User talk:Moreschi

Subpages:

• Links to archived talk.

Recently archived

Please check the archives for anything older. Moreschi (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Email

I emailed you with my university IP locations. I am not sure what else to tell you. If you have any extra questions tell me and I'll do my best to answer as truthfully as I can. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm being a cranky pants so I want you to know I've searched your name in the noticeboards and wow. I completely get your suspicion given what you seem to deal with alot especially with me being pretty savvy and AR being a long term editor with lots of unfriends. If you want me to try and hammer down some of the previous IPs I used I can try. I'm also ok with emailing you the operating systems and browsers I've used. That way you can check me out for peace of mind. Drop a message if you do. I'd rather get that cleared up than have a cloud of suspicion hanging on me. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. It had crossed my mind you could possibly be my old friend User:ResearchEditor making a reappearance, as recovered memory is rather his topic-area, but it seemed a shade unlikely based on your edits anyway and I am now perfectly satisfied that you are 1) not RE and 2)acting in good faith. Many thanks for helping to clear this up. Best, Moreschi (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. You were nice about it and given what you deal with a lot I can completely understand. Thank you for being gentle about your suspicions and giving me the chance to clear things up. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess the price one pays for offering unbiased outside thoughts every now and then is these notices :) Moreschi (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

recent closure

Hi. I was, you might guess, a bit disappointed at the close of Politics in the British Isles. One part of your rationale suggested that the title is politically charged; this may be the case, but we have kept History of the British Isles and dozens of categories in that tree; and consensus is to use the term as a geographic grouping when it properly refers to the entire British isles (which the article did). In any case, if the title was *really* inappropriate (in spite of books using the same name), then a rename could have been considered (I had proposed something like Multilateral relationships in the atlantic archipelago. So I guess I'm not clear on why an article about the multilateral and bilateral relationships between the countries in the archipelgo, besides Ireland-UK relations, is worthy of deletion - you yourself noted the existence of sources (there are even academic research centers devoted to the topic); the British-Irish Council as a multilateral body - and tons of ink has been spilled talking about the multilateral politics of that and associated bodies. As to the content, I barely had time to write it, as it was nominated for deletion shortly after being created; and all of it was copy/pasted to Ireland-United Kingdom relations and then jealously guarded there intact by the same people who were voting for deletion! So they actually seemed to like the content... Finally, did you see the recent news articles I added to the bottom of the discussion? These were just a taste, illustrating multilateral and bi-lateral politics and relationships that were clearly *not* Ireland-UK. Finally, pending further discussions, would you mind restoring the article to my user space? Even BHG had mentioned she was not opposed to this. anyway I'm just hoping to hear more about your rationale, and whether and how the article might be reframed so it could survive on its own; I just can't see it as just part of Ireland-UK relations... Thanks! ps: I had meant to add this to the 'academics' section[1];[2] a quote "The development of Irish–Scottish studies has offered a productive means ‘of moving beyond an often debilitating and obsessive concern with [both countries’] relationship to England, and so of opening up new horizons’" There is so much more... --KarlB (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course I will happily restore the most recent version to your userspace.

As regards further rationale for the closure...clearly the term "British Isles" is somewhat loaded, but this is mostly true purely in a political context. I don't think too many people would have problems with the term in a geographic context, beyond the Irish nationalists, I guess. The problem is that the very title of this piece links "politics" and the "British Isles" together. This is just going to be a drama magnet, and more likely a very vicious battleground.

The bigger problem, however, is one of scope. This felt like it was supposed to be in part a "Description of the current political trends as far as the bits of the BI deal with each other", part "Political history of the British Isles" (which might just about be an article, I guess, a subpage of History of the British Isles), part "new trends in the scholarly analysis of the politics of the BI". That's about 3 different potential pieces all rolled into one, with predictable results. What was deleted definitely had some usable content, but as you yourself recognize, I think, it needs reframing. Good luck. Moreschi (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you don't take it the wrong way if I put this into DRV. I haven't decided yet, but it's one course I'm considering. Best regards. --KarlB (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Naturally not. I almost expect it with controversial, tight closes like this. Though please note that I am not trying to bar you from creating some future version, although I think a different title would be best. Moreschi (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, a few follow up questions, if you don't mind.

1. You stated above that there was an issue about the title of the article. If you (like others) see that as a problem, isn't a rename the more appropriate path?
2. Secondly, you said the scope is a problem. Scope was the main contentious point of debate with RA/BHG; the question there seemed to be, are Ireland-UK bilateral relations sufficient to describe the scope of all of the inter-country political activity that occurs in the archipelago? You seemed to agree, stating "I am not persuaded that this is not better handled as a series of "bilateral relations" articles"; but couldn't the same argument be made about Politics of the Caribbean or Nordic countries for example (which has a politics section that could be expanded? I guess I'm not sure why 'bilateral' was judged by you to be sufficient here, esp given existence of multilateral bodies amongst the exact countries described by the term British Isles.
3. Finally, I'm not sure I understand your conclusion re the academic approach; "Clearly such scholarship exists, but it does not seem extensive enough to support the burden this article would place on it" - please recall that this article has only existed a few days, and we have only scratched the surface of the literature, and I mainly added the academic section there as a stub to help establish the notability of studying politics in the British isles, to show that others have taken a similar approach (since the raison-d'etre of the article was under seige) - but I actually think post-nationalist archipalegic studies itself merits a whole article. In any case, there are several academic research centers set up to study culture, relations, and politics in the British isles using an archipelagic perspective; I'm sure others exist, it's not always easy to find in google because they use many terms "northern archipelago", "atlantic archipelago", "these isles", etc etc but they certainly exist - and I don't think any of them would say they're just studying British-Irish politics (ps: FWIW the restored article now lives here: User:Karl.brown/Politics in the atlantic archipelago). Thanks! --KarlB (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Always happy to answer questions. Taking these in order:

1. If the title was the only problem but the article itself was adequately scoped (with just a misleading title), then a rename would be more appropriate, yes. I do not think such was the case here. 2. I do not necessarily see the "scope" issues in the same way as BHG et al. The article, as it was, certainly had scope problems, but I am perfectly open to persuasion - and indeed you make a good case - and that this is not all reducible to UK-Ireland relations. The problem - as I see it - was not that the article was useless expansion of whatever UK-Ireland relations articles we have, but more than it was trying to do too many different things at once and was completely unclear about its goals in the process. The result was something of a nightmarish mess. 3. One way to narrow the scope to something more usable would be to write just such an article on "post-nationalist archipalegic studies", which sounds like something we might benefit from. The "burden" comment relates to this; the scholarship in this area can probably stand a more narrowly focussed article, but not one so sprawling and wide-ranging as we had. Best, Moreschi (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that it was a "nightmarish mess"; several people complimented the content, and several people where were 'opposed' to the article (RA, Snappy) jealously guarded a copy/paste of the same exact content in Ireland-United Kingdom relations (carefully copying over any new edits to the original as they came in...) as a ploy to prove their point that it was a fork, so I don't think your assessment of it as a "mess" was a consensus view. Also please recall that the article itself barely had time to attract other editors to the cause; who is going to spend time editing an article currently planned for deletion... I guess I'm sad it never got a chance, and I feel political correctness had a lot to do with it. Anyway thanks for your responses, I'm considering next steps now. --KarlB (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Politics in the British Isles

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Politics in the British Isles. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KarlB (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

User:E4024, yet again

Would you be so kind as to revoke this user's talkpage access, as he is using to try to get others to revert-war on his behalf while he is blocked [3]? The guy is unbelievable. Athenean (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Athenean (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Re Ywreuv

Thanks for the offer to block Ywreuv if he continues stalking me. Should I come straight to you if it continues? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Moreschi (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

BozokluAdam

Since you blocked Bozoklu, you should know of two edits done by IPs(both are located in Tokat, Turkey)[4][5], both of which have an anti-Persian POV. This may not be enough to initiate a sockpuppet investigation, so I thought I should let you know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 11, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Merging Michael David Weiss article with Puncture Movie article

Hello, I wrote a reply on the Puncture movie discussion, could you address. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forcemagic (talk • contribs) 05:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Article probation

Hi, is [6] by the Fringe case? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed religion manual of style

There is now a proposed Manual of style for religion articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. I have some reason to believe that your own expertise in dealing with matters of nationalism might well be of use here, given the large number of groups out there which deal substantially with what might be called ethnoreligions. Any input you might have would be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Moreschi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sædon^talk 22:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

I rather doubt you have any memory of me; to the best of my memory, we've never had any real interactions. However, I did leave you a barnstar about three and a half years ago now shortly after an ancient debacle between you and a certain administrator took place. I had been aware of your activities prior, but I was never really keen on anything you contributed at the time. Nevertheless, I felt inclined to recognize at the very least your continued passion and hard work for the site. I could just present you yet another barnstar by just saying something nice and leaving it at that, but I came here for honesty's sake as well. The barnstar I initially gave you at the time was not without reservation.

There was a phase when I was virtually obsessed with Wikipedia's more political aspects, which meant that I'd go as far back as 2006 and familiarize myself with some of the affairs that went on over the years (especially when they related to administrators getting desysopped). When I'd looked into the ArbCom Elections of December 2007, I checked out your candidacy at the time and the first line of your candidate statement was what struck me the most: "I suspect for many I’m something of a controversial figure..." Certainly you were, simply by virtue of your activity throughout the site. Now here's where my brutal honesty comes into play. I'm not going to pull any punches when I say these things — back in 2008 and early 2009, I was not especially thrilled with many of the things you'd done. Yes, you were dedicated to the site and I acknowledged that, but you nonetheless came across as somebody who simply ought not be an administrator. I found you exceedingly uncivil, crass, and heavy-handed in both actions and words. Whenever I saw you getting involved in a dispute, I couldn't help but feel uneasy because I found you had something of a tendency to exacerbate situations rather than mitigating them, so to speak. I had the impression that the mere notion of there being genuine people reading the snarky comments you had directed at them was lost on you. I mean not to offend you when I say these things, but I do feel context is important in what I'm trying to insinuate here.

As I'd begun seeing you around again after a general hiatus since 2009, my impression took a drastic 180° turn. I started noticing your more diplomatic side, and that's when I realized that you are in fact somebody who truly does care about the collegial environment of this site. Even when I disagree with your actions (and there are many such occasions), I can at least feel reasonably confident that you had done them after careful consideration without letting your emotions cloud your otherwise solid judgement. The very rare occasion that I do see your name pop up on one of the dramaboards (ArbCom, AN/I, etc), I take the time to read through whatever you've written because I know it will be sensible, reasoned, fair, and tactful. Sure, you can be tough, but not without justification — conspiracy theories, racism, harassment, and abrasiveness simply have no place on this site. All things considered, I now consider you to be among Wikipedia's most invaluable assets, and a true paradigm of what a Wikipedian ought to be.

		The Original Barnstar
		For all the hard work you have done over the years in developing classical music articles, turning away nationalists with axes to grind, starting the fringe theories noticeboard, and helping to provide ArbCom rulings with a backbone through your capacity as an administrator, I hereby award you the original barnstar. You definitely deserve it.

Take care, Master&Expert (Talk) 07:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)