User talk:Moe Epsilon/Archive 32

10 20 27 28 29 30 31 Archive 32 33 34 35 36 37 A message for Leochews..... First of all, UK DID NOT receive the "death penalty" in 1952, and this was not because of the term, but instead because of the restrictions that the NCAA had at that time. Fact is, the NCAA did not actually hand down any punishment against Kentucky, but instead asked the member schools to do it for them. Once again, the NCAA ASKED, and did not mandate, anything. Second, I find it curious, being that you're so unbiased and all, that you would only create a registered account to edit pages about Kentucky Basketball. You know, it's funny, right after this page (Adolph Rupp) became semi-protected, you magically decided to register an account. Previous to that, you were perfectly content to hide behind multiple IP addresses, so long as you were able to get away with it. Tell me, how obsessed are you with Kentucky Basketball? And finally, all of your agenda-based points have now been refuted on this page, and what is left is an honest reflection of the truth. Tell you what, if you are truly interested in finding the actual truth behind the 1951 scandal, visit www.bigbighistory.net. There, you will find completely factual information, along with numerous articles and references on this very subject. I doubt you will bother to do this, however, as your intention here is NOT to post (or learn) the truth, but instead, to only post your agenda.Jbfwildcat (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC) I seriously find it laughable that you think www.bigbluehistory.net is a legitimate source for factual information. To quote the front page of the site, "There is no program in the nation with as devoted, knowledgeable or fanatical fans as the University of the Kentucky... In that vein, I have included my thoughts on some of the misconceptions that surround Kentucky basketball. " This page is seriously some guy's blog. To me, that sounds like a site that is pushing an agenda: to make UK basketball look as good as possible. That website reads like a UK basketball blog, not a source of accurate historical information. I'm not sure where you went to school, but calling www.bigbluehistory.net a legitimate source of information wouldn't pass the laugh test in any school I've been to. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "agenda based point". All I wanted the page to reflect is historical accuracy, which it seems to be now. I am not the one here with a long history of violations for bad edits to bias UK basketball pages, you are. I also find it odd that you undid all the discussion of your violations of your talk page. Why would you do that? To hide the fact that you have a long history of editing UK basketball pages in a non neutral and biased manner. Leochews (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Funny, Leochews.....you want to call me out, but what I post is facts, and what you post is agenda-driven. Not to mention, you just first registered yesterday. Cool, now you stalk me like you stalk Kentucky Basketball topics. Should I feel flattered? And yet, you ignore all the articles, research, sources, and documentation on that site. Yeah, just like I figured. Funny, the gentleman (Jon Scott) that started that webpage is respected all over the country for his research and unbiased historical text. You might actually READ some of the articles, links, and sources that he lists on this subject, but then again, you're not interested in accuracy, but only in smear campaigns.Jbfwildcat (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC) I don't think posting a historical event on Adolph Rupp's wikipedia page about how UK basketball cheated could hardly be considered a smear campaign. Its a fact. The reason I looked at your page was to leave a message to you to discuss the entry. Once I saw your history of pro UK editing though, I figured I would be wasting my time. I was right. You can't deny the well documented long history of cheating at UK. I'm not going to argue about this with you because you seem to be very close minded about these things. I just want the pages on wikipedia to be as objective and accurate as possible. Leochews (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC) There is NO "long" history of "cheating" at UK. That's a myth. Tell me, where was Kentucky's documented "cheating" in the 1920's, 1930's, 1940's, 1960's, 1970's, 1990's, or 2000's, or since? Kentucky's "long history" of cheating consisted of two major scandals, one in the early 1950's, and one in the late 1980's. To suggest otherwise just shows your agenda. If you can provide other evidence as to other "cheating" by UK, then, by all means, contact the NCAA. By the way, you might also want to check out the history of UCLA, Kansas, Tennessee, Cincinnati, Ohio Sate, Michigan, Indiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, UCONN, and Louisville, since you're on such a crusade against "cheaters" in college basketball. Tell me, do you edit their pages as well?Jbfwildcat (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC) A note for both of you, that bigbluehistory itself may not be the most reliable source of information, by itself, but as the website does cite its sources for information such as the Associated Press and related news articles from the time, those can be used to cite the article. I plan on going through bigbluehistory and using the news articles themselves as the sources, so that we don't have to make bigbluehistory the actual point of reference. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC) A question for you, Moe Epsilon... If there any way you can check the IP address of Leochews, and see if it matches that of any of the unregistered users who vandalized Adolph Rupp's page 2 or 3 days ago? Seriously, this guy only registered to edit two articles, both based on Kentucky Basketball. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure this out.Jbfwildcat (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC) From the history and from comments his IP is consistent with an editor you reverted who was trying to add the same content and was reverted by you, not by the IP who was inserting the blatant vandalism. If you think it needs to be investigated further, you could follow the steps at WP:RFCU to see if the IP and the user match, but I can assure you that it doesn't look like the same editor. I will contact the abuse line for the IP range that did vandalize the article with mentions of "oral sex" and the like, though. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Hey, since the overall tone was very much the same, don't you think this person could have be posting edits from two different computers? For the record, I'll be willing to bet this was the case, and further, I'll also bet that all of the edits from both came from the state of Indiana. Am I wrong?Jbfwildcat (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC) It's not 100% certain on the data what state any editor could be from based on their IP addresses, but they appear to be very different. Like I said, WP:RFCU would be the obvious place to see what IPs a particular editor logged in under. If an editor logs in at one computer and with the same username does it at a different IP address, the checkuser page I'm linking would be able to tell you. However since one group of IPs is primarily concerned with vandalizing while another is concerned about the content (along with the page being protected from anonymous editors currently), it shouldn't be much an issue unless vandalism picks up again. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Really? Is this what this conversation has come to? I'm not going to continue to this conversation because it has turned into juvenile personal attacks that are unfounded. I just wanted to see the Rupp page be written in a non biased manner. I think I have been very fair and civil in our discussion and with my edits. Thanks for your help Moe, I look forward to seeing the elimination of www.bigbluehistory.com as a citation on the page. Take care. Leochews (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Well, well, I see the agenda-editor has now taken his ball and gone home. This is just as well, as his ship here was sunk anyway. You see, he could no longer refute any of the facts that have been added to this article, and all he had left was to try to discredit the most thorough and reliable internet source on this subject.Jbfwildcat (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I've went ahead and expanded the section to remove bigbluehistory as the point of reference and took the references from the website and made bigbluehistory simply the website it links to (since the newspaper articles aren't readily available to link to on the internet). Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Well, I see you caved. So, let me get this straight. Even though the NCAA had no enforcement power to cancel Kentucky's season in 1952-53, and in fact had to ASK member schools to not schedule Kentucky, you feel the need to allude to this as the first "death penalty"? Further, the rule was not even in effect until 33 years later, and the man you quoted used this term loosely some 20+ years after the fact. That's inaccurate encyclopedic content, my friend, as it alludes to something that did not even exist at the time, nor did the NCAA even have the power to enforce it at the time. You should revert this edit. period. Jbfwildcat (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I don't know what you mean by "caving", Wikipedia is a work in progress which is allowed to be edited at any time. I was not the one who alluded to this as the first death penalty, it was the first executive director who did, which is what the article said exactly, and I noted that the rule didn't exist until 1985. I don't understand what your problem is. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC) The first director "alluded" to this many years after the fact, but no matter what, the FACTS are that this rule didn't exist, and the punishment (or lack thereof) did not fit the punishment of the "death penalty" anyway. In short, you had no reason to include this little tidbit, as it was not rooted in FACT. My question is, WHY is it OK for you to do this, and not OK for me to have made some my FACTUAL changes to this article? Some of my sources were not good enough to be considered legit, and yet you can post someone's opinion, an opinion which has no basis in fact? Once again, this line should be reverted or removed.Jbfwildcat (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC) No, the article does reflect fact. These are the facts: The Kentucky Wildcats basketball program was shut down for a season. The NCAA death penalty rule was established in 1985. In retrospect, it is commonly referred to as the first NCAA death penalty despite the rule being established later and the current rule being different. Most points of reference about the NCAA death penalty acknowledge Kentucky's punishment as such and the was even referred to such by the former head of the NCAA. I saw your bit of history revisionism at the death penalty article and quite frankly I'm about to request you not be able to edit Kentucky Wildcat-related articles on Wikipedia if you are going to continue excessive disruption to them by trying to cover it up. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Once again, it either is or is not the "death penalty", and since the "death penalty" didn't exist in 1952 (and the NCAA didn't even have to power to enforce such a punishment at that time anyway), the term "death penalty" is misleading and inaccurate when it comes to describing the 1952-53 Kentucky situation. It like me saying that every 21-foot shot that a player made in 1952 was a 3-pointer. In short, the rule did NOT yet exist, so no program could be punished under it, correct? Further, you list something that someone says unofficially 20 years after the fact as a legitimate source. That's revisionist history, and frankly, as you so like to say, it has no encyclopedic content. In closing, Kentucky WAS NOT punished with the "death penalty" in 1952, and the facts are on the side of this. You're a smart guy, and a fair guy, and I don't understand how you cannot understand this simple logic.Jbfwildcat (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC) However, most references will cite that there have been five instances of the death penalty being instituted, despite two of those occasions happening prior to the official rule coming into effect. Admittedly, the death penalty is enforced entirely different today than what happened in Kentucky. However, an exact quote by the executive director and multiple references referring it to the death penalty contradicts "the facts". One thing you must remember about Wikipedia when editing is that it is about what is verifiable and not what is the conceived truth. The most we can put into the article is what is already said, that the death penalty rule was officially in place in 1985, and that the 1952 punishment was commonly referred to the first instance prior to it being official. Changing either article to say that Kentucky wasn't punished with the death penalty at all the way you did, doesn't represent a neutral point of view since there are credible sources that say otherwise. It is entirely fine to say factual things like the penalty was officially instituted later, and that the penalty was different back then what it is now, but it is not acceptable to say that it wasn't the death penalty at all. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Hey, did you see where Leochews created another Wikipedia account? As for the "death penalty", what Kentucky received in 1952 was not even close to the modern day rule, and keep in mind, the modern day rule is the ONLY criteria. Now, if you want to call Kentucky's 1952 punishment, "death penalty-like", then I see your point. However, the punishment was certainly NOT the "death penalty" (even looking back, the punishment doesn't come close to matching the 1985 criteria), so I must give strong protest to your alluding to it as such. By the way, who died and made Walter Byers the king of all revisionist history?Jbfwildcat (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I don't see where Leochews created another account. If you have suspicions about that, the WP:RFCU page I mentioned earlier may be worth the look, but I wouldn't directly accuse every new account to come along of being the same person, as there are millions of accounts on this website. Back to the death penalty issue, and like I said, it's fine to say the similarities (or lack thereof) of the two punishments, but in terms of referring it as the death penalty, there are a lot of sources which say that it is. Walter Byers isn't exactly the king of anything, but he was the head of the NCAA when they developed both forms of punishment, I do believe. It isn't just Walter Byers who says that it was the death penalty, but he is a notable individual who has, and the reference book I just listed on the article is another example. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC) My friend, all you have to do is look at the "death penalty" Wiki page. There you will see a new username, "Giochews" reverting my edits, and using the EXACT same tone as on here. Hey, you're the boss, but I keep the same user name, don't post under unregistered IP addresses, don't create multiple accounts, and say what you will, but I've posted facts. May I remind you that you just threatened to ban me from posting on UK-related articles, and it just seems a bit strange to me that this other person hasn't at least gotten the same warning. Look, you're a fair dude, and I'm cool with you, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.Jbfwildcat (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I hadn't looked through the history, and I made that comment because I thought you were being particularly unreasonable and you had a history. For now, since you appear to calmly discussing it the matter, I retract it. I will take a look at the page and user in question for you. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I've requested the Giochews name be blocked, but it is uncertain if that will happen. I have also asked the editor to stick to one name when editing and return to the name Leochews. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I am "Giochews," and I can assure you I am not Leochews, nor do I know them. You can check the IP addresses if you want. --76.217.24.167 (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC) And I can assure you, that this is not appropriate. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I wasn't going to make any more contributions to this discussion, but I felt the need to let everyone know that I am not using two user names. I have only used one username. I would welcome anyone looking into the IP addresses of the edits under this other username because its not me. For the record, I think jbfwildcat is delusional for not recognizing that UK was the first school to receive the death penalty. He can say or believe whatever he wants but its commonly known and acknowledged that UK got the first death penalty. I am blown away that he would try to remove UK from the wikipedia death penalty page. It seems that all he wants to do is remove anything negative about UK from wikipedia regardless of whether it is fact or not. His name clearly shows his bias as does his prior history editing wikipedia pages about Kentucky basketball. My edits have been fair and accurate. I have not attempted to vandalize any UK pages or say anything that wasn't true. Again, I think the Rupp page now finally is close enough to the truth for my comfort and I really appreciate the work that Moe has put into it. Leochews (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC) You're welcome and if you and Giochews are different, I apologize for the mistake. You can see why I would think you two are related considering the name and the articles being edited. I'll be watching the Rupp article for anyone who tries to insert POV material. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks Moe. I also added the material you wrote about that event on the UK basketball page under the Adolph Rupp section for consistency. That page also used references from bigbluehistory and I think your writeup is to a much higher standard than what I replaced. Leochews (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC) "1952: Byers files Case Report No. 1 representing the first formal action of the Subcommittee on Infractions. It charges that 10 basketball players at the University of Kentucky had received impermissible financial aid. The Southeastern Conference suspends the Kentucky basketball team from league play for one year. The NCAA Council, through its Membership Committee, bans Kentucky’s entire athletics program from intercollegiate competition for one year. In effect, it was the Association’s first “death penalty,” though its enforcement was binding only through constitutional language that required members to compete against only those schools that were compliant with NCAA rules. Despite fears that it would resist, Kentucky accepts the penalty and, in turn, gives credibility to the NCAA’s ability to enforce its rules." NCAA, Chronology of Enforcement, http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Enforcement/Resources/Chronology+of+Enforcement accessed online on 1/9/2012 There it is, straight from the NCAA page. Can we please end this argument now? It was the death penalty. Leochews (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC) "In effect" doesn't constitute something, it simply means the overall effect was like it. Now, if you want to call the result of Kentucky's 1952-53 penalty "death penalty-like", then fine, but the fact remains that the term wasn't even coined until 3 decades later, the rule wasn't passed until 3 decades later, and in 1952, the NCAA lacked the enforcement power to enforce such a penalty. You have to remember, the modern day "death penalty" means the complete shutdown of a sports program, and this didn't happen to Kentucky Basketball in the 1952-53 season. They still practiced, they still had players on scholarship, they still had payed coaches, they still held fundraisers, they still recruited, they still played public scrimmages, they still had a sports information department, and they still collected revenue. None of this is possible with a program punished under the "death penalty". Once again, this means a COMPLETE shutdown of the program, and all that happened to Kentucky in 1952-53 was that NCAA member schools refused to play them by the request (not mandate) of the NCAA. Therefore, in all ways, the 1952-53 Kentucky punishment did not fit the true meaning of the term, "death penalty". The rule didn't exist, the NCAA lacked the power to enforce such a rule, and the punishment did not match the criteria of the modern rule. So, while it was "death penalty-like", it was certainly NOT the "death penalty". To call it as such is the epitome of revisionist history.Jbfwildcat (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC) You have seriously reached the point of embarrassing yourself. First of all, in effect means "in actuality or in reality." http://thesaurus.com/browse/in+effect Are you, in effect, telling me that the NCAA has no idea what they are talking about? Seriously, let it go. Leochews (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Tell me, can you not understand what I just wrote (all facts), or are you just so dense with hatred for Kentucky Basketball that you can't listen to simple facts and logic. Once again, here are the FACTS: (1) The "death penalty" punishment didn't exist until 1985. (2) The term, "death penalty" wasn't coined until after the rule was implemented. (3) In 1952, the NCAA was MUCH weaker than today, and did not have the power to implement such a penalty. (4) In 1952, the NCAA had to ASK member schools to comply with not scheduling Kentucky. They could not force them. Under the "death penalty" rule, the NCAA punishes the school directly, it doesn't rely on others to enforce the penalty. (5) In 1952-53, Kentucky practiced, playing public scrimmages, had paid coaches and staff, had athletes on scholarship, recruited athletes, had a program budget, made press releases, had a sports information department, and collected revenue. None of this would have been possible under the "death penalty", so therefore, it wasn't the "death penalty". (6) Terms like "in effect" and "de facto" imply that something is like something else in practice or result, but that doesn't make them the same thing. The term itself is a qualifier, because if the two things were the exact same thing, then there would be no need for the phrase. I'll give you an example. I could hit a turn-around, high arching, NBA 3-pointer, and then someone could see it 20 years later on film and say, "Man, that guy looked, in effect, like Larry Bird on that shot." That certainly doesn't make me Larry Bird. Something either is something or it isn't, and Kentucky's punishment of 1952 wasn't the "death penalty", it was "death penalty-like". As pointed out above, this was due ONLY to the fact that Kentucky ended up cancelling the season, but this did NOT constitute the complete and utter shutting down of the program, which would be the requirement. You can't cherry-pick one thing and then create revisionist history about it. That's not accurate, nor fair, and you know it.Jbfwildcat (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC) OK, despite some sniping, I think we've come to a consensus again. Further, I felt the article needed a bit more in depth information about Rupp the coach, and I added a section about his coaching style and philosophy. I tried to word it in an unbiased manner, and I listed references for my information and quotes (you can also Google all the quotes). I hope this is suitable, but please take a look at it and see if it can be improved. Thank You.Jbfwildcat (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC) That section on coaching style will have to substantially changed to meet Wikipedia's standards on content. Things like "...often battering opponents into defeat." is not a neutral point of view. I'll go through it later and see about fixing it up. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Tell me, have you taken a look at Phog Allen's, Dean Smith's, or John Wooden's Wiki pages? If you have, then PLEASE tell me how my last section that was added in was unacceptable. Dear Jesus, I simply post facts here, and then list the very best of references on Adolph Rupp (including the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame). Tell me, what else can I do? Most of these books are somewhat online, and they are accurate. Frankly, this page is being held to a higher sense of scrutiny than other similar pages, and I don't understand that. What I just posted today was common knowledge among anyone in the college basketball community, and I, for the life of me, can't seem to understand WHY you have a problem with it. This page is getting to be a joke, and frankly, it's because that much simple content, completely based on sourced fact, will not be allowed to be posted here. And yet, the Dean Smith and John Wodden pages are just FLOWING with biased content. What I posted was historical FACT, and honestly, I don't understand your behavior. An explanation from you would be appreciated.Jbfwildcat (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC) My explanation is simple. Basically, Wikipedia does have policies and guidelines on how to write articles and they should be followed. Not every article has followed these standards, and they need to be changed too. I don't sit and actively edit every article on every coach, so I'm not going to be able to remove all biased information. Should that be a reason you do add it to? No, that is a problem, and don't expect me to encourage that behavior, because you're part of the problem if you do that as well. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC) You're missing the point. None of what I just posted today is inaccurate or without several references. Nor is anything I posted against what is known and accepted by the college basketball community. God knows, I just heard from you about "accepted facts" over Kentucky's 1952 probation, and yet, you can't understand that what I just posted are simple, unbiased facts, all from credible sources. Tell you what, do some research, and then disprove anything that I have just posted. Use any references you like. Seriously, it's almost as if you don't like the tone of something, then you want to remove it.Jbfwildcat (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC) No, I don't need to do research to realize crap like "...often battering opponents into defeat." should not be written in an ENCYCLOPEDIA entry. Understand? I hope you do, because I'm going to remove it later. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Well, then I guess you need to take up things with the Naismith Basketball Hall-of-Fame, because that's the term they use in their bio on Coach Rupp.Jbfwildcat (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Is that what you've been doing, copying and pasting from other websites? I hope you understand that in of itself is against Wikipedia policy on copyrights. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC) I didn't copy and paste anything. I only used the term they used, and I listed them as a reference. Of course, if you had actually visited their webpage, you would know that I didn't copy and paste anything. Really reaching now, are we?Jbfwildcat (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC) You mean this? "He promoted a sticky man-to-man defense and a relentless fast break offense that battered opponents into defeat." I wonder where I have seen that before. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Once again, I didn't copy and paste anything, and I gave credit to the source for my addition (which I didn't post exactly). By the way, I wasn't the original poster of what you just tried to imply, but I guess they got their information from the same reliable source that I did. Once again, it is a reliable source. By the way, other such things have already been done in this article, using EXACT quotes from a website, including by yourself.Jbfwildcat (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Using quotations to actually quote what a person said, i.e. Person X said "blah blah blah", then putting a citation right after the sentence, is entirely different than copying entire sentences and saying they are written by you. Again, that sentence will have to be altered. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC) My mind is still blown that you are allowed to edit these UK basketball pages. You are clearly biased to editing UK basketball and its history in a biased manner. This is supposed to be information that is held to an academic standard of writing. Your entries are repeatedly not even close to this standard. You have a history of editing UK pages in a biased manner for long over a year. I counted today and you have edited this page 38 times. Seriously, 38 times? I can understand wanting to edit the page in a way that is historically accurate and capturing all of Coach Rupp's achievements and success at UK, but you seriously edit this page every day. And all of your edits are completely biased. I showed you that the NCAA recognizes the 1952-1953 season as the first death penalty season on their own website. Even your own favorite website, bigbluehistory, had an excerpt from the memoirs of the guy who handed out the penalty. He recognizes it as the death penalty. I'm sure Rupp himself would recognize it as the death penalty. Yet, you still can't seen to accept this fact as a reality. This entire ordeal has really diminished my thoughts of wikipedia. I knew that there was information on the website that was incorrect and I knew it had to be taken with a grain of salt at times. But I seriously didn't know that someone with this kind of history of inaccurately editing pages in a biased, non neutral point of view manner could just continue to edit pages. I thought an account like this would long be banned for constant, horrible edits. His history shows it. Why is this guy still allowed to edit Wikipedia? Leochews (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC) And yet, I have provided and updated most of the historical information on this page as a registered user, while YOU have posted things as an unregistered user for weeks (many of them vandalism), and then only registered with Wiki to solely edit this page, and ones related to it. Seriously, you have been registered for less than a week, and you ONLY decided to register when this page was semi-protected.Jbfwildcat (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC) College basketball master table I really like the new layout for the master table. It's an aesthetically pleasing layout that both conserves space and still contains all of the desired information. Good job. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC) No problem. I saw the "best displays at 1600 X 900 resolution" at the top and thought the information could fit a little better. :) Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Oh by the way, UT Martin is actually Tennessee–Martin. The college basketball and football WikiProjects use the latter as the naming convention (see Category:Tennessee–Martin Skyhawks). I would update it myself on the master table but I didn't know if you were in the middle of a big revamp, so I didn't want to edit conflict you. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Oh, my bad. I'll have to move it back. Thanks for that. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC) There, finished. I'll get to moving the rest of the templates and fixing them within their articles when I get back to my computer later. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 15:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Cool. Much appreciated. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC) You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject! As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! ralphamale (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the invite. While I'm not particularly focused on any one topic, if there's something I can help your project do, I am willing to help. :) Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Adolph Rupp page vandalism again. I hate to bring this up again, but the Adolph Rupp page has been vandalized several times today. Is there anything Wiki can do about protecting this page? Seriously, the same person is constantly creating new accounts, and then posting the same vandalism over and over. Please take a look at today's history and keep an eye on this again. I know it's frustrating, but the level of some people's agenda is amazing. Thank you.Jbfwildcat (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC) I've had ONE other account "giochews" which was deleted, so I created my current account. I made some drastic changes to show the obnoxiousness of the page, which you have made a joke. You have continually edited everything to your standards, which are not the standards of Wikipedia. You have changed everything, including the stuff Moe added a few weeks ago. I made some changes to information that was one-sided, and you reverted it within 1 minute, and then made the same changes yourself! What's wrong with you? --Mullinwhite (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC) This is certainly vandalism Mullinwhite, so consider this your first warning for doing so. Looking over the rest of the edits, such as this, I don't think you can accurately claim such a thing from the reference by looking at it. One thing though that Mullinwhite did was kind of right (done in a wrong manner). Removing "Rupp's overall philosophy to sports and basketball was simple, to just win." was wrong, but at the same token, it does need to be changed a bit for the sake of neutrality. The overall wording of what you added for the coaching section, Jbwildcat, does need re-wording and I've been giving you time to go and make those changes yourself instead of me going in and doing it for you. Mullinwhite, if there's something you would like to see added to the page or changed, let me know and I'll see if what you want to add is worth it. Also, Mullinwhite, stick to this one name only, or next time I'll request a sockpuppet investigation. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC) More of the same by Leochews on the Adolph Rupp page. A consensus was reaching on the wording of the 1951 point shaving scandal section, and Leochews fought hard for the inclusion of the term "death penalty" to be added. Now, he wants to change the meaning to suit his agenda. I contend if there is no such thing as the "death penalty", then no reference to it should be allowed in the article. Further, the edits he's making to the new sections added to the article are removing information that is common knowledge among the college basketball community, able to be verified in dozens of publications, both online and in print. Some of these are listed as references.Jbfwildcat (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Moe, this person is reverting edits of things YOU added to this page, along with your sources. Jbfwildcat (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC) No surprise to see you here complaining to Moe. You rewrote everything Moe added to that page. You also revert every single edit I make, even if you agree with it. Moe did not write that Byers referred to the UK penalty as the "de facto" death penalty, you did. I have never vandalized the Rupp page or even said anything derogatory about the man, I just wanted the page to be accurate. Even after I cited the NCAA recognizing this case as the first instance of the death penalty, you still insist that it is not. How can you deny this? Leochews (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Moe and I both made edits to the section weeks ago, and got the wording fair. You agreed with this at the time. This is nothing that is not factual about this section, and yet you now can't decide if it was the "death penalty" or not. On one hand, you say that Byers called it the "death penalty" (he referred to it as such after the 1985 legislation was passed), and then you say that there is no such thing as the "death penalty", and the 1985 ruling did not establish it. You can't have it both ways. In effect, the 1953 ruling was the "death penalty in some ways (but not all), but it was never referred to as such until AFTER the 1985 ruling was passed. Hence, in hindsight. The section explains this clearly.Jbfwildcat (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC) How can you say that the 1953 punishment was the death penalty in some ways but not at all in the same sentence? That doesn't make any sense to me at all. I agreed with Moe's original edits. He stopped editing this after the citations to the NCAA were inserted. You changed what Moe wrote after he stopped editing it. That is what bothered me. We agreed on a section, yet you continued to edit it based on your own standards, not wikipedia's. Leochews (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Nope, wrong. Sorry, but it was agreed by all that Kentucky 1953 punishment was "in effect" the death penalty, and that both Byers and the NCAA now retroactively referred to it as such. The section states this. I didn't add anything to the section other than including the entire quote from the NCAA website, something you also tried to remove several times. Once again, YOU are the one removing things that Moe added, not me, and the wording that is being changed was added and agreed upon weeks ago. I have not added anything to the section since then. YOU are the one who has opened up the can of worms again. By the way, you also stated today that the 1985 ruling was not actually the "death penalty". And you call that factual?Jbfwildcat (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC) What I said was the NCAA does not have a rule defined as the death penalty that was created in 1985, which it does not. The death penalty is a term that loosely means the NCAA canceled a teams' entire season. All five cases of the death penalty are different. Two of them happened prior to the 1985 rule you are referencing. In fact, SMU was the only school to be punished under the `985 rule you speak of. This rule is the repeat offender rule. It is not called the death penalty in the NCAA rule book. However, the NCAA recognizes that when a school (UK Basketball in 1953) has a season canceled because of major violations, it is the death penalty. I don't know how to make that more clear. Leochews (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC) No, the 1985 ruling does more than just give the ability to the NCAA to cancel a season. it enables them to SHUT DOWN a sports program for a variety of reasons, and NO, this power did not exist before the 1985 ruling, and nor was any previous NCAA case referred to as the "death penalty" prior to this 1985 ruling, by the media or otherwise. Further, the NCAA (and Byers) only started to refer to Kentucky's 1953 penalty as the "death penalty" AFTER the 1985 legislation, and even at that, they only do so with qualifiers like "in effect". The section explains all of this, and it's the truth. I don't see your problem.Jbfwildcat (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC) No, that's not what the 1985 rule says at all. The 1985 rule is limited to banning a team for two seasons of competition. It does not shut down a program completely. SMU wasn't shut down completely. They still had some scholarships, the practiced and they were still allowed to pay coaches. The NCAA has never banned anyone from competition permanently or completely shut down a program. That has never happened. Leochews (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC) And also, it was not "agreed upon by all" that the Kentucky 1953 punishment was "in effect" the death penalty. No one else was even involved in that discussion. Moe stopped commenting on the thread and archived it. You are the only one who said that. No one else agreed with you. Leochews (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC) While no school has received the full measure of the "death penalty" (including SMU Football), the NCAA DOES have the right under this legislation to completely shut down a program's FULL operations for one or two years. The 1985 legislation gave them the power to do this, if they so choose to. Once again, your "facts" are not in order.Jbfwildcat (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC) You need to be more clear when you talk. You said shut down a sports program, you did not say "shut down a program's full operations for one or two years". There is a big difference between those two phrases. When I heard you say shut down a program, I interpreted that as actually shutting down a program permanently. Leochews (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Both of you guys revert warring is completely out of line. You both should know better than to repeatedly violate the three revert rule. As to the last couple of reverts I looked through, the content that the punishment was not the same as the current definition of the NCAA death penalty is fine. The wording of "battering opponents into defeat", etc. is not something that should have been re-added, Jbfwildcat. I've told you that it needs to be re-worded, but you aren't listening. It has to be re-worded, because of WP:NPOV, and no amount of "I'm an expert", "we have sources", or any other weaseling around can make it any less biased. Leochews, you need to stop revert warring to try and prove a point, we know what the problems of the article are, so they will be addressed at some point (most likely when the page is unprotected). Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Should we move the discussion to the talk page for the Rupp page? Hopefully we can clear these things up. Are you still able to edit the page Moe? Leochews (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC) I understand what is required of this page, and I understand that some wording will have to be re-worded or deleted. I merely want to maintain historical accuracy and context on this page, and nothing more. I am very sorry for constant strife on this page, and I am willing to work together to achieve a harmonious consensus in the future. However, I suggest that this page remain locked until the time frame is up, as this will give all a chance to cool down a bit.Jbfwildcat (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Yes, we probably should move it to the talk page of the article, but I don't really mind either way if the discussion stays here or not. At the time I am not able to edit it, only administrators can edit it. If there is consensus before the protection expires, we can request unprotecting it and then editing can resume. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Persondata Hi, just one thing I've noticed about your changes to 'persondata' - association football players should not be described as "football player", due to the ambiguous nature of the 'football' element - instead, they should be described as a "footballer." Regards, GiantSnowman 14:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Football player in general refers to Association football most of the time (and on American articles, I specified soccer instead). When it is a more specific type of football, I specify that instead, i.e American football player, Canadian football player, Rugby union player, etc. Footballer doesn't seem the best choice either, since Footballer just redirects to Football player. I can change it to Association football player if you like, but most people just call them a football player anyways. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC) 'Association football player' would be a good compromise - as I edit almost exclusively in that sport, I have come across plenty of editors who seem confused by what sport simply 'football' is referring to. Regards, GiantSnowman 14:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC) That's fine. For future articles of non-American association football players, I'll specify that instead. If you come across a page I edited, feel free to alter the persondata change I made to reflect this. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC) That's great, thanks. GiantSnowman 15:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Looking for help with formatting article and posting it Hi, I am not sure if you can help me. I am looking for someone to help edit and post this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sportsfan5000/Adam_Windsor I have cited and referenced it and can continue to do so as I do more and more research. It was suggested by an administer that I try and find someone who edits some prowrestling articles to help me. Let me know if you can help or know anyone that could help me. I am not great with wikipedia and am just really learning, but anything you could suggest or help with would be very appreicated. I have contact a couple of people so far but have not had any feedback or help yet. Thanks. --Sportsfan5000 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Looking for help with a Saint Joseph's Article Hey Moe, I'm currently working on an article for the 2003-2004 Saint Joseph's Hawks Mens Basketball and I was wondering if you were at all interested in helping me add to it. The url is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003%E2%80%9304_Saint_Joseph%27s_Hawks_men%27s_basketball_team , thanks for the help. ~~5hane2012~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5hane2012 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Your revert to List of Windows Phone devices Hi, FYI regarding your revert to List of Windows Phone devices. I've left a message on the talk page of the IP user who added it. Callanecc (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks for that. I'm fairly new to using Huggle again, it's been about 3 years :P Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC) ANI Please see here I don't know how to say this without sounding combative, but your post there simply made no sense. Can you please review your post and my response? Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Replied. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Regarding my talk page Since I've asked him constantly to leave my talk page alone which he ignores that statement. What am I going to do in this circumstance? Should I notify you since you suggested that he leaves my page alone? It's gotten to the point I'm constantly reverting him and he doesn't care because it seems to be the fact he's trying to get me to do something against him. [1] For example that link shows that he still disregarded it and posted his "opinion" which I did not care to hear. ViriiK (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Well, actually, it's not about my opinion, it's about policy. You're edit-warring and abusing the whole vandalism/minor thing. What I'm trying to get you to do is to follow policy. Erasing my comments is narrowly within your rights, but it's not all that productive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Notifying me wouldn't do much of good, I am a non-admin. However, my suggestion is to keep reverting if you still feel you do not want to interact with him. You are not obligated to converse with anyone if you feel like, and our policy on edit warring is lenient towards editors editing in their own userspace. You are free to revert as many times as you like as long as it meets our guideline on userpage content, and removing his comments do fit that. WP:3RR does exist for user talk pages, but it doesn't exactly fit the bill here. Since he's been notified now by a couple editors now that he's been excessive with his messages, I would wait until he begins editing there again. If comments by him persist, then I would notify an unrelated administrator who has not been involved in discussions related to revert warring or WP:AN/I discussions, and ask them for an independent review of his editing on your talk page. Still-24-45-42-125, my suggestion again is to not continue messaging him since he has asked you, four times, not to. There are administrators who are willing to block for excessive messaging when they've been asked to stop. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Well, I'd be glad to stop commenting on his talk page, just so long as someone else takes over the necessary task of reminding him not to edit-war and violate MINOR. Would you be willing to do this? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, this would be fine as well. However, the proper avenue would first be to take it to the talk page of the particular article you are editing on, then to the edit warring noticeboard if he was to make repeated reverts. If you feel I should be the one to let him know, giving him the due notice to not revert war, then I can do that provided links. I should add on that given that you have already notified him several times already, that it's assumed he has read your message and has been notified, for future reference. I will warn him in instances of future problems. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC) It is my understanding that, prior to reporting edit-warring, I have to notify the offending user directly on their talk page, not that of the article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Please note, Still, that following editor's contributions just to confront them, can constitute a form of harassment. I don't think that all of the things posted to Viriik were necessarily something you needed to post to him, since you were uninvolved. In automated editing, mistakes of WP:MINOR are bound to happen (though serial offenders might need to be reminded of it, and even so, it's a relative non-issue for that many messages.) In regards to the posts you are making to his page, it's probably not worth it to engage in conversation with him right now. Starting six threads of warnings is going to look worse on your reputation than ViriiK's reputation. It would be best to disengage from following his contributions unless you are editing in the same area for now. If ViriiK is in a dispute with another editor, then he and the other editor should formally discuss it. You are not being productive to this process by messaging him repeatedly. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC) You're right: I'll try to limit myself to posting on his talk page only when it's strictly necessary, such as right before reporting him on ANI. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for understanding, I thought you would. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC) I understand. Do you mind if I run them by you in the future though? And thank you. ViriiK (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, that's fine, I don't mind looking over it later. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC) I would appreciate your feedback First off, you list of awards is quite impressive. Way to go! I have written the new pages Most wins by active starting quarterbacks (NFL) and List of NFL franchise post-season streaks . If you have time and the inclination, could I get your feedback? Thanks Spparky (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Tireless Contributor Barnstar Great job on List of NFL starting quarterbacks. Can't wait when its finished. Baseball Watcher 02:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Wow, thanks :) I'll be trying to finish before the regular season starts. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Anything I can do to help? Baseball Watcher 22:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Actually there may be. When the article is completed, it'll have to be updated to the most recent starter for its respective team section with a description of the quarterbacks like I have already done. As you know, the starters will definitely change come Week 1 with the paragraphs of text I am adding being irrelevant when that comes. There will have to be sections created for Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, David Garrard, Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Jay Cutler, Sam Bradford, Matt Schaub, etc. since they will be probably be Week 1 starters. We'll have to have sections ready to go for Week 1 when verified starts occur so that we'll have a decent description ready to go when they are the confirmed starter again. I was thinking of keeping a list on a user subpage (or the talk page) of potential Week 1 starters with a paragraph of text ready to go. If you're up for that, that would be a big help. :) Once I finish the main article I can come back and go through those with you too. I guess a quick glace through my work would also be helpful, to make sure there are no awkward sentences or bad grammar as well. Thanks for the offer. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC) I would be more than happy to take you up on that request. Baseball Watcher 20:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC) What would you like me to do right now? Baseball Watcher 00:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Whenever you would like, paragraphs on the new starters would be good. I'm getting ready to go on a small break and I'll be back on Sunday, I believe. I started a 2012-13 starting quarterback column on the list naming the #1 quarterback according to current depth charts. If the name is different than the current, those are the quarterbacks we'll have to have a new section for. Thanks for your help. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC) AN/I Feel free to give that opinion. But that is not a proper close/hat in any fashion. Arkon (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Feel free to clarify what you want there. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Clarified. Arkon (talk) 08:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Replied, but not fully. Gotta grab some shuteye. :) Arkon (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks, if the thread's still open tomorrow, I'll jump back into it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Dalej78 I noticed your comment on his talk page. Today, I reverted some really unproductive cuts he made to Paul Ryan. Do you think he could be convinced to discuss his objections on Talk before implementing them? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I've left about three messages to him on his talk page regarding edits to the brown-nosing reference in the article and got an e-mail from him, with something along the lines of "Why should we allow this bias, I want Obama's papers", etc. I really don't see much coming from talking to him. His comments on the talk page, I believe, are about the same kind of response. If they become really unproductive, a third-party might have to intervene on his conduct. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Well, given that he's twice deleted some civil remarks, I think you're right. He's edit-warring, in the sense that he's ignoring BRD, but he hasn't hit the bright line yet. Really, I'd rather avoid things getting that bad in the first place. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I don't blame you, revert warring in situations like that really do no good. I intervened against Dalej78 the first couple times because I saw a couple of editors reverting his edits like before, leading to my warnings on his talk page. He maintained enough common sense to not continue edit warring once he could have been blocked. It wasn't the ideal outcome since this was his response. I pat myself on the back not retaliating to the accusatory language of being a fascist or Nazi like I would have in previous years. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 15:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC) That was wise on your part. I'm going to see if maybe WP:BLPN might be helpful. I'd really rather not leave Paul Ryan in bad shape until someone shows up to fix it, but I'm not willing to revert them more than once. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC) That's the fine line between revert warring and wanting to make sure the article is accurate. Plenty of eyes are there as of recent, so it's no doubt that someone going through his removals and revert, or find your talk page messages and check them out. Drawing attention to the edits are better at this point than doing it yourself. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 15:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I think you're right. BLPN is geared towards the removal of libel, as opposed to keeping well-cited, relevant facts. Worst case, I'll let it sit in the "wrong" version for a while before correcting it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC) It's the beautiful part about a wiki, revisions are only temporary. :) As it stands, his edits aren't such a detriment that it requires immediate editing, so letting it take it's course is preferred probably. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 15:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Turnaround (road) Hello, Moe Epsilon. You have new messages at Talk:Turnaround (road). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. A user named Simonsa posted on turnaround (road)'s talk page in 2007. It seems like Moe Epsilon edited Simonsa's talk page, so I'm assuming you're the same person. If not, please disregard. --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC) I am the same person, however I don't believe there is much for me to follow up on. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Stop it Thanks, but try to come up with something a little more productive than "fuck Wikipedia" repeatedly as feedback. Your feedback has been removed. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Please do not swear on my talk page. --Betterkaark (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Re-posted my comment for context. Apologies if this comment offended you, however you using the words more times than I on the feedback tool would suggest you not being personally afflicted by seeing the word. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC) The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1) Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow In this issue: Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem. Research: The most recent DR data Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree? Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch --> --The Olive Branch 19:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 10 September 2012 From the editor: Signpost adapts as news consumption changes Op-ed: Fixing Wikipedia's help pages one key to editor retention In the media: Author criticizes Wikipedia article; Wales attacks UK government proposal Featured content: Not a "Gangsta's Paradise", but still rappin' WikiProject report: WikiProject Fungi Special report: Two Wikipedians set to face jury trial News and notes: Researchers find that Simple English Wikipedia has "lost its focus" Technology report: Mmmm, milkshake... Discussion report: Closing Wikiquette; Image Filter; Education Program and Momento extensions Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Why did you do that? Why did you remove the logos on the NFL Football Rivalries? I do not understand. I saw other sports rivalries include logos. What was wrong with these edits? Nicholasemjohnson (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC) The difference between, say, the Dallas Cowboys star and the Green Bay Packers logo, and the Baltimore Ravens/Atlanta Falcons bird logos, is that the Dallas Cowboys star and Packers letter G isn't copyrighted. As a basic geometric shape (a star) and/or letter (letter G), these aren't copyrighted and we can use these images across Wikipedia freely. The Ravens and Falcons bird logo though, is copyrighted and requires a valid fair use rationale on the image page for it to be used elsewhere. If both images were free, I left them as it was. If one was non-free, I removed both since only one team logo wouldn't be sufficient there. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC) So then, how do editors get permission to use these logos? I mean, there's no point in having it, if we can't use it. Nicholasemjohnson (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) For the team article (i.e Pittsburgh Steelers is the Steelers team article), the copyrighted logos are for the infoboxes. It has already been decided by other editors that the copyrighted logos do not belong on articles of individual seasons and of rivalries. Since that is the case, the infobox is it's exclusive use on Wikipedia. You can't obtain "rights" to use the image. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC The Signpost: 17 September 2012 From the editor: Signpost expands to Facebook WikiProject report: Action! — The Indian Cinema Task Force Featured content: Go into the light News and notes: Tens of thousands of monuments loved; members of new funding body announced Technology report: Future-proofing: HTML5 and IPv6 Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Moe Epsilon. You have new messages at Talk:Christian Ponder. Message added 15:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Replied. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Rlevse Please don't edit-war. In your recent edit to Wikipedia:Former administrators you again linked former administrator Rlevse to "While these former admins voluntarily relinquished adminship, the Arbitration Committee has determined that they must go through RFA and/or apply to the Committee if they want to be resysopped. In other cases, this is left to bureaucrat discretion". There is no such ArbCom determination and you really need to be aware of the effect of your thoughtless edits on editors currently in good standing. This is the second time you have inserted that allegation. As with all disputed content, you need to discuss issues on the relevant talk page, rather than attempting to force your version through reverts. --RexxS (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC) First, don't give me some generic header like a common vandal gets, it's rather insulting. I know there wasn't an arbitration case. The difference between there being one and not being one is none, so possibly the wording of the note needs changing instead. Rlevse is not in good standing, however. If Rlevse/PumpkinSky attempted to ask to re-sysopping because he was in good standing, he would be denied, full stop. So you can go ahead and have nothing there and pretend, but people do still remember. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC) If you don't want warning headers, then stop behaving in a way that warrants them. I didn't template you for edit-warring, in deference to your length of service, but I'll take no lessons from you on interacting with others respectfully. You don't get to decide if Rlevse is in good standing, and in the absence of any ArbCom ruling, you must not claim other than that he is in just as good standing as you are. Fortunately you are not a 'crat - and hopefully never will be - so you are talking out of ignorance when you attempt to second-guess what a 'crat might do if requested. I still don't see you discussing on the relevant talk page, do I? --RexxS (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC) That's good, I take no lessons from you either. Fortunately for you, I really don't give a damn about going to the talk page to discuss it out because I already said once (if you missed it) that I wouldn't put it back due to the wording of the note specifically denoting it be from an ArbCom case. Outside of that, there's no reason for me to go to the talk page. Lastly, I'll say this: if you want to bother Rlevse and go to WP:BN and ask what a bureaucrat may or may not do, I guess you could always ask them. Maybe I'm not a bureaucrat for a reason, but I think most of them have better sense than what you give them credit for. Maybe not though, I would just love to read that discussion. Have a nice day. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 24 September 2012 In the media: Editor's response to Roth draws internet attention Recent research: "Rise and decline" of Wikipedia participation, new literature overviews, a look back at WikiSym 2012 WikiProject report: 01010010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01101001 01100011 01110011 News and notes: UK chapter rocked by Gibraltar scandal Technology report: Signpost investigation: code review times Featured content: Dead as... Discussion report: Image filter; HotCat; Syntax highlighting; and more Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Account number I was wondering how you find out your account number, since you have yours stated on your user page... thanks. ;-) — raekyt 23:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Hello there. "My preferences" gives you a User ID, which is the account number that is given to you when you register. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC) User ID: 34,505. Nifty. Thanks ;-) — raekyt 23:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC) You're welcome. I see you're a 2003er, and I haven't ever seen you edit before. Very strange, though I am sure there are others. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I limit myself to a few select areas. As for Genesis creation narrative that you closed, what avenue do you suggest we take to get it renamed, there is a VERY hardcore group of editors hell-bent on keeping it named favorably for Christianity... ;-\ — raekyt 00:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC) I don't think it's the avenue as much as it is time sensitivity. The talk page of the article is a good location, it's just that you don't want to re-open the discussion too quickly. I'd let a few months pass before restarting the conversation. Since it's almost October, January seems like a good restarting time to discuss a new title that is less contentious. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC) It will end the same was as all the others, no consensus to change... what's a higher step to take it? — raekyt 00:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Well I used the wording I did in this close to specifically denote that "the current title is okay"-type !votes are not going to be piled-on or acknowledged as a serious discussion point for future requests for renaming. I think I might even be the one to initiate the discussion next time around just to clarify this. The requested move will not include myth, story or narrative, probably Creation in Genesis the most neutral and least problematic title possible. If that failed, we could always file a request for mediation to see what they think the title should be. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC) (...page-stalking because I thought this discussion might continue here) Moe, I think your idea is a very good one. There was some support from both sides for Creation in Genesis, and no opposition that I could see. But there was just too much kerfuffle for another proposal in the midst of that discussion. I think that a neutral party like yourself, proposing that move after a few months to let the hurt feelings fade, would help lead this to a lasting solution. This post today[2] also presents a very good policy based argument for Creation in Genesis. Thanks for trying to find a solution. First Light (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks, I know it will be hard but I think a move to Creation in Genesis would satisfactorily end this dispute. I think, in short, policy and guidelines of our site will never mesh with any religion. The longer the article title is trying to explain it accurately, the more we have to analyze each word. And given this is a religious-based argument, the words "narrative", "story" and "myth" are going to be interpreted as either blasphemous to the religion or promoting the religion's values onto Wikipedia (no matter what the literal definition is). When that happens the discussion will get muddy like the last one did. A simple X in X title is almost indisputably neutral. I don't anticipate there being much an argument against Creation in Genesis, except either: "Another renaming discussion? No!" and "The current title is fine and policy based though!". :) Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC) File:Gone With the Sin cover.jpg listed for deletion A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gone With the Sin cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Replied. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 24.185.156.226 The user committed a pretty severe WP:BLP violation and would probably recommend going above a level-1 warning. The user has subsequently been blocked, FYI. as seen here. Zepppep (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Using Lupin's anti-vandalism tool, that was the highest auto-generated vandalism warning I could give them without typing it out. Regardless whether they got a stern "if you do that again" type-warning or not, they know what they did and probably did not read the message anyways. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 01 October 2012 Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales News and notes: Independent review of UK chapter governance; editor files motion against Wikitravel owners Featured content: Mooned Technology report: WMF and the German chapter face up to Toolserver uncertainty WikiProject report: The Name's Bond... WikiProject James Bond Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC) hi moe nice to see you are still around. last i looked in on you (some years ago I suppose), you had taken a leave of absence. i'm pleased to see you. ... aa:talk 01:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Hey avriette! It's nice to see you are still around as well. I've been on and off the past couple years, stopping almost completely between late 2009 to early 2011, but I'm still a hopeless Wikipediaholic. :) Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 08 October 2012 News and notes: Education Program faces community resistance WikiProject report: Ten years and one million articles: WikiProject Biography Featured content: A dash of Arsenikk Technology report: The ups and downs of September and October, plus extension code review analysis Discussion report: Closing RfAs: Stewards or Bureaucrats?; Redesign of Help:Contents Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Welcome to STiki Hello, Moe Epsilon, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison to other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Yaris678 (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Thanks, pretty useful tool. I'll be using it quite a bit. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Awesome. Yaris678 (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Removal from Trinidad and Tobago page of Edit to include Gaya Patal reference . Dear Moe Epsilon, Wow! Whacked with a STiki on my very first edit! I guess I was grateful at least for the "good faith" concession, since I am not a vandal, a troll, a saboteur of moral, clean-living WP pages or an internet porn promoter. Having looked up "STiki" I can see that it may be an attempt at objective assessment, but in this case I think the use of it was misguided. My edit was meant as a bald statement of fact, without any window-dressing. Perhaps distasteful to some, but after all these articles aren't intended to be travel brochures where the sun always shines and only nice things and people are mentioned. There are two sides to life, even in Trinidad, and its reality gave birth to a pornstar as well as to a V.S. Naipaul. Gaya Patal's story might be a sad one, but if her name's been suppressed simply as being too nasty for "paradise" then that is what I would consider "unhelpful". PS: If you had acted instead on the basis of NOR I might have understood that, but I would have pointed out that the existing reference to Etienne Charles in that Culture section is similarly unsourced and served as my model for what was permissible. regards Quidamo (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Hello Quidamo, I reviewed the edit I reverted and I remember it quite clearly. Of course your edit was factual (maybe, I'm not sure since you did not provide a reliable source of information), but the reason I reverted it was because even if it was true, the information probably doesn't belong on the main article of Trinidad and Tobago. In addition to that, Wikipedia does not have an article about Gaya Patal, so her mention on the main Trinidad and Tobago page makes little sense in that aspect. There may be similar issues with the article (I'm not sure, I'm not a regular editor there), but the addition of this particular person probably doesn't quite meet our criteria for what is notable about the country itself. Now if you start an article on Gaya Patal that is well referenced and meets our criteria for a stand-alone article, and include it elsewhere on Wikipedia (probably on an article about porn or a list of people from Trinidad and Tobago), then it might be appropriate. It's just the singular person in the culture section that doesn't really merit the mention. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC) I also went ahead and removed the mention of Etienne Charles since this person probably falls under the same category of people like Gaya Patal. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Re:Vandalism ...yeah, sorry about that, BUT I am in a meeting with friends at UTEP (I am proxie writing fora fraternity and these guys are rather drunk at the moment from Friday night drinking) and the system crashed, which is keeping a friend of mine from finishing an assignment. Like I said in the edit summary, "everybody gets 1" :) All the same, I will keep my good cheer, and thank you for reverting the vandalism in the article even though as a UTEP alumni myself I can vouch for the fact that really should have stayed in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Yeah I saw that, and I had posted to WP:AN about a compromised administrator :p I reverted it since I saw you post here. It's no problem, assuming nothing is wrong and you're in control of your account. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Congratulations from STiki! The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar Congratulations, Moe Epsilon! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Thanks West.andrew.g, I appreciate it. :) Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Paul Biya The title Paul Biya does conform with my inclusion of being a dictator. Magazines and other references can pay allegation to this claim of mine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bntafa (talk • contribs) 03:06, October 14, 2012 That is irrelevant, claims of anything need to be accompanied by reliable sources for verifiability. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Kia Ashley Spurlin is dead . Stop changing his date of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.237.1 (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Unless you provide irrefutable proof, you will be reverted. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Glory Hole Hello Moe I edited the Glory Hole entry, as it is widely known as a 'glory hole yum yum' in its respective circles.can you please reconsider this fuck up? Sincerely concerned user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.168.255.235 (talk • contribs) Looking at your edit, it appears that they are not constructive. This is an encyclopedia, so nonsensical edits are best left off of it. Things considered in "some circles" are not appropriate here. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 10:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Hypatia Sorry i do not know what you are on about! Would you mind explaining? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.101.173 (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Gladly, you inserted the text "(whom 453 she had sexual intercoarse with)" into the article. If you want to enter material such as that onto Wikipedia, please provide a reliable source to backup what you add. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC) I can assure you I would do nothing of the such. I think you have made accusations on the wrong person! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.101.173 (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC) You can see your revision at this link where it says that you did insert this material. Whether this was intentional or not, I don't know, but if it wasn't, ensure it doesn't happen again. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Hello, re aavida maa aavida not sure why you deleted my addition. I provided an english translation of the title. Isn't that expanding up on the written info? why is that bad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.224.225 (talk • contribs) Hello. Thanks for notifying me, I'll revert my deletion and reinsert your material more correctly. Apologies for the warning. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Bo Dietl On the Bo Dietl page it says its an Arby's commercial about a roast beef sandwich with cheese. It is not. It is about a hot turkey sandwich, sliced fresh. Its the whole point of the commercial. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.16.56 (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Hello, try not to insert comments about the article within the article. If you find a mistake or need to correct it, you can either use a reliable source to cite what you insert into the article, or you can use the talk page of the article to alert other editors of a mistake. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Hellllooo MoE Hello mOE. are U A HUMAN OR R YOU A BOT? PLZ TELL ME IF YUO ARE A HUMAN OR A BOT. MOE. PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU ARE A HUMAN OR A BOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battleofnaxos (talk • contribs) 04:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC) I can assure you that I am indeed, a human. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC) How dare you undo my fucking hilarious penis envy edit!!! C'mon man don't be such a fucking buzzkill. That was so fucking funny. Imagine all the fucking people that would fucking laugh at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.201.165 (talk • contribs) It's because you're not funny that it was reverted. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Who are you? MOE. IT'S ME AGAIN. MOE LISTEN UP. MOE, WHO ARE YOU? MOE, ARE YOU THE EDITOR IN CHIEF AT WIKIPEDIA? MOE, I THINK YOU SHOULD NOT LET PEOPLE EDIT WIKIPEDIA. THEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO USE WIKIPEDIA IN PAPERS FOR UNIVERSITY. THANK YOU MOE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battleofnaxos (talk • contribs) 05:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC) First, you don't need to use caps, we can all see your edits very clearly :) Second, I'll take that as some kind of compliment. There is no one editor-in-chief, it's a collaboration of many, many editors, of which I am just one. Have a nice day. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC) I just like caps, Moe. Also, my edit to the Pennant Hills High School page is true, please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battleofnaxos (talk • contribs) 05:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC) I reviewed the edit and seems fine. I've placed the {{Unreferenced}} tag on the article however, because it needs more references. Your edit however, doesn't appear to be needing one immediately, so it can stay. By the way, here are a couple of tips when talking to users on Wikipedia: First, When you start one discussion, you don't have to create another ==Header==. You can edit section by section by clicking the [edit] button alongside the beginning of each discussion. For example, the [edit] button next to "October 2012" here on your page. Secondly, like the bot below me said, you should sign your message by typing four tildes, ~~~~ (located next to the 1 on your keyboard). This signs your messages so your username appears, so users know who they are talking to. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 15 October 2012 Op-ed: AdminCom: A proposal for changing the way we select admins In the media: Wikipedia's language nerds hit the front page Featured content: Second star to the left News and notes: Chapters ask for big bucks Technology report: Wikidata is a go: well, almost WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemicals Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Thank you Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 22:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Don't take it too harshly. Seeing your RFA, it all seems like it everything was fine except how long you've been here and no one brought up much of anything else to oppose legitimately over. Do it again sometime and you will surely pass. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Yes, I intend to run again, but obviously not for a while. AutomaticStrikeout 22:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Also, I still think you should run, the experience argument can't be made against you. AutomaticStrikeout 22:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Well, I think that's true, but if I did run, I'd have to make it clear I am not perfect (which is almost required). Some people misinterpret what as I say as uncivil and I've made a few enemies along the way, so I have doubts about the amount of opposes I'll get. Since the first mention a couple days ago, I have seriously considered running, though. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC) I know, but it really doesn't bother you if you look at it this way: You are already not an admin. If you succeed, great! If you don't succeed, it's not like you lost a position. But I shouldn't pressure you too much, it's your decision and having just gone through the process, I can understand your reticence. AutomaticStrikeout 22:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC) I think the only thing stopping me from running is, if I fail, I have more fails in the history of RFA than any other editor (five attempts between 2005 and 2006.) I think I have too much pride to be the most rejected person. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Well for the sake of accuracy I had a look, and if I failed, I'd be tied for second with Benon (6) with Ten Pound Hammer having the most (7). Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Concerning the Birds page/ 98.164.21.108 Hi, this message is concerning the unconstructed content placed on the page that seemed to grab my attention( the Birds novella). Moe, I would like to start off by saying I was not aware of my sister logging onto my laptop, to log onto Wikipedia and type in senseless text. If I may ask, what did she enter into the Birds page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.21.108 (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC) It's not a problem, they only inserted the word mhm into the article. I reverted it, so there's no harm, no foul. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Please edit carefully Your recent revert of vandalism was a little hasty. Although you correctly spotted the vandalism correctly you missed earlier vandal edit and in doing so reverted to an earlier vandalised version of the page. Keep up the hard work. 90.197.111.37 (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC) If there was an earlier revision of vandalism, it is not detectable with the anti-vandalism tool I am using, STiki. STiki only detects the latest editor on the article, not multiple editors, so it makes it difficult if there was multiple instances. Thanks for the catching the older vandalism as well. You keep up the good work too. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Encyclopediac summarization of the term "battlement". I have summarized the term battlement in order to alieviate confusion of the term. An encyclopedia consists of abbreviated term. I suggest that if you abbreviate concesus then allow me to refer to to a bit of ciriculum that Iv'e left behind under the term "rope". Battlement is short therefore the word itself must depend on some physical level for the purposed action of defending the plausible existance or quite simply refuse to exist. A pattern of structure focused of structure of actions of defensive capability. How many examples can be issued if term is not encyclopedic? Wikipedia is for the people by the people and quite frankly we go by the list. Any contrary of this belief in monstrosity for better looks is dishonored through the belief of a solitary male as of a warrior of virtue. Thank god for the meaning of encyclopedia. Thank god for a pattern of structure focused of structure of actions of defensive capability. Encyclopedia. Think about it. Encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.187.14.181 (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC) Sorry, but Wikipedia does not allow for abbreviated summaries in that format. If you wish to alter the introduction of the article, take it to Talk:Battlement and request there be a change. If you don't, it will be reverted as unhelpful. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC) Congratulations from STiki The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit Congratulations, Moe Epsilon! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Yaris678 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC) Thanks, I appreciate it. :) Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)