User talk:Wknight94/Archive 10

Hey, I read your suggestion, slept on it, & I decided that I need help. I need a mentor. Where do I go to find a mentor? 72.161.149.136 13:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)(ILikePikachu)

Take a look at WP:ADOPT. If you can find someone willing to "adopt" you, I will unblock the ILikePikachu account. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Im just saying that i think that chris lawrnce is hot in his west tigers gear - dont you agree with me. If on the news he got grabbed by the balls in a game clearly then would you watch it? Id dream of doing it myself - I have! In an empty toilets at the mall i grabbed him and he kissed me so i would let go of him! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blankkaleidoscope (talk • contribs) 10:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

FREEDOM OF SPEECH. NET NEUTRALITYThis user seems to be a spammer only doing so by creating userpages. -WarthogDemon 03:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked (along with some other blocks and despamming). Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out for my user page while I was away!

Love to love ya!

IamMarkBlake 04:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 05:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

For reverting vandalism to my page. I haven't been here that long, but now I feel like I'm really one of you! :-) America's Wang 14:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh. My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

responded on my talk page

It seems at some point you moved a lot of templates relating to Congressional delegations, creating a lot of unused, old redirects. In an effort to clean out the Template namespace, would you object to me deleting these old, unused redirects (e.g., Template:110th Wisconsin Congressional delegation)? Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Those were the beginnings of an idea I had but I'll never get the ambition to see it through to fruition so go ahead. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just had my attention drawn to the case of User:Ggggggggggggggg12, who it seems you blocked, and who ended up driven away from Wikipedia.

I can't see any reason that this user needed to be instantly indefinitely blocked without even a warning. It's not a very clear username, I'll agree, but you should have talked to that user to change it, not indefinitely blocked them. Newbies don't know all of our rules -- that's why they're newbies.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

They should be seeing the message in {{Usernameblocked}}. Are they not? WP:U is pretty clear about what is not allowed and even lists "aaaaaaaaaaaa" as a disallowed name. It also says that in egregious cases - and I imagine names almost equivalent to the examples listed would count as egregious - your account will simply be permanently blocked. I don't block borderline cases but this wasn't one. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of unclear, which font am I supposed to purchase and install to see the talk page link in your signature? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Any Unicode font that contains IPA characters. One free Unicode font is Charis SIL.

Back on topic, that's not what "egregious" means. "Egregious" does not mean "mentioned in a rule that you are intensely familiar with but which the poor newbie has never seen". To me, it means a username so inappropriate that even the user should know it's inappropriate. WP:U is also pretty clear that when the user is not a blatant vandal you should be discussing their username with them first, not indefinitely blocking them.

You also never placed the "Usernameblocked" template, so the user had no idea they were being blocked and no way of knowing why. When the user requested an unblock, User:Kurykh responded essentially "Nope, it was a username block, go away."

In short, I think that you've favored a draconian interpretation of a rule over common sense. Newbies are the future of Wikipedia. We can't go around blocking them for being unfamiliar with rules that are far removed from our core policies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

When they are blocked they are supposed to see the block message. In this case the block message is {{Usernameblocked}} which should expand out to show that entire template. That entire template shows a nice friendly message and directs them to WP:U, etc. If they are not seeing that template when they try to edit, that's a whole other issue. I'm honestly not sure what else you're looking for. Is every admin supposed to personally apologize to every person that chooses a dumb username - in this case, one that is mentioned almost verbatim in the WP:U policy itself? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The user was a newbie. Despite that you have many times, you need to realize that newbies have never read WP:U. Even if you had correctly given the newbie the message, they would only see it after being blocked, at which point their first impression of Wikipedia has already gone to crap.

I don't see why you think you would have to "apologize" to users who choose a dumb username. You don't have anything to apologize for if you don't screw up their WP experience in the first place. What makes you want to indefinitely block someone for being a newbie, besides a misguidedly literal allegiance to an obscure policy? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you should be made aware that this is a discussion on this block here [1] so you may wish to contribute. As an aside to the issues made above I would point out that if you go to the User's talkpage it is far from clear who blocked him (especially to a newcomer). Given that when a user is blocked they are asked to email the Admin who blocked them as their first point of call this is not really very helpful to the user concerned and may have added to his frustration. Kelpin 18:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wknight94, I think what you did was wrong. There was nothing wrong with the username and if there's a rule against having a username like that then there is seriously something wrong with this site, but you should be ashamed of what you done.

Howdy. I wanted to get an objective take on an issue that's recently popped up between myself and another editor, User:Maoster. Basically, I recently tagged a number of suspect images in the Regine Velasquez article and had some of them deleted due to violations of WP:NONFREE. The article has a history of bad images with no or poor fair use rationales. In retaliation, Maoster has seen fit to start removing images from the Kiss article simply because I edit it heavily. His rationale for removing them is that they are not allowed in the article at all, but my take is that they are since they are being used as part of critical commentary, not just as decoration.

I have no desire to get into an edit war, and I certainly have no intention of blocking the user just because I can. Can you take a look and offer your opinion? I think I'm being reasonable but I want to make sure. Thanks. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As you state, that's a pretty obvious WP:POINT violation. I can't honestly say what the latest trends are re: fair use and I tend to stay away from the whole issue. Your removals seem pretty clear-cut but the removals from Kiss are a tougher call so you might want to get a more useful response at WP:ANI for those. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize that indefinitely blocking this idiot's IP addresses doesn't resolve the underlying problem of the situation ... but it does seem to slow him down a bit. I'm not certain of the particulars of his situation, apart from the fact that he's targeted me repeatedly over a period of several months. CJCurrie 02:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm fairly certain that these IPs aren't generally accessible, though I'd be willing to undo the indefinite blocks if I've made a mistake. I suppose shorter blocks would have the same effect, now that you mention it. CJCurrie 03:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

...and block me for 24 hours for personal attacks? I'm getting fed up with some of the idiots on some of the pages; it's bringing out my "evil" side, and I need an enforced cooldown. (I told you I was "my own sockpuppet".) Danke. :) Baseball Bugs 02:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I did it myself, sort of. If I come back sooner than late Thursday evening, feel free to post a real one. Baseball Bugs 02:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just call me "Otis". Baseball Bugs 02:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL, that would be a first. I'd have to find out if I'm even allowed to do that! —Wknight94 (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see now you're blocked. I didn't realize you were serious... —Wknight94 (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I was being a bit careless there. --Walor 18:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry -- I'm fixing them. They went through an step that stripped out non-basic characters. Removing that step and trying again. --Walor 18:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello; I noticed that you are an administrator who has done some work on the Arrogance article. If you look at the recent edit history, you will notice that there is an anon. user who keeps adding a link to Arrogance-forums; this is a dead link with no corresponding Wikipedia entry. Since disambiguation pages are not lists, and are solely for the purpose of navigating existing entries, I have been removing them when this IP user re-adds them. I am hoping for a more sustainable solution than this. I have posted a note on the user's talk page, but I would imagine that anon.s don't make too much of a habit of reading their discussion sections. Thanks. ◄Zahakiel► 04:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine what the point of that is. The lamest attempt at spam ever? It's not an external link and has never been a valid internal article. I've left a warning and will hard-block (as an unshared disruptive IP) if it happens again. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're bored or restless, you could consider whether this guy [2] should be blocked, as his primary purpose seems to be to hassle admins. Baseball Bugs 04:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what Irishguy does. If he wants an uninvolved admin to block, I will, but I imagine he'll have no problem blocking himself. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he's attacked two different admins. I thought maybe they were waiting for a third party to zap the interloper. However, you're right. Baseball Bugs 11:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

An admin blocked him for the right reason, and then unblocked him, and he started harassing again. I don't get what's going on with that. I left a message for the admin, User talk:Tawker, but it says he's now on wikibreak. Baseball Bugs 21:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, here's one that's been around since April somehow. What he was doing in April, I don't know, but his current status lives down to his name: [3] Baseball Bugs 11:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He's done. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one. [4] Baseball Bugs 16:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. You find 'em all over, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Spanning the globe, to bring you the constant variety of sport..." Baseball Bugs 20:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This one only touched one article so far. He's not what I'd call subtle. [5] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This one's sole purpose appears to be to post his favorite website. [6] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This one popped up tonight, serving no purpose except vandalism. [7] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Another admin warned him so I don't want to step on toes by blocking. Let me know if he returns. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This one, which already has a history of blocks, is messing around with the Baseball article and has had to be reverted several times: [8] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you placed the {{unsourced}} flag I wonder if you'd go back, revisit Bill Tritt, and remove the tag if you feel the references are up to Wikipedia standards. Thanks in advance. William (Bill) Bean 12:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh you don't need my permission. Especially since I added that more than a year ago!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You had made me a user 5 weeks ago and I had promised that I will remember you. I have carried over 500 edits over past two weeks alone, although most of my time was wasted over discussions mostly over people who like to bite newcomers. I was once indefinitely banned for issuing a legal threat to an admin who was constantly abusing me, because I did not know legal threat against illegal abuses in not allowed in Wiki. Newcomers have a lot of problems, but now I am OK. The ban was immedietely lifted because many compassionate editors and admins were happy with the content of my edits and insisted that I am fast learning the rules. If you ever find time, the last portions of Talk:Rgveda will show you what problems newcomers sometimes face. Now it is OK. In talk pages, the tilde do not link when I sign and I have to manually copy and paste my signature, although it is OK in the main article. I do not know who will help.Regards. - Vinay Jha _{Vinay Jha} 15:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that you have placed the {{blocked}} template on ClueBot's talk page. Though, the logs show no block of ClueBot and ClueBot can still edit. May I inquiry as to why you have placed the blocked template on ClueBot's talk page? -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 02:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Woops, sorry. Now I need to figure out who that was actually intended for... —Wknight94 (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Could it have been intended for User talk:24.61.233.24? -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 02:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears so. But now they're venting to no one on their talk page so they obviously got the message already. Sorry for the bother again. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Wknight94. I'm honestly not really sure how commons works - I just started there. If there is an image on commons, does it automatically get a page display on English wikipedia? Also, does it have the same rules against user-degraded images of this nature?Proabivouac 21:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is my understanding. If someone puts [[Image:Something.jpg]] into a page, the software first looks for Image:Something.jpg on Wikipedia. If it doesn't find that name, it looks for Image:Something.jpg on Commons. If it finds it there, it displays the image from Commons. You can tell that the image came from Commons if you see

This file is from $1 and may be used by other projects.

in the image description page. I'll admit I'm not sure about what rules apply to using Commons images on Wikipedia. But I know only Commons administrators can delete such images (and I'm not one). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. I found that very confusing, especially with the en.wikipedia address and all. Thanks.Proabivouac 02:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I figure AGF is easy to do, and nothing is hurt with another chance - at worst we have to revert something. Phil Sandifer 04:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Must've just been the "takes some time to update" thing - they now show up in the history. Thanks, WilyD 14:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your action regarding the harassment by the above user. I am very grateful to you. --Stephen Burnett 16:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. It seems to be a static IP so I changed the block to a week-long hard block. You can also go to WP:RFPP if you need your talk page semi-protected. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, many thanks for that - something I wish I had known before! Thanks again --Stephen Burnett 16:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't adding anything disruptive or false. In fact, what I added is completely supported by what is already on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jondalar#Traits.2C_Skills_and_Powers (middle of the second paragraph)

If you personally took offense to the information, too bad. As I have been told, taking personal offense to information is no reason to remove it from Wiki. 67.135.49.29 00:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am just coming to say I was editing the kelly Clarkson article but i realised I violated the three-revert rule. Am I going to be blocked or told off? I never knew there was such a rule until I saw another user's page where you had given them a warning. I'm just wandering because I didn't know and i don't want to get busted or anything. Thanks Sound of White —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:56, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

I don't see where you violated 3RR. It looks like you did one revert and someone else did one. 3RR is where one person reverts four times in a 24-hour period. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I did a bit of research before using rollback though, just in case it was a good-faith mistake. When I looked up the article they mentioned, saw that that article had been recently protected due to BLP concerns, and after doing a WHOIS on the IP and one of the IPs that had been editing that article, it seemed rollback was appropriate in this case, as it was most likely that the person wanted to insert BLP-violating material back into the article. Acalamari 21:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, there was a Media:Example.ogg on the top of the article. Got that out. Sljaxon 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wkight94. I've fixed it. Appreciate you telling me. -- --== Waycool²⁷ ==-- 16:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this is cryptic, but I don't know if WP:VANISH was invoked; the simple answer to your recent question is "yes".--Isotope23 ^talk 19:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears WP:VANISH was invoked; you might want to remove your question as a courtesy.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I started to respond here but then moved it to ANI. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I fixed your meta link to RtV... I hope you don't mind. I usually don't mess with other people's comments, but I felt the link to the page was relevant in light of your question.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I never mind being legitimately corrected. Thank you. And if you still feel uncomfortable with my revelation there, feel free to do what you feel is right. Personally, I have a problem with the appearance of people "avoiding scrutiny from other editors" and leaving behind a block log that large qualifies in my book. (I'm a bit surprised the block log doesn't follow along with the name change...) —Wknight94 (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know what lit the fire under that user, but he won't answer the basic question I have, so I'm thinking I'll just let this matter fizzle out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It started here [9] with a comment about "not taking people's word for it". I'm now thinking that he was reverting the wrong edit and is trying to apologize in his own way. That doesn't explain the apparently unrelated user also raising the same issue. Hey, you used to be from the New York area, right? Do they, or did they, ever call the football Giants the "Jints", as they used to call the baseball Giants? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why I asked. I figured there had to be something more than the Giants encounter but I couldn't find anything. As for "Jints", I may be the wrong person to ask since I'm from quite a ways north of NYC. I can't say I've ever heard it though. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you find yourself with time on your hands, the snit over the inclusion of certain nuggets of info on that page is interesting. I'm avoiding the gunfire, for the most part, as it seems to be between two other editors. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We actually call it that over here. Same meaning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.6.120.142 (talk) 11:39, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

---Its to do with the pronunciation. One of the P's is silent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hrung (talk • contribs) 11:42, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Be careful. I have little patience for such nonsense. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But seriously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.6.120.142 (talk) 14:18, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Gomena-sai...

---But nice work with all those shiny, non-existent, virtual badges... they must keep your heart ---warm at night.

Occasionally I like to drop a note to someone that it relatively unknown in the community because their focus is not on the community, but the encyclopedia. You, Wknight94, are one of those people.

I spend a good amount of time behinds the scenes, even when I was an IP. I saw your name in logs but not in actual action.

After I became an administrator, I started to try my hand at WP:RM, where I first ran across you. I learned a good bit about the consensus readings of moves from following you, which I think is often far more complex than AfD. I don't contribute much there, but I learned a lot real quick. I still stalk your logs , you do good work. Keep it up. Keegan^talk 05:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you very much! It's fantastic (and rare) for someone to take the time to leave such a note, especially someone who shares the enthusiasm for Wikipedia as you clearly do. Recognizing other people's work happens too rarely here and I really need to follow your lead and rectify that. Thank you again! —Wknight94 (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This user has requested unblocking. The unblock request doesn't really amount to much but they claim they were just makeing a test edit. I was surprised to see them blocked indefinitely without any warnings after only 2 edits. I'm guessing that this must be a recurring sockmaster or have I misread this? Yamla has already denied the unblock. Cheers Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

He denied correctly. The history of the vandlized article - the main page article no less - shows that a different account had made the same "test edit" just a few minutes earlier. Vandals and trolls and socks oh my... Anyway, thanks for letting me know. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Sorry for the stupid question. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a stupid question at all. Don't mention it... I'm always open for questions. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I had never noticed that before, thank you for bringing it to my attention. This entire thing is still a learning expereince for me :) Trusilver 20:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I done a bad thing. I slipped into nannyism, something I often accuse others of doing, and redirected this formerly red-link user's user page to his talk page. Understandably, he wasn't happy about that. He wanted it left red-linked for some reason known only to himself. Is there some way you can delete his user page without also deleting his talk-page stuff? Needless to say, I won't do that again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. It's been covered. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why there was a sudden influx of anonymous edits. I realised a semi-protection was the only option after reverting nonstop. Anyway, thanks for the semi. That has saved me many unnecessary reverts! :) Spellcast 20:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi... The editor recreated the page immediately after you speedied it. --Rrburke^(talk) 20:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

good move buddy ;) Ryan4314 04:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, what a mistake! My sincere apology for such careless actions. Admittedly I was very inexperienced of delete button. I thought that once I deleted the page, its talk page would be deleted as well (like moving page procedure) (!) Thanks so much for pointing out my ignorance. Don't hesitate to yell at me if I stupidly do something wrong again. Have a nice day. @pple 16:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi-protect as well as blocking the leading IP vandal! -fmmarianicolon | Talk 18:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting that...what a mess!!! I should have done that earlier on. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 02:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah wow, I couldn't even figure out what revision to revert to. I'm still not sure it's right. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess the wrestling world subculture just exploded there a tad (and demonstrated the maturity of at least a portion of the fan base?)--Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 02:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Get yer damn filthy paws off my Soylent Green, people!!!

^) Eaglizard 14:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WKnight, thank you for your most kind message. I've long been an admirer of great work on baseball articles. Take care, and keep on abidin'...Googie man 22:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. What was done wrong in listing the image for deletion? Heidianddick 22:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going by this edit where N (talk · contribs) said that it was not listed. The problem appears to be the extra "Imagename" in the section heading at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 10. You apparently meant Image:027 ERP gantry.jpg instead of Image:Imagename:027 ERP gantry.jpg. Incidentally, do you have evidence that the image was stolen from you? —Wknight94 (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Evidence? I can email you the photo and similar photos. You can also email the WP contributor and ask yourself. Heidianddick 15:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't mind if you tell me what is the difference now. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 23:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. okay. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 23:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what can be done about the various bozo IP addresses who keep putting a * next to Barry Bonds name, as if they were the first one that ever thought of that. After reverting it too many times, I tried a different twist on it. Now we'll see how long before someone reverts it back. I'm guessing 12 hours or less. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

HA! Now that's clever. I'll add it to my watch list. Hopefully others will too. If it gets more frequent, we can semi-protect but I'm not a big fan of protection except in extreme cases. (I've been bothered by other admins' tactics at WP:RFPP but that's a different subject). —Wknight94 (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I also ran into it on List of Major League Baseball records and so far have just removed it, but will add it back, where appropriate, to all active players if it comes to that. I'm not too keen on that page as it seems to be a random list of what one or a few editors consider to be the "most notable" records. That in itself is a matter of judgment, but it has some potential anyway. Meanwhile, I'm not sure what you're getting at specifically on the RFPP page, but I'll take your word for it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Just that people get very attached to their favorite pages. It gets vandalized two times in two days and they run to WP:RFPP and say Page X is being vandalized by a rampaging horde of unholy IPs - semi-protect for six months please. and an admin does it! I'm a little disappointed with admins forgetting that this is a wiki and that people are prone to be overprotective of their pet pages. But that's way off-topic and I'll raise the opinion elsewhere at some point. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, that's more like a football topic. The old "end-around" play. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting this page. For your information. Today, basically just a few moments ago, Dutch national television confirmend that the princess (i.e. the subject of the article) herself had been editing the word "false" out of the statement in the Wiki article that she provided "incomplete and false" information to the government about her love-affair prior to her engagement to the prince with a well-known Dutch criminal. The statement however was a literal quote of the response of the Dutch prime minister and well-sourced. Arnoutf 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes that would stir up quite the excitement. Hopefully reducing the number of editors will calm things down a bit. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Your block of the Godzilla: Unleashed article came immediately after three edits that blanked sourced content without any explanation. These edits were unrelated to the edit war that got the article blocked, so could you please to restore the content? Just64helpin 23:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the subject matter. I only recognized that an edit war was taking place. Please use {{editprotected}} as the notice suggests. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course I wouldn't think you were singling me out, and I wouldn't mind in the least if you were. As for going around and unprotecting after a reasonable amount of time has passed, let the record show I'm personally perfectly fine with that. And, by the way, if you wish to revert any of my administrative actions please feel free to. I haven't been here long enough to be offended if someone takes issue with something I've done :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. That's a refreshing attitude and I'm glad you're not offended. There are a few admins about lately that probably need a wikibreak and are far too sensitive and prideful. I generally share your approach where folks are welcome to override my decisions. If I feel strongly enough about it, I will nicely explain why but it ends there. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to protect all names starting with "Zeitgeist"? Probably not but just thought I'd ask since I found two more... -WarthogDemon 23:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of, no. Sorry. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. Suppose we'll just have to continue. D: -WarthogDemon 19:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I added a followup note to your decline to protect the Nick Coleman page - many of the violations are actually from the past several days. Could you please take a look and reconsider? Thank you. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 18:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please check your e-mail for a note I sent you and another admin on an administrative matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wk: I was just reviewing my watchlist and searching for the word "Illui" when I noticed that it had been deleted by you following a prod: "17:43, 9 April 2007 Wknight94 deleted "Illui" ‎ (Expired prod)" I am not sure if either you or the person who deleted are aware of the significance of this term in the world of Orthodox Judaism, particularly in the context of higher Talmudic study in almost all yeshivas where the word "Illui" is used to describe the status and standing of highly superior scholars and students. There have been many great rosh yeshivas and authorities in rabbinic literature who were called by this name and may have been qualified to be listed and described in an article. At any rate, a very serious step was also missed and this article should not have been prodded because when articles relating to Judaism are concerned, it is proper to place a notification on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. I therefore formally request that this prod be reversed and if required let it be put to regular AFD vote. Thank you, IZAK 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a misunderstanding. The article was moved to Wiktionary since it was just a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. It can be found at wiktionary:Transwiki:Illui. If you want to turn it into a encyclopedia article instead of a dictionary definition, feel free. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wknight, I think you may have made a typo over at the AfD for Adofo. You !voted "delete" but the said that he was "definitely notable enough to keep." Oh, and you were right, definitely not a speedy, I suppose I was a bit overzealous. Cheers. faithless (^speak) 01:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, what was so hard about interpreting my comment when all I did was completely negate what I meant? Tough crowd. (Thank you BTW) —Wknight94 (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, then I left out another word in the edit summary I used while correcting the word I left out previously. Clearly I need to go to bed. And then get up tomorrow and check every edit I made today. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. If you have time, can you take a look at this discussion? I'm seriously second guessing myself. This user seems uncannily similar to Mascot Guy in substance and style, but there are some important differences. I also left a comment on the Mascot Guy long term abuse page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That was fast action! I already fixed both articles he vandalised.--Damifb 11:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "he" you're referring to but I'm glad I could help... —Wknight94 (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, is this page appropriate? Especially since it was created by an anonymous IP, who also added the "protected" part. Danke. :) --Ebyabe 22:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That article looks to be junk, but just for the fun of it, I removed the semi-protected part, as an IP address has no authority to semi-protect (which is probably why he thought it was funny). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, who knows what that was supposed to be. It's gone now per WP:CSD#G8. (You can tag those with {{db-talk}} if you find similar ones). There are quite a few sock rings that concentrate on adding false info about nonexistent kid movies and TV shows. I have enough people telling me adding legit info here is a waste of time - I can't imagine wasting time on stuff that isn't even true! —Wknight94 (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

They probably do it to see if it will proliferate through the internet, kind of like starting a rumor. Like the item just below, perhaps? An "active" vandalism? As opposed to a "passive" vandalism (i.e. writing it and waiting for it to proliferate)? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another Ron Liebman sock. He's now sometimes citing SABR as a source. Trouble is, he's a SABR contributor, so any SABR citation he gives is liable to be circular, i.e. it's something he himself posted somewhere in SABR. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him. No time for that! —Wknight94 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I posted that point on the project talk page. I'm also involved in a heated discussion with the deletionists there. I'm trying to avoid going too far over the civility line, although I never hesitate to tell the deletionists what I think of their behavior. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting for one of them to complain that the one user "canvassed" me on this point. However, I was going there anyway to post the Liebman / SABR concern. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention a couple others that also fit the pattern: [10] and [11]. However, you already got them. Good job! d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Ebyabe posted them at WP:AIV and I happened to pull it up. Are you talking about the WP:WPBB project? I'll check that out... —Wknight94 (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I missed one. Same style, same attitude, same third-person-self-puffery. [12] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And as soon as you hang those socks out to dry, another one pops out of the wash. [13] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you once say that the socks had names of other SABR people? Did you try contacting any of them? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see e-mail. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple more, Colagrossi and Danielle blair. I was getting tired of monitoring his bizarrity, so layed off for a while. Partly to see what he'd do, and also to let others have some of the fun. B/c Ronnie's insults, gosh, I couldn't get enough of those. *lol* And the floodgates opened again, so I reported a bunch at AIV, which you caught. Danke, by the way. :) Anyway, cause so many got shot down all at once, I think he's going back to ones that I tagged, but didn't report b/c he'd not used them enough. Swat 'em, though, if you like. :) -Ebyabe 23:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wknight94, I took your suggestion. Watch for a couple of e-mails. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I got a bite, he already knew about it, and asked what to do. I copied you on the e-mail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Got another e-mail, forwarded to you. This is getting complicated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I sent back an answer, with your links. Thank you! For some odd reason, I was reminded of a Sports Illustrated cover that appeared during the 1975 World Series, half of which applies to you. It had a split-screen pair of photos of Luis Tiant on the mound, and of Johnny Bench making a play at the plate. The title was "Tiant beards the Reds / Bench blocks the Sox." :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This guy [14] is posting a link on a bunch of pages, which appears to be spam. He's going alphabetically, and he's up to the M's already. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he finally stopped. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

He was trying to emulate the subject of his pet article, Mile-a-Minute Murphy, by spamming at that speed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not a spammer. I had done the same thing for two other players (Ezra Sutton and Dickey Pearce) in February of this year without any problems. I help run an Internet version of the Baseball Hall of Fame. If you check it out, you will see that I'm not lying to you. I'm not trying to sell anything.—Jtmatbat 02:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip-off. I've zapped your blog from the Sutton article. The Pearce article appears to have been deleted or else it's under a different name. Spam and blogs are considered to be the same thing, i.e. they are self-promotions and they don't belong here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for fixing the Pearce spelling. I zapped it from there, too. I'm surprised User:Tecmobowl didn't zap it first. He was a stickler for weeding out spam and blogs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're the boss, so I will follow the rules. But I honestly don't understand the problem here. We're a dedicated group of baseball researchers who have elected the best players ever to our pantheon. We have information and analysis that would be of importance to someone coming to Wikipedia. If there is any promotion, it's the promoting of the players, not any of us who help run the Hall of Merit. But again, you're the boss and I'm sorry for breaking the rules. You have a good night. Jtmatbat 02:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure your site is fine within its realm, but this isn't it. The concepts you allude to suggest it's all about point-of-view pushing, which is against the wikipedia rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Jtmatbat, your links are not really adding any value to Wikipedia. You're not even linking to pages about the individual players. If everyone who had a web site related to the Hall of Fame added a link to that site to every article about a Hall of Fame player, our pages would be nothing but external links. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

On that page that I had linked, there were hyperlinks connected to each enshrine's name, so technically it was connected to each individual player's page. Not arguing with you, since I have seen the error of my ways. :-) Just a clarification. Take care.

What, pray tell, is this guy on about? Or just plain "on"? [15] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh. Looks like he's just quite excited about fixing links to disambiguation pages. Good for him!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, as long as he's doing something legit, fine. What caught my eye was his edit to the Roger Miller page. I am almost certain that Miller died from smoking-related throat cancer, not from esophageal cancer as such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, there's no such thing as "throat cancer". "Throat" is more of a region, not an organ. One would technically have cancer in the espohagus or thyroid or larynx, etc. (And yes, I do work for a cancer research organization - and no, I am not medically trained in any way. Knowledge by osmosis.) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the "'Ammerin' Ank" stuff is for real. [16] That doesn't mean it will be an enduring nickname, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh. Ya know what? I didn't even understand how that section was set up. Now I get it. I thought the Ammerin Ank thing was somehow tied to Roy Hobbs. Never mind. I'm not a big fan of the whole nickname thing anyway but at least it makes more sense now. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice I'm not actually recommending putting that nickname back. And numerous ballplayers have been likened to Roy Hobbs for a short while, so there's no point in pointing that back, either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the HGH allegations, that ought to neutralize references to anything "Natural". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If they seriously consider unblocking him, maybe I should provide some anonymous quotes from the e-mails I've gotten from that one guy whose identity was usurped. User:Banno took a shot at baseball itself, the importance or non-importance of which should have no relevance to the issue, but does raise questions about his motives in taking this on. We'll have to see how or if things develop. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd interaction there, yes. I haven't perused WP:CN much so I'm not real familiar with the folks there. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I just sent you another e-mail from that same guy, with some candid comments that might be of interest. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And another one just now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. Let me know if you want me to send him an e-mail. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I might ask you to weigh in directly at some point, depending on what I hear back. I raised this question on the other page, and I'll ask you also: How will banning Liebman stop him from continuing his activities? Or will it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I partially answered at WP:CSN. To further answer, a truly dilligent puppeteer can't really be stopped, just outlasted. In this particular case, we would probably have to pose the question of whether it is worth it to shut down long-term the IP addresses that Liebman typically uses. (My guess is that the answer would be "no" since it would be a fairly large range of public library addresses). According to Voice of All's WP:RFCU comment, Liebman has also discovered the joy of open proxies which is further bad news. We've had to live with the likes of MascotGuy and the North Carolina Vandal and numerous others at WP:LTA for years and there's not a lot that can be done in some of the cases. And no, the WP:CSN won't improve things, just make things all the more official - like your correspondence with SABR members makes things more official (and removes any lingering doubt for uninvolved folks like Banno at CSN). —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Rogereeny. And the long term abuse list is likely a direct consequence of wikipedia's policy against requiring registration and approval. So it goes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hard to argue with you there. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple more e-mail exchanges on this matter that shed a little more light. Meanwhile, I see that he has responded on his user talk page. The one thing he has in common with Tecmo is the "everybody's against me" syndrome. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I left the door open one more time, on his talk page, and also sent you an e-mail. The burden of responsibility is on Liebman now, as I see it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well! Or as the protagonist in A Clockwork Orange would say, "Welly welly welly welly welly welly well!" Tecmo disappeared on July 6 after his talk page was choked off (following the rants posted by User:Soxrock's lunatic puppet) and Jmfangio appeared on July 14th. Fortunately, I have had no contact with Jmfangio whatsoever, that I can recall, but he seemed to get himself into disputes pretty quickly, especially with another hotheaded user. I have a hunch Tecmo/Jmfan didn't see this coming. After almost 2 months he probably thought he had gotten away with it. But it's difficult for a leopard to change his stripes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that he got 3 different 3RR blocks in August, from 3 different admins, before a fourth admin blocked him, and none of whom were Irishguy, so he can't complain that a particular admin was "out to get him" like last time. One of his disputes was with User:Ksy92003, a California-based user that has worked on baseball along with everyone else I've mentioned. Another chapter in the Tecmo soap opera. I hope your job pays well. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you have just blocked two vandals who were messing with the Hey Ya! page. I think you were a bit too harsh. remember: vandals can often into contributing editorsConnör ^(talk) 01:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked one vandal at Hey Ya! and they were warned several times before the block. How many "shit" and "vagina" and "porn" and "cockmongler" edits would you prefer before blocking? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

oh, i thought you blocked two IP's. maybe it was someone else who blocked the other. but, did you ever suggest the sandbox etc.? maybe suggest they create an actual account? Connör ^(talk) 13:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You suggested the sandbox! Are we talking about the same IP? Four blatant vandalism edits including two after an administrator's firm warning are more than enough. Your insinuation that my short block deterred the kid from ever reversing himself and becoming a legitimate editor is naïve at best. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

what IP did you block? because i did recommend the sandbox etc to one IP. but i thought you blocked another as well that i hadnt said anything to. Connör ^(talk) 14:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Get back to me when you have the story straight. Or, better yet, don't. Try taking your own advice. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

k, sorry. I just feel very stongly about not being harsh to newcomers. you prolly did the right thing anyways. Connör ^(talk) 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no hard feelings. Just try to distinguish between real newcomers who are trying to do the right thing and learn their way around versus malicious newcomers who are merely trying to show their friends how cool they are by adding "poop" and "Fred is gay" into the main page article over and over. The latter usually find it extra funny and cool to be blocked anyway so I am doing them a favor. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted. I missed that vandalism ... richi 20:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've watchlisted it now since the vandalism rate is literally 100%. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Baseball Bugs, with whom I have worked and conversed, suggested I consult you about this. We have an editor (64.131.205.111) on the article Josh Gibson who insists on using outdated data (home run totals) for Gibson and ignoring the most recent (and professionally researched and published) totals.

His circular arguments finally frustrated another editor BRMo, and he started the same with me, but got hostile and made a backhanded accusation of racism against me, claiming I had an agenda of "downplaying minority numbers" in baseball articles; this is entirely untrue, as his entire contention rests on my having listed the researched numbers instead of exaggerated anecdotal evidence. He insists that the best data is what was written on Gibson's Hall of Fame plaque back in 1972, before any serious statistical research had been made into the Negro Leagues. He refuses to offer any reason for that claim.

This editor has two other IDs that he has used, YoSoyGuapo and DMVGuy, both of which have a history of contentious edits and arguments; I believe at least one of his IDs has been blocked for such activity. He directly solicited my comments by placing an RFC note on my Talk page. I am trying to establish and maintain as accurate an account of Negro League statistics as I can, using published available data, and this editor apparently will not accept those numbers.

Is there anything that can be done to resolve this peaceably? If so, please advise.

Thanks. -- Couillaud 23:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an editor, so my opinion has no weight, but you're 100% correct in posting the most up-to-date numbers available (and I say that as someone who feels that Gibson was the greatest catcher ever, black or white, and it's not even close). Posting incorrect numbers defeats the purpose of Wikipedia, IMO. jtmatbat 12:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As soon as the protection expired, YoSoyGuapo started messing around with it again. He's a very patient character. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm done with that whole situation. No one there seems to want to meet anywhere in the middle and I don't want to play anymore. My guess is that YoSoyGuapo is going to be indefinitely blocked again and that will be the end of it. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the commentary here that I left on CarribeanHQ's page of [17] and his commentary on the talk page of the talk page of Josh Gibson of [18] . CarribeanHQ is listed as an administrator [19] YoSoyGuapo 20:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also wondering why this is deemed to be messing around with the page. I removed POV that was unsourced. [20] . I have asked to admins, you and Carribean to look into this. If I were simply messing around I wouldn't have immediately notified CarribeanHQ to look at my edit so that he knows about it. [21] ; 20:02, 19 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Caribbean H.Q.‎ (→a little help) 19:57, 19 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Josh Gibson‎ YoSoyGuapo 20:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[22]and "And while it probably won't matter to our hostile editor, thanks for letting him know that he's a minority in his battle to maintain ignorance."[23] 64.131.205.111 . Please note I filed an RFC and wanted differing opinions in order to make a better article. 64.131.205.111 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

.

I've replied. YoSoyGuapo 00:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I know you are an admin and I just wanted to let you know that 204.16.148.4 did some serious vandalism to a page. Thanks. -jj137^Talk 02:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone else blocked him/her. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On Talk:King's Daughters, we have had the same person come in with an anonymous and ethnically insulting remark three times now. It is probably the same user, but the last octet of the IP keeps changing. The message keeps coming in verbatim:

  == French prostitutes ==

These "women" were prostitutes; so much for the fwench "pure wool" garbage; nothing pure here. When your ancestors were prostitutes, as is the case of the fwench Canadians, it is curious how the decedants describe themselves as pure!

The IP addresses leaving the message are:

• 132.211.195.38 (6 Sept)
• 132.211.195.73 (10 Sept, 10:38; reverted previous revert left summary of "censorship")
• 132.211.195.127 (10 Sept, 17:55, left summary of "This is a discussion page, and, the comment, even if it is perhaps undiplomatic, is still quite true and should not be censored.")

Can we block this user, or at least lock the talk page until he gives up?

I've left a warning on the page. A range block is an option if it continues. It's not that large of a range. The talk page can also be semi-protected but hopefully the warning is sufficient. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

. . .But you were a few minutes late in freezing the talk page. User 64.131.205.111, who had never edited the page before, put in a gratuitous comment on the talk page before you froze it. He also put in a couple {fact} tags into the article itself where they were not necessary (they were already covered by the list of sources). He did not do this to improve the article, but simply to be petty and vindictive. I removed the fact tags, but the comment cannot be removed. According to his comment, he thinks the regular vandalism of the talk page is "interesting". Could you remove his comment as well, and then freeze the page as a blank?

And since 64.131.205.111 seems to be following my edits, he will note this comment very soon and probably have a new comment of his own for it. Could you please ask him to desist in such behavior? It amounts to cyber-stalking. I'm sorry to have to call the principal's office like it's a schoolyard scuffle, but that is what he's turning it into. -- Couillaud 13:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

He's still at it

I am sorry to have to bring this up again, but Editor 64.131.205.111 is still putting his comment up in the King's Daughters Talk page. He made an irrelevant observation, demanding references that are already in the three books provided among sources, and commenting that the ethnically inflammatory comments that had been reverted earlier (the ones you had to deal with) were "humorous" and "interesting". He has never edited this page, has no background knowledge in the subject, and is trolling just to hassle me, for no other reason that the disagreement over the Josh Gibson article. He's made unfounded allegations of racism against me over the Gibson article, and is now himself calling ethnic insults "humorous". He won't stop unless there is some weight behind it. -- Couillaud 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you agree? I am just expressing feelings a guy has for this guy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blankkaleidoscope (talk • contribs) 07:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why can I not use a photo of Forbes Field on my personal page that is already on wikipedia? Are you saying only one person can use it? It seems you are going after me because you have a personal axe to grind for some reason. What's with it? Youngberry 14:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That young guy keeps calling me names. :'( I'm big enough to take a few insults. 0:)

But if he calls me an upstart, I'm gonna get mad. >:( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that message on my talk page, but I actually need that message. Thanks for looking out though! Jonathan Remember 9/11/01. 22:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason they're doing that is I will mentor them as they are in an Advanced English class in Mexico. I think that might not be canvassing unless I misunderstand the definition? Jonathan Remember 9/11/01. 22:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way you could put a semi-protect on his article, like only for a day or two. This whole Opie and Anthony show thing is getting out of hand. Wouldn't be surprised if partisans of the show (whatever it is) are doing it as a bizarre publicity stunt. Any help would be muchly appreciated. :) -Ebyabe 23:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I went ahead and put a request in at WP:RFP, as whoever it is appears to still be at it. *sigh* -Ebyabe 00:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

All done. (Sorry for the delay - just got home). —Wknight94 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's cool. I have a funny feeling the vandalism was something along the lines of when Steven Colbert makes Wikipedia references. Probably some wacky morning show somewhere that thought it'd be a goof to encourage people to vandalize the Scott article. Who can figure? Anyhoo, thanks, and welcome home! :) -Ebyabe 01:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty common nowadays. I was watching The Daily Show last night when Jeff Garlin joked about Wikipedia and how his friends had vandalized his page. I immediately pulled it up and protected it - just in time from the looks of the talk page!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Was there anyplace else we could have placed the vocoder list as to not offend of bother you or other admins? I requested this in the discussion for this deletion, and no one seemed interested in discussing anything with me. I even offered to clean up the list so it could stay, also, no comment or reply. Since it seems your interested in the subject, might you be able to help me to help formulate a new topic that would deserve such a list? Thanks.--Dereliktae 15:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in the subject. I just interpreted the consensus and the consensus was to delete it outright. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You're completely right, I apologise. It has happened before- I think it is due to a bug in New Page Watcher that means it struggles with certain non-English characters. Feel free to restore. J Milburn 15:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to say hi to Danielle, like you did to Bernard. That's Danielle, not to be confused with Daniella. The names, he's gotten so creative. Or, to paraphrase a wise man, "Danielle, you're a man, baby!" :) -Ebyabe 01:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to give him the idea to stop using the parentheses but hopefully others see the transparency. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And btw, sent you an offline e-mail. What, there's life outside Wikipedia??? *lol* -Ebyabe 02:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think ChadsPlace might be him, but amn't 100% sure, but wanted to let you know. -Ebyabe 16:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And check this. Now he's using square brackets! -Ebyabe 16:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Might it be best to just block "Herb's" talk page? Or let him continue making failed unblock requests? -Ebyabe 17:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And Bernard hasn't learned either. *sigh* -Ebyabe 20:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I reported to ANI, b/c WP:AIV said it wasn't their department. But he's got another one that we didn't notice that you're dealing with? Geezly! Thanks, though, and smiles be upon you. :) -Ebyabe 20:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I whacked Paul frisz‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Lizat dejesus‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but ChadsPlace (talk · contribs) is making me nervous. Fits the style somewhat but not the same edits as any of the other socks. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely missed Paul. As far as Chad, the edit summaries are the same tone, too. Can you have a checkuser done? However it goes, I shan't undo any more of Chad's today, to not exceed 3RR. Maybe it doesn't count with vandalism, but I'd rather play it safe, especially after getting carried away with this one. Thanks again. :) -Ebyabe 20:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the tie between ChadsPlace and the rest. Blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Paul Frisz is the name of a deceased SABR member. I can't account for Chad, but the smart-aleck comments in edit summaries fit the pattern. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your diligent work at AfD, making sure each listing is properly closed, and relisting older ones to gain proper consensus, I award you this barnstar! GlassCobra 16:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much! —Wknight94 (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

cheers I have saved that like on my user page. It should come in quite handy indeed. Yours Realist2 19:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pubs of Newtown. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mattinbgn\ ^talk 03:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

As a third-party observer, I'd like to comment that, whatever Mr. Leibman's behavior, your ideas about documentation appear to be a little off. IF a birth certificate is issued the same year of the birth event, it can be considered to be correct. End of story. Also, using the principle of 'stratigraphy' (the oldest documents were written first), we can say that, for example, a 1900 census listing for someone born in 1899 is far more reliable than a 1930 census listing for someone born in 1899 (because it was much closer to the birth event and leaves little margin for error). It may be said that a 'most accepted' birthdate is often NOT the most reliable.Ryoung122 08:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I won't be "deciding" your case and I doubt anyone else involved will be either. But I can and will give my opinion on the matter. I am also not saying that you are the devil. I am simply saying I do not see evidence that you will adhere to Wikipedia policies if reinstated. I also now see you claiming that people are using the exact same library to make edits exactly like yours with edit summaries exactly like yours. Difficult to believe. As for your theories about genealogical data, we'll apparently have to agree to disagree. All I know is that if I look at census and birth certificates and ship passenger lists, etc., etc., I can often find three or four different birth years - and other detailed data - for any given person. If we did that here, we would end up with wars over details like that at every single article. That's why we try to cut through such things and go with the most reliable and accepted secondary sources and that does not generally include an individual member of SABR, no matter how skilled a researcher you may be. Your skills seem much better suited for leading-edge information sources like SABR itself. I can see you doing well at getting the secondary sources to change their data some day. But until they do, the best we can do is present the most oft-used data. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The point I was trying to get across to Mr. Liebman is that the vital records that he was claiming to be gospel truth are also prone to error. If you take birth certificates and social security records and gravestones and MLB.com records into account, you could well end up with four or five different dates and years with little idea about which was really correct. Oftentimes, even the actual person may not know an accurate birth date! (My mother found four different birth certificates with four different years for my grandmother after she died). That is why Wikipedia presents only the most commonly-used data. While you are correct that Mr. Liebman was finally banned because of rampant sockpuppetry (which continues to this day), the original negative attention paid to him was due to tendentious editing and disruption. As you suggested at his talk page, I offered to let some of his research stand in the form of cited footnotes. He 100% ignored me and continued reverting.

BTW, I'm not sure what your interest is here but my talk page is probably not the best venue. Liebman's talk page probably isn't either. Depending what you are looking for, you could try WP:CSN or WP:ANI. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to some of Ryoung's questions, on the Liebman talk page. The problem is not that Liebman cites these other sources, it's that he says they are gospel, as you say. The right way to do this is the way I did it in the Chief Bender article, i.e. to cite the "accepted" date, and then footnote it with the additional and contradictory information which SABR itself cited in the early 1980s. The fact is, no one knows exactly when Chief Bender was born. Keep in mind that Babe Ruth had his own birth year wrong for most of his career. He thought he was a year old than he was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on cleaning up the vandalism to MidSun Junior High School. Tabor 01:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. All of the offending users have been permanently blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice you voted for deletion last time, I have renominated it. If you have any comments of this deletion, or any of the other debating ones I have made, please feel free to give input on them. JJJ999 03:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed, using your privileges, you deleted the above mentioned article without giving any explanations, which seems to indicate that a consensus exists in order to delete this article very urgently as if this article was constituting a danger instead of leaving it for improving.Anyway the subject of this article is neither political, neither ideological, but is related to methodological concerns and reliable to subjects as factual as complexity and decision making.Be sure about my perplexity regarding this deleting process and the weekness of its argues and conclusions.

It's not useful to answer me that I can contest this deleting process: my purpose is not to contest but to try to make you ask the question if deleting for deleting is a Must. And the answer is in your mind.

Have a good future in Wikipedia administrator involvment...

Robertatum 13:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I am the Technical Services Supervisor for Shelby County Schools in Alabama, USA. I was reading some articles, and say that we has new messages. I see that we have been blocked from editing the Wikipedia due to vandalism. This is fine, and I do not doubt that kids on our network have hacked the Wikipedia. Everything in this school system comes from the IP address of 75.139.45.247.

As far as I am concerned, you can leave us blocked from editing. I would like for us to be able to continue to view the Wikipedia though, if that is okay.

I am sorry that our kids have been hacking your site. If there is anything that I can do to help, please let me know. Thank you.

Walter J. Alexander, IVTechnical Services Supervisor - Shelby County Schools601 First Street SouthAlabaster, AL 35007(205) 682-5621 Voicewalexander@shelbyed.k12.al.usWjalex4 18:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one. [24] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And this one's likely. [25] Not baseball, but a couple of his socks made this edit repeatedly a few days ago. -Ebyabe 23:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail with a list of SABR member names that Liebman verifiably co-opted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You blocked one this morning. Here's another: [26] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice all the recent ones were created in the same 30-minute span yesterday. Further proof of sockpuppetry (not that more were needed). —Wknight94 (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So today's socks were created yesterday? "Sleeper" accounts? Meanwhile, shall I send the list of stolen usernames to the SABR folks? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll just do it, BCC to you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This looks like another one. To add to the "yuch" factor, it sounds like he's telling us that he's got crabs: [27] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And one of his identity thefts has resurfaced now: [28] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he's found another portal: [29] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I read your e-mail. Sehr gut. I also forwarded one to you that might interest you. I think I appealed to their selfish interests, which is often the way to get some action on an issue. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This looks like another new one: [30] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

He just doesn't seem to learn, sadly... [31] --Ebyabe 18:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This may be another one [32], but I'm not sure. -Ebyabe 18:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Caragliano is obviously another sock, as with Barry Friedman, all written in the same style and attitude. However, Caragliano is not yet blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I made an edit on the talk page commenting on some of the humorous edits that were done in the past. Which was reverted by User:Coullard. [33] . I later made a similiar commentary along with a few references. http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Talk:King%27s_Daughters&diff=next&oldid=158619697 . Which was reverted with the commentary; Revert troll. I have asked going to ask you to cease from reverting non disruptive talk page commentary as well as citations. Would you also please speak to him. I don't want to have to leave a commentary on the Administrator Noticeboard. thank you. 64.131.205.111 23:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[34]

I'm not sure what you mean by LIST MT but usernames with bollocks in should be blocked in my opinion. As you are on EDT and it's a Britishism you may not be aware of how strong it is as an obscenity. I've blocked the name. Secretlondon 14:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

LIST MT = List empty. I realize bollocks is an obscenity but figured it was roughly equivalent to "bullshit" and Bullshit Detectomatic didn't seem that offensive to me. We could use some bullshit detectors around here! All the same, I certainly don't feel strongly enough to disagree with you. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright rather than debate about what stats were attained over his Negro League career. Whether or not to count his homeruns or average in other leagues. I have created and am working on an overall showing of his homeruns and average in a general baseball template. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Baseball_Career#Baseball_Career Tell me what you think! thanks YoSoyGuapo 20:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I would then use the template for Babe Ruth, with his "up to 1,100" home runs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What's this vandal ring that I've seen you mention in your block log?? Nothing to do with User:Ron liebman is it?? --Solumeiras ^talk 11:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, a bunch of little kids all editing the same articles and creating the same nonsense and attack pages. "Jane (born 1703) is fat and ugly" and the like. I think I got them all. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like school term's back on again! Good job nuking their work. They really should use Uncyclopedia or the BJAODN wiki for that sort of stuff, not here! --Solumeiras ^talk 11:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked at your comment "Groundless AFD". The AFD was one of the last AFD's to be decided for that day. Many administrators saw it but couldn't make up their mind. This is evidence that it was a complicated AFD, not a simple, groundless AFD.

WP policy seems clear to me. I wrote Official Wikipedia policy is very clear in what to do in this AFD; Delete and Redirect. Wikipedia policy is clear that AFD's are not a vote. Therefore, with due respect to the opinions of the other editors, we should comply with Wikipedia policy and redirect the al-Shehhi article to United Airlines Flight 175 See [1] WP:BLP1E

What is puzzling to me is that administrators don't seem to follow a consistent policy. In 1993, the CIA was attacked and 2 CIA employees killed. An AFD said that Lansing Bennett, MD was to be deleted citing the attack, not the person should be in wikipedia.

In this case, the 9-11 attack and the UA175 attack should be the wikipedia article, not a person (al-Shehhi). Either that or keep al-Shehhi and reinstate Lansing Bennett. al-Shehhi did nothing notable before the attack and was only mentioned in passing in news articles, unlike the ringleader, Atta. I would agree that Atta, 9-11, and UA175 all are notable enough to be article (but not al-Shehhi)

This is not an attack on you. Merely, it would be helpful to understand the workings of wikipedia policy better.

In short, please reconsider your decision and delete al-Shehhi (or reinstate Lansing Bennett). Thanks. Mrs.EasterBunny 17:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. After spending several days gathering information, I put together Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Madman C. I am concerned about the number and specificity of the threats this user has made, as well as his mental state. Further, I am pretty sure I have tracked down the person's real-world identity. Do you think I have enough here that we should report this to law enforcement? If so, is there some formal process that we or the Foundation can use to report this?

Thanks, NawlinWiki 20:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that looks like quite the tragedy. And from around my home town no less! (I used to work in Clifton Park, New York, a half-hour or so away). I will have time to look more closely later today but from a quick glance, it does seem to need some action. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll wait to hear from you. I may also get another opinion or two. NawlinWiki 21:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do. A note at WP:AN perhaps? I asked for advice there recently and was advised to similarly ask ArbCom. The advice I received from arbitrator Charles Matthews (talk · contribs) was very good and well-received back at WP:AN. My situation was very different though (a simple school IP block) and I'm not sure this situation fits what ArbCom ordinarily does. They'll advise what should be done to help the WP community but don't typically advise further than that (to my knowledge). Still, they don't get to be arbitrators by being dumb so it might be worth it to ask one of them for an informal opinion. In a quick scan, I didn't find precedent or even discussion that perfectly matched this situation, but I'll keep looking later today. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wknight94, thanks for blocking that alternate account. I lost the password to that one, and figured that, rather than go to #wikimedia-tech on IRC to get them to add an email so I could reset the password, I reported it at AIV.

Is that an acceptable use of WP:AIV, to report accounts where the password is lost?? Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 10:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see a problem with that. It's the "speedy block" area.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are right, they are not enough nonsense. But what about the one which is on a template namespace? Shouldn't it be deleted? Best regards Rhanyeia 15:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That's where user boxes always were in the past. Please try WP:TFD and the like. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I listed it there. Best regards Rhanyeia 15:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hersfold ^(t/a/c) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the block back there on Gender symbol - now I can go get lunch. :-) Happy editing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Enjoy! —Wknight94 (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)