User talk:Wknight94/Archive 17

Babe Ruth page and BabeRuthCentral.com

Hey There. I've tried a few times to add the Babe Ruth tribute site, BabeRuthCentral.com, to the Babe Ruth page multiple times but then disappears shortly thereafter. At first, I thought I was doing something wrong in my edit; however, recently, I discovered a warning on my talk page, which says that my attempt to include this website in the External Links is actually considered to be an act of Spam. I assure you, I'm not trying to improve my google ranking by putting our link on Wikipedia. BabeRuthCentral.com is actually probably the largest and accurate source of information on Babe Ruth on the web. How can I say this? I'm the webmaster and great grandson of Babe Ruth, and the majority of information, content and stories has come directly from my family. I appreciate that you're trying to ensure the integrity of the information regarding my great grandfather, but I would also appreciate it if you would reconsider having BabeRuthCentral, a site managed and endorsed by the family, on the external links page of wikipedia. Thank you BR32008 Br32008 (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)(talk) 15:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This may be over my head then: you might want to contact the office. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a spam site to me... and note that there is already a site [1] that purports to be the official Ruth site. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, you're correct, BabeRuth.com is considered the "official Ruth site" and we're not trying to negate or discredit that claim. I'm not saying BabeRuthCentral.com is the official site of Ruth, but I am saying without a doubt that it has more information and content on the Babe than any other site, including BabeRuth.com. I'm curious to get your feedback as to why you think that it's a SPAM site. If you look at the Interviews section of the site, you'd actually find legitimate interviews with significant sources including Babe's daughter, Julia Ruth Stevens, respected reporters and authors, as well as a former Japanese ambassador to the US, Honorable Ryozo Kato. Your feedback is appreciated. Br32008 (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Any site that's not official or universally known, and is trying to sell stuff, I consider to be spam. That's my opinion, anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If I left the project?

I'm not sure what you were saying with "If you left the project." What does that mean? As I've stated before, I ain't all that Wiki Savvy.

Notable or not, vandalism is vandalism. Adolph Hitler's Wikipedia entry has a warning on it about vandalism. He's certainly notable, and apparently, people aren't too concerned with vandalizing his entry.

I think it is unfortunate Steve Singleton's entry was vandalized. And I do understand that the more notable the subject of the entry, the more likely it is to get caught.

That said, the problem is User:Jerry, not Steve Singleton.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware of the Seigenthaler incident until you told me about it. Yeah, that's f--ked up that someone would do such a thing.

I've done my best to preserve respectability for Wikipedia. I'd like to point out that I, myself, noticed an error in 1979 and Davey Johnson. The Johnson error was made on December 10, 2006 by User:Cubwiki. The "I dunno where the F he got it" entry in 1979 was made by User:TeganX7 on September 4, 2007. In both cases, it took far longer than two hours before they were eventually found, and there is no question of either's notability.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Avril Lavigne

You just processed my speedy on that image. It might be a good idea to leave a reinforcing warning on the talk page of Weirdo82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I left him a warning, and what I got back was a diatribe that makes it clear he has no understanding that uploading a copyrighted image, labeling it as self-created, and releasing it into the public domain is wrong. I left a second warning when I nominated the Avril Lavigne image, but it's always nice to let a problem editor know that he isn't just in a fight with one other editor.
Kww (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Later conversations show that he seems to have gotten the point. I'll keep an eye on him.Kww (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

baseball reference

Hey there, can you maybe explain me why the "baseball ref bullpen page" would be unreliable? Thanks, Amanda^T/C 21:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a wiki. And a poorly-sourced one no less. Need I say more? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seen a lot there, but the pages that I've seen were sourced. Does this mean you consider a sourced article in Wikipedia also unreliable? Amanda^T/C 00:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes this does mean I would consider a sourced article in Wikipedia also unreliable. If I were writing a term paper, I would use Wikipedia as a tool for finding more reliable sources - and I would check each one before using them. There is at least one long-term vandal here (User:Ron liebman) who runs almost unchecked through baseball-ref bullpen inserting inaccurate information. We at least have a few people who know his patterns here to revert on sight, but baseball-ref bullpen is not nearly as well-staffed. They've done 16 blocks all year. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, makes sense, I will give it another check at some time. Amanda^T/C 22:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How can a link be blacklisted?

As you can see, this user keeps adding the same fansite to the JC Chasez article. I actually left them a warning, but they continued unabated. Rather than keep reverting, could the fansite be added to the Wiki blacklist? It'd be easier that way. The user is obviously a single purpose account. Cheers! --Ebyabe (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. If it continues, maybe I screwed it up! —Wknight94 (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah! Thanks. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe another sock

This one could be Liebman: [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags

This IP address [3] has taken it upon himself to start removing stuff with fact tags on it. Is that appropriate? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He's already been challenged by many, and won't discuss it. I'll take it to ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

MJ

A new redlink goes straight to me with some off-the-wall complaint. Obvious trolling. I'll take him to AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see if we can figure out what the hell he's talking about. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't even thought about Michael Jackson in probably a year. Must be some old flame comment I put somewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd just ignore it, personally. I don't see where you've edited Michael Jackson and I went back months into your contribs. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I find that kind of stuff mostly just funny - as long as it doesn't interfere with work. I posted the guy on AIV, and the admin issued a "don't do this again" warning to the guy, and that should be the end of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my reaction too. I hoped the section blanking would be enough of a hint. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Delahanty / Lajoie 1902

The Elias Book of Baseball Records 2008 edition (p. 372) recognizes Delahanty as the 1902 AL batting leader, not Lajoie. That fact is reflected in the WP article about year-by-year leaders, but not in the WP article about consecutive batting titles, which still shows Lajoie for 1902. Elias continues to list Cobb as the 1910 AL champion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

According to sources I have checked, Elias is wrong, with respect to 1910. --Harry fialkin (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Name one. Elias is the official statistician of MLB. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Side note: The original edit ran up against the previous line - a typical Ron Liebman M.O. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Though Elias is considered by many to be the official statistician of baseball, his views are outdated and disregarded by most responsible baseball historians. Siwoff is nearly 88 years old and follows the Bowie Kuhn model of not wanting to change hits and at-bats - though he and Steve Hirdt have changed rbi's., and other things. Many SABR researchers are much more repected than Siwoff - whether you like it or not! --Harry fialkin (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, ESB's records are official, and RL's are not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRIT

Hi - this was a keep for somebody else to use. It is not used at WP:BITASK. Regards, --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}, don't blank it. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand '{{sofixit}}' - what shall I do? You have redirected it back to BITASK, where is causes offense! What is the answer? --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Point it somewhere else then. Get consensus. The usual. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If the 'Redirects for deletion' people did their job it would simply be deleted and nobody's problem! If someone wanted it in the future all they had to do was make it again! Now I have to search for a new home that covers quite an awkward word. Thanks guys.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible vandalism only account

User:Me$$senger 33. just did some pretty nasty vandalism here. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

He's gone. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor requesting unblock, caught by the 72.76 rangeblock

Hello Wknight94. FYI, see User talk:72.76.27.198. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

David Chokachi

When you get a chance, could you look at the last few edits to this article? There's been back and forth on his ethnicity, and I don't think the sources added are reliable. Don't really want to get into an edit war over this, doncha know. Thanks! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Plus I'm wondering if there might be sockpuppetry involved. --Ebyabe (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you could direct them to the Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Use of electronic or online sources essay section. Wikipedia talk:Reliable source examples has a few IMDB mentions as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your help. :) I'm on the road with no access to e-mail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Stub sorting proposals for June

Hi there! I hoped that someone would finally close the discussion; as I was party to it, I'm not supposed to close it. It's been sitting there for some time. Thanks for noticing anyway. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is an admin required? Or just someone? You may be looking for {{backlog}} - or, of course, WP:DR. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tubgirl notice

Hi Wknight94. You closed the Tubgirl RfD six days ago as keep.[4]. It again is listed at RfD. See Tubgirl → Shock site. Suntag (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IronAngelAlice

Have you seen this? I just want confirmation that the accusation of sockpuppetry has been disproven or retracted. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. But it wasn't egregious enough to warrant an indefinite block. I don't suppose we make people carry that tag around forever, do we... —Wknight94 (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not arguing one way or another. I assume since you made the block you know the details of the case and I trust your judgment on the matter, I just wanted to know what it was. The user in question deleted the tags with a message saying that the charges were not true. If that is the case, of course s/he was right to get rid of the tags. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing either - just asking (I know, hard to tell online! ). I wouldn't say the charges were untrue but I guess they're allowed to remove the tag anyway. I don't figure it's meant as a scarlet letter. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Blocked IP returned with another:

Thanks, I'll keep watching. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Subscription site question

This site has been added as a reference to several TV show list articles by this user. Is that appropriate? I'm not sure myself, so I will defer to your greater wisdom. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't look appropriate to me. They haven't even updated their copyright - it says 1993-2004! Doubtful at best. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A user you temporary blocked is back trolling

Hi, I noticed that you had temporary blocked this user for vandalism. It appears from his talk page that he is consistent in trolling. I have reverted some non-constructive edits he has made to a page and I just would like to bring it to your notice. If I shouldn't be putting this here please let me know (I'm new to editing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Star Hardkore (talk • contribs) 11:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

NRHPdis template redirect

I don't think your closing the brief discussion on NRHPdis template was proper. It was too brief a discussion, with no participation by wp:NRHP members and no notice to wp:NRHP. I didn't see it until you closed it. I am not myself a big supporter of the use of a separate NRHPdis template, but there are others who did come up with it and support it, and I think the proposal was not handled properly. Just FYI. doncram (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See #9 of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Administrator instructions. The template was properly tagged and was overdue for closure with no one voting to keep, so I don't see what you could think is not "proper" about the closure. How did you notice it redirected but didn't notice it tagged for deletion? Your best venue is probably WP:DRV or appeal to the people who voted at WP:TFD. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I created it, and got the deletion notice, but didn't really care one way or the other. It was hardly being used anyway. I mostly made it b/c there were other specific kinds of disambig templates (for boats, names, places, etc.). Have any of those been deleted? More curious than anything else. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There have been a few at WP:TFD. I may have redirected another one but don't recall. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

Was it Ronnie again? Trying to pretend he was BB, leaving the project? Honestly, I can't fathom what he thinks he's accomplishing with these silly sockpuppets. Anyhoo, thanks. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. He really tricked you that time, didn't he. Like a four-year-old. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Slutzker to WP:AN/I

Are you starting a thread there? I'm speechless. Dlohcierekim 02:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm swamped with a thing tonight but I definitely encourage it. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message with User talk:Jonathan. He's lost rollback because of a different issue. What's up with him and user:Superflewis? I saw your note about Personality Psychology. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that was someone else that left the note. Dlohcierekim 04:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Don't forget to re-protect

Sorry, I always check and re-protect when I do that, but I must have missed that one or been distracted. Thanks for the heads-up. ... discospinster _talk 18:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

209.68.139.250 anon edits

May I request that this address be blocked from anonymous editing indefinitely, as we have done for 209.68.139.150 earlier? This is also a school district address, and would rather have students use registered accounts to make edits, instead of anonymously vandalizing pages. Thanks. --Leuqarte (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete

Hi,

Is there anyway to have the Robert Wolf (UBS) completely deleted (included deletion and creation logs)? Let me know. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.191.175.232 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Liebman sock

I am trying to figure out what research projects and articles to concentrate on prior to my retirement - if I decide to retire. If you have any useful suggestions, let me know. Sincerely, Baseball Bugs (Sept. 22, 2008) (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Boogies (talk • contribs)

Hey, Ronnie, how about you get a lobotomy, for starters? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Keeper76 has blocked the user on the grounds of impostoring. Feel free to add the "sock" logo on the user's page if you want. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Already done. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 21:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Baseball content removing IP returns

Argh, ok, thanks for letting me know. I really don't have the time or energy to deal with it today, but I'll see what I can do tomorrow. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Catholicism

Hi, Can you unprotect this template, I wish to make a correction. Thanks. 86.24.126.222 (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Another Ron Liebman sock

Here: [5] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, templated. Next? Keeper ǀ 76 21:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Table of contents margin

Hi Wknight94. I have the pleasure to inform you that we have now added extra top margin to the table of contents (when on article pages). As you suggested over at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Table of contents margin two months ago. Sorry for the delay.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! I thank you and Ed Fitzgerald below thanks you.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Always happy to make people happy. I am sorry it took such time. I noticed we had missed it when I checked old sections that perhaps should be archived at MediaWiki talk:Common.css.

I realised I forgot to mention one thing: If you want to see the change immediately you might need to bypass your browser cache, since the Wikipedia CSS files are cached in the browsers for up to 31 days. Thus it takes 31 days before all users see the change, but some will see it already today.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for running with the request for additional margin in the ToC, I had no idea it was in the works, and was surprised and please to hear that you had suggested the change and it was accepted and coded. Please accept my humble thanks. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! In all honesty, I wasn't aware that the issue had been readressed either. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Subpage

If you want to create a subpage for a long thread, by all means, please do. You seem to be uninvolved. Jehochman ^Talk 20:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

New Fangusu sock?

I'm suspicious of the new user User:DaisyBunny. The user's edits are all to articles targeted by Fangusu in the past (with a few that may be new, but in the same basic category and style), and the user's very first edit summary addresses me by name as was Fangusu's habit as of late, also insisting as Fangusu had that an article being a stub means it ought to be merged into another article. Many of the edits undo reversions I did of this Fangusu's unproductive and block-evading editing. I'd say I'm over 90% certain that this is Fangusu, but this user's characteristic poor grammar does not appear to be present. It's hypothetically possible that a different person who'd been silently watching decided to re-do Fangusu edits that s/he thought were useful, so I thought I'd ask for a second pair of eyes to have a look instead of immediately reporting it to WP:AIV. Would you mind taking a look when you get the opportunity? Thanks. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 07:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, passes the WP:DUCK test. Blocked, reverted, and watchlisted. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Block this url

Hello.

This is a bit hard to explain. I just came to wikipedia, and saw that someone had edited a lot of articals in an imature manner. This is a public computer, in a junior/senior school. There are some very imature people here. It might be in the best intrest of wikipedia to block this url/computer/whatever you do. Anyone who really wants to edit on wikipedia can create an account. I know that there are a few reasons (fairness/second chances/my reliability) not to do this, but it will only bring grief/annoyance. Anywho, I'll leave it up to you.

Sincerely; Adam Gulyas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.216.194.137 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Today's Liebman socks

We'll see if its a good day for Stockings. [6] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that he apparently took his name from that of the presumably legit user just above. The old boy must be running out of ideas. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And another one, on an admin's page: [7] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

NFLSecondaryColor

What is the point of having Template:NFLSecondaryColor and Template:NFLSecondaryColorRaw? When I added the colors to the infobox at Ryan Grice-Mullen, the secondary colors do not show up.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In that infobox, it looks like NFLSecondaryColor is for the text of the "Career history" bar. White text. Which were you trying to change? "National Football League debut"? That looks like AltSecondaryColor. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow I'm an idiot.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

October Baseball WP Newsletter

The Baseball WikiProject Newsletter Issue III – October 2008

"If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving a baby's life... she'll save the baby without even considering how many men are on base!" — Stephen King (The Dark Tower) News and announcements The Baseball Project promoted 13 lists to Featured status in August and 8 more in September. Amazing job! A combined eleven articles were promoted to Good Article status in August and September. Featured content In September, WikiProject Baseball has had the following articles promoted to: Featured Article status: Nashville Sounds Featured List status: List of New York Mets Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Colorado Rockies Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Florida Marlins Opening Day starting pitchers, Nashville Sounds seasons, List of Tampa Bay Rays Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Boston Red Sox Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Arizona Diamondbacks Opening Day starting pitchers, New York Yankees seasons Good Articles of August and September: All the Way (Eddie Vedder song), Cy Young, Dan Brouthers, Harmon Killebrew, Rickey Henderson, Billy Pierce, Kinston Indians, Three Rivers Stadium, Bill Lange, Calgary Cannons, Hugh Daily, Homer at the Bat This month's newsletter was designed and written by Wizardman, jj137, and Blackngold29. If you would like to contribute to future newsletters, please contact the Baseball WP outreach dept.

News from the diamond The 2008 opening round playoff matchups with be: Boston Red Sox vs. Los Angeles Angels Milwaukee Brewers vs. Philadelphia Phillies Los Angeles Dodgers vs. Chicago Cubs Chicago White Sox vs. Tampa Bay Rays Help to keep the articles of the postseason updated From the Editors We apologize for not sending out our August newsletter, we have tried to cover some events of the month in this issue. The playoffs have started! The Dodgers and Phillies have won their respective Division Series and will face off in the NL Championship Series. Both series in the American League have yet to be finished. Show your support for your favorite teams by keeping up with their season pages!

Administrator's Noticeboard

The reason I raised the issue of the vandalism bots on the Administrator's Noticeboard is because I wasn't sure if this was a behind the scenes programming problem an admin would have to address or a specific issue with the bots. Also, we'll need admins to help out on vandalism patrol until this is resolved. Until this is determined not to be an admin-related problem, I'd appreciate it if you didn't delete the thread from ANI. Thanks.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Programming problems are still not admin-related. Admins can block, protect, and a few other things - see WP:ADMIN. Nothing bot-related. Admins aren't even necessary for vandalism patrol, just the eventual blocking per reports at WP:AIV. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Guess we have a difference of opinion. Since I'm an admin and feel it belongs there, and other admins joined in on how to address the issue, it would seem to have support to be there. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, you're an admin! I'm shocked. What are you thinking, bringing up bot problems at WP:AN, and then removing my comments? Sheesh. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for that mistaken deletion. I was working on another project when I saw your edit summary and I thought you'd deleted the ANI thread. My intent was to place the thread back on ANI, which obviously wasn't needed. As for bringing up bot problems there, it is an admin noticeboard and I wanted this issue brought to the attention of my fellow admins, figuring some of them would know what to do. It appears this was a correct assumption.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Check this out

These guys [8] actually think I'm only 13 1/2 years old, just because my user page says that. Or maybe they're just funnin' me. I don't want to be an admin, though. I would not run if nominated, and if elected I would not serve. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, where did all that come from? Did you tell them I'm only 6? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not go bringing that up. However, I think they're confusing dog years with human years. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

They might just be satirizing admins. Far be it from me to ever do that. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pointer to discussion about TV episode redirects

Hi, Bill. It's been a while since the dispute about TV episode article naming, and I'm glad to see that you've been thriving on Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know that there's a new (much smaller, I hope!) discussion about whether to keep the redirects that have "unnecessary" disambiguation or not — one of the byproducts of an early compromise move in that debate. The new discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Redirects, with related discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 8. Hope to see you there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Matejpostolka User Block

Could you please have a look at my unblock request?? User Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matejpostolka

Yes, it looks lovely. I'll pass. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Liebman

Our pin-headed friend visited my talk page again today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Liebman 10-9-08

Here's another one you can block, if you're in a blocking mood: [9] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim Foli under GA review

Hi there, I see that you are a contributor to the article Tim Foli. This article has come under review for Good article reassessment as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified which are listed on the talk page. Please begin to address these points in the next seven days or the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the backup on my talk page! That was funny. :) Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 03:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Tellus archivist check user

Hello there, your conclusion following 'checkuser' was (clerk) Abandoned account blocked but current one is not per lack of WP:SOCK abuse. One account was switched for another). One of the associated meatpuppets Valueyou is continuing his/her tantrum and has taken it here, [10]. Would you mind offering other than this assessment following your investigations? Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Replied, just to let you know. — neuro^(talk) 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For catching my mistake. :) MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh, no problem. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Spiteful Semitransgenic

Please see current spiteful dispute I am having with Semitransgenic at Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine and at the Noise music page. The issue is this: after a month of work I greatly improved the noise music page - providing wiki with an outstanding noise music page with extensive footnotes, some lacking only page # which I can provide in the near future (as previously explained a # of times), free of WP:OR & WP:SYN that stood for weeks. Semitransgenic then imposed a WP:OR deadline on my providing those page #s and when I challenged that arbitrary deadline Semitransgenic falsely accused me of sock-puppetry with the creator of the Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine - an outstanding wiki page started by Tellus archivist who has entered his resistance to Semitransgenic's dictates. (See talk page at Noise music) I strongly condemn Semitransgenic's tactics as he is doing it again at Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine in spite.

More evidence of Semitransgenic abuse: he has seen the results of the investigation into his charges of sock/meat puppetry against me here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tellus_archivist) and knows (see his contrib page) me to be innocent of them -- yet he repeats them and has not apologized to me as he promised he would. As you can see, the result of his harassment was: "Clerk note: I've indefblocked Taxisfolder as an abandoned account but there is no overlap in activity or block evasion, so Valueyou is left alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I ask here for a Consensus that disciplinary measures be taken against Semitransgenic as he is a bully and self-declared nazi (see the top of my talk page – that is how he introduced himself to me). I may or may not be of the Jewish faith, but either way I find this kind of macho posturing repugnant. He also addressed me as “dude” later on in my talk page and as I am not of the male sex, I find that sort of address sexist. So, I am seeking a Consensus to out Semitransgenic from the music section of wiki as clearly he has no love of music or the artists who make it. I don't see any constructive contributions by Semitransgenic other posting ugly flag signs where talk on the discussion page would be better because these signs drive away users of wikipedia by making it look half-ass. I suggest that he be asked to go work on the Nazism page and leave the music section to those who love music. Valueyou (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

above user (et al.) is throwing a tantrum becasue they don't like regulations. Issue starts here. Long history of problematic behaviour, account swapping over 2 year, see comment by clerk. User believes real world credentials overules policy.

Are you an expert in this field? I am offering primary source information. This is differnt than a POV. They are important as a group not because some book said they are, but by their productivity - with which I am aware.

This is a fresh and emerging history and I would think that a PhD who has worked as an archivist at the Dia Art Foundation could offer such a list without a book saying it is OK. Valueyou (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

user is now engaging in flaming campaign as part of their protest. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, I mistakenly left a comment on an archive page here, the situation has since escalated if there is anything you would like to offer by way of advice, direct input, or other, that would be appreciated. Best. S. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(moved from archive) Can you take a look at this please and see what you think. My personal opinion is that the user is engaging, at the very least, in meat puppetry, more difficult to prove is the possibility that the same user is employing different accounts from differnent IP's, home, work, perhaps. An unresolved sock puppet case has been filed, if you would like to add a comment you can do it here. Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC) —Wknight94 (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks! Semitransgenic (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want to enter into a protracted dispute over another editors inability to compose themselves or follow guidelines. This user is EricaNechvatal. That's quite obvious from the comments, history, behaviour. Perhaps this cannot be established using the sock puppet dispute procedure but I would like to leave that information on record, if it goes stale so be it, file it with the rest of the unresolved puppet issues, nothing lost. There is every chance a similar issue may resurface at some point in the future. That is my conclusion, and I don't have anything else to conribute to the dispute. If the editor in question wishes to open a case I will particpate. Thanks for your time on this and your feedback nonetheless. Best. S Semitransgenic (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

But what's your point? User:EricaNechvatal made a single edit in June 2006! Maybe she decided she didn't want to use her real-life name here - that's usually a good idea. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a point I'm trying to make at all, please understand that. There was some debacle at the time surrounding WP:COI on the Joseph Nechvatal page hence the name change. I don't expect you to be aware of the nuances, but from the ones I have seen, I have formed an opinion of what is happening here, perhaps that is not useful, but please appreciate that I have actually done nothing wrong, in terms of dealing with this user or addressing outstanding issues relating to policy, yet I have had to defend myself against the abuse and allegations leveled at me, yes that is how things works here, but I am not necessarily pleased to have run around the mill because someone cannot, and apparently will not, behave themselves. Perhaps you disagree with my approach, as I'm sure do others, but I'm simply trying to highlight a pattern of unacceptable behaviour by one user across a number of profiles. I really have nothing more to add. Cheers. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In light of advice from other editors, I've made an offer to remove the puppetry allegation if the user agrees to give WP:OR some consideration. Hopefully we can move this forward. Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a saying somewhere here: focus on articles, not editors. Even if EricaNechvatal, Rydernechvatal, Oidkdufjggd, TwinkleJames, Taxisfolder and Valueyou are all the same, so what?

• User:EricaNechvatal - July 2006
• User:Rydernechvatal - May-July 2007
• User:Oidkdufjggd - May-June 1, 2008
• User:TwinkleJames - June 11-22, 2008
• User:Taxisfolder - July-August 8, 2008
• User:Valueyou - August 10-present, 2008

Looks like someone that created an account, did a few things, lost their password, and started over. There's nothing untoward going on from looking at that list. If there are problems within an article or two, focus on those; don't get hung up on who you are talking to. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

With no overlapping history, it's reasonable to assume that it's like what you describe, that they just simply adopted a new ID. It's been known to happen. 0:) This is a lot of ID changes, though. Barring any evidence of true sockpuppeteering (which doesn't look like it), and if it's in fact the same guy, it's possible he just gets tired of an ID and creates a new one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There are socks - and then there is WP:SOCK abuse. If someone is using six IDs to tip an argument in his favor or using another ID to get around a block, etc. None of these appear to be the case here. None of those IDs were blocked and, since none of the histories overlap, none of them have taken part in the same discussion. Four of them haven't edited in four months and I just-in-case-blocked a fifth one as an abandoned account because of the RFCU finding - so dwelling on them as a group is just distracting from the articles themselves. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ja. It's not sock abuse apparently, but more like when you lose a sock in the laundry and have to get a new one. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok points taken. The level of actual abuse across the range of users is not sufficient to warrant concern.I understand. Thanks for the input on this. I will focus exclusively on content in future. Semitransgenic (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

KillAllSpammers checkuser

Oops, Wknight94, I may have misinterpreted the contents of your table in the KillAllSpammers checkuser. For one thing, I interpreted it as a bot -- sorry to anti-anthropomorphize you! If your IP ranges matched mine and I just misunderstood the syntax, I definitely apologize and in any case am grateful for your help. Thirdbeach (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. My notations were CIDR and I was hoping a checkuser would find the links useful. But I also don't want to give you cause for concern so I'll leave it to your discretion. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, got it: CIDR. Twenty steps behind you but hope to close the gap someday :-). 63.229.62.199 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFC/USER request for signature

Hello Wknight94, I would like to file a WP:RFC/USER for Valueyou and as you commented on this individuals user page regarding their conduct perhaps you will offer your signature. I will be petitioning the other editors involved also. My statement will read as follows.

Despite a protracted dispute with Valueyou leading to intervention of multiple editors, Valueyou's immediate action, following the conclusion of this period of disruption, was to revert the disputed article to a condition that Valueyou deemed acceptable, therefore leaving outstanding issues with WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:SYN, unaddressed. The dispute esentially relates to disagreement about tagging and to Semitransgenic's request for citations. The origin of this dispute can be traced to here. The user engaged in WP:CANVASS by copy pasting a personal attack across the talk pages of multiple articles user Semitransgenic has edited. There is also evidence of Valueyou accusing Semitransgenic of anti-semitism, resulting in Valueyou attempting to canvass ברוקולי. This last allegation arose as a result of the statement made here at 17:42 on the 10th of August. Irrespective of the nature of this hostile campaign Semitransgenic attempted to arrive at a truce but Valueyou's repsonse was instead to engage in antagonistic reversion. Please advise. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. Best. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

All this brouhaha over some obscure music article. And somehow Wknight94 was chosen to help solve this little tempest. And then I get asked why I don't want to be an admin myself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

But wiki just wouldn't be the what it is if there wasn't brouhaha over some obscure article of one description or another!! ; ) Semitransgenic (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There is now a WP:ANI section on this dispute. [11] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is tedious but very much to my point that Semitransgenic acts like a bully. For me all that is in the past however (per his false sock-puppet charges against me). My request that he is now seeking retaliation for was intentionally tightly focused on the technical question at hand which User:Verbal has stepped in to find sensible middle ground and -- that I accept. (see Noise music talk page). If Semitransgenic, you, or others would care to hit the books and find the relevant page #s (I was working from my notebooks and am not currently in an English speaking country) that would be most useful to getting the page up to snuff. Semitransgenic seems only to cry out for endless citations for every line of text and never provides any. Let's all pitch in to get the page impeccable. Valueyou (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Currently it is still "peccable". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. peccable? Semitransgenic (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As opposed to "not" peccable, or impeccable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Suzuki frame

Hi,

you deleted this article; however, WP:CSD#G5 states: "Banned user. Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, with no substantial edits by others." I hope you noticed my substantial edits, and I don't see why this should be deleted.

I'd like to hear your opinion.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I can restore it if you like. Just keep in mind that it was likely created by Grawp, the worst page-move vandal we have here. Let me know. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like you to restore it; I've checked the sources, I see no reason why this article would be of any more concern for page move vandalism than any other. Especially since we now know who created it. We can both watch it. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Pennsylvania political scandals

Do you have any objection to my recreation of Category:Pennsylvania political scandals? Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You're not a sock of User:The Mystery Man, are you? Seriously though, I noticed a few people complaining about people being called political scandals so you may want to watch out for that. Otherwise, have at it. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe Torre

Joseph Paul Torre. I wonder if he was named for Joseph Paul DiMaggio? I didn't find anything about it on an initial search in Google. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems doubtful. I'll bet thousands of New York Italians were named Joseph Paul something. We've got 10 Joseph Pauls here alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and both are commonly-used names of Catholic saints, but how many of those Joseph Pauls were born in New York City when Joe D was in his prime? Although Torre was born in Brooklyn, I think, which might not be considered prime Yankees territory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Complice, too long

The article about Complice the song is nearly the length of the band article. I was not think that was good. But i agree it was a bit stupid by me. AlwaysOnion (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Usernames

Hi. I saw you blocking a user with an inappropriate username (Godzilla's Testicles). Surely the username God of dicks galore should be blocked as well. I only ask as no one has responded to my post at Wikipedia:UAA. Ollie Fury _Contribs 22:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

residence park

why did you remove the the article Residence Park? And my edit to the page is no longer on my list of contributions? I was working to find some definite sources for the information on the page because the article needed them. Can you please restore the page? The area is definitely notable, and definitely has several historic sites as part of it. The area itself is also under review for historic designation. --Liampaar (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

hey, you must have deleted the wrong page: First Presbyterian Church and Lewis Pintard House

Hey, you've deleted a valid article, about an NRHP-listed property. There may or may not have been any edits by some banned user, including some text that appeared to have been copied. But the page is legitimate. There was some copyright vio situation there, but I believe i cleaned that up fully adequately yesterday or the day before. And i am not a banned user.

Would you please restore it. doncram (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the entire article was begun by a banned user, StanFielderstien (talk · contribs), and it looks like much of what he wrote was still present when I deleted. I can send you a copy if you'd like but it would be best if you completely rewrote it. Otherwise, this guy will continue to haunt this page forever, as he does in numerous other NRHP-related articles. He's created over 200 accounts for that purpose. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please send me a copy, preferably the last version that I edited. I had converted all the copied text into a proper quote with a proper footnote reference, and i don't want to reconstruct all that. The article is a legit topic, it is an NRHP that is a red-link again now on the list of NRHPs in that county and on disambiguation page First Presbyterian Church, both of which i have been working on recently. I do want to create an article there, though I may use less of a quote than was in the last version. I have wikipedia email enabled, there's an email link at my User page. Thanks, doncram (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Appeal (Justice for Defenz_07)

Hi, I was the one you blocked for 2 days for creating sockpuppets to achieve "POV" edits to Members Church of God International. To me, the edits do not propagandize the church, sicne the criticism section and the cases are still there. I simply believe that Shannon Rose is only harassing me since of what he said that "she need to brainwas me about my belief to the said church". The so called "POV" edits done bby Defenz_07 are adding references, true statements which I have proven but she deos not just believe in the references I added. Please, think about the blocking of Defenz_07. I'll stop editing the church article for a while but I will still watch it.

Hoping for your kind consideration,

Dar book (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Schoolblock template

Just wanted to let you know that I reverted your change [12] to {{schoolblock}}. Since this template is not transcluded, all 5835 instances of its use had their signature component broken by this change. While I appreciate the boldness of your change, next time you might wish to discuss your proposed changes first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't it transcluded? All the rest of them are, no? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if it were part of the uw-series of template messages it would be substituted. That, and the instructions on the template itself say "do not subst this template as contact details may change in the future." --Kralizec! (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem appears to be its dual use as a header and as a block message - but I don't care enough to pursue it. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that has pretty much been my disposition about it too. While it is annoying to have to remember to follow two different formats (one for the uw-series and a different one for schoolblock/anonblock), I have never been annoyed enough to actually fix it. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for quick block

Thank for quick block User jakesafag. Much appreciated. Waterden (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And while we are doling out praise, thanks for putting the block on the egregiously named Jigaboo killer (egad, how sad). Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Housekeeping"

I noticed that you deleted the talk page of a vandal, User talk:AZT2008, as G6 (Noncontroversial maintainance). I was just wondering why you did that; in my experience, admins have usually kept the talk pages with indef block templates.

Anyway, cheers, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That tag just puts them in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. That category just becomes a maintenance headache and the pages are supposed to be deleted eventually anyway (hence the "Temporary"). I still use it in cases where someone may not be 100% clear why they were blocked, but this guy knows damn well why. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Another Mystery Man Suspect

Thank you for your hard work on this. If you have time, please check out the edits in the last day or so from 24.22.216.221. Cheers, David in DC (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see your concern but it looks like a slightly different agenda. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for looking. David in DC (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Olivespread

FYI re the above Checkuser case: [13]. I agree we have to presume innocence, but I'll still confess that privately I find it hard to reconcile the statistical likelihoods involved with such a presumption. Still, sometimes life is stranger than fiction, and no doubt time will tell if that was the case here. :-) Thanks for looking into the matter. Cheers, Jayen466 21:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Better safe than sorry. It's better to let someone elude sock detection than to leave someone blocked unjustly. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet formatting

Thanks for fixing my poorly formatted sockpuppet case filing. Mrshaba (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I added evidence for the Oakwillow account. You say the evidence isn't strong enough but I don't know what better evidence I can provide than 199 adding comments to Delpi234's posts or Apteva signing 199's posts. I don't understand why the evidence I've provided would be good enough for a checkuser but not good enough for you to take action? Obviously a checkuser is what I'm looking for so I'll post over there. Thanks for your assessment. Mrshaba (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

At RFCU, you just need to provide enough evidence to perform the checkuser. I have been clerking there lately and found that the requirements to perform a checkuser are less stringent than for me to do a block. From my vantage, it could just as well be coincidental, whereas a checkuser can diagnose a problem with much more certainty, and could even discover that you've found the tip of a much larger iceberg. From your Oakwillow link, some have theorized a tie to Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs) who is just coming off a year-long ban. That would be an important find. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I see... Thanks for your help and advice... Mrshaba (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Same here: thank you for fixing my sockpuppet case filing. Sorry for the inconvenience. Erigu (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. That's why RFCU has clerks. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the checkuser case on Apteva is listed as completed. So what happened? Mrshaba (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. You may want to ask at WT:RFCU or WP:ANI. Hard to tell if everyone has declined to take action, or if it just slipped under the radar. You might want to ask whoever moved it to completed. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Proxy policy

Thanks Wknight, and I'm aware of that distinction. However, the difs also show them contending that there is no legitimate reason to proxy, and that privacy rights are more than outweighed by Wikipedia's needs. If they suggested that the solution was to use a closed proxy (and to inform the arbitration committee?) I'm not aware. Additionally, however, the proxy apparently was not limited to one account, as SlimVirgin's comments state that both accounts were found to edit from the same one. Mackan79 (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible Leibman socks?

Wspock50, Allen Beyda --Ebyabe (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'd have to say no. They don't fit the pattern closely enough. Not belligerent enough! —Wknight94 (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya sure? 'Cause shortly after dropping you this note, he "vandalized" my talk page. I suspected the second one more than the first. Though "Wspock50" vs "Wknight94" sorta fits his odd naming pattern. Oh well... :) --Ebyabe (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone copycatting Liebman? Would there be a lower life-form than that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll say this - if those are him, then he has changed his modus operandi a bit. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It does seem he's going kooky on the Whitey Ford page recently, though. The birthdate stuff, again. *sigh* --Ebyabe (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the question of Whitey Ford's birth year was one of Liebman's early contentions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wspock50 and Allen Beyda are arguing against each other though so they can't both be Liebman. I'm looking at Allen Beyda and Biographical Research (talk · contribs). They don't smell right... —Wknight94 (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, I blocked those two. Wspock50 is fine though. The edits there were going back-and-forth so much, that even I reverted to agree with Liebman once! Maybe I'm a sock!! —Wknight94 (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Melody Perkins

Someone anonymously reverted your sockpuppet notice at User:Melody Perkins. Wronkiew (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding the protection for the Talk:Jenny Agutter page. I don't think Melody/Walter was going to give up so easily so you seem to have nipped any further arguments in the bud. Tavy08 (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Request to process image deletion nominations

Hi Wknight. I nominated two images for deletion but they were left out when the daily page was processed. I don't think they're controversial - the user who uploaded them hasn't contested the fact he mistakenly tagged them as his own when they'd come from unknown sources. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look.

• Image:Kwang Hua VI After Typhoon.jpg
• Image:Wan Chien IDF.jpg

Thanks. John Smith's (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, buddy. John Smith's (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Once Again

Thanks for protecting my Userpage, I was actually hoping Melody/Walter would just give up, but now it seems as though resorting to personal attacks is one way to get revenge after losing a dispute.
Thanks once again.
Grateful Tavy08 (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Virginia State Route 267

I don't see where the user is banned. Can you point to that? Tedickey (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Simultaneous movement

Yo, Wknight, I understand you are only following WP:BAN in reverting Simultaneous movement (talk · contribs)'s edits, but the ones I have looked at check out as improvements to the articles. Could you hold off on the blanket reversions until the content is checked please? Although I'm sure you have the best of intentions, admins removing good content from articles in order to fulfill a social end seems to me to fit the definition of "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". Respectfully, the skomorokh 12:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a deal - if you 1.) find a better way to say things than throwing WP:POINT at me and 2.) let me know how/when you plan on checking that account's contribs, esp. when he is tied to Absidy (talk · contribs) which leads to Obuibo Mbstpo: banned for malicious hoax articles... then I'll stop mass-reverting/deleting. I take hoax articles very seriously and think such things could bring about the downfall of this entire project, esp. if done quietly enough. I've already deleted several of his articles which no one else had ever touched - each a possible ticking time bomb waiting for a big news organization to find and claim as proof of Wikipedia's systemic problems. The only way to show people like that the door once and for all is to undo all of their hard work ASAP. But I'll give you a chance to find anything useful in his contributions before I continue. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I do honestly believe the indiscriminate application of G5 is disruptive, and meant no personal slander on yourself. Articles of worth created by the individual in question which I have worked on recently include Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism and New Libertarian Manifesto. I have checked and verified that this and this reversion of yours removed well-sourced accurate information from articles. If it's no to much trouble, would you consider userfying the articles you deleted to me at User:Skomorokh/Simultaneous? I have a good deal of experience with article restorations and rescues. I was not aware of the hoax issue, which obviously casts the matter in a different light; could you elaborate? I would characterise most of the contributions of this user that I have come across as accurate/sourced but used in a pov fashion (WP:COATRACKing and the like). Thanks for your reply, the skomorokh 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, with all these contributions being correct, I am wondering why he is banned in the first place? Maybe that's the issue that needs to be raised? I know a few of the articles I deleted listed blogs as sources, etc. My guess is that your characterization is a large part of the ban - creation of articles that are kinda accurate but are really part of an agenda. I undeleted the articles (in place) so go ahead and take a look. Just please keep in mind that the only way I've ever driven a banned user off the project is to undo the work they have done. If we're not going to do that, then we shouldn't bother banning anyone. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring those; most look like worthy topics (I will probably prod Charles Aldrich (Libertarian) though). Yeah, a lot of the articles are borderline-notable with borderline sources. Sometimes things got heated when deletionists took umbrage at the articles, and the fallout of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neg (seduction) got one of the socks (justifiably) blocked for quite pointed personal attacks against female editors. I take your point about the effective means for driving away banned users, but my philosophy is that the content is what matters. Blocking does not seem to be effective as If it were up to me, I would probably restrict the person to one account, then monitor their edits in line with policy. In any case, thanks for your responses and sorry if I came off unnecessarily strong in my initial message. If you're interested in following the issue, you might want to watchlist User talk:Sarcasticidealist and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarsaparilla. Regards, the skomorokh 15:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Liebman sock 10-25-08

Here's a pair of updates from today (from a single sock) [14] where he thinks he knows No Guru's first name: [15] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Wishuponsarah

Can you please tell me where the best place to place this would be then if you feel it should be deleted from the list of "users for admin attention"? Thanks Jwri7474 (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the best place. Someone will get to it eventually. Be patient... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Liebman 10-27-08

Here's another Liebman sock to be blocked when you have time: [16] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this. I see you fully protected that one archive. I was about to ask for semi-protection instead, but that one's getting big enough anyway, so I'll start a new one. And if he attacks it, I'll ask for semi-protection. What a nuisance - kind of like a mosquito in your car when you're driving in heavy traffic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi, do you think a checkuser is possible in this case - I think this user has multiple accounts. See what he says. He was blocked. Then a while later came back as User:Stoptional, see this edit. Then I think he is also User:Ell-ninio11 attacking the blocking admin, User:zzuuzz. He might have many more account, I just wanted to ask if a CU is possible, or will it be declined as I'm not aware of the CU rules much. Thanks - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good candidate for checkuser. Be sure to mention the legal threat too - would make them more willing to lay down a heavy block. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help. Case submitted but it didn't appear on the main page? Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nydamic123 - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's all ready now. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dmoz.org link

I removed the link to http://www.dmoz.org at Nassau County, New York as it appears to be nothing more than a business directory. You restored the link here and reinserted the link on other counties of New York. Am I missing something? Alansohn (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It was removed by a sock of a banned user and reverted per WP:BAN. If the edit was actually appropriate, feel free. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 World Series

Well, at least you can say your Mets lost out to "the best". Or maybe NOT. That was one of more sloppily played Series I can recall, and not very well umpired either, but that's another story. But the level of play in the Series kind of shows what happens when the supposedly "hot" teams get in, as opposed to the supposedly "best" teams: the Cubs and Angels. It would have been interesting to see this week's Series games played in Wrigley, with possibly some snow accumulating on the mostly-bare-by-now ivy. Maybe next year. Or century. Or millennium. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the common thread is endurance. It's the only thing that seems to link the Mets suddenly falling apart in mid-September (two years in a row) with the Cubs and Angels collapsing in mid-October with the Rays going from record-setting offense one week, to being dominated and embarrassed by Joe Blanton the next. You'd think such a young team would be able to outlast a 63-year-old Jamie Moyer but apparently not. The Phillies pitching staff just wasn't that good so it's the only explanation I can come up with. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Before game 7 of the ALCS, Cal Ripken predicted that the Red Sox had expnded all their energy making their comeback and that the Rays would win, which they did. I was thinking that maybe the Rays likewise expended all their energy to get to the Series. They were running on empty. Which is what you're saying also. They just basically stopped hitting. It's kind of nice to see old Cub Jamie Moyer get his first Series ring at the age of almost 46. Otherwise, the result was not what I wanted. I was at least hoping for a 7-game Series. Well, now that it's over, everyone is undefeated again. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny, it still seems like the Mets are quite well defeated. Maybe by next March, the thought of 0 in the loss column will drown out the 1 in the GB column from this year. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Mets only won 1 more game this past season than in 2007. I wonder how they would have done if not for the presence of ex-Twin Johan Santana. Which reminds me that I'm seeing a few too many successful ex-Twins nowadays. :\ Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he didn't do too shabby, eh? Led the majors in ERA or something like that? Now if only the bullpen wouldn't blow half his leads, he'd be on the short list for a Cy Young! I win all ex-favorite team discussions with one name: Scott Kazmir. Kazmir for Victor Zambrano has to be one of the worst trades ever, certainly in Mets history. Zambrano spending most of his time in various random minor league team buses in the middle of Iowa or Kansas or wherever, while Kazmir plays in the first of what may be several World Series alongside other ex-Mets like Dan Wheeler and Cliff Floyd. I'm livin' the dream with all the leftover chokers. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. That deal sounds like a good candidate for Brock for Broglio. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Another good article I've never seen. And Kazmir's already in it. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed he is. I had overlooked it. I must have been too busy arguing for David-Ortiz-for-zilch. They argued that wasn't a trade. That means I need to write a special section - players who were released and went to stardom elsewhere. That could be one of my Hot Stove League projects. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of another Roykoism, which maybe ought to be in the article if I can find the citation. In one of his "Cubs quiz" columns in the late 1960s, Royko commented that since the trade, Brock had stolen all the bases in the world, and Broglio had stolen away into the night. I recall that trade and thought it was not a good one, but what did I know? Well, little did I know how much worse it would be than anyone imagined. These things happen sometimes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Belllingham Mariners

What about it ISN'T accurate?

Just wondering, it's a proven fact they were the Mariners, Griffey Jr. hit his first pro HR with them. The records on that page are factual and accurate. I didn't make the page but everything said on there is fact, if it's wrong. Keep it up and let people fix it. Thing is....It's not....I know the Wiki rules and sourcing and such but....

How is someone writing in a newspaper different than someone at Baseball Reference.com better than the other? I see mistakes in books about baseball history and newspapers all the time from so called "experts". This article though it might not be by a sports writer is expertly written read it...Pick out any fact written and you'll see it's not wrong.

If it's not up, who's going to write it? Most minor league teams have

"This was a team based in Hooterville, USA"

as the whole article...Because unless it's written by an actual sportswriter of that team it's considered "unsourced" due to the lack of achives on Single A short season baseball....I know I'm wasting my breath.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll copy this to Talk:Bellingham Dodgers and answer there. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It is to laugh

[17] Of course it's not a sock, b/c he says it isn't. *lol*

"Cactus League", eh? Let's see... what does Liebman have in common with the type of pain you might get from a cactus needle? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean it's not some sort of baseball reference? Anyway, good on the blocking, WK. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Marthafiles

Man, you are fast! I saw the sock's first edit four minutes after it occurred, and you had reverted, tagged and blocked before I finished looking to see if it was the same edit. Jd2718 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I've got lots of sock targets in my watchlist. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Dar book for Indef Block

Hello Wknight94,

This is, once again, about the subject of this checkuser.

I don't think this even merits another checkuser because the situation is quite plain. Dar book has been using 222.127.223.70 as a sock, and the latter's talk page is replete with warnings of all types (all seemingly unheeded). It seems that he forgot to log in and accidentally used it instead of his Dar book account to edit the Eli Soriano article.

This is the line that gave him away:

why would a person buy a website just to lie?. (edit summary)

why would a person buy a website just to lie?. (please scroll down to red letters)

Another slip, a Marikina Science High School edit also gave him away. Dar book is the creator of that article.

This user is becoming a big nuisance.

Many thanks,

– Shannon Rose (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it may be that the computer he is using is a shared computer at his school, etc. People vandalizing from that IP may be different than the people making constructive edits from that IP. Only a checkuser would be able to definitively link Dar book to the vandals that are coming from the same IP. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed by checkuser! The person who did that edit was indeed him. If that is a shared IP then it won't be right to block it, but I believe that blocking his main account is in order, though he can still edit using that IP. – Shannon Rose (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

But you neglected to mention the rest of Sam Korn's response, i.e. that other users share the same IP. What is your basis for indefblocking? Never mind that he sometimes forgets to login - I do the same from time to time - what should I put as the reason for indefblocking? Vandalism? Copyright violations? Personal attacks? Something else? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a shared IP. It belongs to a particular user of globenet.com.ph, an office worker.

inetnum: 222.127.192.0 - 222.127.255.255

netname: GLBB_IP_BLOCK

country: PH

descr: NETWORK ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

descr: Makati

descr: Philippines

admin-c: AA400-AP

tech-c: JV60-AP

status: ASSIGNED NON-PORTABLE

changed: jmv81144@globenet.com.ph 20080121

mnt-by: MAINT-MGR-AP

source: APNIC

person: Allan Abarquez

nic-hdl: AA400-AP

e-mail: aaa81020@globenet.com.ph

address: 12/F Valero Telepark

address: Valero St.,

address: Makati City

phone: +63-2-797-8332

fax-no: +63-2-797-7177

country: PH

changed: jonjon@globenet.com.ph 20041206

mnt-by: MAINT-MGR-AP

source: APNIC

The user has a confirmed COI over the articles of contention, being a member of the religious group in question (he used the words our leader as an address to Eli Soriano in one of his edits), but he would neither lie-low nor listen to anyone else's suggestions with regards to his anomalous editing. He keeps on injecting propaganda materials that are unsupported by reliable third-party published sources (all his sources are either personal blogs, talk groups, or websites of the organization itself), and he uses every trick in the book, including the use of a sock, to keep on reinstating those edits. This happens every single day. – Shannon Rose (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

globenet.com.ph appears to be a regular ISP - like Verizon or Roadrunner, etc. How do you know he is an office worker? Sounds like you need to bring this through the WP:DR process, or WP:ANI. There is simply not enough activity for me to take the drastic action of indefinitely blocking someone. Sorry. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for dropping in, but what you said to me here did scare me, a lot. I want to make a Truce with this COI editor who seeming does hate the Members Church of God International. He even said to me, cultic-brainwashing is hard to fight and sometimes even requires the assistance of a professional therapist. Also, thank you for not indef blocking me, I am also trying to forget what she did to me. I am focusing on editing non-related articles but she is even dragging this conflict to my native language Wikipedia, where I just recently established an account. I don't want to make enemies in WP, but I don't know how to end this conflict. For me she is a COI editor because she even accused Eli Soriano as a swindler; not believing in the THIRD-PARTY source of Soriano's award and lastly accusing the MCGI a cult. I have the same opinion of Wikiuserphil and Journeyist, which I promise you that these 2 users are not my socks. Their just inactive that's why I feel alone in trying to place what I believe is right. I can be a good editor if my opinions will be accepted or rejected with kindness, without accusing my belief as a cult and related stuff. Which was supposedly going to stop me, instead it made me more angry. How can apply for a truce if she keeps trying to tell my bad past to other Wiki Editors such as Polly, the user who always reminded me things about my uploaded images. Hoping for peace. Dar book (Complains?) 09:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't do the vandalism done by 222.127.223.70. Although I did use it in editing a few times. It is a shared IP across the block. That's why she considered me a nuisance. Dar book (Complains?) 09:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. CheckUser already confirmed that you did that particular edit. It may be a shared IP but it has already been confirmed that you did that particular edit. Stop lying to everybody, you are already busted. – Shannon Rose (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

RFCU

Hey, just wanted to stop by and commend you for all your hard work and effort over at WP:RFCU. For quite a while there I was doing the majority of it myself and if I ever took a few days off the page went into disarray, but now with all of your great help I am no longer worried about that happening. Anyways, I just wanted to give you some recognition for your good work! Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. Hope you get a few nights off. :) —Wknight94 (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

59.183.0.0/18

I have unblocked this IP range. log. It is a part of the ISP MTNL Triband. Several productive editors from Mumbai will be outed by this block. Cheers! =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty big range. However, I thought the block would not do much harm, since it's anon. only, account creation blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

New title for 2008 attack at Beijing Drum Tower during Olympics

• I have set up a poll to vote on the new name of the article. Please go to the talk page. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A New Mystery Man Editor

I've got nothing to go on but my crap detector, but check out this recent history and see if you don't think it's worth looking into whether this is the work of The Mystery Man/Ari Publican/William Tennant. Thanks. Best, David in DC (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd think an RFCU might be in order. I see a couple others that smell a bit like sleeper socks so I'd recommend asking for a sleeper scan as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Slow down please. I know less than I seem to know. RFCU I recognize, although I've never filed one. I know what sleep socks are but have never heard of a sleeper scan. Do I include the request for on in my RFCU? Help! David in DC (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait I HAVE filed an RFCU. I'll use that as a template. Never mind. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Cat Template

Why did you protect the cat template? What was being done to it that it needed to be protected for? I have a good edit, but I can't edit with the stupid protect in place! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.129.4 (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. Which template has a stupid protect? And what are you trying to change? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Liebman socks 11-7-08

He's back to one of the pages where his OR started [18], assuming it's him and not a coincidence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Who was that Trent McCotter dude that a left a not on my talk page? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A Ron liebman (talk · contribs) sock that we missed. He's obsessed with Baseball Bugs. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

He won't rest until he's driven me from wikipedia. Hence he's not getting much rest. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And here's another redlink Liebman sock I just reverted. He's not just obsessed with me, he's also obsessed with Whitey Ford: [19] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. See section below. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

can you block the users User:Allen Beyda, Biographical Research, Michael Daniel (Black Mike), Gloria Abreu Ris, they are clearly all the same person, and he/she called us both fools.--Yankees10 16:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The first three were already blocked. I just turned that last one in to WP:AIV, and we'll see whether they zap him before Wknight94 does. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

They zapped him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

They blocked him just after he vandalized Whitey for the third time. Three strikes! Yerrrr out! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And the Whitey Ford page got protected. So what's Ron going to hit next? Place yer bets, ladiesandgentlemen, place yer bets! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)