User talk:Moe Epsilon/Archive 21

Danny Phantom.

Fine. No personal attacks. This time, I hope you'll actually answer my damn question. Prove it. Prove I hate Danny Phantom. Prove that I am not able to form my own opinion of something, and that what you are saying about me is fact even when it has no evidence supporting it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't give a crap about the AfD. At no point have I ever gotten annoyed over your viewpoint or even your cussing. I got annoyed, however, when you decided it would be appropriate to make accusations that didn't hold weight. Despite not being able to (and refusing to) prove what you said about me, you refuse to admit that you are wrong in making those claims. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? I just stated that I don't care about your viewpoint and your cussing. And Hell, what ARE you talking about? Are you even reading what I am telling you? I told you that the only time I got annoyed with you is when you decided that you're in a better position to tell me what my opinion is than I am. When I said you should either admit that I am right or prove that you are right, I meant about what we are talking about - your baseless claims that I hate character articles and Danny Phantom. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Because I only saw your edit. LttP's talk page is on my watchlist, yours hasn't been. --tjstrf 01:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No, but it is a reason to warn you first. I didn't look over the other posts until just now. --tjstrf 01:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

When I was not here.

What other things happened when I wasn't here? Did anyone leave because of disputes? --Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 03:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Danny Phantom discussion

Hello. You recently participated in a discussion on the possible deletion or merger of some Danny Phantom characters. While all the articles were kept, I noted that many of those commenting on the debate suggested merging some characters into a main list. Seeing this, I've compiled a list of some of the minor characters who may not need their own article, and would like the opinions of those who weighed in originally. You can participate in the discussion here. Ral315 (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Previous discussion

All I've ever been doing is showing that I was right in saying that you were making false accusations, and I have proved it. Now if you'll just admit I was right, we can go our separate ways. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked you to prove both, and you refused to for each and dodged the fact that you did say one thing for 100% certain saying "I didn't ask for you to prove that I lied about THAT", more or less. Also, check this out - "The way you are acting, it does seem like you have a bias towards the show." And of course, you'll say that because you didn't outright say I hated it but constantly pointed out that I seem to be biased. The idea that I can be biased against Danny Phantom is a moot point, because I've shown I'm not. You've argued that me saying that the show isn't notable enough to have character articles makes me seem biased, while I have said that I'm not. The fact that I'm not outweighs the fact that I don't want there to be Danny Phantom character articles. Now take back your statements about me and everything will be hunky dory. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Then take back what you said. Not taking it back more or less means that you think those statements were correct. I didn't want there to be Danny Phantom character articles. At what point does this have anything to do with my opinion of the show? The only time I ever mentioned what I think of the show is that I like it, and yet the only possible interpretation of what I do is "I am biased against Wikipedia". - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that you didn't say that I had, without any doubt in your mind, that I don't like characters having articles? Should I trust you or my lying eyes? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Enough

This argument is going nowhere and is becoming disruptive. You two are not going to become the best of friends anytime soon. Just leave each other be. -- Steel 20:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It takes two to have an argument. Don't reply to him. -- Steel 21:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if he does that again action will be taken against him. In the meantime, no more edits to his talk page from you. -- Steel 21:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

RfAr

I repaired a mistake, my apologies.Berton 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Indonesian-sounding names adopted by Chinese Indonesians

Hey there - I'm impartial on this one, but there was a bit of wonder as to this edit of yours, and why you redirected an article on Indonesian naming patterns to a oppressive Indonesian leader (see this edit to WP:SPLICE). Anyhow, just letting you know and while I'm assuming good faith you may want to drop the fellow a note of explanation. Cheers, Snoutwood (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I figured - no worries, catch you around the wiki! Snoutwood (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Test

What is your source for him legally changing his name? TJ Spyke 21:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The wrestler, Andrew Martin. You moved the page and said he legally changed his name, but you provided no source. TJ Spyke 21:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:LA

I see that Steve Block just did an update. Your earlier edits caught most of the newly inactives beforehand, but many inactives that returned to active or semiactive, you did not get. You also made me decide to combine the active and semiactives on my list together, since such distinctions are unimportant to me (while inactive and former are important to me). Just some rambling thoughts :). Cheers, NoSeptember 11:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I try to make my list useful by having differences between it and WP:LA (in fact, I added a bit about how the lists differ to my list). Given that, I'm OK with having both active and semi-active as separate sections at WP:LA, I just think we shouldn't get too obsessed with constantly keeping it perfectly updated. The point is, when someone wants to contact an admin that they are directed to the active ones, so that they get a better response, so removing semi-actives from the actives made sense (and was first implemented in July 2005 IIRC). NoSeptember 14:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

It is incorrect to list me along with users who lost their adminships as a result of arbcom sancation. The case you referred to was a "spurious arbitration on relatively flimsly evidence" according to Neutrality and Snowspinner. Instead, I gave up my adminship by quitting Wikipedia. I assume you are acting in good faith, however, as I cannot expect you to be familiar with the details of a case that came up before you even became a Wikipedia editor. 172 | Talk 09:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the tone of your reply on my talk page. I am not a user in bad standing. I am one of Wikipedia's veteran editors, and I have donated quite a lot of time to this site for which I probably could have been paid for the same kind of work anywhere else. And I did not abuse my adminship. If you have no interest in discussing this matter with me, take it to the arbcom for clarification. I recommend asking Simon P in particular, who assured me once by email that he would clarify things to any user under the confusion with which you're dealing. 172 | Talk 03:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, I think you are a good, well-intentioned user, and you're merely confused about a situation which took place before you started work on the site. I don't want us to be on bad terms. I'm sorry if my replies to you came across as terse earlier. If you want, we can can both go ahead and restore the messages from each other on our respective pages and settle this matter in a more friendly manner. 172 | Talk 04:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an email account to which I can send some exchanges with arbitrators? I also recommend you take a look at this comment [1] by long-time arbitrator Neutrality noting that I gave up my adminship. 172 | Talk 04:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Are non-admins allowed to close AfDs with a clear consensus to be kept? Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 09:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes they can. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 09:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Birthday

I convey my best wishes on your birthday. All the best! --Bhadani 00:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is highly addictive, and it makes one forget so many personal things! I do believe that you must have surely forgotten your birthday. --Bhadani 00:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee.

Wikipedia wishes you a Happy Birthday!!

• On behalf of everyone at Esperanza, I would like to wish you a very happy birthday and all the best in the future! Jam01 05:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birhtday mate! Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 05:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Happy birthday! Have a good year ahead of you, all the best in the future. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 08:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you want me to nominate you for an adminship?

I would gladly nominate you if you allow me to. Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 04:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd endorse :) — Deckiller 04:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You should, even if it's just for fun. — Deckiller 05:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly; might as well take a shot. — Deckiller 05:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I would like MASS CO-NOMINATION. Anyone intrested in co-nominating him, sign up below. Post your co-nom message HERE!!!!!!! --Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 08:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My mass co-nomination scheme is working!!! Mwahahahaha!!! More, More co-noms! Moe, can you tell me you closest wikifriends? I will ask them to co-nom too. --Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 04:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Esperanza Birthday!

Esperanza congratulates you!

Happy Birthday--Prince of Dharma 11:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hope you have a wikihappy birthday! Randfan 23:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, this is a rather late Happy Birthday congratulation. I didn't realize this was your birthday. Anyways, happy birthday!!!! --Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 04:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia wishes you a Happy Birthday!!

Happy birthday

Have a good one! -- Samir धर्म 00:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hope that it's great!!!! Prsgoddess187 00:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy birthday, my friend. Daniel5127 (Talk) 05:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your b-day reply

Hey! No problem, it is your special day and you deserve it! Randfan 00:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No Prob

It is your special day, someone needs to do it, Semper Fi is my personal motto--†hε þяínce öf ɒhaямa ^{Talk to Me} 00:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy birthday, Mr Moe. :) I hope I'm not too late in wishing you a very happy day. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Tell that to the good men who just lost their lives. Semper Fi! Hope your birthday was a good one. ^{Well Drawn} Charlie 18:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Very kind of you. I know I can be a noodge about giving people the benefit of the doubt and arguing for 'positive reinforcement' over blocks. I really appreciate your seeing the value in that or in my efforts in spite of that. :] --CBD 11:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Guidel

"Guidelines aren't debatable unless you want to change them"

I know you know better than this. Guidelines are just guidelines, they aren't policy. A guidelines which says "as a last resort..." isn't reason to move an article from a location where it hs been stable for years. If we undid everything that conflicted with the MoS or some other guideline, we'd have to delete half of Wikipedia and change the other half. Guettarda 01:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RFA

Moe, It doesn't matter. I'll nominate you as a New Year gift on 2007. Stay surprised!

PS. I'd like to be more active on the community side of things after being mainly concerned with article and maintainence. What do you think is a good start, a good way to engage actively in discussions?? --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!^{Join Esperanza!} 12:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Mets

No, he hasn't admitted his mistake. And that's the problem. He insists that it was nothing more than an difference of opinion, and that there is no reason why he should listen to someone who is "just his equal". He has a string of egregious actions

• His "close" of an RM in which he ignored a series of votes. While he may be within his "rights" to throw out votes, he isn't within his rights to simply pretend that opinions were not cast. He also seems to think that it's ok to insult his fellow editors with imperious remarks. He claims the issue is a "difference of opinion". If someone thinks that the difference between facts and fantasy are a "difference of opinion" then they have no right to be in a position of authority anywhere (except maybe in the Bush government).
• His threats to Jooler were abusive. Mets was the one who was doing what the claimed Jooler was doing. His block was doubly abusive - not only was he blocking for a non-existent violation, he was also blocking an editor in the middle of a dispute. He has not apologised to Jooler, he has not acknowledged these violations, he has not indicated that he will not block in violation of policy in the future.
• When I informed him of his mistake, he refused to correct his mistake. If someone tells you that you have made a mistaken block, and you really don't know what the policy is, you unblock and find out what the policy actually is. You don't reply petulantly, you don't say "too bad, screw you".

He is clearly unsuited to be an admin. His actions violate policy, they violate community norms. A new admin is likely to be ignorant of these things - which is why you need to find things out before you act. Irresponsible admins act first and figure things out later. It isn't good, but there are lots of people who work like that. That's still ok, if you are willing to correct your mistakes when they are pointed out to you. Mets has done nothing of the sort, and based on his latest email, to which I was responding, he has no intention of doing anything of the sort.

I have no idea why you have taken it upon yourself to defend such egregious behaviour. As his defender, you should be setting him straight, not harrassing me. I simply replied to his "wrong and strong" message to me. He shouldn't have gotten past RFA. That's painfully obvious. If you want to be his defender, try to get a commitment from him to stop violating policy. You know better. I really didn't expect this kind of bullshit from you. Guettarda 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the kind of behaviour you are defending? Guettarda 01:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Colour

Nice design, but...is there any chance you could make the background slightly lighter, so that the text is readable on most screens? colr.org is a good site for colour codes. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 23:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I basically have to highlight it to see the text too. —Mets501 (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't "have to change it", I would just recommend it. It's not impossible to read it, just very difficult. Perhaps make the text white and keep the background color? —Mets501 (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks great now! Tons easier to read! —Mets501 (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto! Very easy to read now. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Request a move help

Moe Epsilon wrote:

Hi Gurch. I was wondering if you could perform a move for me. It's located at Economy (activity) needing to be moved to Economy. I was closing a less than active discussion on the issue and when I went to move it, I was unable to. Could you please move this for me? Thanks! semper fi — Moe 04:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Done – Gurch 05:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Esperanza Barnstar
		I award you the Esperanza Barnstar for your valued contributions to Esperanza. Best regards. Húsönd 19:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Semper Fi

I noticed your note on the wiki admin boards signed with "Semper Fi". Just wanted to give a shout out to a 'fellow Marine'. I was in the Corps from 1987-1994 when I transferred into the Army Reserve/Guard and am coming up on my "20" soon. Rarelibra 14:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Official myspace links

I note you removed a link to Kathryn Holloway MySpace page. We reciently had a discussion about this on Wikipedia talk:External links and the consensus was strongly in favor of keeping MySpace links when they are the article subject MySpace page. --Salix alba (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is An article about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to that entity's official site, if there is one. --Salix alba (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza User Page Award

Congratulations, Moe Epsilon, you have been nominated for the Esperanza User Page Contest! The judges have received the fifteen entries, and are ready to start judging. The judges will take a week to complete the judging process, and they will contact all the participants when the judging is done.

Please drop by the contest page for contest updates and questions. Take care, and good luck! Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Weatherman5000

You are correct, but as an involved party I will not block him myself. I have no doubt the another admin will agree with us and block him within the hour. – ClockworkSoul 21:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Redvers has blocked him for 3 months. I have no doubt that it will soon become an indefinite block. – ClockworkSoul 21:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the community has a little tolerance for people like him, for obvious reasons. If he had done the same thing to another editor, I probably would have blocked indefinitely without looking back. – ClockworkSoul 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it takes alot more than a guy with a short fuse to ruin my day. :) I have a pretty thick skin. – ClockworkSoul 21:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Link to the Past

No problem about the comments on my talk page. I just wanted to stop the conversation before it got "out of hand" of sorts. That and I would rather not listen to him complain about this. -- Ned Scott 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin?

I've seen your edits everywhere and I have noticed that you are very nice. Have you considered running for admin?--Arjun 01:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Crisis Core move

This is just to let you know that I am reverting your move of Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII- to Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII based on the fact that the former is how Square Enix renders the title in all official sources (see here and here). The colon seems to only appear in unofficial sources like IGN and Gamespot. Axem Titanium 17:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Axem Titanium 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

November Esperanza Newsletter

APY revert

Hi Moe - why the revert on the APY redirect? There is a specific page on Annual Percentage Yeild. G.hartig 05:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

stub-meta-history

I have been watching the dumps, so enwiki-20041104-stub-meta-history is downloading, currently at 21%, with 65 hours remaining. For some reason it's transferring at 10k, perhaps the server has been throttled. Rich Farmbrough, 12:43 6 November 2006 (GMT).

WWE roster table

Looks good Moe. I like it. I think I should be brought up to the WikiProject first though, just so there won't be any headaches after implimenting the table. --James Duggan 19:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your proposed deletions of FareCompare and Morten Lund

This is a friendly reminder to be sure, when proposing an article for deletion using {{prod}} to include a reason in the tag, by adding {{subst:prod|[REASON]}}. Also, please make sure the reason you give is explicit about your concern regarding the article. Thanks! Kavadi carrier 09:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Inshanee's talk page

If your removal of text from your talk page is disruptive, it is forbidden. But that aside, I recognize your concern, which is why I didn't revert lttp's text back the second time, instead leaving a message explaining why I thought he should respond to the text he kept removing. Further, as it is not your talk page, you had no right whatsoever to remove my message from Inshanee's page. Have a nice day. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[2] Additionally, this link shows that he is only concerned about keeping comments that he dislikes off of his talk page, rather than believing people should be able to do so. If he doesn't think it's okay to remove comments from another person's talk page, he shouldn't do it on his own.

Additionally, sorry for starting a fight over Danny Phantom characters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello again

You say you are going to wait until you get huge support, but IMO if you ran now it would be unanimous decision to let you become an administrator, take care Moe and Semper Fi.--Arjun 22:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well than, good luck.--Arjun 01:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Bush 43

Hi, I saw this edit. George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. One of the shorthand ways to distinguish between him and his father is to say "Bush 41" and "Bush 43". But it's way too informal to use like that in an article; you were right to change it. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I sent a note to the owner of the broken bot that just reinstated "Bush(43)". -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"The bot must have been fixing the links the same time I changes the link and it must have reverted me."

If the edits were only a minute apart, sure...but you changed that "Bush(43)" reference 9 minutes before the bot bumbled through the article. Also, if you read through the bot owner's talk page, you can see several other complaints that the bot edited the wrong version of a page. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for signing that post for me. I didn't want to use ~~~~ because that just added my IP address. I didn't know about the en:User:Jim Douglas trick. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(if I could rudely butt in) That bot might need to get shut off. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an Administrator shutoff button. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My bad; I thought it was making lots of errors; this one wasn't too bad. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In a quick scan, I didn't see any other errors. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

en:Saddam Hussein is semi-protected. When pywikipediabot tries to update protected pages, it first tries to get "edit page" to find out the permission. Web caching could make it worse. I don't know about the time lag. If it happens again, please fill bug report in the pywikipedia program. Other bot operators also use the program. -- ChongDae 06:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

re:WP:AN/I SPUI

In response to your post: [3] I think everyone is fully aware he can be banned in any area he disrupts and that any admin can impose this. I think the issue now is: should he be banned throughout the entire community of Wikipedia. Can I ask, has the ArbCom made any decision regarding a indef block if he is persistantly disruptive? It's becoming increasingly obvious that he is only here to disrupt now. While I would like to see him continue editing positively, he hasn't done so in the last month without getting a block for his edits. (I stand corrected he just made two edits without getting blocked). I would start and RFAr on this, but I'm not sure it would be accepted, or that it would just be an extention of the previous RFAr on SPUI/highways. Another issue regarding any block SPUI recieves is that he has so many followers and friends that anything he does, even ArbCom violations, admins unblock because it's SPUI. As I quote on admin from the above discussion I linked

Oppose community ban. He is hardly contributing and not really a problem now. If he is indefblocked for something he has recently done, I will unblock him after a reasonable amount of time.

This is becoming an increasing strain on everyone as it seems that he could get away with anything and eventually get unblocked because of his mass of friends. As you can see by his block log there has been many times where editors have attempted to give him long (maybe a week or so) blocks and they end up being 5 hours because of an AN or AN/i discussion saying that SPUI deserves a shorter block, in spite of him deserving the block. Admins now are not willing to give SPUI a long block, simply because they know it will get overturned shortly. Is there no policy regarding admins unblocking because of this, because this seems highly unfair. As I stated on WP:AN/I, I am willing to give SPUI another chance and am willing to work with him outside Wikipedia to improve his behavior, but what if it never improves? SPUI will never get indefblocked because of his seemingly invincible status. semper fi — Moe 04:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If an administrator, acting under an arbitration remedy, bans or blocks someone, that should not be overturned by another administrator. If they do, it is serious offense, wheelwarring at the least. But someone needs to call them on it. Fred Bauder 12:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)