User talk:Moralis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[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)

[edit] 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


[edit] Thank you

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).


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)

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

[edit] Yes they let JKelly know also

Maral or Lara from akhtamar.org emailed permissions@wikipedia.org for approval of all right reserved. Ararat arev 22:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Regulamentul Organic

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

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)
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)
User Dahn has a history, and it's not of removing his own sentences...! Check out the Xenopol article
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/r/User_talk%7EMoralis_ca49.html"