User talk:Moralis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
| Archive 1 |
[edit] optional question at your RFA
Hi Moralis. I've asked a question at your RFA that you may choose to answer. I'm being a bit of a trouble-maker by asking it, but please be assured that my intentions are good. (I will be !voting support regardless.) Bucketsofg 01:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Teenagers Single
Can I ask why this was removed? It was properly sourced.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeamOverload (talk • contribs) 13:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Re: Teenagers
I guess I see where you are coming from, it's just that many of us have known AbsolutePunk to be a reliable source. I will await official confirmation before re-adding it though. TeamOverload 19:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The original mediator got WHAT?
<kerblink> --Kim Bruning 22:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bluefield
I'm not sure if my block is lifted or not, but it is letting me add a comment on your talk page, so I'll take this opportunity to say my piece while I can. I will state unequivocally that I haven't left any anonymous comments on your page or on any other users page as far as I can recall. In terms of being blocked in the past, that may be a result of me using my laptop at a public library and at my school. I know I have never personally been blocked or banned before as Bluefield or in any other manner. I apologize again for posting the picture on the other editor's page, but my frustration got the best of me. I will say that I don't believe that act in any way detracts from my editing disagreements with the other editor, and that I still believe he had displayed "ownership" over the entires, but I will not be engaging in any more dialogue with him on the matter. Have a good weekend. --Bluefield 20:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eugene Ionesco
I did not revive the mediation, as it was not dormant. I'm afraid that obviously you can't take over this mediation, since you've expressed views on it.--R613vlu 21:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have since turned over the mediation to Editor Assistance. However, the mediation was in fact dormant- it had been over a month since there was any active discussion on the case page or on the talk page. Furthermore, the only view I expressed was the opinion that Wikipedia policy supports your position, which is an acceptable comment for a mediator to make according to WP:MedCab. While I don't understand your reasoning in reopening the discussion, I realize that it's now active again and I hope you find an acceptable mediator soon. --Moralis (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Please feel free to say on the mediation itself "Wikipedia policy supports your position". That would be helpful.--R613vlu 21:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New userbox
I saw that your user page links to Universal Life Church. I just wanted to drop you a quick note to let you know that I created a new userbox that you can add to your user page should you wish. {{User:Green Joe/ULC}} is the template to add. GreenJoe 19:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your RfA
I have looked over the RfA and I understand the genesis of the format, but that does not make it any less objectionable. I cannot in good faith support such a procedurally deviant nomination. Admins are first and foremost executors of community consensus. Andre (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:MCR
Hello Moralis, you are a very active contributor to WP:MCR and I would value your opinion and possibly help with the project. I think it is time that we step it up and really get out there as a project and edit some articles. I have started a topic for a revamp for the project at here. Not many people are active within the project and I think we should try and change that and try and become more organized. Any help is appreciated! Orfen User Talk | Contribs 23:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Simply not angry
Hi there as you know I posted the following to your RfA and I post a copy of it here to reiterate that I am not simply not angry with you in the slightest. My !vote is always made with consideration towards all of the candidate's attributes - including but not limited to his or her edits. Please don't ever feel that you need to come out swinging with me (in terms of rebuttal of assumed anger on my part) because that is not the case nor will it ever be so. Indeed as my previous registered edits will show - if you gain adminship even though I Opposed, I will be one of the first to congratulate you - and wish you good luck.
(herewith my comment posted from your RfA) ... *Quick return - Not sure where you are picking up that I am angry with you. Nothing is further from the truth. I just wanted to ask you a facts question directly - to confirm for myself that you probably couldn't provide any facts. I appreciate that you are getting harrangued from several quarters but I can assure that I have absolutely no hositility towards you - but as you say you are probably being reactionary and that says a lot more about your candidacy than your lack of any proof regarding anon IP edits. --VS talk 01:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Antioxidant article mediation
Hi Moralis
You don't have a usable email where I would have preferred sending this note privately – it's ok if you want to extract it from your talk page and carry on via Wikipedia email with me.
I stepped back from the mediation because it was stalled by Tim's heavy-handed position. One can see from his history on the Antioxidant article and discussion not only that he is intelligent and very dedicated to this topic, but also obstinate, opinionated far beyond reason, close-minded and self-appointed dictator of the article. He is both arrogant and naïve, making reasoned discussion with him frustrating and unproductive.
You can see from his latest Compromise Version: 1) he abandons literature where positive effects of antioxidant supplements were found in large disease or aging studies (because he obviously has unreasonable bias against stating beneficial effects), 2) he uses confusing description and bad writing; and 3) he reverses mediated paragraphs back to the position he wants.
I could itemize several mis-statements and jabs he has made about me, but find it negative, futile and a diversion to argue these. Tim seems to have endless time and relentless tactics to drive across his wishes. It is an unpleasant experience to collaborate with him.
As mediator, you have a role to help establish balanced information for the layperson reader – the main goal, I believe. You should not have to read the meta-analysis (as Tim wishes for his snowjob tactics), but rather browse the revised text as what you, your parents or any curious encyclopedia user of average intelligence would want to take away from this article.
It may still be a difficult task to determine what is best for the article, in which case you might call in a second administrator for another opinion.
My final points are simple:
1) the “old” clinical trials (1990s to 2006 are not really old, but Tim wishes to dismiss them for this reason) I cited in disease-specific positive results from using supplements are like investments paid and still at work in our behalf as tax-payers by the NIH and FDA who regulate and approve such multi-million dollar research. In other words, when completed and published, those studies are our government's best statements about what science has learned from clinical trials. They cannot be ignored; 2) Without stating these results as I've tried to do in an easy-to-read fashion, the article conspicuously omits what nearly everyone in the public believes – antioxidant supplementation works – let's at least give some examples from the published research; 3) the JAMA meta-analysis is subject to far more criticism than most publications receive – it is worthwhile to state this because it was a news jolt that shocked the public.
Below is another revision of my last offering for this mediation. Kind Regards -- Paul
Revised section
These harmful effects may also be seen in non-smokers, as a recent meta-analysis including data from approximately 230,000 patients indicated that β-carotene, vitamin A or vitamin E supplementation was associated with increased mortality, but saw no significant effect from vitamin C.[132] Conclusions from this study, however, have been questioned due to the wide heterogeneity of patients already ill with varied diseases studied in different trial designs, treatment dosages and durations[1].
Also, the results of this meta-analysis are inconsistent with large studies such as the SU.VI.MAX trial showing no positive or negative effects of antioxidant supplementation on cause-all mortality[112][135] and with numerous clinical trials demonstrating that antioxidant supplementation improved conditions against a variety of diseases, aging and morbidity. The following are a few examples among many published reports:
- malnourishment in children[2]
- cancer[3][4]
- vascular disease[5]
- immune deficiency[6]
- stroke[7]
- age-related dementia[8]
- aging[9]
Other literature showing lowered disease risk resulting from antioxidant supplementation is summarized in [10]). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul144 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
- Incredible that the brazen Tim would ignore your message that you are away from the mediation for a few days and take matters into his own hands by re-inserting the text he wants back into the Antioxidant article[11], without final input from you or another administrator/mediator or me. His action today makes my point: this man can't keep his fingers off the keyboard, behaving like a vane egotist and reckless despot within a community of collaboration. He ought to be blocked for a month or longer. --Paul144 20:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Teenagers Single
I do understand how you are fed up and annoyed with removing the information. I myself am always reluctant to add new singles that are not sourced and I have frequently had to revert it. While a source that can be traced back to My Chemical Romance or the label would be better, WP:RS states: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Also at WP:V#SELF: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field." Unless I am very much mistaken I would say the information now falls underneath these two policies as neither source is un-reliable, just not direct information from the band or label. Before no reliable sources could be found but now these sources are starting to pop up and that is why the information was sourced and now being added. If you disagree and truly believe that the sources are unreliable due to it not being from the band I am willing to revert the information with you but sources are now available and being added and that was the reason I have now become one of those that are adding the information. I apologize though if I have gotten you annoyed or something to that effect as I felt the time was right and sources were now available and while the sources may not be from the band or label they aren't necessarily un-reliable by the policies. Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- While the radio website may not source where there information is from, I did some snooping around and on this page there seems to be notablity and a certain trustworthyness in the website. Also if you snoop around their articles they source a lot of different places such as Billboard.com and while no specific article on "Teenagers" can be found I think with them sourcing their information in other articles and with the page provided it makes them trustworthy. Regardless if we decide to keep the information or not the single is at least said to be released in the next couple of days so we'll know for sure when we get a release. Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Watchlist your archives too?
Well, now I've seen a good reason to add archives to your watchlist. (mentioned here) I'm off to watchlist mine. BTW: By means of that round-about circuit I ended up back at your RfA, though I ended up !opining 'neutral' - I have to admire someone who didn't flee the masses! (messes?) Shenme 20:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Adminship nomination
On this occasion, your request for adminship nomination was not successful. I hope that you will continue your useful work on Wikipedia and perhaps consider standing again in future. Remember, many users who opposed your nomination are simply keen to see more of your contributions! Warofdreams talk 17:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to see that didn't go through. Most people seemed supportive and I'll expect that if you try again with more editing experience on this account you will have fewer problems. Perhaps you could find a Good Article you are interested in and try to bring it up to FA? On the mediation, I don't think this is going to go any further, judging from Paul's comments above. Thanks for your efforts in this one, but I'm not all that surprised it didn't come to a conclusion, as it was a particularly technical dispute between two editors with very different points of view! If you need any advice on biochemistry-related subjects or need any admin tasks done in the future, please don't hesitate to get in touch. TimVickers 18:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Commiserations Moralis - but I do hope you are enjoying your two day break. I look forward to seeing your continuing edits and your candidature for RfA in the near to medium future. Best wishes --VS talk 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I hope you have a nice break, I wish you the best of luck with any further RfA's you make in the future. Camaron1 | Chris 18:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My Chemical Newsletter
 WikiProject My Chemical Romance Newsletter |
|
|
If you've just joined, add your name to the Members section of Wikipedia:WikiProject My Chemical Romance. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy! Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
|
|
Complete To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
|
|
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
mcr616 Speak! 21:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Clear Consensus?
Please, explain how six editors arguing for exclusion of Non-Christians and six editors arguing for inclusion represents a clear consensus for inclusion? Cleo123 07:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
Thank you for having taken the time out from your other wikipedia activities and external life to try to mediate the discussion. I regret that you found the situation to be not significantly improved by your efforts, but I honestly cannot believe that your mediation can be in any way faulted for that. I had earlier given a barnstar to recognize the efforts of the previous mediator, which the party who started the headline immediately above this one chose to interpret as an attempt at bribery, so I cannot see myself doing so again, lest it be "interpreted" by that party again. But I believe I and several others are grateful for your efforts, and did want to thank you for your work. I wish you the best good fortune regarding your further activities here and in life in general. Also, if you believe I could ever in any way assist you in some matter relating to wikipedia, I would be honored to do so. Thanks again. John Carter 14:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, thanks for dropping by and getting a taste of this madness. Glad you had the sense to get out with your sanity intact. Nick Graves 14:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- "As opposed to some of us," Carter said, conspicuously drooling on the keys while typing. :) John Carter 15:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why ask questions if you don't want answers?
I find it interesting that you requested that this discussion "move forward." You specifically said:
"Further discussion, if you folks want to come to a conclusion rather than arguing forever, should focus on whether the list should include former Christians, or only current Christians. I think the question at hand can be best presented like this:"
"Is this a list of notable Christians who became Christian by conversion or a list of notable people who have become Christian by conversion?"
"Please refrain from arguing the same tired points for the rest of eternity. I can't mediate between parties who aren't willing to move forward. There is still a good argument for the exclusion of non-Christians as a whole, but really, can we leave the Dylan thing alone and focus on the big picture? --Moralis (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)"
And you went on to say this:
"By this, I meant that those who seem to believe that the list should exclude people who are no longer Christian should feel free to pursue that argument in a way that does not involve WP:BLP, as their opinion is still equally valid and this discussion is far from complete. --Moralis (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)"
What I find so interesting is that I tried to present my argument as to why those who are no longer Christian should not be on this list. How do you come to make a somewhat outrageous comment like:
"Cleo and Bus stop, you two are indeed very loud, but talking a lot does not mean that there are any more of you."?
Did you not want either of us to participate at all? Did you not really want to hear my reasons why the article should only contain those who are presently Christian? If not, then why did you ask that I explain that point of view?
Bus stop 18:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ArbCom
I have submitted a report on User:Bus stop on the ArbCom page here. As an individual who was involved in this debate, your participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Drumpler 17:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] And he changes the page the way he likes it -- when mediation hasn't even been resolved
- AND NOW HE EDITS THE PAGE THE WAY HE LIKES IT BEFORE OFFICIAL ARBITRATION WAS RENDERED!!!!!!! I think this is PROOF ENOUGH of his attitude towards Wikipedia. He's right, everyone else is wrong, and he's going to do WHAT HE LIKES even before any decisions have been made. I think that alone proves my point. JAF1970 23:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Moralis. I realize JAF's comment above is several days out of date now, but I'm a little disappointed in the lack of response by any mediators past the first couple of comments in this issue. Since the argument between JAF and me continued and escalated within the mediation page as well as on article talk pages, I came to the conclusion that he was unwilling to mediate (he has flatly denied that he did anything wrong, except to be "a little gruff" with me). As such, I've filed a request for arbitration and have included more than 30 diff-links as evidence that he has been uncivil toward me and, quite possibly, broken multiple WP policies.
- JAF's accusation that I broke mediation turns out to have been unfounded - another user outside of our dispute (User:Andrevan) came in and removed two sections of the article while I was offline (traveling), but JAF brought the accusation against me in several different places in the exact same way as above, and he has thus far refused to acknowledge his mistake at all, much less apologize for it or change his behavior.
- Anyway, thank you for helping. I definitely welcome more involvement in the issue - I want to get it resolved so we can clean up the mess on several article talks and get back to normal editing. Given how things have gone recently, I have no confidence that things won't just blow up again the next time I make an edit he disagrees with. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your VandalSniper Application
Good day, and thank you for applying to use the counter-vandalism tool VandalSniper. I am pleased to inform you that your application has been accepted, and you are now approved to use the tool.
Feel free to download the program, and be sure to read the features guide, if you have not already done so. Please bear in mind that VandalSniper is a powerful program, and that misuse may result in your access being withdrawn by a moderator.
Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions, and welcome to VandalSniper!
Kindest regards,
Anthøny (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notifiying about a vote
Hello. The article Stereotypes of whites, which you helped writing, is being nominated for deletion. If you want, you could state your opinion here. Thank you. M.V.E.i. 21:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] League of Copyeditors roll call
 |
Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors. |
