User talk:Moe Epsilon/Archive 35

{| align=center style="border:5px solid #D0E7FF; ; background:#FFFFFF; -moz-border-radius:15px; padding:5px;" | width=775px valign=top |

July 23, 2014
Hello, fellow Wikipedians. After a few months of inactivity, I've come back to just say goodbye to all my friends and colleagues as I move forward in my life which unfortunately does not include Wikipedia. I had many highs and lows on this website as I grew from the teenager I was back in 2004, to the adult I am now in 2014 on Wikipedia. I'd like to think that throughout the ten years I've used Wikipedia that I've helped the site, and that others will have benefited from it. If I helped just one person at all, I feel good about my time here. I can't continue editing on Wikipedia on a full-time basis, however. There's just so much negativity that the site creates that I can't be the person I want to be and be an editor at the same time. I hold no resentment towards anyone though, not anymore. If you need my help, just message my talk page, and I'll see if I can help you one last time, if I can. If you want to talk, you may want to try the Wikipedia channels on IRC, where I might still be. Thanks for everything Wikipedia, and I hope there comes a day where I can contribute fully again, because that won't be anytime soon. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  06:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry to see you go. While I hope you stay around, if you believe that this is the best for you, then good luck, and best wishes for the future. --Rschen7754 06:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a real shame. :( I wish you could've stayed, but if you feel you can't take it anymore, I wish you the best in your future endeavors.  Zappa  24  Mati   23:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I came to look up when you helped me and see this. So, yes, you helped me and can feel good ;) - Do what's best for you, - you will be missed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You created WP:YGO, I'm going to carry on your legacy by helping to continue to develop it. T F  { Contribs } 15:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas and thanks for being my Wikipedia Mentor BionicWilliam (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Garyrobbo
i am unsure as to why you have removed my edit?

Full of bollocks
Yes that's probably true, but I appreciate your retraction. What we have to do here is go with consensus. I thought the NCAA stuff was posted last time out? In any case, I defy anyone to demonstrate a global sporting event with 250,000 spectators at the event (just after our latest terror attack and a Second World War bomb was found there, no less!) to be not worthy of a few seconds on ITN. To combat this heinous posting, you could always nominate five shoo-in ITNs to knock it off its tree. Or, just moan about it. Meh. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I thought the NCAA mention was denied a ITN spot last time (although I could be wrong). It's not even so much denying global sporting events. It's a fight every time something occurs like the NCAA Championship Game. The game was worthy of mention. The Boat Race is a collegiate sport as well. If collegiate sport is not ITN worthy, then all collegiate sport is not worthy. It shouldn't be one or the other - because I can guarantee you with Americans being 64% of the English speaking population - few know about the Boat Race. It's all a bit pointless though, as you mention, because five more things will come along and knock it off. But an argument could be sparred if guidelines were more definitive to what can and can't appear. If it doesn't qualify for ITN, why do we vote? If it meets some criteria previously discussed, why do we vote for things that already meet criteria? I don't really care if the Boat Race is on the Main Page, but the NCAA Championship Game should have been as well by that logic. However, this will keep being brought up every year because of the mystery guidelines of that page. It's all a waste of time, really, because you could just have a section for notable sporting events and include them all instead of it being part of "news". Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  22:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * }