User talk:Wknight94/Archive 14

Possibly unfree Image:070924 katyn memorial jc.jpg

I have responded to your comment regarding the copyright status of this image. Shane Smith (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to hearing the outcome. If this image is determined to be in violation of Wikipedia policy; I will happily remove it. However, I am curious why this image is a candidate for deletion under this policy, while the image of the Colgate Clock (Colgate_clock_front.jpg) appearing directly below it on the page has not been tagged this way. I am not asking this question because I feel singled out, put-upon, or even miffed by the discussion about my image, but because I think standards that are haphazardly applied are not standards at all. Shane Smith (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sugest in Perment Ban of I.P. 169.139.16.2

Currently in a teperary ban untill October 2, 2008, it is the I.P. of Treasure Coast High School of Port St. Lucie Florida U.S.A.. As a school, many diffrent people use the computers, and, i feel,these many diffrent will continue to attempt to harm wikipedia, in an attemp to amuse them selfs. I thank you for you time and corroperation. --Mrlego9 (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We'll see what happens in eight months. I agree it seems likely that a new long block will come soon after but there's no reason to assume that now. The IP may even change for the school. We don't generally block IPs permanently. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding a cold case

Hi. :) I will freely admit that I'm a little uncomfortable broaching this subject, because I have no idea whether there's already been tons of wikidrama about all this. I respect your work, and I really hope that I'm not stepping on your toes.

I've been approached about an old name block, Ggggggggggggggg12, with which you were involved that seemed to go rather awry, with a person who looks to have intended to be a serious contributor instead departing in frustration and anger when he couldn't quite figure out how to proceed. The name was a clear violation of username policy (it used to be explicit in the policy, though it seems it no longer is), but his offense seems to have been accidental, and there was an unintended double-whammy in that the legitimate article he was working on at the time was deleted for lack of context ([1]) while he was trying to figure out how to resume editing. (You may already know this, but I'm repeating the details anyway because I looked back at the end of July in your archives and didn't see any mention of it, so I don't want to assume. :))

Anyway, I was asked to help provide a friendly closure for this user by another editor, just as an extension of GF, and I haven't been able to come up with any good way to do that. It was last suggested at my user talk page that with your permission the user might be unblocked, with a note left at his user page instructing him how to request a new username as set out at {{Uw-ublock}}, in case he should return. Alternatively, since the username he requested has since been created and would need a bureaucrat to usurp (if they even would, it having been used as recently as October of 2007 and this user showing no sign of action), I was considering simply leaving him clear directions on how to request a change name at his talk page. I'd be grateful, if you have time and inclination, to hear your opinion on whether and what might be done to potentially improve the experience of this person, who seems accidentally to have fallen afoul of two processes/policies on Wikipedia on his first day. (Oh, p.s., I have watchlisted your page. :))--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 04:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, this is quite old, isn't it? It seems highly unlikely that the user will return under that silly username but I will unblock it all the same. One would hope the user simply created a new username - one that wasn't as random - and is quietly editing with the new guise. I did have a long (too long actually) discussion about this or a similar username block and have mostly avoided WP:UAA since. Folks there can't seem to get their stories straight and I don't have the patience to wait for a standard to be ironed out. My rambling aside, I'll unblock the account and everyone is free to try to contact him/her in any way they see fit. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite old, very much a cold case. :) I don't know that the editor will ever return myself; like you I imagine that if he's going to do so he has already found a proper username and moved on. I'll leave him a note explaining how to change his username in the event that he does. I very much appreciate your helping me find a response to this. The editor who approached me about it is very good (and highly sympathetic), and when asked to help out with something I do like to try. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandals

Here's one, who's already been warned. [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Another vandalism-only account, who continued after being warned. [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Another vandalism-only account, continuing after being warned. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you were referring to Davidthecharmruffin (talk · contribs)?  :) Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Forgot to paste it in. [4] Danke. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

An IP address vandal, who's been warned more than once. [5] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, already blocked, never mind. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A vandal who obviously knows himself well: [6] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This IP address vandal was already warned once. [7] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Another IP address vandal. [8] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another: [9]. I hope I'm inserting this link correctly. Thanks. Jonneroo (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Curious. Months apart, and uniformly useless. A part-time vandal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, unless perhaps the vandal is hiding behind other logins or IPs. And thanks for the revert on another page a few moments ago. I fail to see the humor in these moronic charades. Jonneroo (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, probably one of various addresses within a range of IP's. And it's only funny to the narcissist who does it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This one also continues after being warned. [10] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This one has been warned several times: [11] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you'd mind blocking this bozo for awhile: [12] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was too slow. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No hay problema. User:Luna Santin beat you to it. It was a lunar eclipse, as it were. Speaking of which, I just went outside and checked it out. Clear and beautiful. And below 0 here in the State of Hockey. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I saw that. -13 in International Falls. I don't miss that. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not for nothing that they call it Frostbite Falls. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one-note vandal: [13] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This user's behavior exhibits a pattern of trolling at best, vandalism at worst. Can he/she be given a timeout and asked to sit in the corner? Thanks in advance. Jonneroo (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

SportsNuggets

Yes, I caught the drift of that conversation. He's like an idiot savant. Savvy in some ways and... well, you know. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How long does a temporary editing ban last?

Yeah, how log? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.200.200 (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably less than a permanent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Page move -- Western New York and Pennsylvania Railroad

Could I have just fixed that with rollback, or is admin action required to fix it correctly? Coemgenus 18:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you could have reverted the move (see WP:MOVE#Moving over a redirect), although I don't think rollback works, specifically. You could have done a regular move in reverse of the vandalism. It still would have left a nonsense redirect - you would have had to tag that with {{db-vandalism}}. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:150.237.47.38

My bad - I saw the user had edited the same article that they'd just got a final warning for, and assumed it was continued vandalism. However, the edit in question was legitimate [14]. I think the block may be questionable. Sorry about that. Tivedshambo (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Johan Santana

Minnesota teams continue their tradition of being farm teams for other teams with deeper pockets, or at least the willingness to dig into them. The Twins fans have enjoyed Santana for 8 years. Let's see if he has a few more good years in him. [15] The deal is 6 years with an option for a 7th... otherwise known as the "Santana Clause". *<:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha! Well done. I haven't followed him too closely... what was the explanation for the off-year in 2007? Hopefully it's just that the Twins in general were no good. But more losses last season than in any two of his previous seasons could get me nervous! —Wknight94 (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Twins' hitting fell off markedly, and the Twins did not play well for any sustained period. That doesn't account for everything with Santana, of course. I expect him to do well with the Mets. I'm not sure he's worth the money, but who is? However, the Mets are certainly taking a risk, as local commentators were saying -- With pitchers, maybe more than with hitters, they can lose their stuff almost overnight. But we'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, we all know what happened to the Mets in 2007. All they'd done since then was replace their steroid-rage catcher with a not-as-good catcher and lost several players to free agency, so they needed to do something or risk becoming a minor league team themselves! Pedro is old and possibly broken down, Glavine is gone, Maine was great in April and mediocre the rest of the year, and Oliver Perez is inconsistent at best. Pile on a trashy bullpen, a closer prone to dead-arm, and most of their power hopes resting on a couple of geriatrics (Alou and Delgado) and it's not a lot of fun to be a Mets fan lately. I'm getting those feelings I had leading up to 1993. If they pick up Vince Coleman and Bret Saberhagen, I'm not even watching! —Wknight94 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how quickly a team's fortunes can fall. Which makes the perpetual contention of certain teams all the more amazing. How do the Yankees manage to stay in the race, year after year? It's not just luck or Yankee mystique. Is it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Joe Morgan

Nice work fighting the vandals and mudslingers on that page, I've fought some of them off before, but I have limited time to edit here and they insist on coming back. Keep it up! Trevor GH5 (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Further nonsense should probably be mentioned at WP:BLPN too. I'm noticing too many sports commentators and writers getting slammed by a small but vocal minority (Mike Lupica was another one I tended to for a while - and probably will again soon). —Wknight94 (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomenon.

You protected this indefinitely on Jan 18; there has been no discussion on the talk page since then--I suggest it's time to unprotect. DGG (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. It's evidently one of the key points of contention related to the pseudoscience wars (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist, etc.) so I'd keep a close eye on it if I were you. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fabian Bruskewitz

You have erroneously blocked me as a Sock Puppet after adding to the page for Fabian Bruskewitz. The information put on the page was from the April 14, 2002 Omaha World-Herald, a very public and reliable source. Now, in order to send this to you I have had to use another computer at work but in my entry to the page I signed on using my user-name: Robbutler as my legal name is Rob Butler. The information published does not violate BLP as it was neither controversial or condeming. If you have a problem with what I wrote give me a reason.

Rob Butler rob_m_butler@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Blofeld of SPECTRE / Redmarkviolinist

I've seen your comments, hopefully it's all sorted now. Noticed thus through "related changes" on my talk page. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I thought this conversation was over. We all have work to do and I would appreciate it if you would do the same elsewhere. Its not a big deal but to tag somebody's own account twice looked like clear tomfoolery and vandalism. It isn't a normal mistake that is made and not one that has ever happened to me. Do not make out as if I am the one making the error here. Any comments made were done rather in surprise rather than intending to be uncivil. Thankyou ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bizarro World!

I hope I did not come accross as disruptive. I think the 'ridiculous personal attack edit as an example of making perfect sense' seemed fitting as to where the discussion was heading. I am not completely sure that the primary parties in the topic are concerned about bettering Wiki. 70.4.237.54 (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's raising Wikilawyering to a whole new (embarrassing) level. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Liebman?

This guy [16] kind of has the Liebman M.O., but I'm not sure it's him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. Has he figured out the wiki-syntax used in that edit? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. But what I'm getting at is his placement of these nicknames (some of which are valid) and then parenthetically citing unnamed biographers. Which is the Liebman pattern, i.e. to give a vague "reference" but no specifics. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a typo, but I meant that he successfully bolded the nicknames. Does he usually do that? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Liebman is usually punctuation-challenged. The only article this guy has touched so far is Gehrig. I think you reverted him at one point also. We'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Misc pages for Deletion

a tool has been privided for your use at the named page 70.4.248.49 (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR crossing

You've seen the RR crossing sign, such as Image:Highway-Rail_Grade_Crossing_Advance_Warning_sign.svg. How about this idea for a "3RR crossing" sign? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Very nice. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I need to do better with the 3's. [Done.] Off the subject, did you see my e-mail question? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Either my screen is messed up, or the "circle" is egg-shaped. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It was the screen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

!תודה

Thanks for the revert on my userspace! :) I'm going to go make sure that IP is blocked, I think. They came back again?! Cheers! Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 09:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a couple range blocks to try to stop that. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

John Deere

With all the vandalism going on here, shouldn't this page be protected? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 18:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 18:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

John Deere... didn't he invent the hard disc? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny. BTW, could you also protect The Wright Brothers they've been recieving a lot of vandalism too. Thanks! RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 18:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, as a matter of fact I will (and did). What a mess. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me guess... from editors claiming the Wrights weren't the first to fly? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No idea. All I know is I did a diff from a zillion edits ago and there were no changes - ergo all vandalism in between. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, just some random nonsense. Thanks again! RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 20:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For finding and reverting the vandalism to my talk page so quickly, TheMindsEye (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Was someone I was in the midst of blocking. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

IP block

Hey there Wknight94. The Ip (12.146.212.2) you just blocked has not edited anything since my "final warning". Maybe a bit fast? Or am I missing something? What were your thoughts on blocking? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Enough nonsense there, including a phone number posting, for me to assume nothing good was going to come from that IP in the next 31 hours. You can overrule if you want. Probably wouldn't make much difference. I guess it's odd that it was reported when it was. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird Al Yankovic

I would like to request protection for the Weird al yankovic article. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 05:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been a content dispute. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 05:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like WP:AN3 may be a good place for this. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 05:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

But won't they reject it if it's an IP? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 05:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

They shouldn't, no. (Unless you know something I don't). —Wknight94 (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Hawaii delegation to the 110th Congress

A tag has been placed on Template:Hawaii delegation to the 110th Congress requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Question

I'm still very new as a contributor and I am running into some interesting questions the deeper I delve into things here. You appear to be a very busy and oft-consulted administrator, from what I have seen. I have read a lot of your posts in various MLB-related threads and I respect your opinions and insight.

In the process of stub cleanup work, I ran across a MLB player article here about which I have some POV concerns. What is the proper and least offensive way to address these concerns? I started to put a POV tag in the article, but the notice that would appear at the top of the article (had I placed one there) would suggest that there is an ongoing dispute at the talk page, when in actuality there isn't one (yet, anyway). Furthermore, should I attempt to contact the user(s) responsible for the questionable text first, to allow the user(s) an opportunity to address my concerns before exposing those concerns to the community at large, or place the POV tag and let things take their course? Thanks. Jonneroo (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words. At this juncture, I'd recommend starting a new section at Talk:Édgar González (pitcher). If the article were ridiculously one-sided, you could proceed directly to placing a NPOV tag but, in this case, it might be wiser to discuss (as you figured). I'll weigh in there since you brought it up to me. I'm curious to hear there what your concerns are. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Kansas delegation to the 110th Congress

A tag has been placed on Template:Kansas delegation to the 110th Congress requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Kentucky delegation to the 110th Congress

A tag has been placed on Template:Kentucky delegation to the 110th Congress requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry, I've been going alphabetically, and thus, didn't notice the pattern. I've removed them all from my list. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

then why is the category still around--Rockies 17^{Holla at Ya Boy!} 04:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Attempted to at the User RfC

Does this help? — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for giving me a good chuckle. I appreciate your good humor, especially amid a somewhat trying and tedious situation. Best, Johntex\^talk 05:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Hello... thank you for the note, and for the offer of a nomination for adminship. As you've noted, I have been offered nominations in the past, but did not feel quite ready to accept at the time. However, I now feel more comfortable with accepting the responsibility. Would it be alright to think about it for a few days to be sure, and so that I can review the procedure? Thanks again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, and thanks for your patience. Yes, I would be happy (and appreciative) to accept the nomination. I would like to spend a few days reading through the admin. reading lists, to prepare for the process. Does that work for you? --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll put together the nomination today. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, both for the nom and the kind words. I've accepted the nomination, completed the questionnaire and have transcluded the RfA. Thanks again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello... a question - what does one do when a SPA/suspected sock puppet comments at an RfA? Should I even respond? I'm concerned that doing so might just be what the guy wants, but on the other hand I don't know if it is considered bad form to just ignore the comments. (I strongly suspect this is from the 143.*.*.* IP/confirmed "EverybodyHatesChris" sock who disagreed with my edits this afternoon.) Any guidance you can offer would be appreciated. Thanks... --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much

Just wanted to thank you once again for your nomination and all your support throughout my RfA. I really appreciate it. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

RTV

You may want to look at WP:RTV- there's (I think) a general consensus that claims of leaving the project should not be used as justification to delete user talk page. They serve as a useful record of past events. Friday (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, from Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish, the only person I see trumpeting that viewpoint is you. Why don't we leave the guy alone and delete his talk page if he wants it deleted. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Could be. I might see it differently if I believed he was actually going away. In most of these cases, the disruptive editor simply makes a new username and continues their disruption. We don't improve the project by helping these folks cover their tracks. But I suppose general arguments are better on the appropriate talk page. Friday (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well which is it? Is he a poor maligned editor who was improperly blocked? That's how WP:AN is sounding. Or is he someone practicing disruption? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

All I know is, when I tried to explain to him why edit warring was harmful, he wasn't listening. He continued to insist he was wronged, despite him continuing to push his version even while being reverted by multiple other editors. I did not see this as a good sign. Oh well- if another account shows up and continues, we can treat it as standard edit warring- we don't particularly need to care whether it's the same person or not. Friday (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam?

Is this guy a serial spammer, or is he just a PBS fan? [17] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This one is definitely a spammer. [18] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd to complain about internal links but they were clearly up to no good. The lying edit summaries about fixing grammar were a giveaway. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Userspace and Usernames pretending to be articles

If you can ever figure out User:2004 World U-17 Hockey Challenge, User:2007-08 Bozeman Icedogs season, User:Bozeman Icedogs Roster, User:1974-75 Quebec Nordiques season... please let me know! We have a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey if you have a chance, please reply there. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat

Why, if I may ask? User:Dorftrottel 19:44, February 12, 2008

Blocked means blocked. The person is allowed to use their talk page to request an unblock. Or maybe to participate in some light collaboration to help the encyclopedia (even that is probably questionable). But to continue the same weird trolling that got the person blocked in the first place? Absolutely not. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Ok, if that's what policy says. I for one would like to see someone extend a helping hand and e.g. engage him in sensible discussion about more appropriate places to let off steam and/or provide meta commentary or suggestions to improve things. User:Dorftrottel 20:46, February 12, 2008

I don't buy it. How is editing his own talk page trolling? Nobody has to read there, and we allow wide latitude in user space. This talk page protection just seems mean. I request that the talk page be unblocked. We're bocking him from editing, not trying to silence him. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

But what is the point? All he was doing was using his talk page as a scratch pad for stuff that had nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, or with getting himself unblocked. I'll bring it up at WP:ANI. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cumulus_Clouds

I'm wondering if somebody can close this or do...something...with it. BQZip01 has been online a couple of times since Sunday, making comments on various talk pages and even allowing himself some time to rollback my edits at BQ again, but he's made no action on the RfC. I've left a comment on Johntex's talk page and he said he'd email him, but it doesn't look like anything's going to happen. How long do we typically wait before these things are shuttered? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Now it would seem he's on a long wikibreak. Forgive me for saying so, but this is getting kind of ridiculous. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I tagged for speedy, it's gone. It was a week old and uncertified. Lawrence § t/e 07:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

UAA problem

It's been sorted out. See the last thread on my talk page for the reason why. :) Regards, Rudget. 15:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw all that in the WP:UAA history. I always forget to check for broken headings around the time the bots stop updating. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Offensive user name

On Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, you removed my report of User: Bugger rance, with the edit summary "User-reported: 3 blocked". But this abusive ID has apparently not been blocked, and is still usable for offensive edits. Please block it! RolandR (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The one user name is blocked.[19] If you're worried about the underlying IP or IP range, you'll need to try WP:ANI and/or WP:RFCU. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the block log. If you go the the user page, and then click "Logs" on the left, block logs do not display; is there a bug here? RolandR (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that link shows logs of things done by the user. A block is something done to the user, not done by the user. You can see blocks to a user by going to their contributions page. Then you'll see a "Block log" link near the top. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Old page

I got my previous page back, restored by the deleting admin. I realize now what the issue was - it was the template. I fixed that, so it shouldn't get deleted again. Thanks for your help. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what?  :) Did I help something? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically not, in this case. Just thanks for being available to help, on this and other occasions. :) The issue on that page was that the template included a category called "temporary wikipedians", which just kind of sat there since last summer, and suddenly yesterday the page got deleted. So I took away that category after the deleting admin restored the page. I had first sent you a message about it, but then I found there was a delete-log, so I was able to notify the actual deleting admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I didn't see where you had asked me about it. I must have missed a memo. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Through e-mail. I just sent another e-mail saying you could ignore the previous e-mail. So now you can ignore them both. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh!! Sorry, I get messages here long before e-mails. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe I'm not long for the current user ID, either. If I'm interpreting this IP address' comment correctly, I've got a "long glowing history of vandalism". Or maybe it was directed at someone else, and I've just got a guilty conscience. [20] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't listen to trolls. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I prefer to think of them as "squirrels", and I seldom give them more than one acorn. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Squirrels are usually cute; trolls are downright ugly. :) Jonneroo (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Only evil trolls are old and ugly. Or have you never heard of a beautiful troll before? Oh, wait, wrong movie. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hidden Identity

Hi, Anonymity has been moved here without discussion, and clearly this move is inappropriate, can you fix it ? As it make take a while to be noticed at WP:RM. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved back, move-protected, and asked the mover to stop. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Where should I go to request a revert of move like this, should I go to WP:ANI ? Cenarium (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sure. Or if you can see that an admin is online (which I was), try contacting directly. Either way. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

HI

Hi Wknight94. I am being attacked by User:Elonka and some of her supporters at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Workshop. Could you kindly give your opinion? Thank you. PHG (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Zorn

Sorry, I must have forgotten that first season in the NFC--guess there's a good reason I generally avoid factual editting. As for RotY, I think you did the right thing by removing it--there are enuf references to it from sources that should be reliable (eg Redskins[21] official website and local Seattle newspaper[22], I think it's likely that some organization named him RotY, but since it clearly wasn't the widely recognized UPI version, it shouldn't be mentioned unless it's not only sourced, but with the specific organization name that was involved. Shawis (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Emanuel Cleaver

Not understanding what the page is for, i let stand the two misspellings of Emanuel Cleaver as

[[Emmanuel Cleaver]]

occurring on User:Wknight94/2006 House Election list.
--Jerzy•t 06:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -

- for the user talk page revert! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 14:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Satanamets1 Image

Sice you have such a big problem with my Satana image feel free to erase it. I thik you can find better things to do with your time then worrying about Wikipedia copywites. DLA75 (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am asking you just take it dowm for me since I am not sure how to. DLA75 (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

IP vandal

This guy 12.39.2.83 [23] is taking to reverting stuff on Talk:Northern Illinois University shooting. He took particular offense at my "Wacko in Waco" comment, but that's not directed at him or anyone on the page, nor did I make it up. If he hadn't copped such an attitude about that and other things, and had asked nicely, I might have reworded it. Anyway, should I take this mosquito to the ANI? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, does "neutral POV" really apply to the talk pages? Civility does, but not "neutrality". That's for the articles. Hence the lack of neutrality in the talk page, so everyone can speak freely and hopefully reach agreement. P.S. I'm talking to you instead of feeding that squirrel (other than the reversions). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, how silly. Did you actually find a pro-David Koresh person?! I wouldn't have thought that possible. Yeah, I'd bring that to WP:ANI or even WP:AIV if that continues. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He's still up to it. I'll bide my time, as there are others reverting him now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He went at me again, so I filed an ANI incident. He's saying I should apologize for allegedly violating a rule. I don't see that I violated any rule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't. Troll, troll, troll. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking there's a 1950s song: "Trooooollin'" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Now he's got a pal or a sockpuppet. We'll see what happens. I turned him in. The funniest thing was he accused me of "personally attacking" Koresh... as if Koresh had survived his little 1993 escapade in Waco and was now editing wikipedia. If we see an IP address of four sets of 666's, we'll know what happened. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

I've got a red-link user, who's only been on the system for 2 days, telling me that a source book is not a "verifiable" source because the author has an interest in selling books on the subject. That strikes me as a pretty novel spin on things. It would invalidate the use of any book (or website) that's specifically about a subject. But maybe I'm missing something? [24] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, believe it or not, there's even a noticeboard for such discussions. But I agree that making a blanket statement that his book is unreliable with no explanation seems flimsy at best. Books are often considered reliable since there are publishers and editors and, presumably, fact-checkers involved. But, there are others that disagree. There is currently an Arbcom case going on where I believe one of the issues on the table is the reliability of one or more published authors. It's a case-by-case basis really (hence WP:RSN's existence). —Wknight94 (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Does "veriable" now have to equate to "reliable"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell ya one thing... if they change the rules to where published source books are no longer considered valid, I'm outta here. That would invalidate nearly everything in the encyclopedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that would be silly. I think when people wish to challenge a published source that appears to be reliable, they would go to WP:RSN. (That's where you can send your new friend if s/he persists). The assumption is that published sources are reliable by default (or that's my take anyway). —Wknight94 (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They pointed me to the policy that says they want third party sources (or what the red-link calls "teriary" sources). I take that to mean that Grossman's book can't be cited unless some "disinterested" party has fact-checked it. But who checks the fact-checkers to remove their bias? This is nuts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's where he tells me he can zap anything Grossman says, on the grounds that it's automatically POV. [25] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How come this guy reminds me of Tecmobowl? If a 2-day old redlink decides something is a policy violation, it's gone. Something's weird here. Meanwhile, someone's already on him about his own approach to citations, so we'll see how long this guy lasts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clearly a sock of someone. Some would block for that alone (I don't typically). Implying that a published author lied in his book simply to improve book sales is a very serious charge. When such accusations turn out to be true, they lead to lawsuits and ruined reputations and careers. Hence why books are usually considered reliable by default. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

He could be a guy who edited under an IP address for a year. But he's suddenly zoomed in on TAOS and "Gidget", of all things. Somehow that latter one sounds familiar. I wonder if Tecmo was working on "Gidget" among his other endeavors? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted an incident, hopefully in the right place this time. [26] The other editor that I know of who has had a minor run-in with the red-link has also posted a comment. I doubt it will get much attention, since the energy will probably be focused on reverting the Fidel Castro vandals, of which I'm sure there are countless numbers. Also, I'm not asking you to comment, unless you want to. You gave me enough info to post the incident. Now we'll see what happens, if anything. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is why I'm recalling "Gidget". [27] User:Miss Mondegreen had edited it once. That user was Tecmobowl's only serious supporter. Oddly enough, once he was banned, Mondegreen made just a smattering of edits and then disappeared in mid-November. That's a pretty lame connection, so at the moment I think it's just a coincidence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I caught him in a rules violation. He lifted the episode guide directly from a wiki-banned website called tvrage. No wonder he was so coy about where he got it. I posted that to the incident report also. We'll see what happens next, if anything. Thanks fer listenin'. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I just sent you an e-mail on this topic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, another peculiar comment from a newbie: [28] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I got your e-mail. Obviously, much bigger fish to fry currently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And now that small fish has been fried. To quote Hawk Harrelson (again), "He gone!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RC-0722

Thanks for semi-protecting my page. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't really stop it though, as some guy messed it up because I warned him. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 20:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well we'll root out some sleeper socks that way I suppose. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

True. I think it's kind of funny really. I look at it like this, if you really have nothing better to do than vandalize my page, you need therapy. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 20:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Question, is the protection indef or temporary? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 15:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I made it temporary but I've seen some made permanent (user pages, not user talk pages). If you find a discussion advocating permanent semi-protection of user pages and you want yours done, let me know. I'm personally pretty much for it but don't want to ruffle anyone else's feathers. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know some people that have had theirs protected, but I'm really not for that. You see when I type I have a lot of typo's that I don't see, so I like people to be able to come along and fix those if they see 'em. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 15:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you - to a point. If you want it unprotected in a day or two, and left unprotected further down the road, that's fine. But I don't want to leave it unprotected while other people are having to spend their time reverting vandalism to your user page. That's not fair to them. Keep in mind too that it's only semi-protected, meaning IPs and new users can't edit it. Other established users can still fix your typos, etc., even now. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection of AN/I

Why have you protected WP:AN/I? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I only move-protected it. It appears that move protection is standard there, no? It only wore off because someone did an expiring semi-protect on it. I can't imagine there's much cause for someone to move WP:ANI. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ballpark model question

Back around 10 years ago, some architect had a model of a proposed retractible-roof ballpark for Minneapolis. It was on display at the Metrodome. Nothing came of that, and now they're building a domeless ballpark. I hope they keep the Metrodome around, because they might need it in April. Be that as it may, I took a couple of photos of that model. Would it be a copyright or some other kind of violation to post that picture somewhere here? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I almost missed this one. To be honest, I am not entirely sure. Believe it or not, there is a difference between uploading a picture of a two-dimensional picture and uploading a picture of a three-dimensional model/statue/whatever. Commons will delete pictures of statues but not pictures of pictures. Weird, eh? I may not be the best person to ask (hence why I'm not an admin at Commons). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically, it could be argued to be a picture of a "statue". It was a 3-D model and I took a picture of it. It's also, obviously, no longer on display at the Dome. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would think it could be valid fair use at the very least. There's little chance of getting a free picture of it since it no longer exists. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as someone doesn't gripe about "no fredoom of panorma". >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam?

Is this spam (i.e. to be deleted) or am I being too harsh? [29] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty bad to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

He toned town the rhetoric a bit (but not enough) when he re-posted it. [30] It's kind of a personal dilemma for me, as a former resident of the area, knowing that it's sponsored by the McLean County History Museum, a non-profit organization. However, the user is a red-link whose only entry has been the re-posting of this item several times. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Johan Santana

Our-guy-now-your-guy Santana is on the cover of the new Sports Illustrated. The article is calling him "The Savior of Port St. Lucie". No pressure there. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm uneasy about Santana - and the whole upcoming season in general. I knew last year was going to be rough - I didn't think they'd be in it long enough to collapse at the end. This year I have no idea. Santana at least gives them a chance - otherwise, it was going to be a struggle to stay around .500. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The opinion of friends who follow the Twins more minutely than I do is that Santana slipped a bit last year - which does not bode well. But the whole team slipped, so it's hard to say. The buzz around Santana could be typical New York hype. By your assessment, last year's collapse was nothing more than the law of averages catching up to a team that was overachieving (just as it would later with the Rockies). But you never know. After watching the Vikings thrash the Giants in early December, with Eli Manning having one of the single worst days a quarterback has had in the history of the NFL, I couldn't believe the Giants were still considered contenders - never mind the possibility of them winning the Super Bowl. Yogi Berra's adage about baseball can apply to other sports as well: "In baseball, you don't know nothin'." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

DNS disambiguation

Back on 2007-09-10T18:33:56, you moved the moved DNS (disambiguation) to DNS as per WP:MDP. I do not remember that state of affairs back then, I wasn't really editing the wikipedia much at that time. However, my reading of WP:DAB is that DNS should really point to Domain Name System since the vast majority of uses of "DNS" are intended for that topic. This is based on a google search for "DNS", the number of pages that link to the various target pages (hundreds for Domain Name System, the rest have maybe a dozen links) and, well my own (probably biased) experience.

I was going to be bold and "fix" this, but it appears that it will require an administrator change and I found that you had explicitly changed this stuff. Can you please explain to me why DNS should not redirect to Domain Name System and/or swap the DNS and DNS (disambiuation) pages around? Thanks. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a perfect case for WP:RM. It is clearly not an uncontroversial move. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Newbie COI question

Hi again. I've been here for five weeks and I am trying to pitch in in various areas, but I am a bit unsure of myself when it comes to handling abusers of the wiki.

This user account has its user page redirecting to a mainspace page, here. As you can see, this is a pretty blatant COI situation. I placed a COI tag on the mainspace page and posted a note on the user's talk page. What else can/should be done? Thanks for your help/advice; I know you're busy. Jonneroo (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My first thought is that the article looks like a deletion candidate. If I do a Google search on "Crayone -Bylli" (apparently there's a musician named Bylli Crayone), the results all appear to be self-promotion. You might want to tag it for WP:PROD. If you want confirmation first, you could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Graffiti - I have no idea what the notability standards are for graffiti artists. There isn't much activity there, but the most frequent commenter, Dfrg.msc (talk · contribs) is an active administrator and may be able to make a suggestion. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I decided to post a note on the admin's talk page and get his/her opinion. Jonneroo (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Damien Sandras

Could you please give me the contents of Damien Sandras which was deleted by you. This article has been submitted at AfC and I would like to see if it has been substantially improved since the deleted version. Thank you. MSGJ (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Perhaps I might ask for your opinion of the proposed article, which is better referenced. Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2008-02-24#Damien_Sandras. Thank you. MSGJ (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Advanced Software Concepts

Could you please provide a comment on why this article was deleted. I was looking at the policy of "Not Biting the Newcomers" and I don't believe I was given a fair chance. I had asked for suggestions when the article was first placed on the AfD list but did not get any response. That was followed by a period of inactivity until someone had relisted it in order to get consenus. Then Mr. Bill from Winnipeg provided what I felt to be uncivil comments about Advanced Software Concepts and then the article was deleted. During this time, I had researched and added credible and verifiable references to the article but it was nevertheless deleted. I would like to take this as a learning opportunity but it has not been positive thus far. Thank you. ASC-Brian (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Self-promotion?

Do you think I'm on the right track here? [31] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I just sent you an e-mail on this question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also asked another admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

AIV

In response to [32] - please see my reply to you on AIV... sorry if I prompted you to get cross un-necessarily!! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, point taken - I was just using TWinkle and glanced at the length of "irritation" on his page :-) before reporting. I'll take a closer look at dates next time! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Lupica edit

I've put a much-condensed version onto the talk page, rather than the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Lupica#Proposed_edit_.28per_BLP.2FN.29 Please take a look when you get the chance. 208.120.225.14 (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

your note on DNFT

I think that's the problem, generally people use the term troll much too frequently. Among the editors he wasn't talking to were pretty highly respected people...and just to slap WP:DNFT on the whole thing without distinguishing the good from the bad just sort of struck me the wrong way. I know I'd be put off a little if I was in a group of people someone was ignoring and someone pointed DNFT (no matter how indiscriminately) in my direction. Bottom line is that the word troll is used too much...AGF etc...I think it's a lazy shorthand (in general, not talking about your usage particularly) when describing someone's behavior. Anyway...just my opinions :) RxS (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Spotteddogsdotorg potential sock alert

Looks like Roy Leep is up for deletion again...see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Leep (2nd nomination). Look at Also We Brief (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)...who has only been here for a week or so and has tagging the articles of television meteorologists as "non-notable", similar to what Spotteddogs and his team of socks did....just thought you might want to know. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 01:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD closed, sock blocked, many edits reverted. Feel free to revert any other related edits per WP:BAN. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 01:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete?

This article has lots of problems, not the least of which is a misspelled title. Do you recommend it be nominated for WP:PROD, or is there a better path to take? Jonneroo (talk) 02:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can think of any number of reasons to flag it for speedy delete. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I redirected it. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Sir Knight has helped me out with this kind of thing many times. He's been nominated for the Academy Award for Best Redirector. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

He should win the ROscar then...LOL... Thanks. I usually take WP:BOLD to heart, but on stuff like this, I defer to the judgement of pros like you two. Jonneroo (talk) 04:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

He's the pro. I'm the con. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Image:NBC Stacked Logo Legal Identity.svg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:NBC Stacked Logo Legal Identity.svg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JGHowes ^talk - 18:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomenon

Would you please unprotect this article? It does not make sense to protect an article for six weeks. The parties have had an opportunity to work out differences. If they have not done so yet, and they resume edit warring, we can hand out blocks liberally until they stop.

Additionally, the entire external links section is full of spam, and should be deleted, except for one or two links. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You can do it. You don't need my permission. I was just responding to an RFPP request. That didn't mean I was going to watch the thing unfold forever. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Drugetwat

Hiya - thanks for your message. I think I must have been having a bit of a brain-melt. I read the username as "Druget Wat", rather than "Drudge Twat", so removed it from AIV (it had been wrongly reported through Huggle). Thanks for picking up after me...! _GB^T/C 14:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson possible 1RR violation

I realize this was over a day ago since this happened. But it appears that Chrisjnelson reverted Pinkkeith (talk · contribs) three times on Trent Green, which would be a violation of the ArbCom-enforced 1RR rule in effect until March 26. I'm coming here because I saw that you were the last one to block Chris for an ArbCom violation. Should any action be taken? Ksy92003 (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that but it's someone else's turn to try WP:AE. With over 1,000 administrators, I don't usually like when one admin hovers over a particular editor (unless it's a blatant WP:LTA case - I've got a couple of those going at any given time). You're welcome to try WP:AE though. With things not-so-much improved since the RFAR, I predict a renewal of the restrictions at some point. But that's from pretty well out on the periphery. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't want to have to come here and single out one admin to handle it. Before I posted here, I warned Chris, and he reverted it onsight. I'll take this to WP:AE. Ksy92003 (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your assistance with the Nhguardian issue. Best, --Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Probably a temporary reprieve but a reprieve nonetheless. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. "COME ON!"

Check this guy out: [33] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like that account's chances for survival... —Wknight94 (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a special category of wikipedia user: The meteor. It flashes brilliantly, streaks through a series of articles, and is consumed by flames. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandal

Vandalism-only account: [34] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

B. J. Surhoff

I'll happily remove the username I reported if you think it's inoffensive. Is this player's number 24? (Couldn't see from the article). Darkspots (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was giving my opinion and waiting to see if anyone agreed. And no, I don't think his number was 24 - I was merely pointing out that some people actually go by B. J. so it didn't seem offensive to me in itself. Of course, if vandalism started appearing, that would be a different story. That's a good account to keep an eye on because you may be turn out to be correct about the actual intent. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed the listing from WP:UAA because of Daniel Case's comments as well as yours. I think if the username had had the initials B.J. rather than the phonetic spelling I wouldn't have found it offensive. Per your suggestion, I will keep an eye out. Darkspots (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Michel Abreu

i created an article for Michel Abreu but it was tagged for speedy deletion. since you have lots of experience with Mets-related articles, i thought you'd be able to edit it and give the administrators enough to keep it. 24.193.193.18 (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (User:Streamless when logged in)

Hmmm, looks like a tough one. From what I can tell at a quick glance, his chances don't look great. He's only in Spring Training because he did well at AA but he's only hitting .182 so far [35]. One place I saw claims he's already 31 years old. I see the article's already been deleted. If he does make the majors, I can always restore the article with your name on it. Or you can try WP:DRV or ask Ckatz (talk · contribs) nicely if he'll consider sending to WP:AFD instead. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

even if he doesn't make the big club, he'll be in (at least) AA this year. minor-league ballplayers aren't "important" enough to each get a page? they are still professional athletes, after all. 24.193.193.18 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not generally, no. I think it's in WP:BIO - played in the highest level of their professional sport. For baseball, that's the majors. We make some exceptions for high first-round draft picks and others almost sure to make the majors in the near future. Many don't even think of Japanese baseball as sufficient for notability. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tile join

Hello, Wknight94;

If you think that deleting will help, then I'll support it. The length is certainly getting silly. J. Spencer (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a good idea, so I stripped the sock lists, put links to the relevant categories, and in general stripped the entry to its essentials. J. Spencer (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Liebman-like?

This guy has been posting various unsourced trivia, and was also trying to declare Lajoie the sole champ in 1910. I can't recall if that was one of Liebman's schticks or not. But you might like to know. [36] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tough one. He complained about Lajoie's 1902 stats. This IP also edited Jim Abbott which was a Liebman target. Location appears to be NJ too. Very suspicious.

Hard telling. I just sent you an e-mail about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

César Chávez

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to César Chávez, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. BigHairRef | Talk 00:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of notifying him that he notified the wrong guy. It was the redlink that blanked the page. My first thought on seeing this was, "Wow! There's a sandbox! Hey, Wknight94, did you know that?" :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry it looks like it's a bug in VP which has manifested itself in the last few days, I'd had a few until yesterday but now I'm getting them practically every rollback. I've stopped it for now but apparently there's a new release soon so that should clear it. BigHairRef | Talk 00:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Mainly because of my realtively low edit count. Essentially I thought I'd get rejected on the basis that I've got fewer than 500 mainspace edits and I'm not particularly well known around WP. BigHairRef | Talk 03:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Is there something wrong with my PC, or did somebody change all the infoboxes to be automatically left-justified? If they did, they need to stop doing that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Example? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Such as David Ortiz. I'm seeing it on the upper left instead of the upper right. Could be my IE 6 acting up? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's in the correct place on my screen. I'm using Mozilla Firefox but I doubt that's the reason. Jonneroo (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mine too. I'm on IE 6.0 on this computer. I'll try the other... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2)

Well it's on the right side on my Internet Explorer, so either there was a problem with the infobox that is now fixed or your what happened is whatever happens when your computer can't load the alignment properly (which happens to me occasionally; it's not really rare). Ksy92003 (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine on IE 7.0 as well. Running out of memory perhaps? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll check it on my other PC, and if it looks OK, I'll reboot and see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK on work PC. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rebooting home PC fixed it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:TimmyTruck

I posted a note on JzG's page. [37] You were peripherally involved in the block of User:Overjoyed, who now seems to have found a meatpuppet or sockpuppet, and very possibly at the same "old folks home". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Another user independently observed this. JzG recommends taking it to RFCU. Does that sound like the optimal place to go with it? Also, is there any way to temporarily retrieve an image that was deleted? The recently-posted Gid_Title.jpg (720 x 480 - 60,267 bytes) is the same frame as the since-deleted Image:Gidgetz02.JPG that had been uploaded by Overjoyed for Gidget (TV series)? Not that that proves anything as such, since they were lifted directly from the DVD (hence violating their own claim of "reduced size, low-resolution"). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

RFCU sounds like a good place, yes. Are you saying you want the image to compare? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if that's possible. Could you e-mail it to me? I realize it won't prove anything, but it's a little piece in the puzzle. I also pointed out to Guy that TimmyTruck is using the same exact FU rationale wording on the Superman images as for the ones that Overjoyed had uploaded, but that doesn't prove anything either. Actually, the most interesting comparison is TimmyTruck's claim of being 99-going-100 and being a holocaust survivor. That dovetails with Overjoyed and LaSylphide's claims that they live in an old folks' home. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:IronAngelAlice / User:Bremskraft

Hi, Wknight94.

I see that you (and Spartaz) have previously dealt with Bremskraft/IronAngelAlice, so perhaps you'd like to weigh in on this. Please?

Thank you. NCdave (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Thegothemoslutkid

The goth emo slut kid? If s/he wants to call him or herself a goth emo slut kid, what's the harm? It's not like any of those are even curse words. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you agree with the word slut in the name, be my guest and release it. :) -- Alexf⁴² 12:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism-only IP address

There must be 255 to the fourth power of these kinds of looneys: [38] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, that's our old buddy, HarveyCarter (talk · contribs). He's a real joy, ain't he? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

An Overjoy, so to speak. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Old vandal strikes again

An old vandal is back, and it's wearing socks, it appears.

This is the first time I have posted a diff on a talk page or anywhere else, so I hope this works.

This user vandalized an article [here], and then two minutes later, this user vandalized the same article with [this edit]. The edits are identical. The second user listed has been warned several times in the past, and created a nonsense article with a name similar to the name of the first user listed, which I'm 99.9% sure is a sockpuppet. I warned both and gave a pretty stern warning to the puppeter. If I was out of line in any way, please let me know. And thanks for any help you can render with this. Jonneroo (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You did fine except for one problem: you were about 16 hours late. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Justice is swift. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and you only need single brackets for the http ones. I know, confuses me, too. :) P.S. See below, if you've not already. -Ebyabe (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't bother checking the block log because I figured that a notice would be posted on the vandal's page. Sorry to have wasted everyone's time. But I learned three different things in this whole charade, in case that matters. And the sock doesn't appear to be blocked. I've got its page on my watchlist. Jonneroo (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think both are blocked, no? Is there another sock? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Boy, I'm batting .000 tonight. I tried to check the block log for the sock by keying its username and selecting Block Log, and got no results, but I tried a different way just now and saw what you saw. Again, sorry to have bothered you. Jonneroo (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So I guess I learned four things. Jonneroo (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No apology necessary. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Life is about learning. A life is a learning experience. Then you die. OK, back tomorrow with more uplifting Thoughts for the Day. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

One trick pony

This user keeps adding a website to Channing Tatum, claiming it's official. And adding a section in the article essentially advertising the website. He doesn't seem to care about 3RR either. Zappit? :) -Ebyabe (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I brought to WP:AN for a second opinion. I almost did a short block but was torn. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. He's starting to remind me of Ron now, what with creating the sockpuppet. But with a reeeeeally narrow focus. Oh well... :) -Ebyabe (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for dealing with the new sock. I was going to report it, but you got to it first. If this keeps up, the "official site" might get blacklisted. Especially since all the evidence he gives as to its legitimacy is not from reliable sources. I mean, IMDB & Myspace? I suspect that this guy is going to keep at it, though. Anyhoo, danke again. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It's an easier case since only one article is at stake. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism. I knew I shouldn't have gone to bed so early! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

List of baseball parks in Toledo, Ohio

Move is done. Thanks on all counts. I want to use this one as a "model" for the others (focusing on the minor leagues) and I don't want to do a "SoxRock" by creating a gazillion articles and then having them shot down. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And how's this for an oddity: I started this article yesterday. It turns out that March 6 would be the 100th birthday of this guy named Ralph Lin Weber, whose Toledo Baseball Guide, printed in 1944, is the original source for most every other discussion of Toledo baseball. Considering what a loser Toledo has been for most of its baseball existence, that volume definitely qualified as a "labor of love". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing of Toledo. Or Ohio for that matter. I don't think I've ever set foot in the state. Think we could table'fy your list? I'm all about the tables! Sortable if possible. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm not sure what it would be sorted on. It's basically chronological. But you would have it columnar with, for example, the park name on the left, then teams and dates (one line each) and location (in text). Is that kind of what you have in mind? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe not sortable then. But Name, "Occupant:", "Location:", and "Currently:" might be good columns. Just an idea. Your article so your call. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always been "matrix-challenged", which is why I don't do tables, infoboxes, in-line citations, and the like. Doing tables in Excel is easy. Doing them in wikipedia is extraordinarily tedious, which is why I don't bother with it. I leave that sort of thing to those who are good at it. Aside from that, I wonder how its appearance would be. Maybe I should experiment with Excel and see what it might look like before tackling it here. I fear that it wouldn't look so good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite possible. And yes, tables are more than a little odd here. I've gotten used to them though. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder about the titles. "Occupant" vs. "Tenant" vs. "Team", "Currently" vs. "Current usage", etc. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Packers

A previous edit today cited Chris' talk page as the reason for removing Favre (and the source-only note Chris added), but a quick look at Chris' talk page reveals a disaster scene, not a consensus. Pats1 ^T/C 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Another Liebman?

In your conclusion here, you state (of Emil rothe and others) "These are all clear Ron liebman (talk · contribs) socks and can be immediately permablocked. I'll block them myself or they can be reported to WP:AIV." Please take a look here where I suggest "Compare [39] and [40]", and decide if you think 19yearoldboyfromNY might be another of his socks. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, tough call. Supporting evidence:

• From New York.
• Adds dates and causes of death to articles - probably as given in some official primary source like Social Security records.
• Makes edits to articles about older celebrities.
• Has difficulty with Wikipedia formatting.

Non-supporting evidence:

• (Almost) no edits to baseball or sports-related articles.
• Doesn't use edit summaries at all (Liebman uses them - to shout and make personal attacks).
• Talk page edits are a bit confused as opposed to Liebman who is belligerent and abusive.
• The key edit to 2000 is actually a revert to versions from October 2007: diff. Not only are there no apparent Liebman edits to that article from October 2007, but the revert actually undoes this edit by a definite Liebman sock.

All told, this may be worth another reopening of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ron liebman. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, awesome detective work, my friend. Hypothesis: Say it's shortly after 18:30, March 7, 2008, and he's looking at this as it was at that time. Then he hits "(older 50)" exactly four times. He then clicks the top-listed version and sees this. Then he clicks "Edit this page" and sees this. He ignores the clearly marked red warnings at the top of the page, and hits "Save Page". Wouldn't the results be exactly what we see? Makes me think he's not a sock after all, just another vandal. To make sure, a checkuser would be wise, but I'm beginning to doubt that he's a sock. The 200-revision rollback being exactly what we see just seems too much of a coincidence. Any further thoughts? Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, nice catch. I didn't notice the round number of edits between the versions. Still, the supporting evidence makes me a bit nervous. I noticed the accounts' life spans overlap so that might be something else to check. Timing of edits can be good circumstantial evidence. The lack of sports edits is pretty telling though - Liebman was apparently a SABR member and his list of favorite articles usually held pretty steady. (I know far more about him than I really care to). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to ask you, how in the heck did you find this diff? Is there some way of character-string-searching deep into the different versions of a given article's history? Please advise, because that would be a very useful tool. I just knew I had seen some of those edits before, but it took me forever to locate any of them. Please advise. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I wish I could claim to be so clever. In reality, all I did was go to this large history view and search on "38,302" - the number of bytes of the version that 19yearoldboyfromNY saved. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to say "Brilliant!" or "Doh!" Maybe both. You may not agree, but I say you are clever. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Metro-North Schedule Pages

UGH! Please replace the Metro-North schedule page links - its is the only html schedule that exists argh! I spent FOREVER updating those - so many captchas! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.153.162 (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cincinnati Reds

Over the 3RR boundary now, except the guy won't talk about it and he's defying consensus, so I'm treating it as vandalism: [41] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The guy finally got the message or else went on to other things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandal?

This guy's either a vandal or an idiot, I'm not sure which. I can't argue with the sentiment in his username, but I'm not sure it passes wikipedia muster. [42] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

His behavior looks vandal-ish to me, but it makes so little sense (e.g., putting a period immediately after a file name) that Bugs' other description of him is equally plausible. Jonneroo (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to let this one slide. If you look at the version of Larry Doby he edited, it was already messed up pretty bad. He may have been trying to fix it. The Ted Williams edit looked like he was trying to add something and then tried to back out and left it messed up. I'm diagnosing as extreme newbieism. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll let it ride. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You got your wish. Someone decided to username block the account. Not sure why but it's done now. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I never wish for them to be blocked. I wish for them to reform. Alas, sometimes I don't get that latter wish. Then they might get blocked. So it goes. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

About me, ImmortalKaine/Vampire Warrior

I see you marked as sock, any specific reason? When I talked to a CU for reporting him to the police, he didn't mention socks. — Coren ^(talk) 22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked around Google and Immortal Kaine appears to be the ID he uses at other sites. When I did a search for that ID, the user page here came up and, sure enough, it's Tyler Warren. Checkuser wouldn't find that, I believe, because the account hasn't edited in a while. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Kaine mutant, he. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I happened upon this whilst googling my username of choice, "ImmortalKaine". I figured I might as well explain myself. I use ImmortalKaine everywhere. I'm working on creating a directory of all my usernames for any sites I've ever registered on. The only reason I created Tyler Warren, then renamed to Vampire Warrior was because I forgot my password. Then I posted that "suicide note" on my userpage to get away from that guy who was stalking me. The police showed up at my doorstep to check on me because many editors in the Niagara region expressed concern and contacted the police. They tracked me down based on my IP. I apologized to the cop for everything, explained the situation, and then came here and made this explanation. I figure I should just let you know that I wasn't using "Vampire Warrior" as a sockpuppet, I just forgot my username and the email I made it with, I had deleted. quotetheraven666@hotmail.com was the one I registered with, but I deleted that email and created an "@live.ca" email. Sorry for any inconvenience I caused to yourself or anyone else here. 69.159.58.111 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for deleting the edits by the sockpuppet user to my talk page. And when did you start watching my talk page? Either way, thanks. Daedalus (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I didn't have your page on my watchlist. The latest sock edited Talk:Channing Tatum which is on my watchlist and his contribs led me to your page. Now your page is on my watchlist so I can see if another sock arises. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Another spammer

This guy [43] is rather shameless, posting his pictures in several places, complete with mattes, along with external link to his website. I'll give him a warning now. I wonder if you'd mind watching him? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Interesting case. If he's posting nice and useful photographs and agrees to the free downstream distribution of his photographs, I'm not sure it matters that he's pointing to his web site. My bigger problem is that he appears to be J. Horsch while the photographer is Bob Horsch. That means they're not his photographs. That would be a problem. He can't agree to any license if they're not his photographs. I'll try to ask if they are his. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He's already getting dinged on some of his uploaded photos for failing to provide proper documentation. What really caught my attention was this one, which is silly to be putting in an article. It looks like he took something straight out of "his" website - mattes, frames, and all. It's not appropriate for the article: Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

File:1683-wrigley-field-first-night-game-pictures-photos-framed.jpg

Well no. But if it's really his and he really agrees to the licensing, then we could crop out the frame. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

--Response-- Hi, I am the son of the owner, Bob Horsch. He has taken all these photos and has given permission to license the images free. I noticed however that some other user has decided that my sole intention was to drive visitors to our website. That is incorrect. If you look at the photos I have posted, the are far better than most of the images that depict each topic. This is why I think the images are of value to readers.

I apologize for including the matte and frame on some of the images. I just thought it was something different than just a regular digital file. I can easily resubmit the images without the matte/frame.

If you would like me to not refer to my dads site that is fine, but I thought it was right to at least note who owned the image(hence put bob-horsch in file name and refer to the site on the individual image page. Jhorsch (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The place to put the owner (i.e. the one who's releasing copyright) is on the image page itself, no in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if im wrong but I originally put the links only on the image page. I didnt have links on the main page, except for a few cases in the reference section to view more photos of whatever the context was. Anyhow, thank you both for getting back to me. Will I have to re-upload every image or is there something you can do to reverse what you have deleted? Jhorsch (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Check each image's page and correct the tagged issues on each page, if any. Then you'll know what you need to re-upload, if anything. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

banned user at Michael Lucas . . .

is back and the smaller range block (per this) might be needed. Just giving you a heads up in case s/he gets persistent. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected the talk page for a while. (Might be too long in retrospect - anyone is free to shorten). —Wknight94 (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User:88Soldat88

Check this guy out. His mission is labeling everyone. I'm not asking you to do anything except maybe give me advice. If he keeps going on with this, I'll post an ANI incident or whatever might be appropriate. [44] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering this gem, I don't see much of a future for that one. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Subtle he ain't. I posted a warning on his page. We'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm already sick of that one. He's done. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bravo. I think he had been warned twice already and then struck out. So it goes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir

Do you mind succinctly explaining to me why Lir was banned?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I imagine the story is here somewhere. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:BrishtoeKid

Hi there.

I think you may have blocked User:BrishtoeKid in error - I had a look at his Special:Contributions/BrishtoeKid contributions and couldn't see any evidence of any vandalism. It also looks like he reported himself by mistake! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't have sysop rights so you can't see his deleted contributions. He created a ridiculous attack page and then reported himself as a vandal. WP:DNFT. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. That makes sense, now. Sorry to have bothered you. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No apology necessary. Good of you to check up. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mike Stanton

That's a really nice shot. I wish we had ones that good for more players. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! There's a few more at commons:Mike Stanton. Those couple weeks where they do workouts are by far the best chances for good photos. And the workouts are free as opposed to the games. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

66.214.9.247

You blocked this guy once, in November. He's due for another one. [45] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Purpose

The purpose of Everlast118 was originally to hide my secret page but since I read the post I will make sure to get some information and put it on using both accounts. I will be sure to use it alot more now thanks to you.--Destructo^{Talk to me} 01:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Joe Morgan -- Please Help

I've noticed you are very attentive to the Joe Morgan article. I believe there must be a mention of criticism against Joe Morgan; I am not asking for anything personal against him (plenty have done this; it is vandalism), but you cannot deny that there is a population who thinks his knowledge of baseball is not what would be expected for an expert commentator. I have tried to find a source that will explain this, but as you have pointed out I have had trouble. In my opinion, citing his Emmy wins is analogous -- it's simply an opinion voiced by a group of people. If this were the movie industry, we would have the Razzies to fall back on, but as it is we must use other sources. Please help me, rather than continuing this ridiculous back and forth editing by me and others who agree this must be a balanced article. ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 02:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Every commentator has his critics. If there are no reliable sources that criticize Morgan, maybe he's not so bad. And wikipedia "neutral point of view" does not require finding criticism of someone to "balance" the fact they've gotten awards. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing balance simply because he has received awards. I am suggesting that the article discusses the good (awards) but not the bad (criticism). The problem, I think, is that much of this criticism -- not simply here, but for many sports figures -- is being voiced in sources that aren't looked at so highly. But when combined (in this case with Morgan, a blog that has received national press, editorials and comments from many within the industry, letters from figures like Bill James) I do not see how we can ignore the fact there is criticism of his work. Plenty of sports announcers have much lengthier and perhaps more esoteric critical sections; just because there is a blog titled "Fire Joe Morgan" does not mean we should not at least mention a brief sentence about the fact he is not universally liked. It's not the opinion of a few, it is actually out there, just as I recognize plenty of people appreciate his work.

All I ask is that we make an effort to actually find a way to include a mention of this. At least I am making an effort. ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find something from Bill James that's critical of Morgan, that could be usable, provided it cites specific issues and not just "I don't like him"; just as Tom Shales is a source for criticism of the Oscar show (which, of course, is like shooting fish in a barrel). Blogs, in general, are out. They're just random opinions by random fans. I'm sure you could find bloggers that support any opinion. Like there are probably some who think Len Kasper is better than Vin Scully. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. I don't have it in front of me, but I believe it's in James' New Historical Baseball Abstract. I'll find a copy and see if it is suitable. ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just be sure to give the specific page. Also, how old is that book? Commentators can improve over time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

2001. ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 03:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That fact will presumably be in the citation. It might be good to directly point out that it's from 2001, so somebody won't think it was stated just last week. I, for one, am curious to know what problem James has with Morgan. Every commentator gets their facts wrong sometimes. Tim McCarver has drawn plenty of criticism, yet he somehow keeps his job, so his bosses must think he's doing OK. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. I don't have it in front of me, but I believe it's in James' New Historical Baseball Abstract. I'll find a copy and see if it is suitable. ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have fought a similar battle at Mike Lupica and other articles covered by WP:BLP. "Some have criticized" is a blatant violation of WP:WEASEL. How many is "some"? You've cited one or two. As you admit, you have no source to support the claim, "Some have criticized". Frankly, I don't believe that Morgan has been subject to any more criticism than any other broadcaster, at least not in proportion to the amount of attention he receives. Some of his critics are just louder - and possibly more eloquent? That says more for their writing style and bandwidth than for the accuracy of the criticism. If other broadcasters' articles contain a disproportionate amount of criticism, then that means they're wrong too and should be fixed. That's not a reason to commit the same sin on Morgan's article. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And that is your opinion. ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why there's a need to cite specific points that they have a problem with, which is where it usually falls apart, because they can't do any more than say, "I don't like him", or "He made this-or-that mistake on such-and-such day." I don't much care for Len Kasper because his voice, to me, is like fingernails on a blackboard. I won't be putting that into his article, though. Unless I can find a valid citation for it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And if you can find a legitimate source for that, I'll be happy to back you up on it :) ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 03:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'll just start a blog and then start an edit war from posting from it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Contrasted with Steve Stone, who I think is about the best there is. It's true that he's full of himself, but that's justifiable. He could cite that line from a Jim Carrey movie, "I hate being right all the time!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What is "And that is your opinion" referring to? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Warner spammer

Here's one with some patience. He tried his spamlinks a year ago and got warned [46] then he started up again just yesterday/today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, as always. You may have noticed I don't post a lengthy paragraph to these guys talking in dulcet tones. They know what they're up to, so I lay it on the line, simply and straightforwardly, when it seems appropriate. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

212.35.255.194

This one [47] is on some sort of obsession with the name "Carl" (probably his own name) and is engaged in various vandalism despite being warned. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

72.10.123.97

This one has been repeatedly blocked, and is at it again. [48] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Geez!

It wasn't until the user explained in his edit summaries that I realized the user wasn't simply throwing cats around. As for the previous incident, the user was acting somewhat uncivil. Also, he was welcomed the day before I warned him, thus rendering the WP:DTTR argument invalid.

...oh, WP:BITE as well? Hey, I use Huggle, it's not my fault there's no additional message function in the templates it uses... Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I thank you so much for fixing what was done to my page by that IP user. Ive been under attack from them for a while now and its really annoying me but thank you so much for fixing that. So I award you with this.

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I award you with this Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for reverting an attack that I had on my account.--DestructoTalk to me 03:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

--Destructo^{Talk to me} 03:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

216.12.1.174

Blocked in February for vandalism, continued after block was lifted. [49] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just noticed you have been 'tidying up' my talk page - thanks! For entertainment value, I thought this was cute. Splash - tk 17:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, however, your very clearly logged semi-protection hasn't taken - I can edit it as an anon. I'll leave it for now, but I wonder what's happened...Splash - tk 17:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC) .... it was a timed sprotection, d'oh. Splash - tk 17:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandal-only

Warned already, didn't stop. [50] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)