User talk:Moe Epsilon

Freqently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Why have you reduced the size of my file? A: In accordance with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 3(b): An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low, rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate, is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). If you believe I have made an error in reducing the image, please let me know. If there was no error is the lowering in the resolution, please keep the image reduced and keep it tagged until an administrator has deleted the larger versions of the image.
Q: Why have you tagged my file as {{di-bad fair use}} 10(c)? A: I have tagged it as in violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 10(c): The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Meaning, provide a fair use rationale on the file description page, every time you use it on a different article. Otherwise it does not meet criteria for inclusion and it can be nominated for deletion.
Q: Why have you removed my image from an article because of 10(c)? A: The file does not have a fair use rationale on the file description page for why it is on that article. If you add a rationale, you are free to use the image on the article once again.
Q: Why have you tagged my file as {{di-bad fair use}} 10(a)? A: I have tagged it as in violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 10(a): Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. A source for where the image was taken from needs to be specified, otherwise it will be marked for deletion.
Q: Why have you added {{deletable image-caption}} to an article? A: This is to notify users that the image next to the caption is a candidate for speedy deletion in a number of days due to problems specified on the image description page.
Q: Couldn't you just fix this image problem yourself? A: While I tag and re-sizing images, I do keep a look-out for things I can fix, rather than tag it for fixing. There is somewhere near 340,000 non-free images on Wikipedia, so I can't do this alone.
Q: Are you an administrator? A: No, I am not an administrator here. I can not protect or delete pages, move over redirects, or block users. For a full list of privileges I have, and projects where I have them, see this page. Also, if you offer to nominate me for adminiship, I will probably decline. I have had a few nominations in the past, the last being in 2006. If I ever run again, it will be a long time from now.

Archives

Sorted by date:

All archives Archive of other project talk pages

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

Ideally, I would like to have any conversation continued on the page where it was started. If I have left a message on your talk page please do not reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.

Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

To initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.
You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

This page- Drama free days
4389

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)[reply]

No problem. I saw the "best displays at 1600 X 900 resolution" at the top and thought the information could fit a little better. :) — Moe ε 14:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh, my bad. I'll have to move it back. Thanks for that. — Moe ε 14:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 ε 15:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Much appreciated. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. :) — Moe ε 05:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. — Moe ε 05:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]