User talk:Moralis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Moralis, 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:

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!

-- Sango123 17:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Antisemitism Reversion

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)
Not joing discussion is a classic revert warrior sign. (→Netscott) 02:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/r/User_talk%7EMoralis_ca49.html"