area is best met by blocking in that area only (not technically possible yet, or rather not implemented yet). If you had been able to just block posturewriter from that article, would you have done that instead of a sitewide block? I was serious when I said that people who get hung up on individual things may behave better away from that particular topic. Obviously, most people just keep coming back to such pages, and if they do so, then a block is obviously needed. But I think it is worth it for the cases where someone can learn and develop away from their 'blind spot'. You might call it too much of a "second chance", but to me it is a chance in a different area. They have had and used all their chances in this area already. Additionally, some people think that blocks generate socks, while topic bans reduce the chance of socking. If you really wanted posturewriter to never edit any article badly ever again, you needed to keep them visible, not drive them underground. Obviously activity at the article in question will be spotted, but what about the same type of incorrect use of sources and original research and synthesis elsewhere? How will you spot that? Essentially, infinite blocks are a quick-and-dirty way to handle things, but sometimes a more nuanced approach will help control things and avoid run-on damage elsewhere. Does that make sense? Carcharoth (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't followed this until now, don't know enough background, but given the indef block, should this page be deleted, or at least blanked? Guettarda (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as Moreschi has done, though blanking would also have been fine. The text itself is, of course, still available in the history of the main article, into which it was cut and pasted several times and revert warred over. Carcharoth (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baku87

[edit]

He recently created two maps File:Azerbaijan map comparison.jpg and File:Azeri lost lands.jpg and inserted them into two articles. I removed both when I noticed it and today he re-added one of them rv vandalism by Eupator. I also noticed another imaginary map that he craetd and inserted: File:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 Map.jpg The maps that he created are displaying territories claimed by the ADR and DRA as part of ADR (Karabakh), territories which were in total and recognized control of DRA (like Nakhichevan and Zangezur) as part of ADR etc. This is highly disruptive and provocative. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for actual state of the region at the time: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/The_First_Armenian_Republic_1918-1920.gif -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On what ground do you accuse these maps of being imaginary? Its based on sources and historical maps. Your personal ambitions are invaled reasons to remove these maps. Baku87 (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be based on credible sources and accurate historical maps. It is a work of propaganda. Comparison with the map cited by Eupator clearly shows how your map has distorted reality to a serious extent. For many of the distortions, there is not the slightest doubt of their existence. For example, and to take a detail that has nothing to do with Armenia or Azerbaijan, your 1918 map has the present-day borders of Turkey and Georgia; those borders were different in 1918. Meowy 01:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But how do you know that Eupator's map is accurate? The thing is that in 1920 neither Armenia, nor Azerbaijan had internationally recognized borders. The issue was to be discussed at the Paris Peace Conference, but it never happened, as by that time Soviet Russia started moving into the region. So both maps represent wishful thinking by the leaders of the 2 states. For instance, Armenia had no control over Nakhichevan, yet Eupator's map shows it as a part of Armenia. Grandmaster 05:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the errors in the borders of Turkey and Georgia to avoid getting bogged down in discussion over Armenia and Azerbaijan. You surely are not disputing the existence of those errors? And at least Eupator's map marks territory as being disputed, unlike Baku's map. Meowy 17:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You speak of credible sources but if Azeri sources are to be regarded inreliable then why is it that Armenian sources are welcomed? Your trying to apply double-standards here. I'll give you some examples in the Armenia article there are a few maps: The first map comes directly from an Armenian websource; armenica.org; you can even note the Armenica.org label in the lower-right corner. And the second map which as you note from the lower-right corner is also from the Armenian source; Armenica.org. I can name you a few more maps from Armenian sources such as: A and B both again from Armenica.org and by this I also want to note just how legit are the copyrights in the last 4 maps really? So why is it that you can demand the removal of my map which is based on a Azeri source but still insist on keeping the Armenian-sources maps? This is highly unfair and even shows double-standards. Baku87 (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison is improper. Those maps of Armenica.org are reprinted from "Armenia: A Historical Atlas" of the American scholar Robert Hewsen. However it is not the problem where the maps come from. The boundaries of Armenia in the 4th c., the Erivan Khanate, the Armenian Oblast are not contested. The Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan was not de-jure recognised and had no de-jure or de-facto existing boundaries as the two other short-lived republics of the TRanscaucasia. --Vacio (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison is also improper because nobody is actually proposing using that armenica.org map in the article! Meowy 18:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Armenia had no de-jure recognition, and Azerbaijan did have de-facto borders, which included Nakhichevan. So the maps of Armenica are incorrect. And the map of Azerbaijan also has a source: [5] So there's no reason for deletion of Azerbaijani map, it as good as that of Armenia. Btw, I think we should continue this discussion elsewhere and not waste space at Moreschi's talk. Grandmaster 09:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, why the matter is discussed here? I propose to continue it in Talk:Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic. --Vacio (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rife

[edit]

Hello Moreschi. I wanted to let you know that I have lifted in indefinite semi-protection of Talk:Royal Rife. I understand the has been talk page abuse, I find nothing particularly problematic in the last few weeks, and since the article itself is protected, there is now no mechanism for the IP who wishes to discuss the article to do so. Instead, I'll supervise the talk page discussion to ensure it remains on topic and germane to improving the article. Rockpocket 01:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

[edit]
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

[edit]
The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 5 31 January 2009 About the Signpost
Large portion of articles are orphans News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored 
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on Dispatches: In the news 
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you're dealing with

[edit]

User:Wapondaponda is am obvious sock of User:Muntuwandi. I would have reported him a long time ago but I gave up trying to keep track of his socks. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those red linked editors at Ancient Egyptian race controversy and the other page you AfDed aren't socks as well. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye on the Ingushetia article?

[edit]

...where User:Ingushetia (sic) keeps re-adding dubious information with a strong anti-Ossetian flavour [6]. This is all about the Ossetian-Ingush conflict of the early 1990s (turf war between two Russian Federation republics over the Prigorodny district). The user is trying to depict the Ossetians as an historically evil people. The worst is the insinuation (via synthesis) that the reason why Stalin deported the entire Ingush people in the 1940s is because he was of "Ossetian nationality" (a speculative assertion in itself). Compare: "Trotsky, a Jew, was responsible for the Kronstadt Massacre." He's had this explained to him on the talk page at considerable length by at least three other editors (including me), but he seems unwilling or unable to comply with policy. (Also, other shenanigans about the etymology of the Alans and their Medieval capital in the North Caucasus, Maghas. AFAIK Most scholars think the modern Ossetians are the descendants of the Alans. Our guy is trying to make out these are Ingush names. Presumably, idea of Ossetians dominating Ingush in the Middle Ages is unacceptable.) PS: I also posted this to Dab. --Folantin (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's added all of it back again. I think this is his fourth revert today. I've given him the opportunity to revert his last edit [7]. If he doesn't take it, well then... --Folantin (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now starring at 3RR [8] for six reverts plus a phoney "page protected against vandalism" tag. --Folantin (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he's been "indefinitely blocked for 48 hours" [9] (go figure). --Folantin (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appalling personal attack

[edit]

Russavia has made a rather appalling personal attack against a fellow editor [10] out of the blue. After checking the edit histories of both Digwuren and Russavia I don't see any obvious pattern of stalking, just a narrow range of articles where their interest happen to intersect. In any case there is no justification for this kind of attack. Could you advise Russavia of the requirement to AGF and be civil? Martintg (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now Moreschi, I know that editors come to you for "assistance", and I do not believe that you are a totally neutral admin, as evidenced by what it appears a williness to ban what you regard as "Russian nationalist" editors, and by indifference when I come to you to help remind an editor that creating the "most grotesque" articles possible is not on (which by the way, you should know he is now enjoying his umpteenth block on ruwiki after being found by their arbcom to be a consistently disruptive POV editor which in turn makes him our problem, and as Putinism and Patriarch Alexy II of Russia shows he is a problem on en:wiki too). Now, I believe it was yourself who stated, although I would have to double check to be exact (perhaps it was one of these editors), that Harrassment is not on, and that if one feels like they are being harrassed, then they probably are, but I can only say that for some time now, I have had my edits systematically stalked in a harrassing way by Biophys (for quite some time), by Martintg (for some time), and by Digwuren (only recently), and I am currently gathering a shitload of evidence in this regard which will be taken to WP:AE. I have asked another admin, with whom I am familiar with, and with whom I regard as totally neutral due to him not being afraid to say that I am being a WP:DICK, and whilst I understand and totally respect his reasons for not wanting to get involved, this will only mean that I will be required to go to WP:AE and lay all this evidence out on the table and have it trashed out. If you want a list of articles on which these issues have arisen you can view User:Russavia/AE, and if one wants to see the evidence, then I will take it to AE, because it is pretty damned convincing. (By the way, you will notice there is a message on the talk page of that link, which is evidence in itself of stalking). Now I really don't want to have to do this, and I want the entire amount of shit in this area of editing to be cut out, but when one has raised various issues in the past at a variety of fora, and they have been ignored or fobbed off with "so what" type of responses, then yes, one is going to be towards their end of their rope, particularly when editors either continue or begin to show a pattern of stalking of edits, and a range of other things, which when added together result in the type of things as above. I have asked these editors questions in the past in regards to these issues but either get no answer, or total misrepresentations. So you can warn me if you like, but I will would also remind you in the same breathe to remind said editors that stalking other editors edits around WP and making on absolutely feel like they are being harrassed, is also not on. --Russavia Dialogue 12:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if you'd like a prime example of this stalking this is something that is raised here. Just how does one find this? And just how does a bunch of editors find themselves on a user's talk page on which I left some observations, and which there is no evidence of them ever having edited which could result in it appearing on a watchlist (like I have found Martintg's complaint above). The same goes for The Economist article, and also the List of most common surnames of which there is no history of them having edited prior to mine; I don't stalk other people's edits, so I see no need why they should be doing it to myself, and blatantly doing it. And there are many others, many of which have resulted in what I can only describe as disruptive edits. I'm here to help build an encyclopaedia, not to engage in advocacy or get involved in bullshit, and the sooner that people realise that, and back the hell off, the better off we'll all be. I've offered to collaborate on articles with quite a few editors in this area of editing, and I sincerely hope that an editor I have only today extended such an offer to will take me up on it, on what could be a featured article on here, and after some discussion on the article and rewording of information, he himself commented that my edits weren't was he was expecting (yes, they are basically NPOV), which doesn't mean that there isn't still disagreement, but this will be discussed and worked around, and yes we've had "disagreements" in the past. I don't want nor need the bullshit, I just want to be left to edit and collaborate in peace, with people with similar objectives to mine (not meaning the same POV), and I don't want to be stalked and harrassed. And yes, if I say that I feel like my edits are being stalked, and that I feel it is in a harrassing way, then it is probably a good bet that I have good reason for believing this is the case. I take responsibility for all of my edits on here, and I expect the same of others also. --Russavia Dialogue 13:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back when User:El C's blatant abuse of power drove Sander Säde off Wikipedia, he passed to Martintg the tools he had developed to find new Estonia-related articles, so they can be tagged with {{WikiProject Estonia}} as appropriate. I believe the toolkit made extensive usage of the "What links here" feature of MediaWiki. Did you, by any chance, link to Estonia in your "eSStonia" article? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this tool find articles in userspace? Which he found only a very short period of time after I posted it to userspace? I prefer to stick to the simplest answer for that. For this "tool" would not explain how he came to find, only a short period of time again after I added to, List of common surnames, for the words "estonia" were already in the article, I only added the words "Ivanov", "Kuznetsov", etc, unless of course this tool is also set up to pick up Russian surnames? It also doesn't explain your own edit to The Economist article either. It also doesn't explain clear stalking of edits like Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_December_7#Image:RussiaOlegPantukhov.png, in which the image was clearly inappropriately licenced, and at which Biophys had not edited before (so no reason to have on watchlist), and has voted to keep (even though clearly inclearly licenced) and then blatantly lied about it having being discussed previously. It also doesn't explain a range of reverts which Biophys performed almost immediately after I was blocked for 48 hours due to 3RR on Litvinenko article (in which he kept re-including BLP on Putin being a paedophile, and in which he also breached 3RR, but got jack for). A great example is the Russia-NATO relations article. As one can see from the article history, he never edited that article previously, and one can also see that I have gone thru sources to verify the article, and edited it accordingly, and provided CLEAR edit summaries (as I always do!). And then he posts Talk:NATO–Russia_relations#Restored claiming no reason for deletion, and when he gets pulled up on it by another editor he states "There are no my sources here. I will check this later." and "You suppose to debate the question first." (with a similar edit summary). WP IS NOT A DEBATING SOCIETY. His actions on that article prove multiple things: stalking of my edits, zero assumption of good faith, violation of WP:V by re-including unsourced and statements which I verified as being unverified (if that makes sense), assertion of ownership of the article by basically demanding that changes be debated with him (which in itself is a technical violation of WP:TEDIOUS [You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first] which in itself is a violation of allowing others to be WP:BOLD with his assertion of ownership), but of course the well-founded suspicions of mine have any basis in any fact, rhyme or reason. Needless to say, the reason I started to edit that article was because someone put up a "reward" (for a donation to WP if I remember correctly) if the article was improved to higher class by the end of the year--needless to say due to Biophys' text book definition of WP:HOUND, I gave up trying to bring it up to a higher standard before I even started, due to that stalking and the crap that was pulled by Biophys. Perhaps Moreschi will totally disregard all of this, but I can guarantee you that if I were to present the even longer list of grievances another admin would clearly do something about it, because under the arbcom i.m. Digwuren, he would be banned in an instant. Because it is not in my head, and I am not making it up, it is there for all and sundry to see. Listen, Digwuren, I am an upfront, honest, direct, no-bullshit guy, and I will openly admit where I have screwed up (such as not AGF with Oth's edits, and apologised accordingly). I have no respect for bullshit but plenty of respect for those who are upfront and honest. It is much like the sockpuppet report on yourself, at which I have asked questions of Martin, only for them to go unanswered (again)...when the hell do people answer questions around this place? Or is it only myself who is game enough to do that? And if Martin wants to pursue this, then I will pursue that even further, because there was a shitload of incivility towards myself by Martin right there in the initial report, and the subsequent report. I have plenty of evidence in the works, which if/when presented will clearly show to a level-headed person that there has been a long-term campaign, co-ordinated or not, of stalking of my edits and overall harrassment, and due to absolutely bugger all being done about it (I am mostly to blame for that), it has caused me to say some things that one may not like, and which I do not like having to say. I would have more respect if people were upfront and say "Yes, I stalked you", which would make me inclined to let it drop completely and move on (I don't hold grudges), but the continued bullshit and excuses instead of being honest is leading to the exact type of comments that were said on that talk page, because yes it is pissing me off and proving to be a right pain in the arse, because it severely affecting my ability to be able to enjoy participation on this project, and that blows and I will no longer stand for it. I've got nothing more to say on the matter, at least not here anyway. --Russavia Dialogue 16:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attacking fellow editors is one thing. WP:Soap is another. He is placing propaganda pieces everywhere, as in The Economist article. Why this is a propaganda? Let's see first another example. He inserted the "one man disinformation bureau" quote in Litvinenko article - I tried to place it to a separate section, but he reverted me. First, the attribution was wrong: the statement was not according to "reports", but according to an article by one person. Moreover, the statement does not tell which exactly claim by Litvinenko was wrong and why. It only tells: this man was a liar. That is what distiguish propaganda. And he does the same in other articles, like The Economist. He picks up a non-notable defamatory opinion about something or someone and places this in the article (instead of placing some factual data or justified criticism). No one dare to do anything with this user: he has been reported to WP:3RR for obvious 3RR violations (simultaneously in several articles!), and nothing happened.Biophys (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia has accused users many times more of stalking, also about you Martintg and you biophys (also happened on the page below). I too think this is unfair because Russavia is so extremely active that he pretty much edits every Russia related topic, and therefore that it's only natural he encounters the same users more often. In light of that Moreschi I should point out this [11] discussion. I had reported Russavia for 3rr, other users jumped in because apparently he had been edit warring multiple russia related articles all in a single day. He got away with a temporary warning, but it didn't help much. Now the result of the complaint is that the article is locked by Alex Bakharev. Grey Fox (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Recently an admin not related to Russia related topics also voiced his conern that Russavia might have a conflict of interest. [12]. Just pointing this out because other admins are also involved and thats important. A problem is that whenever you ask Russavia to stop something or accuse him of something he considers bad faith you'll get giant messages like above, bigger than any Tolkien book and a lot of WP:ALPHABETSOUP. Grey Fox (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did insert into the Litvineko article that he was a "one man disinformation bureau". In fact what I wrote was:

"A report by the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom described Litvinenko as a one-man disinformation bureau, who was at first guided by Berezovsky but later in pursuit of attention for himself. Henry Plater-Zyberk in the reports notes that Litvinenko made numerous accusations without presenting any evidence to give credence to his claims, and these claims which became increasingly outlandish, were often accepted by the British media without question.[3] He also noted that Litvinenko would bombard his contacts with emails relating to his theories,[3] and this was expanded upon by Julia Svetlichnaya, when she recalled meeting and talking with Litvinenko."

Who is Henry-Plater Zyberk? He is a senior lecturer at the Defence Academy of the UK (if ever there was an organisation which should join in the condemnation that is one, considering what it is, but it doesn't it takes an objective view, not only on this, but also other issues such as Chechnya, in which it actually criticises some government actions, and I have no problem in using it as a source on such articles, so long as it is not mispresented). The report is a scholarly report published by that institute, and he is an expert on Russian issues. The journal is edited/peer-viewed by Dr Andrew Monaghan, who "holds an MA in War Studies from the Department of War Studies at King's College, London and wrote his PhD on Russia-EU relations" and is a "Global Fellow of the Foreign Policy Centre, and a visiting lecturer at the Defence Academy of Great Britain." It's all verifiable here. What people don't like is that it introduces a POV into the article that people don't want portrayed, and it is not written as a statement of fact, but as an opinion and analysis taken from a scholarly source (which are our preferred sources here on WP). It appears people just want an article in which Litvineko's accusations are presented as a matter of fact. And in fact, when introducing this into the section of the article, I even had presence of mind to add Template:unbalanced-section to it, so that other POV could be added by myself and/or others, in order to balance out those views to reach actual NPOV in that particular section. And I have also fixed outright mispresentations in the article such as:

In January 2007, Polish newspaper Dziennik revealed that a picture of Litvinenko was used as a shooting target by the Russian special forces unit Vityaz in October 2002. The targets were also photographed by chance when the chairman of the Russian Duma's upper house Sergei Mironov visited the centre and met its head Sergei Lysiuk on 7 November 2006.[60][61]

Former FSB officer Mikhail Trepashkin stated he warned in 2002 that an FSB unit was assigned to assassinate Litvinenko.[62]

was changed to:

In January 2007, Polish newspaper Dziennik revealed that a target with a photo of Litvinenko on it was used for shooting practice by the Vityaz Training Centre in Balashikha in October 2002.[54] The centre run by Sergey Lyusyuk is not affiliated with the government, and trains bodyguards, debt collectors and private security forces,[55] although in November 2006 the centre was used by the Vityaz for a qualification examination due to their own centre being under renovation.[55] The targets, which Lyusyuk says were bought in the Olympic Market, were also photographed when the chairman of the Federation Council of Russia Sergei Mironov visited the centre and met Lyusyuk on 7 November 2006.[54][55] When asked why the photographs of Mironov's visit were removed from the centre's website Lyusyuk said that Mironov didn't see targets and knew nothing about them.[55] (I left out the quote where Lyusyuk said "Those Poles are up to something")

Former FSB officer Mikhail Trepashkin stated he warned in 2002 that an FSB unit was assigned to assassinate Litvinenko.[56] In spite of this, Litvinenko often travelled overseas with no security arrangements, met with the Russian community in the United Kingdom, and often received journalists at his home.[4]

With the exception of "In spite of this...", how exactly did I come up with such prose? Simple, by using the existing sources which insinuated it was the Vityaz who made up and used the targets, and read them properly and adjusted them to say what the text says. Because what was there previously was outright propaganda, pure and simple, which wasn't even supported by the sources. And people are worried about me using a scholarly source? They should be worried if their intent for the article is to memorialise the person and have his article used as an outlet with which to push his accusations and be used as promotional material for a book, which is unsuitably used as a reference in many places without counterinformation.

And Grey-Fox, yes Alex Bakharev did lock the article, and I agree with locking it, as Biophys is the one who demanded that we discuss all changes with him, which I regard as an unacceptable assertion of ownership of the article and which negates the ability of editors to be bold in editing of articles (especially when presented as NPOV as my edits were). Although this is an unacceptable demand, we agreed to work on the article, starting with the introduction, in which we agreed to discuss the wording. You and I came up with text that we for most part agreed with, and based upon that we inserted it into the introduction. Along came Biophys and introduced contentious opinion into the lead of the article, without discussion and without consensus (going against his own demands). So yes, I reverted this edit, because it was not discussed and due to it being contentious opinion in the lead. (I also reverted Offliner's edit to the lead also if you remember). An editor can not expect other editors to abide by his demands and assertions of ownership over an article, and then him totally disregard his own demands. That is unacceptable, and I am sure if anyone tried pulling such crap on other articles, they would be swiftly rebuked as well. Added into other things, this also goes into WP:HOUND, whereby I am made to feel that I am unable to edit on articles because of severe ownership issues. Now I have extended an offer for yourself and others to work on the article in my namespace, and that offer stands, because we are a collaborative effort.

Now if anyone has been insulted by words I have said, then I do sincerely apologise, and I expect that the stalking and hounding of my edits will also cease by other parties, because as much as Martintg's complaint is valid, so are my complaints which I have raised here, and which also have not received a response on. --Russavia Dialogue 12:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another battle-field mentality user

[edit]

Please see this user here: [13]. The way he generates his discussion is not productive and he has come with a battle-field mentality, accusing people of racism [14]. Judging from the first edit, it might be an old user: [15].--Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check what could also be possibly his sock here: [[16]]--Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

[edit]
The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs" 
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

I just made an edit here on the subject of Rktect here I don't know why he claims that Syria rather than Israel is mentioned in the Merneptah Stele when all Egyptologists today agree with Spiegelberg's 1896 reading that it is Israel which is mentioned being vanquished by this pharaoh. I don't think mentoring can help Rktect because of his huge flurry of WP:OR theories. I don't want to ban him...but this can't go on forever. Sorry, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need your advice

[edit]

Hi Moreschi. I need your help with something. There's an editor over at the Hamitic page that keeps adding some unsourced POV to the article. Another editor and I have explained to him why he cannot do that, but he keeps reverting both of us anyway. In addition to a WP:single purpose account, he's also quite shamelessly using anonymous IPs to skirt 3RR. I've opened a detailed sockpuppet case on him here. However, I mistakenly inputed the wrong, depracated letter codes, so my case was turned down. Thing is, I know this editor is maliciously using alternate accounts, and not just on the Hamitic page, but on other articles as well. Example: this article, where the 'ProfXY' account in question posts literally minutes before the same IP as the one on the Hamitic page, and with yet another newly-created, red-linked single purpose account posting just minutes after that. I need your advice on what to do in a situation such as this. Last time we ecountered this kind of Afrocentric POV-pushing, you were good enough to request a Checkuser, which uncovered two massive sockfarms. I think we may be up against the same sort of thing again, perhaps even with the same user. Please let me know what you make of all this. Soupforone (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

[edit]
The Signpost
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
2009-02-16

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.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

[edit]

A NobodyMy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

[edit]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 16:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agrippina (opera)

[edit]

Don't know how active you are nowadays, but I thought I'd expand on your excellent work a bit, and try and pull this up to FA, so we'd have something for Handel's 250th anniversary =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help Delete

[edit]

Please consider voicing an opinion in the AfD nomination for the vanity article. Too Beautiful to Live, as support for deletion is being overwhelmed by fans of this local radio show. 207.102.78.164 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

[edit]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The newby asks

[edit]

Hello, I am a fan and avid user of Wikipedia. Being very disabled gives me little time on the net. Sometimes I do minor edits to entries that are in error or simply need some literary spice. Being very careful, I always put in references and so forth. As I say, I am nothing more than a novice using the site. But recently, I was accused of vandalizing a page ("Anna Anderson"). I did remove what I saw as biased quotes, and that may have been wrong of me. How do I get a smooth communication going with some of these hot-heads? Where exactly do I look overall before saving an edit? How am I not supposed to offend people whose lives are devoted to being offended?? Please help!RevAntonio (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh dear, this one appears to have reached DEFCON1. I've responded to the user. --  Chzz  ►  00:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

[edit]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spamming for a coach

[edit]

Hi; just listed myself for admin coaching, and noticed you were a coach with a free slot; a quick flick through your user page makes me think we'd be a good fit; I like your ideas. Let me know if you might consider it. Thanks for your time, --  Chzz  ►  00:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2009

[edit]

Hey there. I don't know if you plan on being at Wikimania 2009 in Buenos Aires, but if you do you might be interested in joining a panel discussion I'm throwing together: User:Coren/WM2009 panel. As a battle-hardened veteran of WP:AE, your perspective would be welcome. I'm trying to keep the size of the panel manageable, so it's first-come-first-served.  :-) — Coren (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

[edit]

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

[edit]

check your email inbox. Mactruth (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrite?

[edit]

If I were to bash a Greek, I would be immediately banned. Well, in the talk page of Ancient Macedonian language, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ states "They also believe they're ethnic "Macedonians"..."

Mactruth (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will action be taken?

Thank you for confirming that Wikipedia is racist against Macedonians, nothing was conducted to punish ΚΕΚΡΩΨ, and there is a reason behind that. Mactruth (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet allegation by User:Pixelface

[edit]

fyi,

It is, of course, pure slander and nothing more.

I note you've been inactive; hope all is ok. Above noise will sort just fine. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar

[edit]

Hey,

A user you blocked recently has returned causing more trouble and after failing to win an argument has put me up for trial at [17].

I feel that this User: Anwar saadat has decided to pursue a case after understanding what he has been doing is wrong. You may check his recent edit history, where he has altered GAs and long-term stable articles causing edit wars involving several users. Furthermore what comes as a shock, is that he is going against Wikiproject:Indian cinema and deleting whole sections of GA articles, claiming they "are unneccessary to him".[18] More recently, he has been stalking my edits and has been trying to frame me out in every single way possible through images. I find it shocking, how this can continue!

In a personal claim, I find it quite shocking to see why he is still editing, looking at his edit history - he has been BLOCKED twenty one times and has been allowed to continue to stay on and edit inconstructively. [19] Moreover in his time, he has been blocked for : disruption, stalking, WP:3RR, gross violations, racist abuse, trolling, anti-Hindu remarks in extremist favour of Islam, [20] straight reverting and sockpuppetry. I cannot believe, why he is still editing.' I'm sure that racism alone is enough to get one permanently blocked, and with over 20 blocks, I'm very shocked. Hopefully you could help, get rid of him once and for all.

Moreover, I think this edit sums this character up. Here, try not to laugh!!!

Cheers. Universal Hero (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Moreschi/My Archive 12's Day!

[edit]

User:Moreschi/My Archive 12 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Moreschi/My Archive 12's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Moreschi/My Archive 12!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

Sockpuppetry of a user you indefinitely blocked in August 2008.

Ban enforcement request: User:BobaFett85 (latest sockpuppet of banned User:Top Gun) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ActionRequest (talk • contribs) 18:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in my comments, on blocking users who don't get it

[edit]

Hi. You may be interested in my comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3 where I reference you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

[edit]

Xclamation point 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! '
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

We miss you!

[edit]

Where are you? We miss you! Please come back! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I also wonder, what's going on :O . Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we miss you and would like to see you back. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonians (Greek) article

[edit]

Hi Moreschi, I had a question for you:

  1. Why is there a Macedonians (Greeks), I thought the subgroup would remain within Macedonia (Greece).
  2. If Greeks with a Macedonian regional identity (subgroup) get their own article, why are Aegean Macedonians (a subgroup) forced to be apart of Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia? Shouldn't they get their own article also? Mactruth (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter!

[edit]

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikistalking_and_harassment_by_User:Jack_Merridew

[edit]

As you are one of this editor's mentors, I am formally requesting that the editing restrictions be extended so that this editor leaves me alone. Another mentor, Casliber, already told him to do as much and yet he is ignoring those instructions in blatant diregard for the agreement by which he returned. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Barnstar of High Culture
Dear Moreschi, your list List of important operas in its Czech version (cs:Světový operní repertoár) has been accepted as a Featured Article in Czech Wikipedia today. Thank you for your well researched list which was fun to translate. Best wishes, Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi/My_Archive_12&oldid=1144710724"