There are currently 564 articles in Category:Stub-Class Professional wrestling articles. It still would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve.
The Article alerts for WP:PW is now up and running. This page lists recent changes that affect the status of an article in a variety of categories. Please use this in maintaining the articles of the project.
Events Calender
This section is intended to warn users about potential targets of vandalism and speculation: professional wrestling events from major promotions for the month of April.
It was reported by a Nielsen Media Research ratings report that the March 19 broadcast of TNA Impact! earned a 1.34 television rating, the highest number the promotion has ever drawn.
Howard Finkel was announced as the seventh inductee into the WWE Hall of Fame as a part of the Class of 2009 via WWE's official website.
Editing tips
This is a section in the newsletter devoted to help familiarize project members with the Manual of Style and general editing tips.
Consider expanding an article from the project's list of stub articles and nominating it at Did You Know?. The project's goal is to have 100 total DYKs by the end of the year, and we are currently on 74.
When editing an article, use the edit summary to provide a brief summary of your edits; this helps users understand what was changed in the article.
All Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point-of-view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.
The project's New Year's Resolutions are listed here, and a list of topics that are close to Good topic status is listed here. Consider helping by achieving an aim listed or by improving an article on the Topics list to Good Article status.
Maybe, I suppose. I still don't like the idea of flags being in there, but I guess I can ignore that if you my opinion on a potentially different way of changing the table. — Moeε23:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Was thinking about the table itself, yeah. While it's certainly very functional, it looks pretty horrible with so much info cramped in imo. --aktsu(t / c)00:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I tried condensing some of the information and started my own table there in your sandbox. It's a little better, but it's still a long way from looking nice. — Moeε01:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
From April 10 to May 10, WP:PW will be hosting the first Professional Wrestling Stub Reduction Drive. Details can be found here and all memebers are encouraged to get involved.
Events Calender
This section is intended to warn users about potential targets of vandalism and speculation: professional wrestling events from major promotions for the month of April.
That link you removed leads to a Wikipedia article, not something on Wikitionary or any other wiki. Whether the link is appropriate or not I don't know, but it doesn't seem to be an interwikilink unless I'm really missing something. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, those were links in a list of professional wrestler moves, and links in that section should go to articles about the moves themselves, like the rest of the links do. Next, we don't have a reference for what the 'origin' really is (maybe we do for one or two moves, but for the most part across the project, we don't). Half of the time, links like that are incorrectly linked to other articles. The links serve no purpose other than to make an assumption about where the name of the move came from, which any idiot do the same and change it. — Moeε18:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. i tend to think that where the move name origins come from are usually obvious, though I suppose it is Original research w/o a source. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:PW is currently hosting the first Professional Wrestling Stub Reduction Drive. Details can be found here and all members are encouraged to get involved, with two weeks left to go.
This section is intended to warn users about potential targets of vandalism and speculation: professional wrestling events from major promotions for the months of April and May.
Refer to WP:NC during the process of renaming an article, if a name does not adhere to these guidelines, be bold and move the article to the correct target name. If there is a naming conflict, follow the steps to a resolution or discuss the move on the project's talk page.
Avoid overlinking in an article. If a subject has been linked once already in the body paragraphs, there is no need to link it again. Lists are the only exceptions to this policy.
The lead section of an article should introduce the subject and summarize the entire article's contents. The size of the lead will depend on the size of the article.
Over the past month, WP:PW hosted the first Professional Wrestling Stub Reduction Drive. In one month, the number of stub-class articles was reduced from 562 (13.84% of the project's total articles) to 477 (11.64%). More work expanding stubs is always appreciated. See here for more information.
This section is intended to warn users about potential targets of vandalism and speculation: professional wrestling events from major promotions for the month of May.
WWE signed April Jeanette, better known by her ring name Miss April, to a developmental contract.
On May 8, WWE signed Fred Sampson to a developmental contract.
TNA announced a new television show, TNA Epics, that will broadcast its inaugural show on May 15 on Bravo in the United Kingdom.
Editing Tips
This is a section in the newsletter devoted to help familiarize project members with the Manual of Style and general editing tips.
The project's New Year's Resolutions are listed here, and a list of topics that are close to Good topic status is listed here. Consider helping by achieving an aim listed or by improving an article on the Topics list to Good Article status.
Please familiarize yourself with the general notability policy of Wikipedia. Avoid creating new articles that do not satisfy the requirements.
When the title of an refers to several things, it is necessary to provide links or disambiguate the page so that readers typing in that title can quickly navigate to the article that interests them. For example: World Heavyweight Championship (WWE).
Delivered: 10:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)
MJ Template
I stated "Who ever nominates stuff like this" The key words, there are WHO EVER. I did not make any comment directed at any one person, to accuse me of doing so otherwise, is libelous. Buddy I should mention, I live in the Sue Happy State of California, and will be happy to sue. You do realize that because your unwarranted accusation was read in the state, who are liable under this state's laws. No matter how screwed up they may be.--Subman758 (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes I am a Military Veteran. But I am also a resident of California, and have been so for 25 years now. When you look at the grand spectrum of Left Vs. Right, Communism, is on the extreme left, while Fascism is on the extreme right. In California our leader are extreme leftists. Another facet of Communism is leaders we can't seem to get rid of. If you look at a CA election map you will see most if CA is a red state. Yet because of the populace of the North Coast we must all suffer. Case in point we here in South Orange County want to build an extension to the 241 Toll Road, This extension has been planed for 20+ years. But the people of San Francisco, and their sierra, surfrider clubs wont let us build it. Frankly the leaders of San Francisco should worry about San Francisco, not a community 400 miles south of them. And worse yet they are trying to force a State Constitutional Convention, against the will of the people to get rid of term limits the people just force on them. Hmmm That sounds like Communism to me. The people of California are not communists, but they are being force to live under a communist state government.--Subman758 (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't know much of the politics of California, since I live in Florida, but I know that California is not a left state (at least the people of California), considering they are show as a right, or blue, state during elections. Yep, I pay attention to those, even being in Florida myself.. The fact people are democratically elected into office by the people of California, and not placed by other leaders, should tell whether a country, or in this case, state is run by communists or not. Seems to me, your ambition of a toll road extension has blinded you into blaming the residents of another area of California, the California government and not blaming who placed the people into office in the first place. Your definition of communism sure is unique, though.. — Moeε15:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
California is a Left State. Blue equals Left or Democrat, Red equals Right or Republican. If you don't the state is left then why is it our two Senators are two of the most liberal in the Senate. Barbra Boxer, and Diane Feinstein? The Speaker of the House is a Liberal Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco. The State itself is mostly red, but the North Coast, has enough people to keep it blue. I live in Orange County, and pound for pound Orange County, is probably the Reddest, county in the United States. The rest of the state however......
We are the only state that has 639 convicted Murders on Death Row, but have not put anyone to death in 4+ years.
Every state office is held by a democrat, except for the Governor, who might as well be, given whom he is married too. The state Senate, and State Legislature, are dominated by Democrats who want to take from the rich (LIKE OBAMA, Whom Florida voted for?), and give the poor, (THE POOR ILLEGAL ALIENS THAT IS.) My only hope is that in 2010 Californians wake up. I hope they when our states leaders try to blame California's problems on Bush. The People rise up and realize that for a quarter century (25 YEARS!!!)that the state's politics have been totally controlled by the left.
One other thing, I am a union man, and proud of it. But there are five unions that killed this state. Police, Fire, Nurses, Teachers, Prison Guards.
Tell me what kind of warped world is this when a cop brings home $120,000.00 a year. (AND THAT'S A REGULAR BEAT COP)
Tell me when our Test scores are the lowest in the country, and our Dropout rates are the highest. Why should the shitty good for nothing teachers, that make the good ones look bad, get to keep their jobs, and drive $75,000.00 cars to those jobs?
California is a pit I pray you never have to come here. I would like to run for Governor in 2010, but I have no money. I speak the truth about this state. Unlike Obama's false hope, and change we can believe in, California need REAL CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!!--Subman758 (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Er, yes, I got my sides messed up color-wise.. Regardless, I think this is the whole reason I am apolitical. I think you might be interested in the Political compass (http://politicalcompass.org/) as a review of your political standing. The political compass is a graph of four views and graphs a dot according to answers to the quiz. The four types being: Authoritarian/Fascism at the top, Neo-liberalism/Libertarianism in the right, Communism/Collectivism in the left and Libertarian/Anarchism at the bottom. At the end of the quiz, it gives you the position of the dot, and the position relative of famous politicians or figures.
Notable people who fall in the top left corner of the graph include Joseph Stalin.
It is interesting to note, that George W. Bush falls in the top right corner, along with most modern day leaders of countries, like Stephen Harper and Angela Merkel according to their political views. Thankfully (even though I am apolitical), I am at the polar opposite of them and I am in the bottom left. Other people where I ranked on this compass besides Gandhi, are Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Coincidentally, my graph point is directly on the same spot as the Dalai Lamas. Who knows, maybe I'll start taking up being a Buddhist!
Sorry I'm rambling. My point is, instead of complaining on Wikipedia about the political actions taken by a government that was elected by yourself, or rather the state you live in, and making pointy flags about the Unites States government, vote for someone else and inform yourself. — Moeε09:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
List of Florida State Alumni
I just wanted to keep it congruent with the rest of the article. Feel free to change it back. Also: thank you for the less on rollback (it will not happen again). Jccort (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Moe, you seem to be an image expert and I would like some assistance. I would like to get this image on the commons for use with a bio article: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9313013@N04/1251954676/. It is licensed CC and I am not sure what to do next. If you could do it for me that would be great, or please provide a little guidance and a few pointers. Thanks again.Jarhed (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
There isn't a template for those who are not on the Birthday Committee, but Happy First Edit Day! LAIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Olivia Newton-John - (2) album cover.jpg
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Olivia Newton-John - (2) album cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Admrboltz (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:SJRCC logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
New logo was created in its place as a part of the renaming of the school. Deleting is fine. — Moeε17:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to join WikiProject United States
Hello, Moe Epsilon/Archive 31! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Buckcherry - 15.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles08:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The photos that were deleted are not screen-shots and are original photographs taken by me and released under the appropriate license according to Wikipedia guidelines.Additionally, these photos are NOT the same photos appearing on Panoramio or Google Earth. When removing or questioning relevant content please make sure you check facts instead of relying on someones personal opinions. Joey Eads (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Three things: Firstly, I can not undelete anything, nor did I delete them to begin with. Second, the Administrator's noticeboard archives shouldn't be edited to add new conversation. Last, make sure you clarify the copyright status of images next time you post them. Like I said in 2008, images from Panoramio and Google Earth cannot be labeled as a freely licensed imaged. If they are not Google Earth of Panoramio images, you took the images yourself, and release them of all rights, have an administrator undelete and tag them as such. — Moeε01:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Images appearing on Panoramio/Google Earth are not copyright by Google or Panoramio,
As you can clearly see at the bottom of ALL Panoramio image pages...
Did I? I'm sorry, I knew I edit conflicted once with one persons comment and I re-added their comment with the closure template, I'll re-add it if you haven't done so already. However, it should still remain closed. It is an obvious keep here. — Moeε17:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
You probably don't remember me, but I just wanted to let you know that it has been five years since I last contacted you.
I was going through a few of my old posts for good times' sake and came across your name - unlike most of the editors I interacted with back then, you're still active! Here's to our continuing perseverance and efforts to keep Wikipedia rolling. Hope everything is well on your front!
Hey Master of Puppets, I certainly do remember you. I'm still active, technically, by virtue of me logging in every so often to make a few edits :p I wish I could spend more time on here like I used to. I know it's been a while, but I never forget my friends. :) Hope you have a good Independence Day as well. — Moeε20:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, there you go! I wish I could devote as much time as I used to - I'm currently preparing to finish my degree, and that takes away so much valuable time! But oh well, life has to come first I guess. Here's to another five years! m.o.p03:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I am finishing a degree as well and after that I'm (hopefully) transferring to a university. I do that and then there's even less time for Wikipedia, but life does come first. Indeed, here's to another 6 years (Apparently my wiki-anniversary is coming in about 5-6 days :p) — Moeε06:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Article name
Please let's have that discussion on the article talk page. I don't want to have that discussion on user talk pages. It doubles the discussion typing, effort, and time. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I know, I hesitate putting a label on an editor like "single purpose". They might not be single purpose, but just a new account or someone who was brought there by themselves instead of redirected there from another website, for example. Thanks, though. — Moeε01:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks like over on Facebook it was canvassed as a an attempt of wiping Occupy Ashland off of Wikipedia, I'll head over there and explain things if I can. — Moeε01:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I was accepted into their group and I explained that Wikipedia was not a vote and invited them to create an account to expand the article with reliable references. — Moeε05:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Instead of RVing...
Could you just fix it? The images in question were uploaded long before any of these rules existed, so if you're familiar with them, just fix it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Maury. I apologize if it seemed rude or inconsiderate of me to revert. I am familiar with the rules of WP:NFCC, however I am just unfamiliar with the Prograph articles and the copyright status of images about them. I can give you a blank template as to guide you along:
=== Fair use rationale for [[ARTICLE NAME]] ===
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws, and the stricter requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content policies, because:
Fair use images can be used in any article as long as a rationale is provided as to why they would be fair use and there is commentary in the articles about what is in the image. All that would be needed to be done is to create a new rationale for use in articles about data flow languages. Note changing "Fair use rationale for ARTICLE NAME" to "Fair use rationale for ARTICLE NAME and ARTICLE NAME 2" in not a new rationale. It would require its own rationale separate from the first one you wrote. If that is done, you can use it on the articles you want. — Moeε23:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I don't mind. I was just looking at your talk page and noticed you saying you made a typo to the name and corrected it. I am able to move files on the Commons because of file mover access, similar to file mover on en.wiki. — Moeε00:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Moe Epsilon. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011. Message added 09:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Actually didn't vote in the first one, I commented, and I didn't even get to comment in this one before it was withdrawn :p — Moeε23:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
You really need to provide a specific explanation, because your generic pre-canned boilerplate automated template doesn't provide the information that would be necessary for me to fix the alleged problem (if any exists) in any way that I can understand... AnonMoos (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
First, the template was not automated, I placed it there myself personally. Second, the template gave a clear reason if you read it. The problem is there is no fair use rationale provided on the image description page. Please read WP:NFCC content criteria 10(c). For every use in the article namespace, the image must have a clear fair use rationale relevant to how it is used in the commentary within the article. Please read Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for how to give a proper rationale. — Moeε08:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It's obvious that the entire Tuvia Grossman article is built around this specific image in the particular form in which it first appeared in the New York Times, but I am really not expert at the fine parsing of Wikipedia technicalistic bureaucratic paperwork requirements, and the link Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline does very little to help me understand what specifically needs to be done, while your vague and highly-generic pre-canned boilerplate template really does absolutely nothing whatsoever to help me in any practically useful way. AnonMoos (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow, in six years of editing, I don't think I got a barnstar for significant article expansion. I truly appreciate your gratitude, it means a lot to me. :) — Moeε13:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate your help. And about "Yue Chinese", I was simply referring to it by what the English Wikipedia language article lists it as. If you feel they won't like this, I can change it to Cantonese. — Moeε18:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome. Thanks for your change. Just for your information. "Yue Chinese" is a term invented by Mandarin speaker. Natively, it is romanised as Cantonese "Yuet", not Mandarin "Yue". Cantonese is the common name in English for hundreds of year, which means the speech of Kwang Tung, the synonym of "Yuet". — HenryLi (Talk) 19:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thanks for explaining, I see that now that I review the en Wikipedia article on Cantonese. Let's just hope I don't run into these problems on other languages. :) — Moeε20:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
No, that is not what I said at all. I said notable versions of the song should have their own infobox. If the article was expanded to the extent of an entire single being listed there, like on Wicked Game, an infobox is fine. On Strawberry Fields Forever, you will see a list of people or bands who covered it. A list of people who covered it does not. HIM covered the song as a single, twice in fact and gave it its own cover and has its own track listing. — Moeε10:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Musician's infoboxes
I am not certain what point you are trying to make. When I first began editing here in 2006-7 I recall vividly that the infobox for Elvis Presley was a model for those infoboxes when the person is a musician. Musician's biographies have been my specialty for some time- as well as finding, uploading, and placing photos in Commons for use in all language Wikipedias. With perhaps two issues with other editors here, I've worked on well over 3,000 separate articles here without complaint. Generally, I am the one who has to add the infoboxes and photos on the majority of them. So, which edit put this bee in your bonnet? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you please be more specific, with a diff of what edit or comment I have made, that you are referring to? I don't understand what you are talking about, honestly. — Moeε17:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow, my mistake. Meant for another editor who left sort of a cryptic note on my talk page. Don't know how you got into the mix! It's what I get for staying up two nights, I suppose. Well, nice to meet you? :-0 --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Please help me, I need to edit the Chamber Made Opera Wikipedia Page... I know I need to put more references in and would love to be able to do that but cannot change anything. Please advise me on the best way to do so... Thanks
At first I wasn't sure what you were talking about, but now I do looking at Chamber Made. I reverted your edit on November 4, because it either was directly copied from a website onto Wikipedia, or it wasn't information that was written in a proper tone for an encyclopedia. If it was copied from a different website, it could be a copyright violation to re-post that information onto Wikipedia, and that is the reason I reverted since it looked copied. In addition to that, I would like to quote some of the text you inserted into the article:
Chamber Made Opera is putting the chamber back into opera, and inviting itself over to your place. A new series of domestic-scale chamber operas has been commissioned and developed for presentation right in people’s living rooms.
Please know that Wikipedia holds a policy of having a neutral point of view, and content should reflect that, so text that advertises, endorses, states opinions as fact and has other language which is not becoming of an encyclopedia, should be avoided in that situation. You are free to write something yourself and provide citations to factual information about the Chamber Made if you choose so, however the text you inserted before looked like an advertisement. — Moeε05:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
less and less users are willing to stick their neck out and participate in it, simple as that. However, tool apprenticeship is probably not the answer. The answer is the fix RFA by making it less confrontational so more users will be willing to apply for adminship the traditional way. However, fixing RFA requires a lot of editors who don't see it as broken to admit there is a problem, but some aren't willing to take that step yet despite the many flaws that are presented over and over again
Yes, you are absolutely right. It should change fundamentally, but it won't - at least, not any time soon. However, what we can do is, try something just a little bit different, for a short time, with low risk. Baby steps. Chzz ► 05:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, to be honest, if anyone cares about my opinion, I think it should just follow the example that Jimbo established in the beginning, that it wasn't a big deal. He went and he sysoped a group of editors that had been here a while and trusted with the tools, and it was as simple as that. It's my personal belief that if you don't want to run for adminship through a traditional RFA (which would still be available), you could just request adminship through bureaucrats reviewing you. Bureaucrats are the ones who are trusted in the community to assign adminship to editors to begin with, so if a majority of them feel you could benefit from the tools, they should just give them to you per "no big deal". If they think you need to run for adminship the traditional way, then that would be the result. That's a solution that is easy to implement. If anyone decides to run with that idea by the way, call it the WP:JIMBORFA. :) — Moeε05:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, yes, totally agree. But, it ain't gonna happen. Whereas, a trial of giving rights to a few people for a limited time might actually get consensus. Surely, any change is good? Chzz ► 05:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not entirely confident in the process working (note: I am not an administrator and this process would probably benefit me). Wikipedia:Requests for tool apprenticeship really concerns me in that any simple consensus discussion will automatically be subjected to the same editors who are just as restrictive and stingy with giving out permissions to anyone. A simple AFD formatted discussion is going to get derailed into the same things RFA is already suffering from. The next thing we know, there will be questions, diff links to unrelated content disputes, WP:NOTNOW, etc. The more I look at this proposal, the more it looks like it would just be turned into RFA (protection), RFA (deletion), and RFA (blocking), except this has heavy limitations which requires someone to look after your every edit. Is it progress from the current RFA process? Maybe. Is it going to be any easier? No, not really. Having another editor look after your every protection/block/deletion is going to put heavy stress on editors for an entire month. Not only are they going to have to try and perform flawlessly for a month, but the editor looking after their apprentice has to check all their logs, their talk page, noticeboards etc. to make sure nothing was too controversial for an entire month. If, let's say, 100 editors request a tool, that means another 100 or so editors are going to be preoccupied with checking up with their apprentice instead of editing the encyclopedia or doing admin tasks themselves. It isn't impossible, but it would require just as many editors who want a tool, to also check up after the apprentices. — Moeε06:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moe, Chzz linked me this conversation. I think I can directly answer some of your concerns. First of all, the process is specifically designed to not require continuous monitoring of apprentices, because of the excessive cost of doing so. Instead, their actions are reviewed whenever they come back for a new request. There would be somewhat more monitoring during the process trial, but mainly to gather information for the report. It is a real possibility that request discussions may become too stringent - but the concept is that because apprenticeship is time limited and subject to probation, discussants would be more willing to "give them a chance and see how they do". Whether it plays out this way in practice is best tested by a process trial. Dcoetzee07:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Dcoetzee. That would be my main concern right now, is with the discussants' unwillingness to let their personal criteria be more generous. I suppose a trial would be the best way, but given the communities conservative tendencies towards even reforming RFA (or even admitting a problem), I would lean towards them still having a high standard of criteria for allowing them the tools. Also, editors rehashing issues unrelated to the tools being used is still a strong possibility, and those can completely throw discussions in a tangent. Right now I'm neutral on whether to support or oppose it (though I am leaning towards support simply because there should be another way). — Moeε07:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Good thoughts. I think what it's going to come down to is some good moderation of discussion - people who aren't afraid to take some authority and say "I don't think that's relevant - let's focus on the main task they'll be using the tool for." (or even hide tangent discussions in boxes) If there are enough people like that in there, they can shape what things get discussed. My goal in setting the three criteria was to provide a starting point for that, but I would also be operating down in the trenches keeping people on topic. Dcoetzee07:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
That would be wonderful, to be honest, and I'd help with keeping people on topic myself if this goes through. I could have used one of those moderators willing to hide tangent comments myself at my last RFA in 2006, when someone voted oppose based on not reading enough Deepak Chopra. (RFA was different then?) :) As long as other editor's criteria aren't dangerously high, this whole thing could turn out good. I've been here for too long for me to be successful in RFA (irony), so I hope your suggested process goes through so I could get a useful tool around here. — Moeε07:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
No problem, it's a conditional support, based on any other concerns that may be addressed, but it is support for now. :) — Moeε08:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I relalise Dcoetzee has already answered you, but I wanted to add my own little response;
"Having another editor look after your every protection/block/deletion is going to put heavy stress on editors for an entire month" - no, because they'll just do uncontroversial things. It's not a lot of stuff to check, and as long as they stick to what they say, there won't be any stress at all.
"say, 100 editors request a tool" - not possible. The proposal is for ten at a time, for a month, for a short trial of 2 or 3 months.
Let's try it. Let's not get bogged down with detail. For the sake of progess, let's try something - e.g. 10 established/non-problematic/experienced/clueful users access to 'delete' for a month, and show that the wiki doesn't explode. Or 20 of them, for two months. Or edit-protected. Or, whatever. I keep saying, I'd support "admins must wear a funny hat on a Thursday, if only for the sake of showing change is possible. The 'danger' is minimal; the potential benefit in the longer-term - helping us fix the core issue of "RfA is fucked" - is massive. Chzz ► 18:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I must have misunderstood it, I didn't see the bit where it would be limited to ten editors for the trial. I still believe the stress will be high for someone who is on apprenticeship, it actually might be a little more so than I thought given it's only ten editors to look after. That, and even uncontroversial tasks can end up being controversial if a mistake is made and I can almost guarantee one of the ten will a mistake, causing proper drama to ensue. I still support a trial, but there is bit of considerable risk to this. — Moeε19:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know we had administrators, almost a decade ago now, who passed RFA like that. The risks aren't really associated with the use of the tools, which is about as easy counter on Wikipedia as anything else. The risk is associated with the editors not wanting to participate in process anymore (which is a real concern in RFA now). The reason RFA is struggling to come up with candidates as the years have progressed is because established editors have felt inclined not to participate in the scrutiny of RFA (such as myself where I have been through five previous RFAs). All I'm saying is that, like with any alternative procedures to RFA, it's more than likely there is going to be a heavy debate against any candidate getting apprenticeship based on their failures of prior RFAs or them not choosing to go to RFA first. The risk is editors not only being thwarted in RFA due to RFA being broken, but again being declined in a request for apprenticeship when they could likely use the tool. I'm not saying an editor being declined in both is without good reason, I'm saying that some editors who are repeatedly turned down in request processes could either decide not deal with the community anymore, or leave the project entirely. Basically, I think it should be our responsibility to ensure that editors who are going through this trial are less-controversial themselves. This ensures that the trial actually has a shot at legitimacy in being a full-fledged process. If the trial produces drama on the requests portion, editors aren't going to want to support it being a full-time procedure. This is why I was making the suggestion below that conversation remain on topic as to concerns of the trial apprentices' ability to use the tools, rather than unrelated conversation. This is to avoid our new process morphing into an RFA-type atmosphere. — Moeε23:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
We already have an "RFA-type atmosphere". We can diffuse it, if we allow just a tiny way to break though that curtain. Chzz ► 01:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moe, in an effort to encourage users to manage discussions in the right way I've made a minor amendment to the proposal. Since I based these in part on discussion with you, I'd be curious what your impressions are or if you had other suggestions. Thank you! Dcoetzee06:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I truly appreciate the thought that you have given into actually amending the proposal based on a concern of mine, and I hope others accept it as much as I do. I like the thought behind "if the discussion is heading in a different direction, close it off." I think it may have to be more clearly defined as to what irrelevant discussion consists of, rather than a broad "long-threaded discussions". If concerns are legitimate, threads can be long the way I see it. It's, in particular, content disputes, past disagreements such as CSD/AFD discussions where the opposing editor was the primary author, and other areas such as that where the discussion isn't about how they would manage the tools. Regards, — Moeε07:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense. I've gone with this revised language: "Irrelevant discussions that are not related to the tool or area under request are discouraged and may be hidden if they occur." Thoughts? Dcoetzee02:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Please don't rename categories out of normal process
Hi; I've had to reverse some of your out-of-process renames of categories. This shouldn't be done. In many cases, category names have been carefully chosen to conform with various conventions and guidelines. If you want to suggest that one or more be changed, the process that is used is WP:CFD. Thanks. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me? Where in Wikipedia:Disambiguation or the manual of style about disambiguation pages does it say that the disambiguation goes in the middle of the title? Are you seriously suggesting that X (league) players is preferred to X players (league)? How was this "carefully" chosen? For example Category:San Francisco 49ers players is for the current franchise of players and we had Category:San Francisco 49ers (AAFC) players to disambiguate it. Thus, I moved the contents of Category:San Francisco 49ers (AAFC) players to Category:San Francisco 49ers players (AAFC). Can you explain how the reverse is correct and what was wrong with mine, other than I didn't feel the need to bother the entire community with a week-long discussion to fix a problem that I did in a matter of a few minutes? Lastly, don't be condescending and say "some" of renames, then do a wholesale revert by going down my contributions list. — Moeε00:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I know your first reaction might be to debate the choice of names, but that's not really the point of my notice. My point is that if you think there are better names, you need to propose better names using WP:CFD, not just by deciding to unilaterally change them. If you do want to debate the best naming convention for these, WP:CFD is an ideal forum and I'd be happy to add my personal opinion about it. I have found that the surest sign that something is going to be "controversial" is when I or another user has the opinion that the correct solution is obvious or self-evident. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
No, if you wanted to leave me a note that CFD might be better avenue for discussing it without reverting me, that might be one thing. You are reverting me, however, implying that the previous name is what it should be and that there is no problem with it. Since it isn't even a CFD matter, why do you feel List of Newark Bears (AFL) players is a better title than List of Newark Bears players (AFL)? If you think the other name is correct, then please explain your reasoning for unilaterally reverting me. If not, why are you reverting something you agree with? — Moeε01:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The category reverts I am making are reverting a name change made out-of-process. It's completely without prejudice to any proposal you may have to rename them. As for the article moves, the onus is on you to use WP:RM to propose an article name change once someone reverts your article name change, since that is an indication that such a change is "controversial". On the merits, my view is that the disambiguation disambiguates the name of the team, not the entire name or the word "players" or "venues" in particular. Of course, it's a debatable point, which is why you need to seek a consensus decision instead of just deciding that your way is how it should be. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I just wanted to notify you of why your changes are being reverted and giving you a tip on the next step if you want to pursue the changes. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Well I don't need your tips, I need an explanation why you are putting disambiguations in the center of the titles. "My view is that the disambiguation disambiguates the name of the team, not the entire name or the word "players" or "venues" in particular." Again, I ask where in Wikipedia:Disambiguation or manual of style says that it goes in the middle of the title? We have multiple categories or pages of the same name, we add a disambiguation to the end of the title. I don't think this really needs to be discussed, this is simply manual of style of disambiguation pages, category, list or otherwise. Again, why do we need a week-long discussion for moving the disambiguation to the end of title of any page? — Moeε01:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Look, I could have thrown you to some other editors who are quite happy to push for blocking users who perform widespread unilateral category renames like this. But I didn't. I figured this was preferable and the more reasonable action to take. I realize you don't think it needs to be discussed, but I believe it does, and I wouldn't be surprised if the creator of the original categories would think it does, and if I threw this out to a number of other editors I'm sure I could easily come up with a dozen within the day who would say that it should be discussed. So why not discuss it. If you are right and everyone agrees with you, that will be good for you. But if not, then won't we be glad we discussed it? Good Ol’factory(talk)01:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Your non-replying replies are really not helping settle this. If you are seriously suggesting that I go and start a week-long discussion on a ton of pages as to the reason why I think these pages should be following our own manual of style on how to disambiguate a page, to only have half of them actually moved because the smarter half of the community showed up to discuss the move, then you're out of your mind. Which is more disruptive here, me making changes to move dabs to the end of titles, or me making those changes, you reverting them all, me starting hoards of discussion, and pending the result, having to undo your reverting of me? You could have just come to me with a reason why you think any of these pages should be moved back by using, I don't know, reasoning and we could have discussed this and I would have moved it back provided there was a reason for the dab being elsewhere in the title. — Moeε02:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't take hoards of discussions: they could just be combined into one. And frankly, it could probably be easily dealt with by a test case nomination, to see which name format is preferred—the original or your proposed one. I'm sorry you don't want to follow the process, but the process is there for a reason, and one of those reasons is to avoid situations like the one you've created. I think you're either not understanding what I'm saying or choosing not to understand it—but my overall point is that this is not a "conflict" between you and I that we two need to work out between ourselves. The point is that there is a process for making major changes like this, and if you want to propose that such a change be made, you need to follow the process. That's all. I tried to make my notice to you as friendly and non-confrontational as possible. In that I suppose I failed, but perhaps I've learned a lesson about which route to take in future similar situations. Good Ol’factory(talk)02:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The only thing I am misunderstanding is the logic to want to go discuss something which doesn't need it. The names I chose do not conflict with other pages, as I re-assured before I moved them. They do not misidentify what the categories are for and they most certainly follow the standard for page names unlike your reverts. It is a conflict if you go and revert wholesale what I've done, and I don't appreciate it at all. I don't find it helpful, and I'm disgraced at you personally. Leave my talk page, please. — Moeε02:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
"The only thing I am misunderstanding is the logic to want to go discuss something which doesn't need it." Ok, I think I tried to cover that point. I'm one person saying that it probably needs to be discussed—when one person says your changes are controversial that should be enough to convince you that it's not as clear cut you may think. But as I mentioned, I know of many editors who would agree with me if I brought this to their attention (which I have not, yet). I'm not reverting everything that you have done "wholesale"; I'm just reverting the category renames that you have performed out-of-process. Good Ol’factory(talk)04:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
You failed to bring a reason for them being bad renames, other than it might be controversial and that we have a process for moving things to avoid said controversy. And like I said, leave, please. — Moeε04:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The onus is on the person proposing the change to provide reasons, not on the person in favour of the status quo. I can provide a number of reasons, but the entire point of my notice was procedural, not substantive or argumentative for one way or the other. I don't have to post here about things like this, but I think in general it's preferable to the alternative which some other users favor, and I thought you would agree. Good Ol’factory(talk)05:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
You obviously don't understand that I provided a reason, and that reason is pages with ambiguous titles get a disambiguation parenthetical which is usually placed at the end of the title of the page, not haphazardly in the middle of it without a good reason. Just because crap exists and no one has changed it for a while, that is basis for reverting that "this was the standard?" If you have a reason, say it, because I'm tired of this little "we have a process, we should discuss it and I'll give my opinion when we have one" sctick when I'm right here discussing it, because it's getting old. — Moeε05:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Procedurally, the "reason" is generally provided through the processes of WP, which is why they exist, and these were not followed. Hence my initial reminder to you.
Substantively, since you seem insistent on refusing to divorce it from procedural concerns I can set out as follows. One reason that I would provide for arguing in favor of the status quo is as follows. A category name in WP (we'll call this "A") that incorporates the name of another category or article (we'll call this "B") always uses the same format of the portion of its name that is adopted from B. So for instance, if there is an artile that is called "BLAH (DISAMB)", a category name A that would be named after FOOs of BLAH would be "BLAH (DISAMB) FOOs". That principle is very clear from previous discussions on category name formats. Adopting the general principle to the specific situations here: B is New York Yankees (NFL). Thus, a category about seasons of this team, which is our A, becomes Category:New York Yankees (NFL) seasons, which was what it has always been until you came along and changed it. Now, there's nothing inherently superior to the convention that has been adopted, except that it is one that has been selected by consensus time and time again in numerous discussions. Therefore, to depart from this we need (1) a proposal to do so that is opened up for discussion, followed by (2) a consensus to depart from the pre-existing name. A unilateral name change gets us neither. That's one reason I would provide. It's not the only one, mind you, but I think it's a good one that would be convincing to other users, because it has been convincing in several discussions in the past. Good Ol’factory(talk)06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Well if I nominate them for CFD renaming, I guess I'll see you there, because I'm done talking to you about it. — Moeε06:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
College football navboxes
Moe, thanks for your help cleaning up all the college football navboxes. If you see team navboxes on biography articles, e.g. Timmy Chang, those should simply be deleted. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, alright, I wasn't sure if the biographical articles were being transcluded on the templates anymore or not. I noticed names on some NFL main team articles and assumed the college football teams did something similar. I'll be conscious to remove it when I see it. — Moeε08:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll go back over my edits to remove the navigational boxes from teams I have already done. Thanks agian, — Moeε08:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, there's been a lost of messiness historically in that department. Consensus at least within the college football and college basketball projects is to keep team navboxes off of the biography articles. I've been working on a project to standardize the college football team navboxes, which also purges all listings of individual players and coaches from those navboxes. You can see the related discussion here. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
There are still 35 FBS team navboxes that haven't been hit yet with this wave of standardization. Miami is one of those 35. I am to have the rest done in the next few days. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Well I went ahead and removed that particular section and removed it from the biographical articles for Miami. If you need help with removing those, let me know and I can go through it real quick :) — Moeε09:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for all your work on this stuff. I see you did a nice job upgrading the NFL QB navboxes recently as well. If you see any succession boxes for NFL QBs, e.g. [here] on Todd Collins (quarterback), which I've just removed, those can be deleted as well. These succession boxes are totally redundant in the presence of the more efficient, comprehensive, and sleeker navboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
It's cool. I thought the succession boxes were really redundant, and I was going to propose to the NFL project to remove them, but if it's alright to remove them already I will when I get to them. — Moeε02:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Moe, FYI, you may want to create a Pittsburgh Panthers "retired numbers" navbox to replace the team navbox on player pages. That's quite a collection of notable Pittsburgh players. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Dirtlawyer1. Yeah, it looks like {{Michigan Wolverines football navbox}} is the model for current college football related templates, so I suppose once {{Pittsburgh Panthers football navbox}} is updated, the retired numbers will be removed from there. I forgot to remove the template from the biographical articles, sorry. I can create a retired numbers navbox. I'm not sure if you guys want "retired numbers" navboxes for all the colleges, but I can create one for Pittsburgh if you like. If I create it and you guys don't want to use it or delete it, that's fine with me. — Moeε13:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem, glad I can help. I'll go take a look at the college football championships tomorrow. :) Happy holidays. — Moeε02:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Moe Epsilon, for you precise and relentless efforts to standardize navboxes for college football and other sports topics, I hereby award you this barnstar. Happy new year! Jweiss11 (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I have to disagree with some of your points that you made there, the first being that the French, not Spanish, word début is not acceptable in that instance. Many English words of French origin such as résumé use an acute accent, and is an acceptable variant in that case. I'll try and address some of the legitimate concerns, though. — Moeε21:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Category renaming
Moe, for categories that need name changes, the way to do the renaming is via Wikipedia:Categories for discussion instead of creating a new category and emptying the old one. A category like Category:Las Vegas Bowl could be put through a speedy renaming under criteria C2D ("rename instating concordance of category and article naming"). It takes a couple days for this to go through, but this is the accepted procedure and it's less work too. A bot will go through and make all the needed category changes. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I have attempted to make a number of valid, cited edits to the Adolph Rupp page to ensure the page meets academic standards. I have also attempted to remove subjective opinions and uncited material from this page as I feel that this type of material is not for Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages should reflect information that is cited, verified and held to a high academic standard.
Every time I make an edit, it is undone and called vandalism. For example, I removed the following sentences from the page because it is not cited and completely subjective.
"Rupp was a master of motivation and strategy, often using local talent to build his teams. In fact, throughout his career, more than 80% of Rupp's players came from the state of Kentucky. Rupp promoted a sticky man-to man defense, a fluid set offense, perfect individual fundamentals, and a relentless fast break that battered opponents into defeat. Rupp demanded 100% effort from his players at all times, pushing them to great levels of success."
There are many examples of entries like this on this page. This type of entry is not constructive to wikipedia and I actually believe it hurts the community by discrediting articles as they are completely subjective and biased.
Hello. I checked the Adolph Rupp article for you and removed the paragraph of text you quoted that started with "Rupp was a master of motivation and strategy..", as it was not referenced and did not represent a neutral point of view. Looking through your contributions, you had to have edited the article anonymously, so I do not know which edits are yours. If you would like for me to add material to the article, I can do that if you tell me what exactly it is that you want on there. Just remember that it has to be reliably sourced and it take the tone of an encyclopedia. Also, remember to sign your comments by typing ~~~~, thanks. — Moeε19:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing that paragraph. This page is loaded with unverified information that does not represent a verified point of view. One of the contributions I made was adding a section on the 1952-1953 Death Penalty Season. This is the most severe punishment ever handed out by the NCAA and Rupp's team was the first team to receive this penalty. I think it is important to include an objective reference of this event on this page.
My entry was as follows:
"==1952-1953 Death Penalty Season=="
Adolph Rupp was the head coach of the UK basketball team when the NCAA handing out the first death penalty punishment. Basketball stars Alex Groza, Ralph Beard, and Dan Barnstable were arrested for taking payments from gamblers in a point-shaving scandal during the 1948-49 season, when Kentucky won its second straight national title. An NCAA investigation found that the UK basketball program had paid players and that coaches had knowingly allowed athletes who were academically inelligible to compete. The Southeastern Conference first banned Kentucky from competition for a year, and the NCAA followed suit. Unlike subsequent instances of the death penalty, the entire University of Kentucky athletic program was barred from competition for the 1952-1953 season, not just the offending basketball team.[1] Kentucky coach Adolph Rupp had claimed his team was untouchable: "They couldn't reach my boys with a ten-foot pole." He was wrong. The NCAA suspended the Kentucky basketball program for the 1952-53 season.[2]
It was replaced with this:
Rupp was not without his controversies, however. Prior to the 1952-53 season, the NCAA asked all member institutions not to schedule Kentucky. At the time, it must be noted, this was only a request by the NCAA, not a mandate, and was directly due to Kentucky's involvement in the Point Shaving Scandal of 1951. While not personally responsible for any of the acts of point shaving, Rupp was charged with failing to monitor his players, and a subsequent NCAA investigation into the Kentucky program turned up rules violations. It was because of these rules violations (and not actually the point shaving) that the NCAA made their unusual request to all member schools. In the end, all the nation's NCAA member schools complied with this request (including all of Kentucky's fellow SEC schools), and Kentucky was forced to cancel the entire 1952-53 season. This scandal hurt Rupp greatly, both on a personal and professional level.[3]
This reference and write up of this event is not objective or neutral. The contributor who made this entry has been repeatedly cited for adding unverified and biased information to UK basketball pages. I could keep pointing out edits like these that aren't verified or referenced. However, I feel that the page will likely just be reverted to its previous, biased state. Thank you for your help with this though. I really would like to see this page accurate and objective.
Thanks for posting that, I'll look through both versions and the references and clean it up and post a revised paragraph of the information from both of you if possible. I can't directly copy-and-paste your version either, since yours needs work too. Sentences like "He was wrong." are things to avoid in the future, since it would represent the tone of something like an essay, rather than an entry into an encyclopedia. I'll work on this and get back to you. I am currently a little busy and will get to it as soon as I can. Check back in three hours at the most and I will have at least started re-writing the section. — Moeε20:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I've went ahead and re-done the paragraph now. The most I could reliably source for the article that is worth noting is the introduction about the point shaving, the investigation and the death penalty being instituted. I removed the quote by Rupp entirely, as that isn't inherently important to the section. — Moeε22:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking time to correct the page, I appreciate. I think your changes were good and I understand why you removed that quote. However, I would also add that the investigation proved the Kentucky was paying their players. This was in one of the citations I added. Thanks again for your time. Leochews (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I re-read the references and I must have missed that, I added it into the article. Thanks, — Moeε23:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course, your edits have been undone by the same person who undid all of mine. This guy has been repeatedly cited for adding unverified and biased information to UK basketball pages. How is he still allowed to edit pages on wikipedia? Leochews (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I hardly think using a website called "Big Blue History" is a legitimate source. It would be like citing a blog. I don't mind not call it the death penalty because the death penalty is a media term, its not an official NCAA term. However, it is very commonly used and ANY page on the internet (including wikipedia's death penalty page) will list UK as the first school to ever receive this punishment from the NCAA. Simply put, the death penalty is when a team is banned for an entire season. But, I have a problem with how parts of that entry are written. I still think its heavily biased towards the individual. What about the following rewrite?
Rupp was the head coach at Kentucky during the year of the Point-Shaving Scandal of 1951. On October 20, 1951, former Kentucky players Alex Groza, Ralph Beard, and Dale Barnstable were arrested for taking bribes from gamblers to shave points during the National Invitation Tournament game against the Loyola Ramblers during the 1948–49 season. This game occurred during the same year that Kentucky won their second straight NCAA title under Rupp.[7] A subsequent NCAA investigation found that Kentucky had committed several rule violations, including illegal payments to players and allowing some ineligible players to compete. As a result, the Southeastern Conference voted to ban Kentucky from competing for a year and the NCAA requested all other basketball-playing members also boycott scheduling Kentucky, which they all eventually did. In lieu of these actions, Kentucky was forced to cancel the entire 1952–53 season.
I think this version is fair, unbiased and is accurate.
I also have an issue with the last sentence in the first paragraph of the UK Basketball section. Words like "legendary" and "powerful" don't really belong in an encyclopedia article. Leochews (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I've went ahead and removed the words "legendary" and "powerful" for WP:NPOV concerns, but I think the section on the point shaving scandal can remain like it is, pending further changes. Big Blue History uses multiple sources that are verifiable, such as the Associated Press, various news medias, etc. I'll go back through it later and if I can find the individual news reference within big blue history, I'll use that instead as the reference and then link to big blue history. — Moeε18:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Moe Epsilon. You have new messages at Jrcla2's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Adolph Rupp
I have tried to be fair with my edits, and I list the 3 best sources of historical text on UK Basketball in history, all of which discuss the particulars on the 1951 point shaving scandal in detail. You are receiving other edits from individuals who are biased against the University of Kentucky, and thus, are reporting false information.
First and foremost, Kentucky did not receive the "death penalty" in 1952-53. The NCAA lacked such power at the time. Instead, the NCAA ASKED the member institutions NOT to schedule Kentucky. As noted, this was a request, and technically, could not be enforced. Further, other sports at UK, including football, baseball, tennis, and track, were ALL allowed to compete at Kentucky in the 1952-53 season. Such is a matter of record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbfwildcat (talk • contribs) 06:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
First, do you actually have references to prove what you say is true? One that someone else here on Wikipedia could look up and read for themselves? Second, the content you re-inserted was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles should not read like news articles or opinion pieces, and as such sentences like "Rupp was not without his controversies, however." is not an appropriate tone. — Moeε06:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, what you are posting is inaccurate. Further, how can I list the references any clearer than I do? Page numbers?
Further, the edit that you now to stand is not only wrong, but it also lacks context in that section of the article, as there is no proper introduction for it.
Tell me, do you know this subject? If you don't, then you caanot say if one edit is more factual than others. I have information and reliable sources that conflict others' edits, and I would appreciate if you would do some fact-checking before removing them. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbfwildcat (talk • contribs) 06:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I do have some knowledge of the subject, and I have looked up the information you are speaking of, and you are partially right, in that the 'death penalty' didn't take away the rest of the programs for that season, so I made that change and reinserted the material per the reference of http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/statistics/1952-53.html. — Moeε07:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I will further tidy it up, but the way you have it now doesn't make sense in the context of the section.
Second, there was no DEATH PENALTY in 1952. At the time, the NCAA lacked the legislative powers to punish schools in such a manner. In fact, they technically didn't punish Kentucky. As stated, the NCAA ASKED all member schools not the schedule Kentucky, but didn't require them to do so.
Seriously, I'm posting facts here, and you're siding with someone who isn't, and plus knows nothing on this subject. Tell you what, I'll further tidy up my wording, and how about you let my edit stand until you do some research? I'm confident that you will find my information accurate. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbfwildcat (talk • contribs) 07:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I would seriously suggest you not revert again, lest you be in violation of WP:3RR for this 24-hour period. Continue talking about it here before you make changes again. Reverting isn't helping anything. — Moeε07:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Next, if you bothered to read what I typed on the article, it reflects that it is erroneously referred to as the first death penalty, even though one didn't exist then (which the reference says). It's mostly because your editing looks like a news article or an essay rather than an encyclopedia. Much of what you wrote into that article isn't worth keeping, because it isn't written in the manner of an encyclopedia. Him having "personal trimphs and failures" and comments like that, doesn't represent a neutral point of view of an encyclopedia. — Moeε07:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, we are in agreement. Can we let this stand as is. It makes sense, and is accurate and can be verified.
I assure you, I'm not trying to be obtuse, and as you can see, I was proven right on several points. I hope this ends this. Thank you for your help and research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbfwildcat (talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding, I will having to make the following changes though, so I hope you discuss these first:
I changed the opening sentence to "However, despite his achievements, Rupp's career was also marked with some controversy." to "Rupp was the head coach of the Wildcats the year of the point shaving scandal in 1951." because of WP:NPOV concerns with that opening sentence.
I changed that he wasn't personally involved and that he was accused, to a quote from the big blue history reference about what exactly he was being criticized for, and made it more clear that there was never any evidence to connect him.
I removed "which it is actually not" from the end, because that is what the word erroneously means, it means that it is not actually a death penalty, but that it was often referred to it as.
Glad we could work this out, if you ever have any problems with editors on content, let me know and we can try and work through them. — Moeε08:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, I'm tired of this. For the record, the "Scandals of '51" are sometimes referred to as "The Point Shaving Scandal of 1951". OK?
Listen, I'm a college basketball historian, and an expert on this subject. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but that's what I am. For once, I wish Wiki would respect my factual posts, as I've yet to have one reverted due to inaccurate information. Case in point, this subject, as I was proven right on all counts.
Once again, Peace. Can we just PLEASE let this stand for a while. You've done a good job here, so thanks. Let's let it ride for a while, huh?Jbfwildcat (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to be argumentative about this either, and I don't plan on making a huge change anytime soon. I was simply editing the article for how things are typically done on Wikipedia, like removing additional text and changing the header. As for the title, if we have a verified common name for it, then we can use it, but it has many, many different versions of how it written: "Point-Shaving Scandal of 1951", "Point Shaving Scandal of '51", etc. I was just using a generic non-title, "the point shaving scandal in 1951". Giving capitalization implies that it has a proper name, and with so many variations, we probably won't agree to one version, so it's better left capitalized and just written like I put it in the article. Please try to understand that not every edit to the article is some kind of attack on you personally. This website is completely open to edit by the public for whatever improvements they feel the article needs (with the exception if the page is protected). The section will most likely be edited again sometime in the future, and with the exception of blatant vandalism, i.e. inserting random comments and words, trying to improve the article with references is not vandalism. If someone tries to edit the section, please try to be more understanding and work with them to resolve the problem. Edit warring by reverting the page and not discussing it can lead to confusion and frustration for both parties involved. We simply can't rely on experts in the field to make sure the article is accurate, since everyone who edits the article will not be an expert. I know a lot of your changes are with good intentions, and I thank you, just try to work the side of the community who aren't experts in making sure that the information you give is easily provable fact. — Moeε20:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the page now is pretty acceptable. Before this series of edits, the page was extremely biased and not neutral at all. I also don't think your edits are constructive to this page from a historical perspective. You have frequently been blasted for making content up, edit warring, original content, sock puppetry and writing completely biased material. The information that I used in the article was cited from other sources on the internet, not books written by Adolph Rupp's best friend. Using a book written by Rupp's best friend and calling it the "greatest historical text about UK basketball" is like using a book written by Sean Hannity to describe George W. Bush. Its going to be completely one sided. When I write something, I strive for it to be as objective as possible. Anyone can get online and say they are an expert in something. Its just very hard to prove.
I also completely disagree with your assertion that this wasn't the first instance of the death penalty. The death penalty is a media created term, not an NCAA term. It refers to a situation in which a college team misses an entire season due to serious violations, like paying players and using ineligible players. The 1952-1953 UK basketball season was the first instance of this happening in the history of the NCAA and is therefore the first instance of the death penalty. Its fine though if you want to call it something else because death penalty is not an official NCAA term. I can agree with that. Leochews (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Michigan Wolverines
I don't know how to make changes to wikipedia pages, but I noticed that this web page's
Hello SimSportPlyr, it looks like Thom Darden was taken in the 1972 draft and the article on the 1969 Michigan Wolverines football team specifically was referring to players who were taken in the 1970 draft. — Moeε01:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
_album_cover.jpg){kind=link}
_album_cover.jpg){kind=link}
