User talk:Moe Epsilon/Archive August 2006

Why?

Ding Xiang from Esperanza hopes that your stress will become a part of the past soon.

Right. Please return. It's so sad if you leave. We love you as a contributor.--Tdxiang 10:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice template

But it needs an over the hill style icon. BTW Please vote for YTMND wiki's featured article plzty --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 03:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Messy

Thank you, 216.78.95.213 for telling me what I already knew. How thoughtful of you. I noticed you removed the personal attack. Regardless, eveything I said was true, and if you were in any way involved (and knew the facts) you would probably have kept the message up there on Sergeant Snopake's talk page. But never mind. It's wrong to mock the afflicted, so I'll sign off. DiLuna25 17:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what sort of "intervention" you had in mind, but I seriously wouldn't bother. As far as patching up goes, what sort of patching up could you possibly do? Nathanrdotcom was so weird and creepy that he eventually weirded- and creeped-out even his friends. It's going to take more than a patch to fix that sort of damage, wouldn't you agree? TTFN DiLuna25 00:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So who are you really, then? Because I'm pretty sure Snopake doesn't have a friend by the name of 216.78.95.213

I could be wrong, but, you know, I'm not. DiLuna25 00:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Moe Epsilon, I've heard of you. I heard Snopake mention you as a cool guy. Well, let me just say this: Imagine you're friends with two people half your age, who live not an hours car ride from each other when you live on the other side of the planet. Now imagine your two friends start dating.

Would you a) say "Oh, that's nice, good for you." because they were your friends and you wanted them to be happy. Or would you b) fly completely off the handle when they told you, and the next day send a nasty little email and a nasty little blog entry saying how they had hurt and betrayed you. There's a great deal more to it than that even, and the police (in this country and in Canada) were most interested and seemed to think it even stranger and more sinister than Snopake's family did. Best regards, DiLuna25 00:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's hard for me to stay neutral, but I won't make any more personal attacks like that, and I understand why you thought to remove it. It just makes me very angry that he has tried to paint himself as the innocent, hard-done-by victim, when both Sceptre and Snopake purposefully kept it off the wiki, when they were the ones hurt the most. I know he has a mood disorder, but he's compos mentis enough to know when he's being deliberately spiteful. I'm not getting on at you, just explaining my point of view. But I'm off to bed now, so no more editing for me! DiLuna25 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nathan

Re. Nathan: I know you're personally involved, but you need to understand that the block was not one made lightly. There are serious foundation issues here, and legal ramifications. Please don't make this hard; a few trusted admins have made clear to me their intention to block you. If you continue, I will. Ral315 (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That is outrageously out of line. Under what premises do you plan on blocking him, mind I ask? ~ PseudoSudo 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to Moe Epsilon, I suggest you let the foundation handle it, then. They've been notified and I'm sure they, or Arbcom, will provide input in a timely manner. Until then, it won't hurt for Nathan to be blocked. Ral315 (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sceptre's block was removed (then replaced by Cyde). I agree that he shouldn't have placed the original block. But judging by the discussion, there is significant support for the block right now. Remember that indefinite is NOT infinite- it just means we don't know when the block should end. The ball is in the Foundation/Arbcom's court, really, but for now, the block should remain until a ruling is made. Ral315 (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong in my comment above. Sceptre's block is apparently the one in effect. I guess what I'm trying to say is were the issue not so tense right now that I'd look foolish doing so, I would remove the block and replace it with one of my own. I understand your point as well, but trust me, Sceptre will not be the final person in the chain. Ral315 (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

IYO why was he blocked?

What's your reasoning for why he was blocked? Everyone else is treating the matter as if it were diseased. I have great respect for most of the blocking parties, however their stonewalling does leave me a bit cold even if the block was justifed. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Moe Epsilon/Users

Hello. I removed the "Users who I lost my respect for..." since I feel it should be better approached through dispute resolution. Thanks. El_C 08:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Phew, glad to see I wasn't on that list ^_^ I've been a bit snappy lately, due to all the FAC pushes and so on. — Deckiller 08:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm enforcing WP:NOT in my capacity as an administrator, so please do not revert. Feel free to appeal my decision, however. Thanks again. El_C 16:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

W00t!

David, you're back! I'm glad! Just remember what we're here for (to build a free encyclopedia), okay? :D--Tdxiang Jimbo's 40th Birthday! 12:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry you're getting run roughshod around here. Some people just don't understand the fundamentals of meta:Don't be a dick. Good luck. --Kbdank71 17:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Next time El_C blocks you, might I suggest you use the Association of Members Advocates? --scareslamfist 18:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock|What did I say? Kbdank71 just commented here and now I'm blocked? What comment exactly was incivil?}}

"13:26, 16 August 2006 Moe Epsilon (Talk | contribs | block) (screw all of you)" struck me as incivil. El_C 18:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's uncivil, but blockworthy? What's wrong with simply asking folks to be nicer? Friday (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

RE:Friday - didn't "simply block," Moe Epsilon keeps removing my comments from the talk page. El_C 18:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

*Sigh* I archived it. *see edit after removing both your comments, Deckiller's and Tdxiangs* — Moe Epsilon 18:25 August 16 '06

See also: User talk:Moe Epsilon/Archive August 2006 where comment is still visible. — Moe Epsilon 18:29 August 16 '06 18:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it was archived; you removed it from the active conversation thread, which is ongoing. El_C 18:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought the conversation was done. I didn't think anything more was going to be discussed. I usually (now) archive comments once theres nothing left to discuss. Which there wasn't. You didn't want the section, so I didn't want the page, and I thought that was going to be all; thus I archived. — Moe Epsilon 18:38 August 16 '06

That makes sense, actually. El_C 18:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have no reason to lie. :) — Moe Epsilon 18:42 August 16 '06

I was not suggesting that you had/did. Anyway, you're unblocked. Best wishes for constructive edits. El_C 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Prodego

1) You're not supposed to block people you're in a dispute with 2) The comment wasn't made towards you, in general, it was made towards everyone. 3) True, it might not have been the best response, but I didn't revert back you're action, I reverted to my revision back in July, which is a revert of the entire page. Blockworthy, no. — Moe Epsilon 18:11 August 16 '06

Hey, I was on that list, what did I do? Prodego ^talk 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You were on the list of users I did respect :) — Moe Epsilon 18:14 August 16 '06

Which you blanked with the summary "screw all of you" correct? Prodego ^talk 18:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but wasn't intended towards anyone on the list though, not towards anyone in particualar, just got mad. — Moe Epsilon 18:17 August 16 '06

All right :-). Perhaps 24hr cooldown might not be so bad then? Prodego ^talk 18:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not mad anymore. I saw no justification behind the block. — Moe Epsilon 18:20 August 16 '06

You admit it was uncivil, which does mean you probably are fine now, and it isn't something I would block for, but El_C did. Naturally I can't undo his block without his approval, but I will talk to him for you. Prodego ^talk 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine — Moe Epsilon 18:27 August 16 '06

I have no objection to unblocking and am comfortable with leaving the matter to Prodego's discretion and supervision. Regards, El_C 18:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to nathan?

--Slipknot222 03:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Reversion to Phyrexia

Hi, you reverted an anon edit to Phyrexia - I have undone this reversion as the sentences which were altered by the edits made no sense as they were written and were grammatically incorrect. I can't see why you reverted them, except possibly the use of the word "loser", which is appropriate for the context. Thanks. QmunkE 06:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

WWE Roster Reverts

Do you really know what you're doing when talking about WWE?

It is quite clear that Vince McMahon does not like his talent to be called "Wrestlers" but Superstars (a point Joey Syles Made earlier in the Year). If your going to have one big on air talent section, don't forget the bell ringer, the guy who tells who's in ring that they're out of a commercial break, and the EMT's that appear every single week! And the make up lady who is often seen, and the guys that neel over the far side of he announce tables, and the cameramen (they'er talented) and most importantly, what about the Stone Cold Look-a-like security guard you see every episode? They're on air talent yet nobody remembers them.

It's less confusing having announcers and Part-Timers seperate and saying what they announce. Sure we know who's who, but what about a brand new WWE Fan or a non-WWE Fan intrested in the workings of a show? Everything is confusing on this page and needs to be sorted out. If it envolves adding a few more sections, then go ahead! But as it is, everything is squashed and confusing.

And most importantly, it appears on WWE Roster, that DSW and OVW are brands of the WWE! And no where on the page does it say that they are not. OVW and DSW are independently owned and are "Developmental Territories" not Brands.Vince McMahon has no political power in the Developmental Territories. Once the Superstars are booked for an OVW or DSW show, they work with OVW/DSW Management. WWE may pay alot of tose guys but they don't own OVW/DSW.

From The Holy Trinity of Sports Entertainment

Hi, your sig

I can't help but notice that it still links directly to User:Moe Epsilon, which doesn't exist anymore (: --205.188.116.197 00:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)