Sorry Moe that was my little sister. But I do know Beith Beavers and in fact he is my swim coach so if u could add he know coaches at Kingston Blue Marlins (KBM) that would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.64.170.180 (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I added the Max Wright edit as I thought it was strange to name his earlier DUI charges and find it very strange that this scandal is curiously absent from his bio. It is referenced and verified. 60.224.160.192 (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
According to the hidden note in the article, other editors are well aware of the situation which you are trying to insert. Before adding material to Wikipedia, we have to be sure it is not liable or defamation according to our policy on biographies of living people. Go to Talk:Max Wright and discuss the change first if you want it inserted. Regards, — MoeEpsilon02:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Why so many reverts to good faith edits that make an article better?
This is a bit disturbing to see all these edits of good faith contributions which actually improve the article. Maybe your bot is going crazy? --Jeffmcneill (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Most edits that are "good faith" that I revert may intent to make an article better, such as inserting a url as an image, or placing words in inappropriate places in the article such as the very bottom, or between table brackets that break it. Those are the reasons I revert, there is no bot, just a script that helps me see it. If there is a specific edit that I've made that you feel needs checking, then feel free to link me. Regards, — MoeEpsilon06:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
This edit doesn't appear to be helpful for what we consider normal article content. The length of a ride on a rail is something subjective to many things, it doesn't have a source and it's relevance is almost none to the topic (as a list of transportation in that section.) Regards, — MoeEpsilon06:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The user who added it below said that he took the ride several times and linked to a site with links that equates to testimonials of people who have rode it, saying that it takes about four hours. I guess it could be relevant if you found a reliable source, but there are several problems with that, namingly: It is original research, the time is not consistent, factual information (something that is a must for an encyclopedia) and that it's trivial. So what if it takes four hours? I think the article would benefit from information on when it was built, the location of it and the endpoints, and other information that is verifiable, instead. Regards, — MoeEpsilon07:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The original reason I reverted was because the entire content added was in all capital letters, marked as good faith. I've went ahead an restored it with normal capitalization after researching it a bit. Regards, — MoeEpsilon06:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Why was my first edit on Wikipedia removed on good faith?
I live in Bangkok and have made the journey from by train to Pattaya - it takes about four hours.
Other people have had the same experience http://thailandbytrain.com/Pattaya.html
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Your personal experiences and others on the length of a train ride is not encyclopedic content. The article is giving a brief list of transportation in Pattaya. While it might be of relevant, maybe even true, it's trivial. Equating a personal experience also lends itself to our policy on no original research. The reference provided is "some people"s experience, which is not factual and your own experience on the train doesn't mean it needs to be added on either. Take a look around Wikipedia and explore our relevant policies and guidelines on what should be added to Wikipedia. If you need anything, let me know. Regards, — MoeEpsilon06:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
While you have been reverted, again, I have went ahead and removed the entire section as unreferenced. Your contributions were not appropriate, nonetheless. Regards, — MoeEpsilon08:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
SuperSE143
I saw your note on User Talk: SuperSE143. I had previously blocked the user indefinitely for copyright violation, but another admin unblocked soon after after the user promised to stop. Since SuperSE143 obviously hasn't, I've asked for that admin to reblock the user (I can't myself per WP:WHEELWAR). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I pinged King of Hearts earlier and he left him a note on the Commons, but he just came back today and resumed the same activity, so I think a block might just be best. Regards, — MoeEpsilon12:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
David Ward (university president)
Thanks for the correction for a better Wikipedia. But this IP address is actually shared by thousands of people, so I don't know who contributed to the page.
Thanks, it's not much of a problem, since the edit was just random letters added to the page. It's assumed to be a test edit to see if they could make it, so it's not much harm done. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, — MoeEpsilon03:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Charles Schultz - Sonoma County Airport
How in the world is including an edit about the deal the airport worked with Alaska Airlines to allow a free case of wine in checked baggage not constructive? In this era of pervasive bag fees, this is a huge deal - especially given the weight of wine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.74.151 (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Moe Epsilon. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The mistake you made was allowing opinions and word of mouth on a page that should only contain facts. Massad Ayoob, Marshall and Sanow, none of them are valid sources, in fact they've all been proven wrong and cited that they make things up to sell a certain type of ammunition or improve the popularity of a particular caliber when it suits them. For example, the Illinois State Police did use a 115-grain jacketed hollow point, but the US Air Marshals and the Border Patrol never have. The Air Marshals use .357 caliber SIGs and Glocks, which has even been stated by a spokesman in the case where 2 Air Marshals shot a man in the terminal some 5 or 6 years ago. The border patrol has used Beretta 96s in .40 S&W nearly since the .40 S&W came out. I have heard they use 155-grain hollow points, but I will not stand by that since I have never actually pulled and measured one. Additionally, in the section of "9mm NATO", they state that the 9mm NATO is an overpressure variant of the 9mm Luger which is not true. NATO measures case pressure mid-case, not at the case-mouth. Measuring mid-case will show a pressure increase of 8,000-10,000 psi, taking that into account, the pressures of 9mm NATO, 9mm Luger to SAMMI specs and 9mm Luger to CIP specs are all within the margin of error for each other and are therefore equivalent. One thing people seem to site when "proving" that NATO or CIP ammunition is "hotter" is the published muzzle velocity, however, most of the published muzzle velocity for european and NATO 9mm ammunition is from 7.5 inch test barrels as opposed to the 4 inch barrel used for SAMMI specifications, the M882 in particular is measured out of a Beretta M9 with a 4.9 inch barrel, thus giving a published muzzle velocity of 1263 +/-5 fps, which is exactly what it was designed for. If you put that same round in a 4 inch barrel, the bullet will lose approximately 75-100 fps per inch of barrel less it travels through and it will be exactly the same as any SAMMI standard pressure 9mm 112-115-grain Full Metal Jacket "Target Load". I'm sure there's more incorrect on this page as well as many of the other pages of various calibers, but I'll have to check them later. My hope is that you will not be promoting invalid sources, because these people are still around and still write books. And they change their mind as often as police departments chang their caliber/ammunition of choice. The reason is because they market for whomever pays them better at a given time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8000Shooter (talk • contribs) 21:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The mistake you made was this. If you find there are inaccuracies on the page, then address it at the Talk page of the article or you can simply fix the mistake by providing reliable sources and making the correction yourself. Adding the message about the articles inaccuracy isn't inappropriate and was rightly reverted. Regards, — MoeEpsilon22:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately for the reputation of Wikipedia, I don't find it SO important as to take 12 hours out of my day to rewrite the entire article citing VALID sources such as the US Army field manual, ballistic tests, news articles from 6 years ago etc. Let me make one thing clear AGAIN though, gunwriters are NOT valid sources, they're salesmen; if you insist on noting valid sources per topic, it should be just as important to confirm that they ARE. Massad Ayoob was a police officer and Marshall and Sanow were doctors... they print what they call "Street Results". One article written by Massad Ayoob claimed he witnessed an autopsy of a man shot directly in the heart with a Cor-Bon 115-grain +P+ 9mm and alleged the heart of the departed had been "shredded like burrito filling". To start with, that can't happen to your heart from a gunshot because the bullet will simply pass through it, it will not stop exactly in your heart and spin like a blender. As well, somebody who had actually witnessed what a bullet did inside a person would likely not be so childishly graphic about it... which he obviously has not seen the 30,000 autopsies he has claimed... if any. Anyway, the reason he claimed this is because Cor-Bon is or was at the time, a sponsor of Guns & Ammo and Handguns and their 9mm +P+ load is always being marketed as it is one of the most expensive factory 9mm loads on the market, much like the Glaser Safety Slug, also made by Cor-Bon. The point I'm making is these are no more valid sources thana kid who plays video games and tells you what brings the bad guys down. Do your job so Wikipedia stays factual. And for good measure, here is a copy of the small caliber field manual listing the 9mm NATOs mid-case pressure, bullet weight, velocity etc http://www.kmike.com/Ammo/tm%2043-0001-27.pdf 9mm is on page 12 and there are various other sources such as IDF easily attainible to civilians. You can also start on the other military calibers with this copy of the manual, after all, you're getting paid to verify information rather than attest that something was written in a magazine, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8000Shooter (talk • contribs) 07:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no, we are all unpaid volunteers. I'm not going to lie and say I'm an expert at 9x19mm Parabellums, ballistics or any kind of weaponry. All I saw when I visited the article was you placing "this is inaccurate" at the top of the article and I reverted, since our websites policy to discuss inaccuracies and changes on the related talk page (in this case, it is at Talk:9×19mm Parabellum). However, to be more direct about the topic, if there are inaccurate sources on the article and you can provide more reliable sources (something we can cite in the references), you don't necessarily have to spend twelve hours re-writing the article. If you can tell me which sentences are inaccurate, tell me what it should say and provide me a reference I can put into the article, I can help you that way. I'll make a note at the talk page of you saying there might be inaccurate sources, of you listing the kmike source for use, and for someone to review it for accuracy. Regards, — MoeEpsilon11:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
This is directed toward 8000shooter, Massad Ayoob is a former law enforcement officer, a professional witness, long time firearms instructor and has authored over 20 books, 1,000 articles and testified in hundreds of court cases on these very subjects. You may not like him or may disagree with him, but he is a valid source and certainly more reliable than some anonymous user who posts on Wikipedia under a screenname. If you want to challenge any material or introduce something new, please bring forth your sources. If it takes 12 hours to write a few sentences and give a credible, reliable source supporting your point of view; perhaps you should find something less daunting. Bullets can perform differently when they hit certain targets, if reading about a shredded heart offends you or a case where a felon took 11 rounds to the face and literally blew one out of his nose with a puddle of blood before he walked to the ambulance makes you squeamish, maybe you need to read articles about bullseye shooting instead. I do believe the one thing you may be correct about is that the picture in the article is not a 9mm. When I get a moment I will take a picture of a few 9mm rounds and replace it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ17:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
James Collins
I am pointing out a fact that James Collins does in fact have ginger hair. I will NOT appreciate you deleting this, it is a fact.
I would be grateful if you'd mind your own business.
The fact that he does or doesn't is irrelevant, it is not encyclopedic nor does it belong in the lead, so stop adding it. Regards, — MoeEpsilon14:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
About "Charm School"-album of Roxette
First: I appreciate that you contacted me for say me that whae you say. Thank you!. Second: You say that some of the changes I made to artítulo entitled "Charm School" are not constructive; but you don't say what those changes that I made... I would like to know specifically what those cambinos not constructive of which you speak. Thank you!. — m3c4n013:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry, I gave a generic template message which didn't explain exactly the details of why I reverted. I looked over your edit, if you hadn't since I reverted, and I think it should be clear why I reverted. Could you explain why you removed what you did? You removed the references section, the categories, the interwiki links and several other things vital to the article. These are normal things found at the bottom of the article on all of Wikipedia, and if you saw the version you left it at, it was a less than desirable appearance. Regards, — MoeEpsilon21:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Jared Padalecki Protection
Hello,
I don't know if you're aware of why the Jared Padalecki page had been edited so much, but I feel I can inform you. Editing Jared's page is a task included on the list of items to obtain as part of the Greatest International Scavenger Hunt the World Has Ever Seen, which is run in part by Misha Collins who is a good friend and co-worker of Jared's. The page must be edited to include team names and to mention that Jared loves Misha. None of the edits are meant to do any harm and will have no lasting effect on the page's quality as the hunt itself ends in five days.
I feel that Jared wouldn't mind if his page was altered a bit for the sake of this hunt, but I can understand if you feel differently. However, with the page under protection, many teams now cannot complete this task. I am asking that you remove the protected status and allow teams to continue working their way through the list of challenges.
After a bit of researching what the GISHWHES is, you are in essence requesting a page be unprotected so you can change it for the purpose of inserting misinformation and general silliness. While you are correct that it leaves no lasting effect on the page, that is not a valid reason for unprotecting, so I'll decline your request to see the page unprotected. The page will be open for editing in about a week, by then your contest will have come to a close, though. Regards, — MoeEpsilon18:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
In regards to the Thomas Peterffy, I feel it is partially my responsibility to remove personal opinions in a space designated for facts. Since Wikipedia is not an opinion column, or a forum for far left-wing rants, lets stick to the facts or at bare minimum put this brainless drivel in the criticism section.
Hi, I initially reverted you because you did not indicate why you were removing content, and removing large sections of content triggers a filter for unproductive editing. I reviewed the content and how long it had been there, and I agree with your removal. See that you leave an edit summary in the future indicating what you are doing when you edit Wikipedia so other editors can see. Thanks. Regards, — MoeEpsilon12:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
How is telling facts a personal attack? May i ask which country you come from?
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Moe Epsilon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ZappaOMati 03:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.149.240 (talk)
I'm in the United States. And yes, I saw what ZappaOMati posted to your talk page, so why did you post it here? To answer you, the personal attack was calling me a "kid." If you have a problem with my editing, then please comment on that. Regards, — MoeEpsilon04:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Manhattan
How is that not constructive? I didn't delete anything. It could be removed for "original research" since my source was hearing about the drink, rather than reading about it in an article. But in what sense is that possibly "not constrictive"???? 209.6.89.16 (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry for the language of the warning I sent you, since it can be unclear at times. After looking at your edit, without a source (given the events of Hurricane Sandy on the Manhattan area of New York) it did not appear to be a constructive edit rather than a legitimate drink. If you can provide a source for the drink, by all means, provide one. Without one though, it's best left off until one can be provided. Regards, — MoeEpsilon12:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the source, it does not appear to be reliable. That link is to a blog, which generally do not fall under are guidelines for citing information. Regards, — MoeEpsilon23:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Shaken not stirred
I find it rather amusing that you would suggest that my additions weren't "constructive", as you put it. The information I provided clearly contributed to the subject matter. Furthermore, my second addition to the article was done in a manner to leave the original information, out of respect for the original contributor. The information you decided to leave there is still blatantly incorrect and is contradicted by earlier information in the same article. So if your attention to detail is as rigid as you would like to make it appear, I'd appreciate more consistency and less unsolicited condescension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.4.14 (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Edits like this are and shouldn't be encouraged. The proper way to dispute material on an article is going to the talk page (i.e Talk:Shaken, not stirred) and to dispute it there. In mid-article in all capital letters, is not how it is done. If you have references for unsourced material yourself, feel free to provide reliable sources and source the article yourself. Regards, — MoeEpsilon02:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I am responding to your message that you edited the Wikipedia entry for “Hobbit” and your request for comments concerning the accuracy of your changes. Please note that your changes are, in fact, inaccurate and a violation of Wikipedia’s terms of service.
The Saul Zaentz Company owns numerous trademark registrations in the United States and around the world for Hobbit and marks that incorporate Hobbit. For many years the public has associated Hobbit exclusively with the iconic characters created by J. R. R. Tolkien, and the myriad of movies, goods and services our company and its licensees have marketed and sold under that trademark.
We are not aware of instances where our trademark Hobbit is used in non-Tolkien books but please let us know if you have examples of such use. But please note that, even if a third party were to make an unauthorized use of the trademark Hobbit that would not negate our global trademark rights or otherwise support your proposed Wikipedia edits.
As noted, by issuing numerous trademark registrations the United States Patent and Trademark Office and trademark offices around the world have for many years acknowledged the validity of the trademark Hobbit and The Saul Zaentz Company’s ownership of that trademark. Your attempts to edit the Wikipedia entry for Hobbit – by alleging that it is a generic term or “genericized trademark” - are therefore both factually and legally inaccurate.
As you know Wikipedia prohibits users from knowingly editing entries to include inaccurate or misleading information. We assume the foregoing information demonstrates that your proposed edits are both inaccurate and misleading and you will refrain from making any further similar edits. I assume you share our interest in resolving this matter amicably and without needing to request intervention from Wikipedia. To that end please let me know if you have any questions.
I have reverted your additions again, however, I have removed the sentence stating that there was a genericized trademark since it was unsourced. Regards, — MoeEpsilon18:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Hobbit (word)
Hi Moe,
Just curious as to why you feel it is necessary to hide the fact that the word, Hobbit, is in fact a registered trademark of the Saul Zaentz Company. Wikipedia is a place for individuals to hopefully find actual facts. Please explain yourself.
There are many words that are registered trademarks on Wikipedia, we don't need to identify the owner of every trademark word and/or insert the owner into the lead of the article. Please don't insert it again. Regards, — MoeEpsilon19:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd just like to remind both of you of the three reverts rule. You've both been edit warring about the lead section, so please solve this first by discussing instead of reverting back and forth. It would also be helpful to use the article's talk page so other editors can voice their opinion. De728631 (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't plan on going back to the article any time soon, but considering his repeated edition of the same material has been reverted by five other editors, it is not a welcomed edition. Regards, — MoeEpsilon23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Should be, seemingly, since he started editing over disputing the text:
No matter the origin, it has since become a [[genericized trademark]] {{fact|date=November 2012}}, with hobbits appearing in non-Tolkien related works for several decades.
Since it was so contested and it was unreferenced, I went ahead and removed it in my second to last edit. Regards, — MoeEpsilon23:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Aristotle
Thanks for tidying my revert [1]. I did it quickly from an ipad because I was scared I would forget it, meaning the material would remain deleted, and I could see it was not controversial. Just to clarify: I never added the material or noticed the tags. But I have read Peter Green's book, which I have a copy of somewhere, and I think the material should be fine.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, it's no problem, I never deleted the text anyways. I simply wrapped the citation needed template around the text needing a cite instead of having it tacked on to the end of the sentence. :) The second sentence is still there on the article, but it appears like this[citation needed] in the article. Regards, — MoeEpsilon17:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Zappa :) I saw you edit my sandbox earlier, thanks for maintaining it and the article in my absence. Regards, — MoeEpsilon07:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but to avoid edit-conflicting the closing bureaucrat, you may consider waiting a couple of minutes after the RfA has been closed before updating the chronological tables. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Derp. I hadn't realized you closed it so close to me editing the table. By force of habit, I click the chronological listing after realizing it had been removed and figured I'd make the change. Sorry for the edit conflict. Regards, — MoeEpsilon23:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
On a related note, why did you threaten Intoronto1125 with striking their RfA vote? You know, I suppose, that you have no authority to do so. I find their unexplained opposes irksome, but they have a right to do that, just as we have a right to ask for an explanation--but we have no right to strike their vote. Regards, Drmies (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Someone who serially trolls RFA with opposes deserves to have their !vote striken if they don't provide a valid rationale. He has done so on many, many RFAs. And it's not an issue of whether I would or not, maybe I didn't phrase it correctly. The wider community would decide whether his vote would be stricken, not me. We (and I) have no authority to do so because we permit this kind of behavior, and it's about time people start standing up to people who persist. Regards, — MoeEpsilon23:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I don't dispute the trolling part! Well, I've seen admins remove votes occasionally, but it's a rare thing. I suppose I could remove this one, but it doesn't seem to derail the RfA. You could consider getting a topic ban, I suppose, and that would prevent future mishap (since marking out votes in itself is kind of disruptive). Drmies (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I suppose we could ask for a community ban, but since he went back and provided a rationale to the last RFA and to the most recent one, I'll hold back for now. I just find it frustrating that so little people are willing to challenge voters when they persistently do things like this and the most we are generally allowed to do is kindly ask them for an explanation they hardly ever give. At some point we have to discourage the behavior rather than frown upon it. Regards, — MoeEpsilon01:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, that's strange, NFL.com didn't list the stats of Gabbert or Skelton like they normally would when quarterbacks change mid-game. Regards, — MoeEpsilon04:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think you made a mistake in your revision of List of waterfalls of England. You "identified as test/vandalism" my edit, which is erroneous. Therefore, your revision is without basis and may be construed as test/vandalism. Your reversion has been reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.44.137 (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
A list of another countries waterfalls not existing is not a valid reason for deletion. See Category:Lists of waterfalls for all other articles on lists of waterfalls as well. Not only that, but blanking an article does not propose it for deletion. If you feel it should be deleted, go through the process of WP:AFD if you really think it should be deleted. If you don't, stop blanking the article. Regards, — MoeEpsilon04:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations
100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.
This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.
stop fucking editing my posts like you know what you are talking about. i have direct affilitation with the program and you keep erasing stuff. go find another article to fuck with man because i know what i am talking about you 8=D like who the fuck are you man? stop messing with our page. please it was constructive cause the comment was a motherfucking cunting lie!
what the motherhell are you talking about? i deleted the lacrosse lie? you son need to get your facts straight i do not stand for this bullshit pigshit and treason.. no taxation without motherfucking representation son! Broad
I was letting my younger brother use my laptop earlier, seems he edited the Wes Craven article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash Loomis (talk • contribs)
Hold on a sec. This really shouldn't be done unless it's using a bot account. Every time you edit a User talk: page you're going to trigger the new messages banner, whereas a bot won't. Legoktm (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Most of these appear to be user talk archives and User subpages for awards, so I'm not terribly worried about triggering a ton of new messages. Regards, — MoeEpsilon00:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Legoktm: It's easier to find a user with AWB available than an open bot that has been approved for miscellaneous jobs. I was doing these manually, so I was bringing up the new messages banner as well.
For the pages I skip, I'll avoid using AWB and do it manually, but like Homer said, that will be a new message to a user regardless. Regards, — MoeEpsilon00:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
That really doesn't make sense either. If there's a reason not do something with AWB, there's probably a reason it shouldn't be done manually.
Looking at this again, I think there definitely needs to be a CommonsDelinker like solution to this problem. I'll look into it. Legoktm (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The reason I wouldn't use AWB to do it is because it is a rapid-pace, automated tool, compared to a slow, human edit. Regardless, I won't bother with the user talk pages if you actually think it's going to be a problem. User pages, talk page archives and barnstar subpages won't trigger a message to the user, so my entire queue of AWB edits lined up are those pages. Once that is over, if you think there is a better solution to not trigger messages, we can do that. Regards, — MoeEpsilon01:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
So I did some digging and CommonsDelinker does in-fact rename files. In fact, this image file is currently waiting in the queue. So there is really no point in doing this manually. Legoktm (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, well in that case, since it's already in the queue on Commons, I'll let the bot do it. I know we have CommonsDelinker, but I assumed since it was requested here it was a local issue. Regards, — MoeEpsilon01:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe so. Since it's not a particularly pressing matter, there's no reason to worry. It might be 24 hours, but it will all get replaced. :) Regards, — MoeEpsilon02:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't think it could, but didn't hurt to ask. :) With the userpages and subpages taken care of, having a couple left isn't a biggie for 24 hours. :) Thanks again for your help Moe. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for wonderful gnomish work, restoring the splendour of Precious for me! I may do a few manually if I want to see them today, but otherwise just wait, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
No problem :) Yeah, probably better that way. If you come across a red-link by chance, feel free to correct it, but it will get done soon regardless. Regards, — MoeEpsilon08:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC) (We wants it. We needs it. Must have the precious!)
Unsure. Like most bots, I'm sure it would try to remove it from a protected article. I'm unsure of the permissions of this particular bot. Regards, — MoeEpsilon12:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
We'll see. Even if it is successful, this would still look ridiculous. "What I stand I stand for" implied "for the photographer", who was blocked then and is missed now. Even if the file name was not a good choice, to just delete it distorts history now, on hundreds of pages. Do you see a solution? Is there a soft redirect for pictures? Could a similar one be uploaded under the old name, without getting renamed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you are getting at now. Unfortunately, no. The lineage of prior revisions are subject to current and future changes, at least in regards to images. The User Page Design Center suffered a lot from this, in the case of showing off prior designs, images, etc. that were considered the best in their Hall of Fame :/ I'm praying for software updates to the site that take a sort of screenshot rather than just spitting up the prior code. As far as I know, there is no soft redirect for images. We could always keep a local copy of the image at the old file name, but that is only typically done at the current file name at Commons, and for other reasons than what we need. Regards, — MoeEpsilon13:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer, I think I got it. Anyway, the user did it manually, and the bot started working, never mind the edit summary (pear-shaped distinguished that pic from the others showing a Yogo sapphire, and the German WP laughed a lot about "cornflower blue" when I translated the article. I will look over there myself, only a few links, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand how, but now a redirect seems in place, great! - Precious: I wanted to give it to you, looked up your marvellous contributions, 100.000 edits, thought about the heading "wrestling technology expert gnome", - but then saw that you supported the ban of the designer. May I ask you to scroll over his archive ad contribs, for a quick check if such a user should have been banned? - Then ask Neutralhomer to give you Precious ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The redirect was a nice fix, I just saw that. I don't necessarily support he ban of Jack Merridew (and I've always said that he made excellent article contributions), but there was problems with the sockpuppeting and all that - mostly that he continued on after he said he wouldn't, which was the most disappointing. I think if he stuck to one account like he said he would, there wouldn't have been a reason to ban him at all. I fully admit to tagging all of the sockpuppet userpages to categorize them into one category for full clarification of all the accounts he once used; I was not gravedancing his departure. Regards, — MoeEpsilon00:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh Malleus.. With ArbCom sanctions getting harsher recently, I fear him going down the same slippery slope as Merridew for the civility thing. :/ Regards, — MoeEpsilon00:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, well the Jack Merridew name was probably the one the was first highly publicized during the whole fiasco when it first started, making it the most "popular". Davenbelle is the oldest account though. I guess it's just a formality; it would be weird to mark the older account as a sockpuppet of a newer account. Regards, — MoeEpsilon17:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Had a read of the Wikipediocracy article a while back, just to get different perspectives on the banning (I'm more level-headed than most outside forums portray me, maybe I always wasn't always the best guy in the past, but I digress). Thanks for the tasty treats. Regards, — MoeEpsilon22:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I see, though I'm not entirely sure why that is the case. I'll have a look around to see what could be causing it. Regards, — MoeEpsilon08:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, replaced Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg with PearY6Bv.jpg here and it didn't make a difference. Regards, — MoeEpsilon08:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I purged the cache of the archive page you linked me and it seems fine. Probably a left over from it being moved, then a redirect, then having to be transcluded again. If you purge the pages you see, then it should come up normal. Regards, — MoeEpsilon08:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to ask about your recent contributions to ru.wiki: why do you change filenames yourself? As I remember, CommonsDelinker could do it himself Rubin16 (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rubin. The Commons "Move and Replace" feature now allows for the user to replace the files themselves if the amount of files is small using the local wiki account. If the number of file usage is large (from what I've seen, about 30-40 or more) then the task is sent to CommonsDelinker. Regards, — MoeEpsilon16:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't rename images on Commons for a quite long time and didn't know about this feature. I've granted you 'autopatrol' right in ru.wiki to keep from mess in 'recent changes'. Thank you for explanations :) Rubin16 (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Why did you remove my information given on Mario Gotze, i was letting people know that he is happy and now in a relationship, which is more than you can do, please give me a sensible reason you removed my post. And i dare ask you if i was lying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.96.218 (talk • contribs)
It's fine, a lot of people don't understand the policy on non-free images. Most websites that take photographs like that are copyrighted to the publisher or the photographer. Notability turns out to have little to do with the policy. For images of living individuals, the picture must be released under a free license, because Wikipedia doesn't take images of living people that are copyrighted. When you visit the site, it says "Photo by Larry Busacca/Getty Images for Clear Channel". If it is marked as by Getty Images, then it's copyrighted unless stated otherwise. For the article, we can probably add images of the performers from their main articles since those images are under free licenses. Regards, — MoeEpsilon05:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
guidance
i don't know whether to write here . i need your guidance. i edited outline of sports. you undid it. i require guidance how to do correctly.
i found google and many wikipedia articles. i like to play youtube video on "outline of sports" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtremefans (talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I went back to check what you meant and I saw that I undid your edit. Currently it is not possible to embed YouTube videos onto Wikipedia, so there isn't any amount of guidance I can provide in this area. If you would like to see how videos are used on Wikipedia, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Videos for more information. I wouldn't try to get that video onto Wikipedia however, unless you knew it was free of copyright (see the link I provided), lest you may waste a lot of time trying to get it uploaded to Wikipedia. Regards, — MoeEpsilon17:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Im thinking of editing the page. I need to show this young man's contributions to the world. He has been central in Ardfert's sporting and social successes. With your permission id like to create a page for him and edit Ardfert's with him in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.98.121 (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. If you are interested in creating an article, I would suggest heading over the Articles for Creation (see also requested articles), following the instructions there, and providing some kind of evidence of his notability (why he deserves an article). Once you do, and he passes the criteria, then an article can be made. Regards, — MoeEpsilon12:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Courtly love
The page is being edited by a class at some college, and the students are obviously inexperienced with WP. I've been letting them be for the time being and figure that I will deal with the material they've contributed when the class ends. Since the edit you re-added was originally contributed by the same person who removed it, I'm going to undo your edit. Deor (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi brother, it's me again. I just love my country. I could not resist the temptation. Sorry again. Happy Xmas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.139.42.98 (talk • contribs)
