User talk:Moe Epsilon/Archive 22

10 17 18 19 20 21 Archive 22 23 24 25 26 27 30

Thanks for your support at RFA

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me (especially from such a Wikipedian in long standing), and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future, though I somehow doubt it for some time to come... Cheers! -- nae'blis 22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So, I was looking at your game, and decided to try it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trosk/Moe%27s_Game

I know, I have a very wide range of music >_>

You like? Trosk 00:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me!

Oh hey, yeah when I added that tag I just saw that the protected tag was removed when it was still protected. I thought someone had simply removed sprotected. I had never seen sprotect2 before at the time so i was a bit confused. I thought sprotect2 just added sprotected to the category since I didnt notice the little lock on the top. Anyways I actually like sprotect2 more thanks for clearing things up :) Valoem ^talk 00:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 48	27 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	Steward elections begin
Group apologizes for using Wikipedia name in online arts fundraiser	News and notes: 1.5 million articles, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Oh, the humanity! I had my doubts about accepting a nomination for a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the stir it caused as it drifted to the ground in flames! Still, it was as educational as ever. Thanks for your input; it will be on my mind as I continue to edit Wikipedia, and perhaps I will have earned your support if another nomination comes around. Kafziel Talk 14:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect2

So I guess you agree with me that YTMND is going to be pretty much indefinitely semi-protected? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 21:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant "indefinitely semi-protected" as in how George W. Bush is pretty much permanently semi-protected except the very rare grace periods that occasionally come along for the sake of Allowing Everyone to contribute. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 21:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the Sprotect2 template meant to be invisible? It seems to have content that is meant to appear on the pages it tags, when I look at that by using "edit" (I didn't change anything, or even save, but just looked), but is not visible on any of the pages it tags, at least among the ones I looked at. -- Lonewolf BC 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(Your answer, brought over from my talk page. For the sake of conversational coherence, please answer me here if you choose to answer. Lonewolf BC)

It's not invisible. See the top right corner where there is a lock Image, it links to the policy page. Tell me if you still don't see it. semper fi — Moe 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Yeah, I see it now. I guess my monitor is slightly out of adjustment; the lock icon is was half out of view, at the edge of the screen. I think a better place for the icon would be just to the right of the article-title. I don't know whether that is possible. Either that or make the icon bigger. It's too inconspicous as and where it is (even aside for my monitor-adjustment problem). Cheers. -- Lonewolf BC 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I can adjust to it to where it will reach the article's name or not considering the length of every articles name is different. I will however increase the size a little to make it more noticeable. Cheers! :) semper fi — Moe 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal on AN/I [1]

Hi, I think that comment by LC should stay,[2] maybe struck through or labelled as a PA; because I think (since there are other open issues this editor is contributing to on the AN/I and elsewhere) it speaks to this editor's general mien and way of dealing with those who challenge him. Anchoress 01:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I do too. please strike it and label it as the personal attack it is. pschemp | talk 01:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

userpage

Hi please don't edit my user page and if you want to take somthing off it please tell me first.-Pediaguy16 01:10, 1 December 20

You can edit other peoples user pages?--Pediaguy16 03:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok on other wikis they will ban you if edit someone's user page.--Pediaguy16 03:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok sorry I still need to get use to this site.--Pediaguy16 03:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I have another account called lostdude815 I just wanted to tell people that becuase on another wiki they banned me because of having two accounts and I didn't know that was bad.--Pediaguy16 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

yea--Pediaguy16 03:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

yes thankyou.--Pediaguy16 03:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks again.--Pediaguy16 04:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A few things up for deletion

• Fire and Ice (short lived tag team):Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire and Ice (wrestling)
• 2007 in wrestling category:Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_30#Category:2007_in_wrestling

Feel free to comment if you want. In my opinion both should go. RobJ1981 19:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Vlh

Will you please block this slow-speed vandal for me? He keeps inserting original research into Wikipedia despite warnings on his talk page and a massive discussion of the articles he's adding the text on, Grand Slam Champion and Triple Crown Champion (see history of articles). Consensus at the Pro Wrestling WikiProject and Policy state that unverified facts can't be inserted into Wikipedia. I've went through test4 with him (twice) and he still hasn't gotten the hint yet. semper fi — Moe 02:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest taking this to WP:ANI since this isn't an obvious vandalism incident, and since the issue isn't especially pressing. -- tariqabjotu 02:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected2

Heh, the only reason I changed it was because Kelly Martin told me it looked like crap. Protected2 (maybe with a super duper padlock) would be good :) -- Tawker 03:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

button

--Pediaguy16 21:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Here hold on let me fix it.--Pediaguy16 21:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh never mind.--Pediaguy16 21:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ehh... sorry if I did something bad - I just wanted to continue the joke. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 11:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nice joke there.

Eh

I'm a victim of an odd mistake... (again?)... Don't you think that I'm the black sheep of Wikipedia? :( --PaxEquilibrium 21:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of times template used?

I notice that the cutoff has moved down two places since Redux's last edit, and two people have been removed from the list since then (one by you, one by me) - maybe after X number of uses of a template on a single page it just gives out :). Seriously, I don't have any idea what is the problem. We could create an alternate template to use for part of the page, if nothing else works. NoSeptember 21:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The alternate template didn't fix it. After the cutoff, it is recognizing the template as a normal article link, hence linking to the admin mainspace article page. It's beyond me, maybe we should ask at Village Pump:Tech for opinions. NoSeptember 22:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I replaced some templates above the cutoff line during my test, and they worked fine, so there is definitely something magical about the cutoff line. NoSeptember 22:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We may have to at some point. First though, look at my reply at VP. I also notified Rich. NoSeptember 08:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Yes, do you? - Deathrocker 19:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the band Infernal Majesty, there is no evidence that shows that anybody has ever confused them with the band HIM. They are relitively obscure in comparison, play different styles of music and are from entirely different countries. It looks like a cheap advertisment. Also the term His Infernal Majesty does not direct straight to the band HIM's page anyway. It goes to a disambiguation, thus I shall moved that piece of information there instead.

Also, you brought obscure demos, and compilations into the main article, when it is only supposed to be a brief album discography and then a link to the HIM discography, like the David Bowie article is, for example. I'll make these changes. - 02:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

{{Protected2}}

I updated the statements page for the new code. I've only moved that tempalte to sprot for now, as it is brand new and may have room for community involvement. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling tag teams note

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#Tag_Team_pages. I wasn't sure if you saw it yet or not. Basically it's a discussion about teams and what should go. I think a mass AFD should be made for many teams. RobJ1981 05:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Moral supports

Moral supports are rather insulting. You don't know if the candidate wants your pity. —Centrx→talk • 06:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see as to how it could be rude, to be friendly. Moral support isn't just pity !votes, but rather a friendly gesture to reassure them. We wouldn't want an editor to leave Wikipedia because his final tally there was 0 support and 100 oppose, now would we? I know, I have been shut out completely on my first RFA here on Wikipedia and the aftermath of no one voting support can be a little hard to deal with (I mean you recover and move on, but it's very bitter those first few moments). Cheers! semper fi — Moe 06:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not rude, insulting. I don't think "All my support votes were superficial pity votes" is better than "People evaluated my candidacy and decided that I was not qualified for this esteemed position." Also, only 7 hours have passed since the voting has opened; you are essentially saying that you think the election is over for that candidate. If you don't think the candidate should be on the Arbitration Committee, you should not vote to put that person on the Arbitration Committee. —Centrx→talk • 07:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to sit here and argue that I wasn't intending to be insulting, I'm not trying to insult them, and thats that. But to respond to you, seven hours may have only passed but with as many voters as there have already been on some candidates pages, 0-50 with no support, I don't think it's insulting to give a hand of support. No, they aren't going to be elected into the ArbCom, with that big a difference, I don't see how they could be. As to your last comment about "If I don't wan't them on the ArbCom, then don't vote support", if it's fairly obvious that they aren't going to be elected into the ArbCom, and yes, 7 hours in some show that, I think it's more than acceptable to give them a little bit of happiness that someone supported them. As to your first comment on my talk about how they might not want my pity !vote, in my time here on Wikipedia, I haven't seen anybody respond negatively to a moral support and have seen them leave thank you notes for being so kind as to hand it out. Now, if you excuse me I must be off to better things rather than argue friviously with you over a nonsense topic. semper fi — Moe 07:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your message on my talk page

Hello Moe.

On my talk page you posted a message, saying that I have misinterpreted some things here. I will reply to each of your points in order.

• First, it not disruptive to not respond to another persons comment, rude or incivil in some cases, but not disruptive.
  • Whether disruptive, rude, or uncivil, what is more at stake is that Pediaguy16 is making a WP:HOAX.
• Edits like this are far more disruptive than letting an issue go.
  • I disagree with you here. I had asked Pediaguy16 over 5 or even 6 times, with no reply. If that's not rude or disruptive, because it was a perfectly legitimate and civil message, then I suggest you read up on Wikipedia talk page guidelines.
• Adding a userbox is nothing very suspicious, as far as I tell, all you have to do to join is add the userbox, so asking him to remove it until he joins is rather redundant because all he has to do to join is add the userbox or add himself to the category, which the userbox automatically does.
  • Again, you are incorrect. The WP:CVU is a kind of WikiProject dedicated to countering vandals. I do not see Pediaguy16's name in the member category.
• And I honestly don't know why you changed the "--" in my signature to "--" [1] That was rather pointless. semper fi -- Moe 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It is my web browser (Dillo) that does this, and I am now using another (Konqueror). See User:Yuser31415/Talk archive 1#Your editor is replacing characters for one case.

Cheers, Yuser31415^@?#&help! 22:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 49	4 December 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections open	The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser	Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 05:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Stables and tag teams

I think that would probably work better: even though current teams and stables would be small, compared to former teams/stables. Currently, WWE only has a handful of them, as does TNA and other promotions. Teams in one section, stables in another for each article would probably work best. RobJ1981 01:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

sprotected2 stuff

ok. i had removed that im sorry. i just put that because in the several first minutes my page had been modified at least 5 times, but i had removed that.. its all ok now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brasileiro1 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Redirects to Another Article

Please ensure that when you create redirects, they do not link to other redirects, as on the Yasser Arafat family of articles. -- Saaber 05:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Response

Hi, Moe. I'm so sorry for late response. I am pretty busy in my real life, and had many tests in schools. I apologize for late response. Anyways, How are you doing? I occassionally check my messages here, but I didn't have time to response your messages, and when your school will start Winter Break? Daniel5127 <Talk> 02:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Same as mine My school will start winter break next week, but will start on Jan. 8. Daniel5127 <Talk> 02:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeb, I will have party with my friends on christmas, and watching movie in theatre, and contributing some articles. Daniel5127 <Talk> 02:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Question and comments about wrestling teams/stables

I thought an admin was going to delete the list page (from what you posted on the talk page)? Or are you waiting to make the new article(s)? I suppose it's smart to just wait anyway, since many teams probably should go. It would save some time when making a table for the new things. I noticed Fire and Ice is gone now, so that's a good start to this team cleanup. A prod I placed on Christian and Tyson Tomko was removed, so I'm sending it to AFD. Granted they are a duo in TNA currently, they still haven't done much. All relevant and notable information can go into their pages (if not in them already). I believe prods are on several teams still, so it's likely a prod deletion could work for some (I'm hoping at least). This "tag team cruft" needs to be eliminated from Wikipedia. RobJ1981 06:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Moral support?

I must say that I'm somewhat surprised that you are voting moral support at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/PMA. I really dislike the "moral support" votes, but at least often there can be some rationale behind them. But giving moral support to somebody whose entire effort in running for ArbCom is a single sentence that can be boiled down to "I've been here five years" is beyond the pale. Maybe you see this differently, but when I support a candidate, I'm putting some of my credibility on the line to do so. Your credibility, at least in my eyes, has taken a hit for your support of this non-candidate. I've given credence to your opinion in the past, and will do so in the future, but not quite so much as before when I see you supporting or opposing an RfA nominee or another ArbCom candidate. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

United Wrestling Association

Thank you very much for your time & effort cleaning up United Wrestling Association. It looks wonderful now. I appreciate that very much. STFmaryville 13:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Triple Crown and Grand Slam Champions

I am not and was never looking to start trouble, all I am trying to do is expand a definition based on fact and references.

The Triple Crown and the Grand Slam are what we have been going back and forth on.

My contention is that The Intercontinental and United States Championships are equal and thus are interchangeable when when deciding a Crown/Slam.

You say no because WWE never explicitly came out and said so.

On 8-4-06, JBL said he was a Slam winner. A WWE wrestler on WWE TV said he accomplished a WWE sanctioned feat.

It was said that no outside source has verified this, but no one in WWE has disputed JBL's claim either.

Also it must be pointed out that PWI has always considered the two championships as equal.

When PWI used to do their rankings for WWF and WCW, the I-C and U.S. Titles were always listed as automatic number one contenders for their respective World Champions. The same holds true today when they do the rankings for Raw (I-C) and Smackdown (U.S.).

PWI is considered the main source for what is considered a "World Title" and their word is law here on Wikipedia.

They also have always maintained that the I-C and U.S. Championships are of equal value and of equal standing.

As I have said before, I am not trying to vandalize or add nonsense to Wikipedia, only enhance it with an updated definition based on consensus and fact, based on logic and references.

JBL, PWI, and many other wiki users have backed up this definition. (Look at the Triple Crown Champion Discussion page).

All I ask is my contribution be allowed to stand as I respectfully feel that I am in the right on this one.

Thank you for your time.

Vlh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vlh (talk • contribs) 23:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Re Sprotected3

The merge idea sounds good. Thanks Jay(Reply) 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It works fine. Thanks again. Jay(Reply) 00:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

per cscwem

Hi, Moe. I'm particularly sensitive about people asking me about the reasons for my votes. So I won't be offended if you are, or decline to answer (heck, I walk that line frequently). It is my hope, though, that our past history will put aside the notion that I'm grilling you over the coals. I found your vote opposing CSCWEM today. I was wondering if you could explain to me what I've missed. I personally voted against him for administratorship, on the basis that he simply did not need it to continue the work he was doing. He still doesn't. And frankly, I oppose most RFAs. In this case, though, I've interacted with him a lot and find him to be (I hate to use the term) a real "standup kind of guy." If you'd deign to explain to me, I'd be most grateful. Thanks, Alex. ... aa:talk 09:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, I mostly agree with everything you've said. I think the one perception difference we have is that I see him interacting with a lot of users in the process of all those revert edits. But, your point is valid. Thanks for letting me know. ... aa:talk 22:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

I was reccomended here by Big Boss 0 for information on how to download images to wikipedia. Could you please tell me how. I woul greatly appriciate it. User: Nightmare 81

User:Vlh

I've blocked Vlh 48 hours for his disruptive edits to wrestling articles, as he still refuses to provide sourcing or discuss the matter with other editors. If he continues to edit in this manner after his return, please let me know. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you help Me?

In the discussion section on the John Cena page I found the following comment:

• "I suspect that User: Crazy Commander is a sockpuppet of User: You're The Man Now Dog.204.42.20.85 20:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)"

Could you tell me how I should handle this? I checked the John Cena page history and found that the attacks were similar. Could you please tell me how it should be handled? User: Big Boss 0

I still didn't understand what you said so could you please do it for me and tell me how to later. User: Big Boss 0

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Konstable, now voluntarily desysopped, may not be resysopped without using the normal channels, including a request for adminship and community consensus.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 05:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to be nice about this

First of all, I'm not trying to get under anyone's skin or be disruptive to Wikipedia; all I'm trying to do is add information to make an article as encyclopediac as possible. WWE has put the WWE Tag Team Championship on the same level as the World Tag Team Championship and the World Heavyweight Championship on the same level as the WWE Championship. Now, I am willing to be fair and let ECW World Title go, as it's still a new title and PWI doesn't recognize it yet as a World Title. However, I must continue to argue for the US Championship, as it has been around for the past few years and WWE AND PWI have both recognized the US Championship to be equal to the IC Championship. We know this because, not only did JBL himself call himself a Triple Crown Champion (don't forget, Shawn Michaels called himself a Grand Slam Champion), but Big Show has also been called a Triple Crown Champion, and he never won the Intercontinental Championship, only the United States Championship. And, Big Show's page lists him being a Triple Crown Champion, and his page is in the Triple Crown Champion category. WWE Tag Team and World Heavyweight Championships are both eligible for Triple Crown; why not US Title? There's only about 9 months difference between the creation of the WWE Tag Team titles and the US t itle. Is 9 months really that much of a time issue? Ultimately, what would silence this whole debate is if WWE put up a list of Triple Crown Champions; but until they do, isn't it up to us to decide things? Anakinjmt 23:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, calm down here. Now, if you had read correctly, you would have read that I was willing to be nice about this. I'm not going to resort to a petty edit war, as that is stupid and pointless. For sources, where's the sources for the list of champions right now? That's not there. The article has already been tagged. For providing the sources...you know that WWE.com hasn't listed any of the superstars as being Triple Crown champions, and I've never read PWI, I only know this from other people that have shown me scans...and NO, I don't mean other people here. I'm talking about people on wrestling forums and such that get the magazine and have shown scans. As for JBL, being a Grand Slam Champion requires you to be a Triple Crown Champion, and Big Show didn't call himself a Triple Crown Champion, but he's been referred to as one before (JR, Michael Cole, etc.). I couldn't tell you when because I honestly don't have an airdate, but I do recall them calling him one before. Relax, no need to go banning people because you don't agree with them. I'm not here to cause trouble, as I've said before, so I would appreciate it if you would stop treating me like that's all I'm out to do. I'm just someone who feels like people should be given due credit for their accomplishments. Anakinjmt 00:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Triple Crown Championship

By the very definition, the US title must be accepted as part of the Triple Crown. It is a midcard title. The Wikipedia article has at least one flaw in it. The flaw is either not including the US title as a step towards achieving it, or recognizing wrestlers who haven't won the IC title as only needing one of the others to achieve it. John Cena is one of the most notable people on that list, as he is listed as only needing a tag title reign, but he hasn't won the IC title. I wasn't using OR; I was just paying enough attention to realize that the article contradicts itself. -- THLR 00:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving

So, are you leaving all together? -- THLR 00:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't leave!!! Anyway I'll still be here when you come back. Hope to hear from you soon. Try to cool down a little bit. User: Big Boss 0

This user has been recognized as a Big Boss Award recipient.

• Sorry dude but I cannot allow you to leave. Please cool down for a while. I will put your User Page back to the way it was in a day or two. If you reverted it back already you still care about wikipedia. And you better check the discussion because I think someone else doesn't want you to leave either. You have been a positive influence on so many people. Forget all the bulls***. It is the people who you help out. They still need you around! 207.69.137.202 04:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• • If you edit his page, someone on the RC Patrol will probably revert you. Just leave it the way it is. If he is really leaving, then he has the right to make a final statement to the community on his user page. -- THLR 05:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • I'm terribly sorry to see you leave. Although I don't know what caused you to retire, I'm hoping that you will have a great time out of Wikipedia.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't Leave

We will all miss you.... Cheers, WikieZach| talk 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know you very well but I think you should stay here. We can hep you.--CJ King 02:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh gees. I don't believe you. You'll be back. At least, I hope you will. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Announcement

Announcement The "Help name my baby" Poll has closed :). Greta Annette was born 12/12/06. She weighs 6lbs 14oz and is 19inches long. Mother and baby are both doing fine. Thanks for all the suggestions! To keep this slightly Wikipedia related I have started Adopt a State, so adopt your state article today! -Ravedave (help name my baby) 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Moe?

Sorry to pester you and I know you have heard this before...but you are a hero to us. You are kind and an awesome editor. I am just telling you this, I am very sorry that you are mad but I have no clue what is the matter. Basically I just want to say thanks for being such a great guy...to me and to us all. Cheers. — Seadog^Talk 05:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly

[3] this user is editing again. Kukini 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he is: it says so right at the top of the page. He has every right to edit as little or as much as he chooses. Newyorkbrad 19:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

TC Champions email

Has Big Boss forwarded the E-mail to you yet? I trust him, but it seems odd to have received an E-mail back around Christmas time. Cheers, -- THL 23:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That is understandable; however, there seems to be a consensus to include the US title in the article with or without sources. It is generally acknowledged that the US title counts towards the TC, and I don't see why it should be left out because there aren't any websites that say it does. In my opinion, WP:IAR also applies to this situation. I know that the IAR thing is usually used as a bullshit answer, but in this case I do feel that it actually applies. Common sense says that the US title counts, consensus says to add it to the article, JBL and the Big Show have both been called TC champions on the TV shows, so leaving it out hurts the article. That is why WP:IAR applies. "If policy gets in the way of improving the article, ignore it." That is my opinion. Cheers, -- THL 00:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually nevermind. -- THL

That is very suspicious. Recently, Big Boss has been asking me the most efficient ways to destroy Wikipedia with vandalism, claiming that he wanted to know his enemy after I asked him why. He deleted that question from his talk page after responding. All I did was say that it was impossible to destroy it, and I put over AntiVandalBot, but I am growing suspicious. Is this grounds for a check user? -- THL 00:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The nevermind, I want to deal with Big Boss before stirring this up again. I have taught him about VandalProof, and if he gets approved for it in the near future, and our suspicions turn out to be true, then he could cause some damage. He specifically asked why vandals don't wait to get a tool like that before going on a rampage. If he is a sockpuppet of that user, I want to know now. Cheers, -- THL 00:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that you should. I have never done that kind of thing before. Cheers, and thanks. -- THL 00:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be leaving tomorrow for a vacation, so I won't be around to see how it turns out. I'll be back after the first. Cheers, -- THL 04:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you wrote on THL's talk page that you had me checked to see if I was a sock of Big Boss. First of all, let me assure you that I am not. If you check my IP, you can see I'm from Michigan. Second, I'm not offended that you did, as it appeared my edits were very similar to his. I just happen to agree with him concerning the US title for the TC criteria. I am still looking for a viable source, and so far I've found one thing, but I want to check it out more before I present it, as I've never heard of it before (but that may not mean anything) and I want to make sure it's a good source. Also, I'm sorry if I was part of the reason you left beforehand. I will admit, I was frustrated that you didn't allow the US title in and I thought you were hiding behind the no original research policy, but I see now that you're using that as a check so it can be the best accurate. While I still feel the same about the US title, I understand the need for some sort of verification. However, I do wish to know if you personally believe it should be in there. Just so I know you're not totally against it, but you just want to play it safe and have a confirmed source agree with you or not. Anakinjmt 20:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As much as I have revealing my location I am from Illinois. Big Boss 0 00:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I was never accused of being a sockpuppet, I will go ahead and say that I am from Arizona. My IP address will be given upon request assuming that the requestor has a good reason. Also, I have removed the strikethrough from my previous comment, and I would like to go ahead and stir this up again. Cheers, -- THL 04:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If you get a reply from the WWE stating that the US Title counts, then will you be willing to ignore the NOR policy? It may not count as a source, but it would certainly answer all of your fears. If so, then I will drop this. Cheers, -- THL 06:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to add it to the article without a source, alright. What I was saying about the E-mail is that even though it doesn't count as a source, it guarantees that we won't be making a mistake when adding it to the article, and that is what really matters. If the E-mail is from the WWE, then it is reliable plain and simple. If we know for fact that the US title counts towards the TC, then it is our responsibility to ignore the rules and add it to the article. -- THL 06:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't e-mailed them. I was just asking whether or not you would add it if they replied to you. -- THL 07:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Under extraordinary circumstances (such as receiving a personal email from a multi-billion dollar company confirming what others have been suspecting) it is OK to ignore the rules for the good of an article. -- THL 07:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright. -- THL 07:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your message on Talk:Dvorak keyboard

Hey Moe Epsilon. I noticed your inquisitive comment on this page. For some strange reason, Talk:Dvorak keyboard was constantly targeted by spambots recently and was deleted 4 times in less than a month. If you're an admin, you may check the history of deleted edits. Regards,--Húsönd 01:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It used to be a redirect alright. I tried to restore the redirect after protecting the page but apparently it didn't work while the {{sprotected2}} template was hanging there. I could of course have restored the redirect if I simply removed the template, but then I guess I was concerned that other admins would not know that the protection was intended to last longer than usual. Oh well, maybe I'll just do that after all. Thanks for reminding me of this odd situation. I really have no idea why was this particular page so avidly attacked, it's not like it's going to attract a lot of potential customers after spam. By the way, I also found it rather odd that you're not an admin. You certainly seem qualified for adminship, maybe you're just not interested? Regards--Húsönd 02:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the category trick, that should do it. I have added you to my RFA-related subpage, in case you need an extra nominator in the future. Regards,--Húsönd 02:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Keep up the good work. :-) Cheers, --Húsönd 02:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year, Moe! Hope your New Year's Day is a blast! Ev@n Robidoux 03:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Big Boss 0

I have recently returned from my vacation. I am trying to catch up on what I missed. Anyway welcome back! Big Boss 0 00:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hey Moe, in keeping with my tradition of belated birthday wishes, I hope you and your family had a very happy Christmas and may you have a fantastic '07. Also, I wanted you to know that I'm very happy to see you back on deck. :) Sarah 14:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In recognition

		The Purple Star
		Given in recognition for having one of the most vandalised user pages. Timrollpickering 03:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Format for List of professional wrestling stables and tag teams?

I'm not sure if you forgot about the article or not, but it still needs some kind of format. I was thinking a similar type of table as the promotions page, then broken down into sections: active teams, active stables, inactive teams and inactive stables. Teams and stables are different things, so that format should be the one used (unless something better can be come up with). RobJ1981 05:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)