User talk:Moldy912

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. I would just like to remind you in a friendly way not to remove the information header at the Wikipedia sandbox, and other sandboxes, or make any other inappropriate edits. You are free to test your editing skills there but please follow the instructions stated on the page. Good luck with your editing and thank you for your co-operation. Thinboy00 @092, i.e. 01:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You have too little info about you

Wikipedians will barely know who you are! Assume good faith :-) More people want to love you than to rape you! --dionyziz (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC).

Nice

Thanks! Welcome to Wikipedia. Make sure you sign your talk messages using the four tildes: ~~~~. They'll be replaced with your name and the current datetime automatically :-) Hope to see some constructive edits from you soon. --dionyziz (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC).

Does wikipedia promote faith?

Hi, the recent edit you made to User talk:Dionyziz has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

i did not ask you to talk Moldy912 (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Moldy912 (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Moldy912 (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Moldy912 (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Moldy912 (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Moldy912 (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey

...not sure what you mean. New users are encouraged to edit Wikipedia in a constructive way. If you would like to contribute, feel free to do so; you're welcome to contact me should you need any help. Again, welcome! --dionyziz (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright!

Sorry, I was recently reverting some vandalism, and my style of speech followed the formality of the warning. It's good to see new users experimenting with Wikipedia :-)

I, too, am a normal guy. I don't work for Wikipedia, nor am I an administrator, I just enjoy using it and improving it. Here, have a Martini :-)

--dionyziz (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC).

Comments in The Sims article

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, The Sims. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you.

Why didn't you put four tildes? I'm going to report you! Idiot... Moldy912 (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

UNC's NCAA title count

I guess it's a little confusing because the Wikilink for "NCAA titles" goes to NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship, which only refers to the NCAA tournament championship from 1939 on, and the it's easy for a reader to infer that UNC won the 1924 NCAA tourney, even if it doesn't actually say so. Also, keep in mind that there is a discrepancy between what the program defines as an NCAA championship, and what is generally recognized as a national championship. As I'm sure you are well aware, a banner is not a reliable source, and while non-independent sources are fine in many cases, it's something we should try to avoid where there might be disagreements.

Here's the thing. UNC didn't "win" the 1924 title in the normal sense, where teams compete based on a pre-determined format. It was only retroactively awarded the title when the NCAA started running the tournament. Because of this peculiarity, I don't think it's helpful to lump in the 1924 title with the 4 NCAA tourney titles. I'll make an edit to the intro that includes the 1924 title, but without conflating it with the other four. --Mosmof (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I should add that it helps to include an edit summary, especially when you're doing something as seemingly drastic as changing the number of championships, and it's potentially confusing. That way, other editors can see that you have a valid reason for making a change, and you're not doing it in error or to vandalize. I should also add that Wikipedia is not really interested in the "truth", just verifiability, and a banner is certainly not the type of evidence that should be used to back up an edit. Nighty night. Mosmof (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)