Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. :) Thingg⊕⊗ 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thingg⊕⊗ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
No problem buddy, thats what I'm here for. :) — Κaiba 16:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just come in late in the argument and insist upon things. The consensus was to leave alternative in the opening. There are in excess of 30 sources to back this up. I have and will continue to to revert your changes, Discuss this on talk page before reverting from consensus. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You insist there is a consensus to add alternative rock when alternative metal was previously written there? Absurd judgement. The term rock applies to all three genres that are listed and adding one genre out of the three asserts an unneutral point of view. And You reverted a part of the edit which was not even a part of that, which is adding <br> tags instead of commas. Sorry, but you didnt even discuss that prior. — Κaiba 04:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go and read the archived discussion, the consensus was to have the primary genre alternative rock, because the vast majority of our sources supported alt rock instead of metal. Consensus was also to have it in the opening. What is absurd is for you to not even read the consensus and assume this, and for you to think you can make controversial changes after a genre war went on for over a month without so much as discussing it. As for your little comma thing, you have TONS of articles to do that to, because nearly all of the ones I have seen do not use that method. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did participate in it to a limited extent if you bothered to go read the archive. Please tell me where in the archive it states consensus is in favor of "alternative rock is to be in the header". The article header actually read "alternative metal" before I changed it, so if there was consensus, it wasn't enforced prior to your crusade. As for the comma things, I suggest you not use WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as a reason. The infobox MOS for this is the commas, which is being slowly put into articles. Prior to the commas, <br> tags were used, yes, but other articles having them just means it hasnt been gotten to yet. — Κaiba 04:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kaiba, I understand if you're rather pissed about this situation; I'm not happy about how some users have handled themselves. However, I'd appreciate your input on the Flyleaf talk page in determining proper consensus for listing alternative rock or alternative metal in the lead sentence. Thanks. GlassCobra 14:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, do you know anyone who has checkuser ability? I have reason to believe that 76.177.242.179 and Landon1980 are the same person. I quote from each one's edit summaries reverting additions of rock to the lead in Flyleaf, "do not mess with lead", in those exact words. They also seem to edit many of the same articles, such as August Burns Red and Flyleaf, and they seem to also behave similarly to Hoponpop69 (I've been in several arguments with him), but I'd like to see a checkuser done on Landon. I believe he is sockpuppeting to try and reach consensus in his favor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's against policy and merits a checkuser. Timmeh! 23:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Alison (a checkuser) to come review what you wrote here to see if filling a checkuser case would be worth the time doing. — Κaiba 23:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for taking time to remove the images and leave a message for me. I am sorry for putting the images to unfair usage. Thank you Janith (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point about the PPV article using a standard free-use image. However, for the biography page, any old image just won't work. The image needs to feature him with the championship, otherwise, there's no point to having it. And as stated in the fair-use rational, which I added BTW, the short length of the reign, plus the time since the reign (now at over 5.5 years) means the chance of finding a free-use replacement is slim to none. Mshake3 (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NONFREE and WP:NFCC, usually any non-free image used soley to use illustrate a living person doesn't meet fair use:
Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image.
An image of Shawn Michaels with any championship belt would serve the same purpose in that section, and considering Shawn Michaels is still a living, active professional wrestler (with many many championship reigns other than this), a free alternative is certainly still potentially available for the article. — Κaiba 10:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked them up on Allmusic... all the genres discussed are listed... Why can't they all the genres by in the infobox? They all are well cited.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am Moe Epsilon, but who is SaveOurSouls777? Are you referring to this accounts first name, Save Us 229? — Κaiba 13:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if you have a point about my account name, please state it, otherwise I'm blanking this message now. — Κaiba 13:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be rude. I just wanted to double check. Also, I was bemused you changed again. Good you still have that spirit. Guroadrunner (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your moving of this article and the talk page conversation is irrelavent. Policy is very clear about all caps trademarked names, please read Wikipedia:NAMING#Use standard English for titles even if trademarks encourage otherwise. Regards, — Κaiba 22:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, you're obviously right and I'm glad the case has been settled. I just want to point out that "the talk page conversation" is always relevant. Wikipedia has policies, not rules. Don't forget Wikipedia:Be bold. --MQDuck 01:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should be grateful if you could please explain the rationale for this edit: [1]. As I was in the middle of an appeal to ArbCom, it was rather assuming the result of that appeal. Thanks.--Poetlister (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I may ask a question from one Steeler fan to another why are you not active in WP:PW anymore? You were one of the best user's let me know or if it's personal I understand :) <font-family:"Tahoma">#1 Metallica FanYour Hancock 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why your message has not been replied to, I think it needs to be semi protected for good, why are all of these IP's vandelizing the roster now? It doesn't make sense, any way I got it on my watchlist and have allready caught one this morning. <font-family:"Tahoma">#1 Metallica FanYour Hancock 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm glad there has only been one edit since the protection gueuss who did it lol. <font-family:"Tahoma">#1 Metallica FanYour Hancock 20:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"If your message is rude, templated, and/or begins with "Welcome to Wikipedia!", it will be reverted instantly without a reply. Note: Thank you notes in templates are not included in this warning."
Nevermind. How's life, BTW. It's been a while since we've talked. Peace, -The Hybrid- 07:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I couldn't resist commenting on that thread anyways :P
Eh, life's pretty boring, just busy with RL and all that, how are you? — Κaiba 17:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tired, what can I say. A combination of working too hard and playing too hard :P. I've gotta hit another party tomorrow; poor me. -The Hybrid- 01:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've gotta buy a new swimsuit. My circumference is about seven inches longer than the swimsuit's circumfrence, the suit I just bought four months ago. I've been working hard Moe ^^ The Hybrid 21:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, nice to hear you've been working hard to keep your figure up Hybrid :D — Κaiba 22:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, is Moe Epsilon your global account now? Cheers, The Hybrid 19:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. :) The name Kaiba was used on other Wikimedia projects by another person and it would require a usurption on other projects, and unfortunatly, I checked another Wiki and the name was used by someone who made contributions, so there would have been a few conflicts in making the account. I had an account named Moe Epsilon already on 50 wiki projects, and I know no one else chose my name while I was Kaiba, so this name is a lot easier to deal with. — Moeε 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were always Moe to me anyways :) The Hybrid 14:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've granted you rollback on your account. I've also removed rollback on the account you're no longer using. I would say good luck with the tool, give links to practice and offer help, but you don't need that. :( Happy editing though! PeterSymonds(talk) 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, thank you very much, while I don't need the practice links and offer of help with Rollback, I appreciate the fast response to my query. :) Thank you. — Moeε 19:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I noticed you reverted vandalism on found poetry. I was wondering if you can watchlist it, since it seems to get that sort of thing a lot. Thanks. --Justpassin (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added, happy to help. — Moeε 06:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Moe, hope your doing well. I was wondering whether you could do a MoS clean-up on December to Dismember (2006) as it is currently undergoing an FAR. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, I'll go look at it now. — Moeε 23:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! BTW, in the Results table for the Time column, for matches under ten-minutes I think it's better to have a zero infront, so instead of 6:24, it would be 06:24. D.M.N. (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok, but since we are going to add the zero in front, there is no need for {{sort}} to be there. — Moeε 11:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I was thinking. IMO in a way, we were making extra work for ourselves having the {{sort}} in there where it'd be easier jsut plonking a "0" in front! =D D.M.N. (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah :D BTW, I just added some line breaks the the table on Night of Champions to modify the width of the column, do you think that is OK? — Moeε 11:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like it like that. I'm now left with a gap between the end of the longest match result and the start of the stipulations column. I can understand if there is some really complicated match up, but for a table like what we've got at NOC IMO, it's not needed. D.M.N. (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird, I don't have the same gap :\ OK, I'll remove it. — Moeε 12:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's probably something to do with my screen resolution or something. Oh well. D.M.N. (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a Wikimedia account and are able to move them, that would be great. I wasn't trying to make extra work for anyone, so I apologize for apparently uploading them to the wrong place. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's great. Thanks for cleaning up after me! I'm not very good with formatting/tables/etc, so I appreciate all the help. I don't see a problem with your way, so I'll switch! Thanks for explaining and lettting me know :) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, cool. Now, we obviously do that for Lumberjack matches too right? Also, ballpark figure for how many particpants equals a note at the end? Say for instance on No Way Out (2006), there's a nine-man cruiserweight match, but it doesn't take up too much space. Note at the end? Also, any chance you could come up with a clever way to do the Survivor Series PPVS. Say for example, Survivor Series (1987), where there's 4 tables already for the "Survivor Series" matches. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, seems reasonable! Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about how the Commons works, but I know you do, so I thought you might be interested in Image:Diva.jpg. It is clearly a photo from WWE.com or a screenshot, as nobody from the audience could get a shot like that. It needs to be removed from the Commons as a copyright violation. Nikki311 16:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a proper copyright violation tag with source and notified the uploader there. — Moeε 19:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you help at it sometime soon? I feel a little overwelmed with trying to figure out guidelines and such by myself. RobJ1981 (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll head over there sometime and give you a hand. — Moeε 00:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey tell me what you think Moe: [URL removed] Frehley 0 (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do I think Frehley 0? Well first, I believe your abusing multiple accounts by even telling me this, BigBoss0. Second, I think offsite threats are immature. You need to grow up and if someone on Wikipedia or other Wikias make you that upset, you need to stay away from the computer for a while. — Moeε 10:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about just one person moe. By the way thanks for abandoning me when I needed you the most. Pay attention to this one. You will not only hear my voice but you might learn something. Frehley 0 (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frehley, I could care less about your little campaign of your e-enemies, so leave me out of them, and if you continue to use Wikipedia userpages as a means of soapboxing this crap, I'm going to report it. — Moeε 01:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
E-mail me. I have enabled it. This is important. Frehley 0 (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have a favor to ask. I'm doing a GA review for an article, and the only thing holding it up is a lack of source information for one of the images. User:Dknights411, the original uploader, has confirmed that he took the picture. However, it has since been transferred to Wikimedia Commons. Would you be able to edit the description page there for http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:LarryOBrienTrophies.jpg and add ""Photo taken by original uploader (User:Dknights411)"? I would really appreciate this. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but I don't see why this was mentioned in a GA review. Checking the past revisions and the licensing showed enough information as it was to show that Dknights411 took the photo and uploaded it to en wikipedia. The request for a template formatting of this information by whoever the GA reviewer is, is superficial. — Moeε 19:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you don't have a-lot of free time but it would be nice having a user of your caliber on the member's list. After all...not every one is as good as editor, or has as many edits as you ;) SteelersFan-94 18:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joined, thanks. — Moeε 18:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You are a Steeler fan if I remember correctly right? SteelersFan-94 21:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I must say it's awesome to finally get to meet you. I've been using Wikipedia since 2005, and your one of the few user's I can remember from way back when. SteelersFan-94 22:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My memory must be bad, I don't remember meeting you until about 2007. :P And yes, I am a Pittsburgh Steelers fan. :) — Moeε 08:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was under IP. And I remember you like being one of the best user's in WP:PW. I hope you don't mind, I'm going to ad you to my friends list. SteelersFan-94 20:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate that, and no, I don't mind. :) — Moeε 07:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've been working on your wrestling Wikia, and it's coming pretty good. We now have well over 2,000 article's. My goal is to eventually take a long wiki break from here, and go over there and work on some article's. The main thing I do over there is expand article's. If you ever get the chance come take a look, as Hybrid, LAX and other "guy's from way back when" are inactive. Cheers SteelersFan-94 05:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I plan to go back over to the Wrestling Wiki myself someday and deal with the copyrights of the images and other stuff getting more articles added. — Moeε 06:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the Images are a mess, I asked Rob if they were O.K, and if I needed to delete them, but he said that as long as the owner is o.k it doesn't matter like on here. SteelersFan-94 21:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The owner of what? If the image is copyrighted to WWE or something like that the image will probably be deleted. There are a ton of free images at the Wikimedia Commons we can use in its place and a load of non-free images on that wiki is just going to cause trouble. If its the owner of the image itself, of course, they can say we are free to use the image if a free one isn't available. — Moeε 10:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think they were from WrestleZone or PWTorch, they have a-lot of images of wrestlers on there. I've been uploading some from commons, For 'Taker, and others. I think if the owners see these being used on there they would be pissed. Is that true? And I can delete some of them, do you have to be a admin on there to delete? SteelersFan-94 18:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about pissed, but the owners of the photo could have them copyrighted and since they are from WrestleZone and PWTorch they very well may be. The thing is, if its like a picture of Shawn Michaels, for example, we have free images from the Commons that we know won't be restricted in use in any way on the pro wrestling project. We would have to ask permission, for each photo on WrestleZone, PWTorch or any place else on the copyright status of every image so they can be attributed properly. If it is copyrighted in any way, it probably shouldn't be used unless there are no free alternatives. Most photos from those websites would probably be WWE/TNA/etc. promotional photos, and those are copyrighted. And yes, deletion on the pro wrestling wiki has to be done by an administrator. There are a few administrators over there, and I will be over there shortly, so if you want to have something deleted I'll pop over there and take a look. — Moeε 10:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I use them of commons if I need one. Dammit, that sucks O.K, I'll ask you or Rob if I need one deleted.
Can you give me the source to where you found File:SummerSlam2000poster.jpg? It was deleted and I got it restored. I'm trying to fix the license problem, but I don't have the source to the image.--WillC 23:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't remember what website I got it from. If you go through and google it several websites are hosting a similar image if you want to reference a URL. Regardless of what website you choose, you know the source of the image, WWE. The source of the image does not change just because the image is put on different websites. All images of the SummerSlam 2000 poster are derived from a digitally captured photo or scan of the original poster, copyright being held by World Wrestling Entertainment, and it is claimed as fair use regardless of which website it comes from. — Moeε 00:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I just like to place a link to the original source.--WillC 01:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source information for File:PrefSymbol-Saga.png[edit]
Hi, Moe Epsilon (formerly Kaiba?). I have just tagged File:PrefSymbol-Saga.png as missing source information, because the source provided is ja.wikipedia.org. Wikipedia cannot be its own source—we need outside, third-party sources. (For one thing, there is no evidence provided that this image has been published outside Wikipedia, as required by the fourth non-free content criterion.) If you know the original source of this image, please provide it on the image description page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, I was not the uploader of this image, on neither the ja.wikipedia or the en.wikipedia, so I wouldn't know the original source. My name is on a file because I reviewed its status within the context of the article since it was claimed as fair use.
Second, I find the statement "For one thing, there is no evidence provided that this image has been published outside Wikipedia" to be highly inaccurate. The image is an official seal or symbol of the Saga Prefecture, a Prefecture of Japan, and very much doubt Wikipedia was the first place that it was ever posted. Finding a source for an official symbol shouldn't be too hard to accomplish.
Third, looking over some other images of prefecture symbols, some are marked as Public Domain in Japan, such as Okinawa Prefecture's symbol. Again, this image is an official symbol or seal, so it may be worth it to look into it, as the Saga Prefecture's symbol may not even be copyrighted.
I understand that you did not upload the image. But the uploader hasn't been active since March 2004, and you are listed as having agreed that this image satisfies all the conditions of WP:NFCC, so I thought I would ask you if you knew the source of this image (as required by NFCC #10). My statement that "there is no evidence provided that this image has been published outside Wikipedia" is accurate—there is no evidence provided. Of course this image must have been published outside Wikipedia, but the image description page does not provide evidence of this. An external source would provide this evidence.
I spent a bit of time looking at [2] and [3] trying to find this logo, but I was unable to find it, so at the moment I cannot provide a source myself. I thought it would be productive to leave you a note asking if you knew where it came from, since you apparently agreed that it meets all the NFCC requirements.
Perhaps this image is in the public domain in Japan, but obviously we need evidence of this fact rather than conjecture. If you do have some evidence that it's in the public domain, by all means include that evidence on the image description page. —Bkell (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try this again. No, I don't know the original website that the image was hosted on, obviously. But, the website that hosts the image is irrelavent, we know the source since this is an official symbol of a prefecture. The copyright holder is the Government of Japan in the Saga Prefecture. The image is just a digital scan, copy or a deriative of the symbol. The copyright holder of the image doesn't change from website to website.
The only question that actually remains is if the Government of Japan in the Saga Prefecture released it into the public domain or not. Since there are other symbols that are public domain, I will look into it. — Moeε 23:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke with Zscout370, who uploaded the Okinawa Prefecture's official symbol and marked it as public domain ({{PD-Japan-exempt}}). Zscout370 stated that the image falls under this license since it was created by Japanese law, which are public domain in Japan according to Article 13 of the copyright law in Japan. He also said that he had the construction sheets (which you can see on the Okinawa Prefectures description page) and he only uses the public domain tag for those images who have the construction sheets and he claims the others as fair use until he can find the official sheets. Knowing this, I will keep the image as fair use until construction sheets are found, with the source being the Japanese government. — Moeε 00:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks like you're taking care of things. Thanks. The point of view I was coming from, though I failed to think through it and articulate it correctly, was that I was skeptical about whether this actually was the symbol of the Saga Prefecture. (I generally approach Wikipedia with a healthy dose of skepticism.) I should have been able to follow links or find a reference that verified that this is indeed the symbol of the Saga Prefecture (which would have cleared up the NFCC issues I identified earlier), but I couldn't. Of course you are correct that the actual Web page this particular image came from is irrelevant when identifying the copyright holder, and after further thought I guess that wasn't really what I was after; I just wanted a source that verified that this symbol really had been produced by the government of the Saga Prefecture, and wasn't just created in Photoshop by some user on the Japanese Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed the question of whether it really was or not was going to come up, and I can safely say that it most likely is the correct symbol. While looking through other websites to produce you a URL earlier, I saw the image a couple times, just not on a Japanese government-type page; it was on a couple blogs of some kind. Through about 200+ edits and about as many editors who have edited the Saga Prefecture article (and probably more who alone have viewed it) since 2004 when it was first placed in the article, there haven't been any issues about whether it was or not. You would think if there was a error as large as a symbol of a country someone would catch that, right? :) — Moeε 19:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is dumb, but I think you know that I don't just create pointless articles/templates all over the place. It is one of the Good topic criteria that the articles be connected using a template, so I had to make it if I wanted to make Wikipedia:Featured topics/Vince's Devils. I didn't make one at first, but User:NiciVampireHeart had to make one for Wikipedia:Featured topics/Hardy Boyz, and in the discussion, it was pointed out that Vince's Devils needed one too, so I made it. Nikki♥311 00:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you at all. In fact, I wholeheartedly agree. If the Good Topic can be kept without the template, I have no problem removing and deleting it. I just don't want to lose the GT with all the work I put into it. Maybe a discussion could be started at the Topic Criteria talk page about not needing nav boxes for topics with just a few articles? Especially with topics like Vince's Devils and Hardy Boyz, where links in the article should suffice. Nikki♥311 00:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the references, but what you did was copy info from the Alumni (70s) page and you put it back. That's is what needs consensus. If you want to put refs, put it in the alumni (70s) please. SimonKSK 22:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. I was referring to WT:PW. There is a discussion there about it. Anyway, it looks better with the tables. SimonKSK 22:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me, or do you think the "notes on being released" column is very, very trivial. I think it should be deleted. The references can have their own column. iMatthew // talk // 00:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the ref next to the date/month/year should be enough anyways. — Moeε 01:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It looks really good now, nice job! iMatthew // talk // 20:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you hate me now but I'm trying to assume good faith here by trying to resolute our dispute. This started with the thing at WT:PW and I believe I took it to far by stating that you were hunting me down at the above FLC, and I apologize for that. But don't remove my comments because you hate me, I'm trying to be civil and resolved this so we can be on good terms. But don't oppose the list because of this, per the FLC instructions, your oppose can not be enacted upon and will not count when the FLC closes unless you give me a more thorough reason for the opposition.--TRUCO 20:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I restarted the discussion at the FLC, and I would appreciate it if you could reply to my comment :)--TRUCO 20:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like how you are fixing up the WWE alumni page so I'm following your lead and working on the TNA alumni page in my sandbox (User:Nikki311/sandbox3). It's a lot of tedious work, so kudos to you for working so hard and getting so much accomplished. Nikki♥311 21:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, you'll never know how much that means to me. — Moeε 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also credit you for your work, even though we had our differences, you still did a hell of a job. Well, that talk page template isn't necessarily suppose to be used to give advice on the article itself, its more about the talk page. Its redundant to even state that, you don't see the millions of other lists that have that note. If users don't know how to use it, then thats their fault. The table is made sortable for a reason. That's how I see it, but if you want to be courteous to the users who are new or just don't know how to use it, fine by me. About the ownage, it doesn't matter if its more than 2 or more than just you as the author. An article does not have an author, it has contributors, and a lot of people contribute to an article. This is why I said that stating 'authors' is inferring article ownage. --TRUCO 03:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read WP:OWN, you will understand my view point. But I agree, lets not argue about this. Do you plan on nominating the list for FLC?--TRUCO 04:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I understand your frustration here but try not to write edit summaries like that, they weren't meant for that. In addtion, how did you add a border and change the font style of your talk page, I always wanted to do something like that.--TRUCO 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I don't care what I say to low life trolls who stereotype by calling someone, especially me who is of German descent, a Nazi. If you want to learn something about user page designing, you should look at Wikipedia:User Page Design Center. — Moeε 22:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, I would have probably done the same thing if someone called me a "spic", since I am part Salvadorean. Oh okay, cool thanks for that link.--TRUCO503 22:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: this edit, redirected talk pages are an extremely bad idea because automated scripts like Twinkle and others still try to post to them. Because of a database quirk (see bug 7304 and my comment there), MediaWiki can get very confused when there is text containing a link after a redirect. For example, if you type "#redirect [[Chocolate]] I like [[basketball]]" on a page, the what links here tool will report that the page redirects to basketball as well as chocolate. To cut to the chase, see the deletion log for User:Antidote, and how it was deleted semi-automatically with a strange reason - my restoring reason is equally as weird, but that's because I was trying to figure out what was going on. I agree that there are wayyy too many image warnings on Antidote's talk page, so I've replaced the redirect with {{sockpuppeteerproven}} and protected the page, to reduce the likelyhood that semi-automated tools will post to it. Graham87 01:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I mostly redirect the talk pages to the user page where block notices are so that messages aren't continuously sent to the banned editor and so people don't come to the talk page (not noticing the block) and expecting a reply. As long as its redirected or protected so that doesn't occur, I'm fine with what you did. Maybe one day that bug will be fixed.. — Moeε 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if you can be bothered despite being "shot down" last time: I brought up the discussion about flags being (improperly) used in MMA articles at WT:MMA again, with a proposal to remove them. Hope you can chip in :) --aktsu(t / c) 14:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to, I appreciate you leaving me a message so I could participate. I look forward to leaning my knowledge of the wiki markup language to the mixed martial arts WikiProject so that their issues with flag icons are resolved. — Moeε 21:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter[edit]
There are currently 584 articles in Category:Stub-Class Professional wrestling articles. It still would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve.
The Broken external links and Dead links tools that assisted the project in fixing external links has not been updated for a period length of time, and as a result, it is not functioning any longer.
Events Calender
This section is intended to warn users about potential targets of vandalism and speculation: professional wrestling events from major promotions for the month of February.
This is a section in the newsletter devoted to help familiarize project members with the Manual of Style and general editing tips.
Consider expanding an article from the project's list of stub articles and nominating it at Did You Know?. The project's goal is to have 100 total DYKs by the end of the year.
Please familiarize yourself with the general notability policy of Wikipedia. Avoid creating new articles that do not satisfy the requirements.
Addition of content that is likely to be challenged in an article needs to be verified with a reliable source
Avoid using bolding to emphasize text. See MOS:BOLD for appropriate uses of bold text.
When adding an image to an article, follow MOS:IMAGES and align the image based on the direction the subject of the image is facing.
What the hell was that for? You totally messed up the WWE Allumni Page to where it's pratically unreadable. Now it takes forever to load and you're using a lot of copyrighted material. I'm reporting to the proper bureas for this.Cena Jr (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't appreciate your sarcasm. Second, there is zero copyrighted material on the article, everything is free content. The old revision contained several violations of WP:BLP and the majority of the content was unsourced. In addition, I have added a couple hundred extra references. Every point you just brought to me is moot. — Moeε 06:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 581 articles in Category:Stub-Class Professional wrestling articles. It still would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve.
The WP:PW Cleanup listing was updated this week by the bot for the first time since October. A number of Featured lists, Featured articles, and Good articles are listed as having problems. Anyone who fixes an problem with an article should remove it from the listing, so we can accurately keep track of it. All members are encouraged to help out.
There is an ongoing discussion here regarding what constitutes a "World Championship". All members are encouraged to particpate in the discussion.
Events Calender
This section is intended to warn users about potential targets of vandalism and speculation: professional wrestling events from major promotions for the month of March.
It was announced on the February 16 episode of Raw that Terry and Dory Funk, Jr. will be the second and third inductees, into the WWE Hall of Fame as a part of the Class of 2009; they will be inducted by Dusty Rhodes.
HDNet announced that episode airings of Ring of Honor would begin on March 31.
It was reported by a Nielsen Media Research ratings report that the February 19 broadcast of TNA's Impact earned a 1.3 television rating, the highest rounded number the promotion has ever drawn.
WWE announced the release of Scotty Goldman from the company.
On an episode of Friday Night SmackDown, WWE announced the return of Gail Kim to the promotion via a video promo.
It was reported on February 21 that Sonjay Dutt had been released from his TNA contract, and this was confirmed with the removal of his profile from TNA's official website.
On February 20, it was reported that Freddie Prinze, Jr., a scriptwriter for Friday Night SmackDown, had been released from his contract with WWE.
On February 23:
Afa Anoa'i, Jr., known by his ring name "Manu", was released from his WWE contract.
On Raw, it was announced that Ricky Steamboat will be the fourth inductee into the WWE Hall of Fame as a part of the Class of 2009; he will be inducted by Ric Flair.
On February 25, WWE announced that they had discontinued the WWE One Night Stand name, and that their 2009 event would be replaced with the name 'Extreme Rules'.
ROH taped the first episode airings of their television series for HDNet on February 28 from the The Arena.
Editing tips
This is a section in the newsletter devoted to help familiarize project members with the Manual of Style and general editing tips.
Do not overlink terms in an article, only make links where they are relevant to the context, and only link each item once. Tables are the exception to this rule, e.g. the results table in pay-per-view articles.
When editing an article, use the edit summary to provide a brief summary of your edits; this helps users understand what was changed in the article.
Yes, you were using em dashes, I moved the wrestling articles to en dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an em dash, which is incorrect: —
This is an en dash, which is what I moved the lists to: – (notice the code on the edit screen). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 559 articles in Category:Stub-Class Professional wrestling articles. It still would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve.
Events Calender
This section is intended to warn users about potential targets of vandalism and speculation: professional wrestling events from major promotions for the month of March.
I based them on Template:WWE Champions, and Template:Royal Rumble Winners. Both of which have sidebars. I would remove them but I find template box code rather perilous. If you can do the honours. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done removed from both templates. — Moeε 18:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I don't know what your talking about. To my knowledge I have not made any changes related to the external links of the Honky Tonk Man article. According to the history of the article, the person you need to speak to is User:206.69.160.42, who keeps changing it back. — Moeε 17:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find this particular edit summary baseless [4] How is this edit [5] a blatant reversion of [6]?--UnquestionableTruth-- 00:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When a smaller box is laying on top of another box. One has long width, the other has a smaller width. It makes it look wrong. Plus when one or more templates are laying on top of each other in a bigger box. When that box is opened, the WWE is smaller than the rest.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 01:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is one thing I'm talking about, once the width of the WWE one is changed back, it will be smaller in that template. The WWE Champions one will be bigger.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 01:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's up with your login. I've been able to login with no problems. Probably you should delete your temporary data. That editing message is awesome. I'll use it on my page if you don't mind it, but how do you do it? --wL<speak·check> 08:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'll try and get back on YTMND wiki soon and try again. Oh, the thing that says 'vandals stop here'? Thats at User:Moe Epsilon/Editnotice and User talk:Moe Epsilon/Editnotice. If you want to create one, just go to your username/Editnotice and add the edit notice template. :) — Moeε 08:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of parameters on that template is completely unnecessary. {{Navbox}} is the standard for all navigational templates and when I return later today I am removing the parameters and reinserting the navbox template. Removing the template navbox function hurts articles that use the {{Navboxes}} template to hide multiple templates. — Moeε 19:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I hope you'll understand when I revert the edits you make against consensus. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't take kindly to vague threats. Anyways, how is it consensus to continue using outdated versions of templates? Look at the ECW December to Dismember article for example, and look at what the outdated template formatting does to it. Looking at a different article I can now see what the parameter is used for. Instead of removing the parameter, I'll include the parameter in the new formatting, but {{Navbox}} is going to be included, it is the most desirable way to format templates. — Moeε 21:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a working revision of the same template using the parameter and the Navbox template in one. I'll implement it later. — Moeε 22:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem in ECW December to Dismember does not have anything to do withe using {{Navbox}} or not, but is just a coincidental consequence of the fact that it uses HTML tables instead of wikitables; and I believe it is a bug in {{Navboxes}} that it doesn't support that. Now I fixed it, it displays just like the other navboxes.
I am pleased, though, to read that you'll keep the parameters.
I'd also like to see an explanation of why "[{{Navbox}}] is the most desirable way to format templates". (I suppose you mean navigational footer templates.) There definitely is no consensus to force meta-templates on templates where they aren't necessary. Finally, if you do try to use {{Navbox}}, please make sure the odd/even row highlighting remains correct. —Ms2ger (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ECW December to Dismember was messed up because the Navboxes template doesn't support templates that use HTML based templates rather than ones based on Navbox. Since I am putting {{Navboxes}} on most articles to keep clutter to a minimum, it is desirable to make it so templates won't mess up like on the ECW DTD article.
I'm not sure what you mean by the odd/even row highlighting, I assume you mean the background color for the odd and even rows. There is no background color in particular for the odd/even rows of the WWEPPV template currently, and the new formatting won't have it either, so I don't know what you mean exactly by saying 'keep it correct'.
The format for the new syntax is very similar, but there is one small change. For the normal pay-per-views, it would be {{WWEPPV|No Way Out}}, etc., and for the In Your House pay-per-view called No Way Out, for example, it would be {{WWEPPV|No Way Out|In Your House}}. That's not the small change, that is the way it is at present and the new template will still do that. But the only way to make In Your House pay-per-views that have no counterpart appear normally (i.e. In Your House 1 (has no counterpart pay-per-view like No Way Out) the format will have to be altered to appear as {{WWEPPV|n/a|In Your House}} (with n/a defining no first parameter like No Way Out).
All in all, that small adjustment (adding 'n/a' to a couple In Your House article's templates) is fairly minor compared to having major syntax error to Navboxes and the WWEPPV template using old formatting styles. In addition to that, when the new formatting goes in, we will no longer have to keep excessive templates that the old formatting had transclusions of (like Template:Royal Rumble, Template:SummerSlam, etc.) as the new formatting has all the pay-per-views built into it and changes in and out when a new parameter is defined. I'll probably nominate them for deletion as unused orphans once the transfer is made.
Right now I'm a little busy and have a computer-related problem, so the template will be finished within the next two days probably. All I have to do is add the remaining pay-per-views, test out the usage of the parameters in my sandbox and it should be fine to be placed in the main template namespace. If you want to see the syntax of the template (only has the SummerSlam, Royal Rumble, No Way Out, In Your House PPVs right now) you can see it at User:Moe Epsilon/sandbox3 and for example article transclusion, you can see User:Moe Epsilon/sandbox2. — Moeε 11:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I finished a little earlier than I thought I would, so I am going to implement it now, unless there are any problems (which I don't believe there is. — Moeε 13:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Again, that's a bug in {{Navboxes}}.
"the new formatting won't have it either"—the version in your sandbox actually does, and suffers from the problem I was referring to: when only one parameter is given, the row backgrounds are white–white–gray, which looks pretty silly.
I still don't see why using {{Navbox}} is necessary, but it looks like you're going to keep pushing for it. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll correct the color mistake. I can't see it very well, but I'll edit it so white is primary color for all rows. Navbox is necessary because if multiple templates are put on a article, then Navboxes will remove the clutter and combine the templates to a single collapsable template. I don't know if that is important to you or not, but for others including myself, that feature needs to be implemented for more articles. — Moeε 13:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[7] Um. Maybe because I have the current newsletter (like I do to all current newsletter editions) on my watchlist? There's no need to battle over something on the newsletter my friend. Happy Editing.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
