User talk:Wknight94/Archive 11

User:Jackson555666

I noticed that you blocked this user for his vandalism, and I appreciate your attention to that matter. However, I noticed that there's no comment on his talk page indicating that he's been blocked, which led to me re-reporting him to WP:AIV and generally feeling dumb -- could you remedy this? (Well, at least the talk page comment part...I'm not sure anyone can fix me being dumb. :) ). Ashdog137 16:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I often don't leave messages for indefblocked throwaway accounts since the talk pages just get deleted anyway. I have no problem with other people leaving block messages so feel free. I sometimes forget or don't bother. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

About me uploading higher resolution cover artwork.

Hello,

I upload the images that I'm uploading because people obviously prefer higher resolution artwork over lower resolution ones, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

I understand your reason for opposing this is because non-free images as I've heard shouldn't be high resolution.

However, I see no good reason for this "rule", and if a higher resolution cover is available on the Internet, then it should be hosted on Wikipedia to show to the public.

Not only that, but many articles on this site that fall under the same non-free category also have high resolution covers in their pages.

Like Super Mario Galaxy and The Legend of Spyro: The Eternal Night, it's going to be a huge challenge to discipline the uploaders of these images, so it's better to just not bother and allow these images to be uploaded at any size as long as the uploader provides a source, which I always do. Hero of legend 17:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure people like higher resolution non-free artwork. I'd love to take pictures from all over the internet and enlarge them and put them wherever I want even if they're not mine. But that's not the way Wikipedia works - it's the free encyclopedia. Fair use is a luxury here and is to be used sparingly. More concretely, using low-res fair use images is policy and is not negotiable. If other games use high-res cover images, you should help to rectify that, not try to mimic or even surpass them. If you experience resistance trying to reduce their image resolutions, bring it up at WP:ANI and you should get prompt assistance because all admins should know that low-res fair use images are preferable. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

More Liebman

Responding here to the latest Liebman comments. (Sorry, I get anal about my archives so they're gone now! ) The Tinkers-Evers-Chance one is definitely a sock and is blocked now. The Caragliano (talk · contribs) account is now blocked as well. I thought you were talking about Mike caragliano (talk · contribs) but now I see there are two accounts. I checked and the Jenkins birth date was originally changed a long time ago with this edit but the IP otherwise doesn't fit the liebman pattern and is apparently from Canada. It was into adding the fergiejenkinsfoundation.org spam in various places which I think was a different problem person. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Two Caraglianos for the price of one. And regarding Ferguson Jenkins, if he had simply made the correction but kept his trap shut, he might have got away with the 1942 thing. But by calling it our attention, he also got me to fix the HOF link. The HOF page says 1943, and I'm assuming they would have it right. Unlike Josh Gibson's home run total, player birthdates and the spelling of names [1] are not "cast in stone". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a footnote to Fergie acknowledging that some sources claim 1942. If Liebman had been willing to do likewise, he wouldn't be a banned user now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the reference. I'm not so good with that technical stuff. FYI, the SABR page also lists 1942, but since Liebman probably entered that himself, I consider it a non-citable source. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Let me know if that needs to be done anywhere else. As for SABR, do you know if Liebman actually has enough influence to change their dates all by himself? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't actually say for sure. Their bio pages don't allow wiki-like updates, they're more like IMDB where you submit a change and someone has to approve it. But I don't know anything about their approval process. Liebman says the SABR bio team agreed 1942 was the date, but again that's just heresay. There's no source given on the SABR page for the non-standard birthdate (nor on baseball-reference, for that matter) and I would just like to see a source. This is similar to some of the other birthdate stuff that Liebman was obsessed with. He kept saying that Whitey Ford admitted to a different birthdate, but he wouldn't specify a source, which is why it kept getting reverted. Very frustrating. If a guy says "I was really born in such-and-such", then it should be a simple matter to cite the book and page number where he says that, and that would settle it. But that was beyond what Liebman was willing to do, and that was the start of the road to his getting banned. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is why WP:OR is in place. There are a lot of people - esp. in less privileged areas - that don't actually know when they were born! Even if they say they do, they may be proven wrong later on. But Liebman and others (someone who commented on my talk page a few weeks back) disagree and say that certain records or statements are definitive. Nothing is definitve in some cases. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Seems to me that you had this exact argument with Liebman several months ago, and he refused to acknowledge the fact that there can be discrepancies across the "official" records, in which case the best solution is to give all the facts (as I did with Chief Bender). The most famous player of all time, Babe Ruth, went through his entire playing career thinking he was a year older than he was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(responding to Wknight94) That's okee-dokee. But your talk page was getting so long, I couldn't stop myself! *lol* Sorry I wasn't more clear about Caragliano/caragliano. I do think it's bizarrely funny he created a sock to edit another sock, even though he said the first sock said he was never going to edit Wikipedia again. I don't know why he reminds me of a certain TV character... :) -Ebyabe 21:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there may be more big hard-blocks coming soon. I've heard no backlash from the hard-blocks already in place so extending them may quiet things down a bit. I may go to WP:RFCU to ask them to look for any IPs or IP ranges I may have missed. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Kudos. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Liebman socks - 9/23/07

Guess who's back? [2] --Ebyabe 19:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

When he says "Other editors have already verified facts", it's his twisting of the fact that several of us overlooked that 1942 that some IP had slipped some months ago. Since Liebman has admitted to doing that kind of thing, that would make sense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This might be one also, though I'm not totally sure: [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Those would be new articles, eh? But the obnoxious edit summaries sure fit. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, new target articles for Liebman, and the edit summaries do fit the pattern. He might be right about May 1 vs. May 5 for Minoso, but I'm not seeing the evidence for it in either article, so it's the same old vague citation stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's him alright. It didn't take long to give himself away. He's got much more ego than smarts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably the paranoia talking. More proof that it's him, he's bringing up his favorite "Is there an agenda?" thing. Wonder if he believes that the world's run by these folks thru this organization. Must be a scary world he lives in. But you know what they say. Paranoids don't live longer, it just seems that way to them. Oh well... --Ebyabe 20:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There are at least two things that are not getting through his thick skull, and I hope he's reading this and paying attention: (1) banned users are not allowed to make edits, even if they are factually correct; and (2) if he would provide a LINK to a citation, he could avoid all this trouble. He either doesn't get it or doesn't care. In short, he's either a troll or an idiot. Or both. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that emotion. Third it, even. :) Yep, the burden of proof is on him to provide citations, not us to check if he's right or not. That would be the civil thing to do. I'm still going with this theory... -Ebyabe 20:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What a comparison. It makes me want to "L-O-L out loud." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Got WP:ANI to indef block this one. Wasn't sure, as occassionally they've said they don't do sockpuppets. But usually they realize the problem and do the right thing, as they did in this case. Oh, I also have another theory to explain Ron. Based sheerly on observation of behaviour, of course. Funny, yet in a sad way. :( -Ebyabe 21:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I don't put any more profound label on it than narcissism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a more obvious new one: [4] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the User:Mike caragliano thing again. Probably should just have the user page and talk page of that account blocked. So he can find some other avenue to vent. Never a dull mo', eh? :) --Ebyabe 19:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

I realize that normally, user's talk pages are not deleted. However, with this page being created by an anon IP, and the information that is contained in it, (email addresses of people who probably have no idea they were put there, would it be appropriate to delete it? It definitely appears it was not added by the user of the page. ^Ariel♥Gold 02:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Now it's been blanked so it can definitely be deleted but I would have deleted it anyway. If it returned, I would protect it too. It looks like a dead single-purpose-account and the message was inappropriate. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what it seemed like to me as well. Is it worth deleting the talk page so the addresses aren't in the history? ^Ariel♥Gold 02:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I would. You can use WP:CSD#G7 as a reason if you feel the need. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Okie dokie! Thanks. Want another question or are you having fun deleting temp user pages? LOL ^Ariel♥Gold 02:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you need me to delete that, don't you? I honestly thought you were an admin! I see your name quite often. Anyway, yes I'm always open for questions. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee, okay here's an issue for you: Since 2006, User:Electroclass seems to be using their userpage as a sort of blog/networking page for a university class they are taking, as are members of their class. Granted, it is for a "project" that has the goal of "A substantial article, or series of edits, to Wikipedia on some aspect(s) of electronic music.". But it still seems like the user page is being used as a networking site, rather than what it is intended for. I admit this is probably a grey area, which is probably why it was brought to my attention to begin with, but yes, I'm not an administrator, lol. So, you are often around at this time of night and you're so great taking care of the issues I have (if behind the scenes at AIV, UAA, etc) and I respect your opinion, so I figured while I was here... What do you think of it? ^Ariel♥Gold 02:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's interesting. Somewhat tough call but my first impression is that they're not hurting anything. Still, it would be nice to know if they are actually improving Wikipedia at all. In all of the active accounts, I only found one constructive edit. But they're not spamming and not really using the page just for socializing. It probably wouldn't hurt to ask one or more of them what they are doing but I would keep it as nice as possible and not make them feel unwelcome in any way. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Okay, yeah I took a peek at the contribs and such, and it isn't really immature socializing (Harvard, so hey, lol)... but I couldn't make a determination, so thought I'd just ask while I was here. I'll let the editor who brought it to my attention know about your thoughts, and go from there. And thank you very much for your quick replies! ^Ariel♥Gold 02:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ariel's good at keeping it as nice as possible, so I think she'd be a great person to contact them. ;) (and I'm the editor that brought it to her attention) — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the above comment I honestly thought you were an admin! is very interesting. ~*snickers*~  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 02:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I did, that's why I was suggesting she go ahead and G7 that talk page. Surprising... —Wknight94 (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

~*Ariel shakes her head at Timothy and laughs*~ Alright I went ahead and left a message for the most recent editor listed on the page (added themselves to the list 2 days ago) here, so I hope that's sufficient to pass on the basics, also gave them a link to the Wikiproject relating to their class. ^Ariel♥Gold 03:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

George Bernier

Hi, I'm just wondering why you deleted the article on George Bernier. I had not seen the article before you deleted it, and was unable to work out how to, so I thought I'd just go straight to the source!
Thanks, afromcbenny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afromcbenny (talk • contribs) 14:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Liebman socks - 9/24/07

This one is back under a slightly different name: [5] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait for it... Going to try an experiment. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just laid down four hard range-blocks and a hard-block to another IP. Let's see if that quiets things down. If not, it's off to WP:RFCU. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just64helpin (talk · contribs) is apparently caught up in that rangeblock. Can you help him out? Sandstein 17:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wknight94, I think that you have taken out Queens College's access to Wikipedia. I have several students who are working on Wikipedia-related projects for class, and, frankly, this move is quite drastic given that you are dealing with a baseball entry-related sockpuppet. I might be wrong, but you are cutting off a whole university. Please remove the block immediately and move on to an RFCU -jncohen 12:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've undone two of the range blocks. Let me know if you are still blocked. And if you happen to see Mr. Liebman about, ask him kindly to stop haunting Wikipedia. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Great, thank you so much. I will ask my students if things have been fixed tomorrow. -jncohen 23:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Davidzx

Is User:Davidzx a user page or an attack page? I can't tell which. -WarthogDemon 03:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tough call but I'm guessing it's a genuine user page. He seems to be active so you could try asking him. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked him and pointed to WP:RFPP should he want semi-protection. Thanks. :) -WarthogDemon 03:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

asking

Do you have a problem with me and my redirects, it is from I take thee quagmire when quagmire is supposely eaten, and peter is humming jurassic park music the redirect you dislike. It was supposed to be funny way to redirect.--Icerainbow 19:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC) User: icerainbow

Back

GCB is editing again, so no big fuss needed! :-) Carcharoth 21:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and he was quite nice about all the nonsense. Fuss gun now uncocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Liebman socks - 9/25/07 etc.

This one's iffy [6], but thought I'd bring it to your attention to keep an eye on. Mostly it's the style of the user name, and that the "citation" is in the edit summary. -Ebyabe 22:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the questionable spelling. -Ebyabe 22:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confident it's him, and I've reverted the entries. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the most recent edit to my talk page. I have a question from User Wknightt94 (note the double "t") asking about Liebman sockpuppets. -- Couillaud 12:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Responded. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an odd one. Probably not Ron himself, due to the lack of typos and other sloppiness. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I fixed the formatting so it didn't just stick off the end of the previous line. Probably was him. I thought he was an older man? That was childish even for him. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I hadn't realized you fixed it. Yep, same carriage-return-challenged editor. Let's just say that, as I understand it, he's older than the most recent Cubs pennant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I sure hope I can find something better to do with my Golden Years than watch all my changes get reverted at Wikipedia. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that, as a kid, he would build sand castles and watch gleefully as the tide rubbed them out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Are we all having fun here? It's nice to take a break for levity now and again.

Actually, I have seen one recent editor on baseball articles who was a bit challenged when using carriage returns, and just before this one came in, I had edited the Rube Foster article on what may have been a Liebman edit, so there could have been a hoaxter just waiting for the opportunity. The Foster edit was rather badly written, and I checked its reference (on a site that a lot of SABR members, including Liebman, have access to), and rewrote it in an attempt to make it more readable. If you take a look and decide to remove it completely as just another Liebman, I would not be offended. -- Couillaud 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the theories on where Foster got his nickname? It's not clear, at a quick glance, where that wording came from originally. It doesn't really sound like Liebman, as he usually focuses on stats-trivia, and birthdates. It reminds me, though, slightly off-topic, of John McGraw's arguably heroic efforts to try to integrate baseball a generation before Branch Rickey did when he hired Jackie Robinson. Whatever bad things you can say about McGraw (and there's no shortage), he was either unprejudiced or at least put business ahead of personal considerations. He was among those who hired Native Americans, who were not barred from the majors although they took plenty of race-baiting heat. He was a very influential manager, but not quite influential enough to turn the tide of apartheid. I'm sure it would have irked him that his cross-town rivals, the Dodgers, beat the Giants to that punch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mynameisphil

Any particular reason why you undid the correction about McGwire's 1995 season? No one has ever hit 473 homers in a season, much less in 317 at bats. McGwire had 39 homers that season, which is impressive enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisphil (talk • contribs) 18:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm stupid and didn't read it closely enough. Now I'll look into how that got in there in the first place. Sorry about that. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Greg Smith

Thanks for getting back to me. It's seems I'm getting paranoid, but at least I'm safe from that name.Greg Smith 2 19:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

vandal 207.63.223.51

This editor (207.63.223.51) pops up every few months to make silly and juvenile edits, the most recent one to All-American Girls Professional Baseball League. I see nothing from him/her that has not been vandalism. Can this IP be blocked? -- Couillaud 20:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. Per the usual protocol, the most I would do is 24-31 hours and the IP only edits every few months. It would be pointless to block now. Let me (or WP:AIV) know if it recurs. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Marwan al-Shehhi. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Hi, I wrote to you several days ago but you didn't answer. You did move my note to your archives and edited elsewhere on WP.

Please note that I don't have a dispute or grudge against you. I am merely puzzled to why a non-notable terrorist has an article instead of referring to the event. Ringleader Atta fits the criteria for an article but not Marwan, in my opinion. Any advice or rationale?? Mrs.EasterBunny 20:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving was because the page was enormous, not because of you. And I don't feel you have a dispute or grudge with me, don't worry. The consensus on that AFD was clearly to keep it and, as an impartial closing admin, it was my task to make that call. That's the limit of my involvement with that article. My comment in closing was in reference to very little policy being mentioned in the nomination or the dissenting opinions. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

She's complained on ANI now - it looks like she doesn't really care that it was deleted, but she finds the "Groundless AFD" descriptor incivil - While it's not, really, I also don't see any compelling reason it should be retained (it doesn't eludicate on any policy interpretation, etc, saying _why_, it just states your opinion) so would you mind editing your closure note on the AFD? —Random832 17:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about the WP:AN. And no, I would prefer not to edit my closure note on the AFD. That sets a bad precedent for people who are being offended too easily. Folks at WP:AN (you included) have informed her that she need not take it so seriously and I think that's sufficient. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This kind of thing about wikipedia puzzles me... that someone thinks that a guy who flew a plane into the WTC on 9/11/01 is not notable, when a nondescript major league ballplayer such as Casey Wise is automatically considered notable. I submit that the terrorist had much a much more notable impact on the history of America than Casey Wise did on the history of baseball. In fact, due to the impact on the season, even this terrorist had a more notable impact on baseball history itself than Casey Wise did. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As I commented on the ANI, the AfD was indeed groundless and stating that is in no way being uncivil.--Alabamaboy 20:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Liebman socks - 9/26/07

This one has some of the flavour of his style. [7] -Ebyabe 23:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And look what this anonymous IP was doing. I guess since the Mike caragliano id is blocked... --Ebyabe 00:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that first one would be his kind of edit. I have to give him some credit, as not that many fans remember Nippy Jones, who was best remembered for the shoe polish incident in the 1957 World Series. I don't know what's up with that second one. That kind of thing is not really his style, but I'm fairly convinced he's got a screw or two loose, so there's no telling. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I whacked 'em both and sprotected everything. And no, I never heard of Nippy Jones. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nippy Jones was with the Braves, at bat in a key situation. He jumped back from a low pitch, and the umpire called a ball. He protested that it had hit his foot, the shoe polish mark proved it, and he was sent to first base. I think this was an important play in the deciding game. Also, as I recall, the unrelated Cleon Jones was awarded first base for the same reason, probably in the 1969 World Series. The Nippy Jones incident was a little before my time, but I read about it somewhere, probably in the 1961 Gillette special, World Series Encyclopedia. Gillette was a Series TV sponsor and they used to publish nifty stuff like that. That's where my interest in the game's history really started. Liebman would have been in his early teens in 1957, and as a Yankees' fan, it would have been one of those things you remember painfully. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It was actually in Game 4, and the guy who ran for Jones scored the tying run before Ed Mathews (as "User:Edison mathews", another of Liebman's recent socks) "socked" a game-winning homer to tie the Series. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Liebman socks - 9/27/07

This looks like one: [8] There's also an IP address. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP address was 209.2.60.204, but you got him already. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice him start to move around a bit because I've been semi-protecting his targets lately. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Liebman socks - 9/28/07

This one originally turned up yesterday. [9] It's still not blocked. Same style, uncited trivia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from Witzlaw

I saw where a party, Happytollshacker455, attempted to block my ID along with several other folks. Thanks very much for reversing the change. It happened so quickly that I didn't even notice the incident until I happened upon it in the change history. Witzlaw 02:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Liebman socks - 9/29/07

Here are a couple more: [10] [11] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am Wknight94 on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Wknight94. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

ONH-RIRA

I'd recommend a username block. The first half means Óglaigh na hÉireann, the Irish language version of a number of paramilitary groups including the Real IRA (RIRA). Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

1978? 1969? 1964? 1951? 1914? (1995?)

Who would have thought, on June 1 this year, that the Yanks and Cubs would make the post-season, and the Mets wouldn't? I was hoping the Mets would win today and force a 4-way playoff, thus wreaking havoc with the TV schedule. 'Twas not to be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they were talking about the potential for two two-way playoffs - one for the Phils/Mets for the NL East and one for the wild card. But they didn't talk about it for long when Glavine tanked the Mets game before you could blink. Dontrelle Willis was hit by a pitch and had an RBI before he threw a single pitch! Pathetic. BTW, you can also add 1995 to your list above. I added some content about the Angels collapse that year to 1995 California Angels season. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Mets' collapse was very similar to the 1964 Phillies, which I remember well. Things were different then, though, when there was just one "champion" per league and it was either win or go home. A pair of playoff games this year would make more sense than a four-way. It would have been interesting in any case. After tonight, the second season begins, and anyone could win... as we know from last year, when "anyone" did. I wonder if there is, or could be, an article on the worst collapses, or best comebacks, depending on your point of view. The Mets writeup cites a statistical study that ranks the worst 13 collapses (ironically, written a few days before the Mets' own ignominious end to this season.) That would be a good starting point, although I would focus on games ahead or behind at certain points. In 2007, the Mets led by 7 with 17 to play. In 1964, the Phillies led by 6 1/2 with 12 to play, which is even worse. The 1951 Dodgers led the Giants by 13 1/2 in mid-August, or some such, but that was with a lot more games left in the schedule. The 1914 Braves came from 14 or 15 back in mid-season. But the more games you have left, the easier it is to overcome the lead. The 1978 Red Sox led by 14 or so and it went to nothing by mid-September, then they played nip-and-tuck the rest of the way, so I don't know if that's "as good" a comeback as the 1914 Braves or not. It could be fewest games remaining to overcome a lead of whatever number of games: 1 with 2 to play - done many times, I'm sure (1949, for example). 6 1/2 with 12 to play. 7 with 17 to play. And so on. Or the biggest lead at any point in the season that was eventually overcome. The thing about a comeback or blown lead is that unless the team goes on to win the Series, it almost doesn't matter. The Mariners won the division in 1995 and took a dramatic ALDS from the Yankees, but lost the ALCS to Cleveland. Injuries can be very important, because (as with '95 Angels) you're then not really dealing with the "same" team. Jack Clark led the Cardinals in 1987, but injuries kept him out of the lineup in the post-season, giving an edge to the Twins. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to do a little write-up on the 1964 Phillies collapse but then I found someone had written a whole book on the subject! That's before my time but it sounds spectacular. The Mets demise wasn't quite as dramatic IMHO. They had already shown signs of possible collapse back in June when they lost like 13 of 16 so this wasn't altogether surprising for those of us paying attention. They had also had the four-game sweep at the hands of the Phils at the end of August. The '06 Mets never had streaks like that - they barely ever got swept all year, let alone swept in successive series - so it was clear that the '07 version was nowhere near as good as the '06. But I guess it serves 'em right to collapse like this and let everyone know what stinkers they were this year. They only played about .500 since mid-May including the September collapse. I had to look up the '14 Braves - they came back from that deficit and won the NL easily! That was like a 20+ game swing from 14 back to 8 up! But I remember the '95 Angels best. They didn't even know what to do with themselves. They were perennial losers that hadn't made the playoffs since Donnie Moore-gate in '86. To go from easy winners to missing the playoffs completely right after the '94 strike was devastating! I think some speculated that was one of the reasons to change the name to the Anaheim Angels a year or two later (although I may have made that last part up). —Wknight94 (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

An interesting take on the Mets from someone I take to be a Mets fan. You're basically saying they avoided this failure for most of the season, but that the odds (and injuries, right?) caught up with them eventually. Meanwhile, somewhere in Baseball Heaven, Gene Mauch is saying to Willie Randolph, "I feel your pain." The Phils looked like a sure thing in 1964. I may still have the page from the TV Guide edition that referenced the upcoming World Series and illustrated it with a photo of Connie Mack Stadium. Mauch was the manager of the 1964 Phils as well as the 1986 Angels. I recall thinking when Dave Henderson hit that game-tying homer off Donnie Moore, it was probably the greatest clutch hit since Bobby Thomson's... and just another ignominious moment for Gene Mauch, who seemed to be jinxed as a manager. After last year's heartbreaking loss to the Cardinals, this year must seem to Mets fans that they're also jinxed. They can't even begin to feel the Cubs fans' pain, though. We'll see if this post-season eases those Chicago North Side pains at all, or just adds another chapter. I'm still thinking of writing that article on comebacks... except I'm not sure there's enough comprehensive information on the matter (trying to avoid too much "original research", as well as too much work). One intriguing fact I learned about 1914 was Connie Mack's suspicions that his A's dogged it in the Series, being swept by the Braves. He dumped his stars and soon found his team in last place... one of the periodic "purges" conducted by the A's in their long history. Another intriguing fact is that the Cleveland Indians named themselves after the Boston Braves in 1915. If not for the Miracle Braves, I wonder what the Cleveland ball club would have named itself. Maybe the Rocks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Liebman socks - 10/01/07

Here's one. It's only the talk page, but banned users cannot edit, period. Right? [12] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes article requests

Indeed, admin intervention is required because individual templates are protected. Admins do not, however, appear to be successful in removing blue articles from the lists. I cannot understand why more than a fortnight after red links have been turned blue, the blue links remain, and came to the conclusion that admins perhaps needed more clear instructions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why pages are protected. User:The Anome might be able to tell you. Nervousness, I'd guess. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk

Sorry about that, I'll try to find a more compatible color. Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 12:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (btw, is my sig at least good enough?)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		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) 13:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you very much!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

PopoZao

The IP 71.225.245.85 and his sockpuppets have been repeatedly adding his own neologism to the article PopoZao. His "source" for his neologism is his own entry on urbandictionary. This is not an edit war. 71.225.245.85 has attempted to wikilawyer it into an edit war rather than simply his attempt to publicize his neologism by using allegations of 3RR, "good faith", and other things. I have over 10000 edits on English Wikipedia. I know vandalism, wikilawyering, neologisms, and sockpuppets when I see them. I hope you would appreciate my expertise in this matter rather than threatening to block me for doing something about vandalism. -Drdisque 18:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You are being far too loose with that V word. There are edits like that IP's that stick to articles everywhere every day. To call this particular one vandalism is disingenuous. You should take that to WP:AN3 rather than WP:AIV - but be careful at WP:AN3 because you are at 4RR or 5RR yourself. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you and other admins looked at the facts of the case rather than the arbitrary 3RR. The facts are that this anon added his own neologism to the article. When asked for a source he applied his OWN entry on urbandictionary as a source (which isn't even a valid source even if it wasn't his own entry). When blocked he has used sockpuppets and he is unwilling to engage in any sort of discussion with other editors. Additionally, 3RR excepts "removal of unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living people" from the rule, which I feel this is. -Drdisque 19:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding a neologism is not necessarily a bad faith edit, therefore is not necessarily vandalism. And how does your 3RR exception about "living people" apply in an article about a rap song? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the initial addition of a neologism is not a bad faith edit. They may simply not undertand the purposes of wikipedia. However, the repetitive re-insertion of it after an explanation of why neologisms do not belong and the creation of "sources" to justify its inclusion IS. He has now created yet another sockpuppet to re-insert the neologism. -Drdisque 19:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But your initial revert of the material did not include an edit summary which says to me that you believed it to be a bad-faith edit. Otherwise, you're encouraged to say why you reverted. More recently you have been calling it simple vandalism. Socks? Questionable sources? Agreed. But vandalism is a stronger accusation than that in my opinion. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with it. I don't feel like dealing with this article anymore and I'm going to unwatch it. I'm fine with its inclusion as long as the urbandictionary post is removed as a source (since it isn't) and a {{citationneeded}} is added to it. -Drdisque 19:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

sent you an e-mail

from me. :) --Ebyabe 23:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User 12.108.140.129

Ah, school is back in session, and the little middle-schoolers are out in force. In this case, it's a middle school in Leavenworth, Kansas (West Middle School, specifically), where the kids find sport in vandalizing Wiki articles with misspelled sexual insults at each other, and on at least one occasion, racially insensitive remarks. I have lost count of the number of "final" warnings it has received, but it has been temporarily blocked twice. It doesn't help, as it is host to a changing group of underage vandals each new school year.[13]

I have not seen a single case where an edit from this IP has been made by an instructor; it is 100% students, and about 99.9% simple vandalism (I think I may have seen one legit edit about 18 months ago, but only one). Is there a way to block this IP until, say June 2008 (after the school term is over), or even permanently? I have talked to the provider (Leavenworth Online), who refused to take any action against the school system, and the school itself simply provides internet access in its library with only standard parental monitoring software. While they automatically block the kids from checking out porn sites, they monitor what they do when they log in on Wikipedia.

I know that it would be spoiling the the fun of some 12-year-old Beavis wannabe, but I think it would also result in 10-20 fewer vandalism reverts being necessary each year for the rest of us. Please consider. -- Couillaud 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be viewed negatively at this point. This IP has only made six edits since its last block expired more than two months ago. At that rate, we wouldn't gain much by blocking - deterring an average of one edit per 10 days is almost negligible in relation to serious vandalism problems. Compare to 216.56.60.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) where the kiddies were blocked all summer in May. When they returned in September, the block is expired and they start vandalizing at a rate of three edits per day so they got a long block. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Username blocks without messages

When you block users on WP:UAA, please at least leave a message on their talk page.

Thanks, rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

They see the message as the block reason. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see that you participated in this discussion about it, so you know that some disagree that this is sufficient. The inside of a block notice is a poor way to communicate with a user. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Since WP:UAA and the like have become so contentious, I've mostly stopped username blocking except in the most ridiculous cases. As SGGH said, in such cases, they know they're blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Overzealous blocking

Well, that was certainly a way to end the discussion.

I find your block of User:Shmiglyqwertyuiop premature. The user was experimenting, had been warned for his vandalism so far, and hadn't done anything else since then. And I found it a bit disrespectful that while we were discussing the user on UAA (where I still maintain he shouldn't have been), you simply went ahead and blocked the user. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So noted. Feel free to unblock so someone else can waste more time re-blocking after the next five edits which undoubtedly will be equally unproductive. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I just checked that guy's so-called contributions. [14] There's no indication his purpose was anything other than to mess with things. When I was a "newbie" I made some edits that I think now could be considered borderline vandalism, but not a one of them was anything like "my sister is cute" (and not just because she ain't). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I took a look and couldn't even find borderline vandalism in your accounts (that I'm aware of). One or two - maybe even three edits to figure how things work should be sufficient for anyone. Seven?! No way. This account made this edit alone like three times. Once he removed it himself and then re-added it. No sympathy for all that nonsense. Besides, the block is just for one day. Then the autoblock wears off and they can come back with a new account and a lesson learned - and hopefully a more serious attitude. (If they're on a moving IP, they're not even blocked for a day). —Wknight94 (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to unblock; if the user had any good faith, there won't be any left after he sees the block message. Is this your outlook on all newbies who begin by vandalizing? If you can judge a newbie entirely on what they do before their first warning, why do we have {{uw-test2}} and {{uw-test3}}? I may sound like I'm defending the actions of this user. I'm not. But I am defending the long-established idea that newbies get second chances. Most admins don't block without a warning, and you might suppose there's a good reason for that.

And why are you enumerating the ways a newbie can come back? As far as I've seen, the only reason a newbie ever waits for a block to expire and comes back is revenge. If they were actually interested in Wikipedia, they're not after they get blocked. "It's okay, newbies bounce back" is one of the big fallacies of UAA. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to find any established good-faith editor who became such after vandalizing, being warned, but not blocked. Conversely, I've seen plenty who vandalized, were warned, were not blocked, and returned every few weeks or months to vandalize again. An account beginning with seven bad-faith edits has been a guaranteed source of vandalism in every case I've seen. If we could guarantee who was using IPs the way we can guarantee who uses a login (i.e. with a password), we wouldn't need or have a warning system. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going to post this, when an edit conflict occurred, but it's still good: If they were actually interested in wikipedia, they wouldn't make stupid edits like "my sister is cute". You can tell pretty quickly if someone is sincere or not. To answer Wknight94's question, the worst "vandalism" I ever committed (under my old user ID - see below) was to update the Isetta article with a faked illustration of a "proposed Isetta stretch limo", just to see how long it would last. That was early on, and I wouldn't do something like that now, at least not in the article page. Maybe in the talk page. >:) But the only way I would post something like "my sister is cute" is to mess with it. You were right to block him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction: "very cute". And the user ID, made by seemingly randomly dragging his fingers across his keyboard, is another clue. "Don't bite the newbies" is a reasonable rule... but it's pretty easy to tell if someone is sincere or not. This one wasn't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You said: "I've yet to find any established good-faith editor who became such after vandalizing, being warned, but not blocked." I've encountered several.

So are you saying that warnings are only for anons? The blocking policy disagrees with you:

Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behaviour conflicts with our policies and guidelines. A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable.

I'm harping on this because you're an admin, and admins need to take blocking seriously. It's not just a quick way to make problems go away. I'm rather dismayed at your re-interpretation of the blocking policy, and now I wonder if you've blocked others without a warning too. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as an editor, as I am not and never would want to be an admin... I don't think it's appropriate for admins to be debating policy with each other and criticizing each other openly like this. Meanwhile, speaking from experience over nearly the last three years, Wknigh94 is right - a newbie is either sincere or he isn't. That newbie was not sincere, he was just messing around, and deserved little or no consideration. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The logs are there for everyone to see so there's no reason for the thinly-veiled threat to check mine. Be sure to look at other admins' too because you'll find quite a variety in levels of lenience. For each you find not lenient enough, I'll find one too lenient. It's pretty clear that there's a difference between account vandalism and IP vandalism. Someone that creates an account just to vandalize doesn't care if they are blocked or not. Ask Yermam (talk · contribs), who has a maternal obsession and other issues to work through, whether he cares about being blocked. I'm willing to bet his answer would contain a plethora of all-caps misspelled vulgarities. Give the kiddies some credit - they know what they're getting into and probably even know that autoblocks only last 24 hours. If you're trying to modify my blocking methodology, you're wasting your time. I've been burned every time someone asked for block reconsideration, resulting in re-blocks and more wasted time for fellow admins and vandalism fighters, all of whom I respect far more than kids like Yermam. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see where you're going with the Yermam example. It sounds like what I've been saying. Determined vandals don't care about getting blocked. Trolls like the attention when they get blocked. The only people upset by blocks are the people who were actually interested in Wikipedia. Put together, that sounds like a reason to be sparing with blocks.

It may strike you as a waste of time, but I have to assume that Wikipedians knew what they were doing when they created user warnings. Being too lenient is much better for Wikipedia than being too harsh. I really don't understand how you can say user warnings are unnecessary. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And I don't mind giving them that attention - so long as they disappear for a day and stop wasting the time of the good people that are here to write an encyclopedia. Warnings are for people who you think may heed them, such as Allmyjunk444 (talk · contribs). He probably won't and will probably be blocked later but I saw a glimmer of hope that he may - probably from this edit. In cases like Yermam or Fdny641 or Shmiglyqwertyuiop, I had no such hope, so they get a break - and hopefully a bit of a message that such things won't be tolerated. I was given admin tools to spare legitimate encyclopedia writers from having to deal with nonsense from such people and I'm doing the best I can in that regard. I've had far more people thank me for my efforts than confront me as you are, so I have to think I'm doing a good job. If you disagree, we'll have to agree to disagree. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for more fully explaining your position. I still don't agree with it, but I understand your reasoning, so I'll live with our difference of opinion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you thought I was kidding about the Isetta stretch limo... Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock old user?

Nah. My comment "I'm blocked :'(" was just being silly, although the essence of it was true, i.e. everything I know about Charlotte was already in the article. If I were to reactivate Wahkeenah, I'm not sure what I would do with it, except maybe use it to edit articles other than about baseball. But I think I would just as soon leave it retired. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

He's back

This indicates that a user you have blocked indefinitely is back. Please do it again. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. Block messages

Hi Wknight, thanks for the note. I've obviously got a little confused, the templates that we use in the IP drop down menu are templates from inside MediaWiki space, and I presumed that they didn't user parser functions. But now I notice that MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown/Templates/usernameblock simply transcludes {{UsernameBlocked}} so obviously you can use the parser functions. Thanks for bringing it up as it's something I'll certainly use personally myself from now on. Still, I think it's a good idea to leave a talk page message as well. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User unblock

See [15]. That's why I blocked the user. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

After discussing the matter with Nishkid64, we decided to unblock him. Let's wait and see what happens. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review request

Hi - you speedily deleted David Stein (Toronto actor). I believe the article should exist as the subject meets [[WP:BIO#Additional criteria standards as having a significant role in a film that is adequately notable for a wikipedia article, ie The Amityville Curse. Deletion seems to have followed poor behaviour by the main editor of the article who appears to have in fact been the subject - as per the report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive303#David Stein (Toronto actor. I have no difficulty with blocking editors who edit inappropriately, for example who breach WP:NPA. I do have a difficulty when content is confused with contributers - embodied in WP:NPA (and elsewhere) is Comment on content, not on the contributor. - it applies in reverse too - content should be judged on its own merits - not on the basis of the contributer. Regards--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That article was deleted per WP:CSD#G11 which means it was so spammy that needed to be rewritten. So why doesn't someone - other than Mr. Stein himself - just rewrite it? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The complainant has inadvertently raised the question of whether the article on the film itself is worthy of keeping. What can you say when the single line in the opening paragraph has a "citation needed", especially as the rest of the article contradicts that opening line, and nearly all the film's personnel are red-linked? Was this a real movie, or was it a direct-to-VHS production by a group of high-schoolers? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the actual notability of the movie and the actor are separate issues which I did not investigate. I took one look at the actor's article, got nauseous from the spam intake, and deleted it. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response. I will reconsider rewriting the article but wanted to avoid wheel warring. Given the comments at WP:ANI by another user citing my name and being apparently somewhat qualified as to whether I was acting in good faith, I wish to be quite overt about process. I agree with User:Baseball Bugs that the notability of the film is somwhat dubious - I suspect though that the franchise is so ntoable that the film, even if not released into the cinemas, is notable as being part of that franchise. That the actors are redlinked is of interest but as per above, those that had the roles of the major charactes probably pass WP:Bio (just). Never seen the film - or any of those in the franchise. My concerns are confusion between an editor's behaviour and content - it worries me when that happens. Regards--Golden Wattle ^talk 21:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

New Information regarding Scrooby

Hello Wknight94. First let me say thank you for the research that you did regarding the Scrooby sockpuppet case. As you noted this was the first time that you could find when the website was entered on the EWS page. The IP was from Montreal, Canada. You will note that the entry was made on August 8, 2006. Upon doing a little further research it turns out that there was an earlier attempt to add the webpage in question. In fact it turns out that the first time that it was entered was here [16] on July 4, 2006. CRCulver deleted it as linkspam (unfortunately it looks as though this member is no longer editing at wikipedia.) A brief edit war over its inclusion ensued culminating in this [17]. You will note that the IP address is 143.167.143.177. This address tracks to Sheffield, England. When you combine that with this information [18] you will find that it is possible (I would say probable) that Scrooby was involved from the start. The connection to Montreal will remain unknown, but, it may have been easier for Scrooby to repeatedly swear on a stack of bibles (which may be shrinking) that he didn't make the original entry when he was aware of who had made it. I have noted this on the sockpuppet case page (in an altered form) but rather than make you search for it I wanted to put all of the information here in light of the numerous legal threats that Scrooby has made. Thanks again for your efforts and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 14:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that you have already resolved this case. I just wanted you to be aware of these two little gems [19], [20] that I came upon today. While it is highly unlikely that this situation will flare up again I wanted you to have this just in case. Thanks again for your attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 15:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It was pretty clear that it was the same person. Nice to have this even-more-concrete proof. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 17:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Liebman?

This could be another one, but I'm not sure. [21] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm convinced. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Aliases?

Some guy is posting stuff from thesmokinggun about aliases that ballplayers have allegedly used in hotel registries. Smoking gun can do whatever they want, but I don't think it's wikipedia's place to be invading the privacy of living persons this way. But I'd like your take on this before I go on some crusade. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed somewhere but I can't imagine thesmokinggun is considered a particularly reliable source. I would certainly dispute it. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

watch for vandalizm

Before you offered to add frequently vandalized pages to your watchlist. Ellen Ochoa has been repeatedly vandalized latly, so it would be a good idea to add it to your watchlist and check for vandalism. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 14:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. For some reason, she seems to be a target of vandalism. Bubba73 (talk), 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

KyleStone entry

Wknight, this is Kyle Stone. I do not understand why you are posting filthy pornographers in my name rather than the content which most accurately describes myself and Kyle Stoneman, my anti-alias. I think you confused my valid content-switch with that of JRiceStevens, which seems to be malicious. He should definitely be banned. Best, Kyle Stone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.22.221 (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about but you tried to change the article to represent someone with no apparent notability. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for welcoming me. I've been a long time Wikipedia reader, and occasional random IP editor. Now that I have some time, I decided I should make a user account. Thanks again for all those useful links. (+)xerotrend 19:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

another NielsMayer[22] sockpuppet

Since you just blocked this fellow, I thought you might like to see this: [23] - WHOIS tracks the "128.200.110.141" IP to UC Irvine, which is one of the two universities Mr. Mayer is affiliated with (the other is Stanford, in the Bay Area). Note that he deleted the posting that identified the Nielsp account as a sock puppet of the older banned NielsMayer account. Given this user's history, it seems possible that we might now expect a rash of anonymous IP edits all originating from UC Irvine's system - putting a block on the IP addresses could be problematic. Dyanega 20:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Espoon tuomiokirkko.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Espoon tuomiokirkko.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 02:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ron liebman = Nancy chwalek = Beatrice taleisnik = "Teccmobowl"

Hello, I saw on List of first black Major League Baseball players by team and date an edit that looked like one from before and the history said you protected the page because of it. I read the history of Ron liebman on your talk page so I thought I would let you know. --207.206.136.73 17:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So it is. Thank you and keep 'em coming. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

He came right back with this new one: [24] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

What the heck are these new names he's using? More SABR members? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to check this evening, when I'm on my home PC. They are certainly off-the-wall. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm back, and whilst I was out, I see Liebby was busy. A few that may have been missed: [25] [26], as well as one of his old vanity edits [27]. -Ebyabe 22:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I missed those completely. Do we have an updated list of his favorite articles? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catches by Ebyabe. None of the personal names are SABR members, unless he misspelled them, which would be par for the course. I don't know that anyone has updated the articles he likes to hit. I thinked I overlooked the 1940 one somehow. It used to be one that I watched, thanks to his messing around with it on the Billy Hamilton issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

He's displaying a "sense of humor" today: [28] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris' personal attack

In regards to your comment at User talk:CBDunkerson, which was the personal attack from this edit that you were referring to? In the edit, I see two personal attacks... one against me and one against Sasha Callahan (talk · contribs), and I am just curious as to which you were referring to. Ksy92003(talk) 23:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just the edit in general which I find blockable in itself. But we'll give him that freebie since he was blocked anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay... one thing that I'm not entirely sure about is that he violated the suspension on Friday, made the comment on Sunday, and then was blocked for the violation of his suspension on Monday. But by letter of rule, could he be blocked for something he did on Sunday even if he was blocked on Monday because of something he did on Friday? In my opinion, due to the conflicts he's been involved with and the WP:CIVIL blocks he's been handed, I think that a block should still be given... and I'm not just saying that because I was one of the victims of the personal attack; I'd have the same opinion if it were somebody I'd never even heard of. Ksy92003(talk) 23:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to plant that idea in CBDunkerson's mind but it didn't germinate so I'll let it lie for now. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that CBDunkerson has even been on Wikipedia since we left those comments yesterday, which might be why nothing else has happened. Because of past experiences, I would suspect that Chris would decline deny making any personal attack in that edit (typical of him) but I don't know, I kinda want this reported now, actually. Ksy92003(talk) 23:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "deny making any personal attack"? Yes, very likely. But CBDunkerson was iffy about making the block he did so he might want to consider the edit warring and the personal attack as combined payment for the block. Frankly, you should probably let it lie as I am, and leave Chrisjnelson alone as much as possible. Baiting people under ArbCom sanctions does not usually go well. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know why I said decline. But yeah, I guess I'll let it die down, also. I wonder if CBDunkerson would've issued a longer block if he knew about the personal attack at the time. Ksy92003(talk) 00:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Here's a guy who was warned back in May and hasn't learned. [29] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Gone. (Just realized that I never responded here...) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw. A peculiar vandal. Just came by once or twice every few months to take a shot at something random. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Liebman socks - 10/10/07

Another one[30]. -Ebyabe 23:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Also these two: [31][32] -Ebyabe 00:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Lee Smith picture

Awesome! Great work finding the picture! Now, I might get back involved in the article and try a push for FA. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. I prefer the current picture at Lee Smith. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Minoso

I just reverted this guy on principle. [33] It might not be a sock. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

May be a Liebman checker and this is the first time s/he actually agreed with him so he cited the fact. I put that article back the way the checker put it since it's a nice cite on an article that didn't previously have one. But it definitely doesn't look like a sock and has over 500 contribs. —Wknight94 (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided to defer to your judgment on whether to restore the citation. What worries me about citations of articles in this way is the possibility they got their info from wikipedia. A known risk in general. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I found this web page too that says Minoso even hit a HR in his debut on May 1 and this one says he hit the HR off Vic Raschi - very specific. It would probably be easy to verify using local newspaper archives (if one were local which I'm not). —Wknight94 (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I had gone to baseball-almanac to try to verify the May 1 date, as I suspected it was true, but it's in their section where you have to pay or register or some such in order to get the box score. In any case, I won't allow Liebman to update anything, even if I think it's true, on the principle that banned users are not allowed to edit. But I shouldn't have zapped this citation, as it's from MLB, which is presumably a reliable source. Thanks for fixing. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a touchy subject. We can't allow proxying of a banned user but we also don't want to cut of our nose to spite our face. Assuming this is the only edit and it's clearly correct, it seems okay. If one were to try to reinstate all of Liebman's edits, there would be a problem. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think of this as being like the John Henry Lloyd situation. He (and maybe others) kept insisting on a different death date. I and another user investigated and determine the correction was correct. And I used my/our approach as a semi-good-faith example to him (before I realized how bad it would get) of a way to do a citation. In this case, the user tried to fix it, like I had wanted to, and I should have looked into it instead of just zapping it automatically. Too sensitive. "Thanks again, Ron, the gift that keeps on giving." >:( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal on AIV

Could you please enlighten me as to why you made this edit? shoy 15:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you just missed this message or what, because you've apparently checked your talk page since I posted, so I'll post here again to draw your attention to it. shoy 23:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. Most all of his articles from that day have been deleted and he has apparently been run off Wikipedia altogether now so the issue appears to be resolved. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Vincent Thomas

Why don't you just remove ALL of my contributions to the Vincent Thomas article? Nitpicking administrators like you are causing me to consider retiring from Wikipedia! Why should I waste my time making contributions to Wikipedia if they are constantly removed? Citizen Dick 15:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Liebman socks - 10/13/07

Ok, seriously, what is up with him lately? [34][35] These are making the same edits as previous Ron socks. Maybe he's giving up on the baseball stuff, and seeing if he can get other stuff snuck through. But this whole bezzler thing, jeez! The only mention of the word I find on Wikipedia is in the Nodwick article, another non-baseball one that some of his socks have added to. Has someone been upping his daily dosage of cordrazine? --Ebyabe 18:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny that, I just caught him on another account as well... let me see if I can find it... The Rambling Man 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Here you go... User:Fish & fries. Shortly, if this continues, he'll be subjected to having each account blocked for sockpuppetry... keep your eyes peeled. The Rambling Man 18:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to bring that up. Isn't it amazing how he actually leads us to his other socks? It's like the guy recently who held up a bank, and wrote the holdup note on the back of his own pay-stub! Like a wise man once said, "Stupid is as stupid does." -Ebyabe 18:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if I miss it, by all means contact me on my talk page and I'll handle any further indiscretion. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

All indefblocked and childish Bezzler article SALTed. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:82.39.229.71

Hi, You stated the editor is inactive, yet the editor is stalking me through MY CONTRIBUTIONS and reverting my entries and the editor left a message on the top of my TALK page, so why would you not block them ? You didn't even give them a warning ? Chessy999 23:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Two undo edits and a confusing talk message do not qualify as stalking. Those edits more than two hours ago are not block-worthy. If someone continues following your contribs - more than two edits per week - then leave a message at WP:ANI. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Mariano Rivera

OK, yeh, that was kind of a cheap shot, and I reverted it. It's not Rivera I have a problem with as such, it's that kind of religious hypocrisy: no empathy demonstrated for the victims of the crash, just, "Oh, at least my friend wasn't on it." I doubt he was feeling so blessed in 2004 when two of his family members perished just before the ALCS was to begin. Life giveth, life taketh away. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom rejected requests page

Thanks for your help updating this page. We try to remember to list cases here as they are taken off the main RfAr page, but as you can tell, it doesn't always happen. Appreciate the help. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. I also went back quite a ways before my patience wore out. If you'd like to follow any rules on borderline cases (like clerks removing grossly-premature cases), let me know. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no real rules, although we've discussed whether there should be. Basically, we include anything that lasts on the page for more than a couple of hours, the main exclusion being cases that are removed before receiving any substantive consideration (e.g., requests filed by banned users who are told to take it to e-mail, or requests that are blatant non-serious trolling). Thanks again for your help, and if you ever want to look into helping out with the clerking in other ways you can take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Liebman socks - 10/15/07

I think this is one: [36] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And another one. He's being funny now: [37] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hysterical. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like another one. He's starting to bugg me: [38] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We're sure on that one? When did he say that before? I was just looking but couldn't find it. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, the next edit cleared it up for me. Thanks, Bezzler Ron. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And maybe another one. Have not looked at it closely: [39] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And another one: [40] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And another one: [41] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He's been on a tear today. Fittingly, it's National Grouch Day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say it, and assume good faith be damned, but he's gone seriously mental today. Or, to paraphrase from a great movie, "he's demented and sad, but asocial." -Ebyabe 23:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And it's only National Grouch Day. Just wait 'til Halloween. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, what does that do?

Hi Wknight! My coding skills are so poor as to guarantee that I will instantly forget your explanation even as you're typing it but... what does that do? I ask merely for... er, um, I'm sure I had a reason... :o) ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's one of those fancy CSS/HTML things. Unfortunately I couldn't find a good explanation here (try . Basically, it just forces a new-line and is handy when you can't get your text to get back over to the left. {{Clear}} is another alternative. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Long term abuse / Liebman

I agree with the principal of DENY, but not in all cases... in this case, I don't want to userify (or want you to userify) the list of accounts. Someone could untag all the sockpuppets at some point, and it's much harder to find out what the long term abuse case said if you hide the list off in your userspace.

The list isn't giving Liebman attention, in the way that WP:DENY argues we should take away... it's an internal trouble tracking system. And an active abuse list (two new named socks vandalized a bunch of places including my userpage in the last few days). There's no good reason not to keep the case active and list the info as completely as possible there on the page.

Georgewilliamherbert 04:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mickey Kaus

Thanks for protecting the article. Can you please delete the slanderous edits from the history, particularly since they are being directly linked to by one of the most widely read blogs in the country. Thanks. 70.110.242.53 04:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. 70.110.242.53 04:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent block

Thank you for the advice. Bearian 13:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User: Ladiesman 347

Thank you for your block of User:Ladiesman 347. Could you please check that it has worked, as the user appears to have created Arthur's mom after the block. The time of block and article creation are the same but I did check for other posts after you placed the block notice on her talk page. Many Thanks. B1atv 21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Woops. Yes, he slipped that one in under the wire. It's gone now. Nice catch. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. B1atv 22:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nathan P. Evans

Can you please salt this article? See the deletion log. Problematic user keeps recreating and it is a hassle to keep re-adding the CSD template (which I just did about 5 times or more). What do you think? - Rjd0060 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Woops, just beat you to it.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Great. I think I restored the CSD template at least 5-7 times today. Thanks.- Rjd0060 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow

That was quick. I thought "three final warnings and no block? Wha?" You were faster, though :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I love when the contribs link is in the edit summary at WP:AIV.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks

for the block on User:Turbochrist

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Mickey Kaus

I believe it was you who oversighted the comments from the history of this article. The same statements remain in the edit history/edit comments on the talk page of the article, comments which were added once the article was semi-protected, and the same comments are also in the history of the stub on Kaus's brother, Stephen Kaus. I mentioned this on AN/I last night and again today, but there's been no change. I hope you can fix this. Thanks. -Jmh123 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Those don't seem quite as imperative to delete in all honesty. The ones I did yesterday were to the main article and were difficult to miss in the main article's history. Talk page edits and a single vandalism edit to Stephen Kaus are far less intrusive IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, they are less intrusive. There is a link in M. Kaus's talk page history that goes to a site I understand may attempt to do harm to one's computer, but you'd have to be looking at the history to see it. Also, I was under the impression that the "fairly widely read liberal blog" that first linked to the article, prompting the ANI report, had linked to a version in the history rather than a current, edited version, but I could be misreading the report. I thought that was probably not a good thing for Wikipedia if there are those who are capable of linking to a diff or a prior version, and wish to publicize the vandalized versions for whatever reason. You would know better than I, so I trust your judgement. -Jmh123 08:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For a wise page protection. Durova^Charge! 14:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Good contributor. Self-destructive. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Liebman sock maybe - 10/17/07

This could be one: [42] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hard to tell on that one, eh? Maybe try reverting and see if it keeps coming back over and over and over. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick piece of help

Hey, could you move Governor Of Sindh!‎ back to Ishrat-ul-Ibad Khan where it belongs. The vandalizing user has changed the redirect page so I can't move it back. And while you're at it, could you possibly up the move protection to sysop-only? This user and socks persists in adding a POV section and moving the page. Thanks! Gscshoyru 18:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Gscshoyru 18:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Moved back, user indefblocked, and move protection changed to full. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Username blocks

Thank you. Some of the usernames you mention I did not, in fact, block, although I certainly would have. The ones which I did block I left only the {{usernameblock}} template, which, while not obligatory, is good practice. It also takes essentially no time, and gives a marker in the unlikely event of the user contesting the block. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment. Absolutely. But they obviously still need blocking, and as I say a template takes only a few seconds. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on the baseball All-time roster standardization

Since you commented on the AfD debate for the Chicago Cubs All-time Roster, I thought you might have an interest in participating in a discussion on standardizing the baseball all-time roster articles. If you'd like to join in, the discussion is here. If not, please ignore this message. Thanks! --Fabrictramp 22:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"All-Time Roster"? Can you spell POV? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think he means a roster of players that have played for teams all-time. I initiated the one for the Mets: New York Mets all-time roster. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Meaning everyone who has ever played on a given team? That's different. No POV there... but a significant task. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Been done for quite a few. {{MLB All-Time rosters}}. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Aha. Copied from the appropriate team page on MLB, and presumably augmented by keeping it up to date... or by refreshing it directly. I hate to say this... but if there's already a link maintained on the MLB site, isn't this repetitive? Or is its purpose to encourage the writing of articles about the individual players in place of the red links? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I don't think such pages existed on mlb.com when I assembled mine. I had compiled mine as WP:OR on a spreadsheet over a long time. Shows how much free time I have. I have quite a few spreadsheets of silly stuff. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Aha, so you admit to original research. Well, I'm not guiltless either. I could do some on my home state of Oregon. That would be OR OR. I'm now watching the Cubs all-time list, and was amused at the number of redlinks for players I remember but couldn't tell you anything about. I was also amused that someone thinks Paddy Driscoll the football player is different from the baseball player. Not according to baseball-reference.com, and I fixed that one. See what I get myself into by watching your page? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Liebman and I are the OR masters. I could be banned except that WP:CSN is gone. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, you and Ronnie, separated at birth. This all-time Cubs page is a good, new project for me. However, I'll let others fill in the stats. (I am not now, nor have I ever been, a "figger filbert".) I'm trying to bring some oddity or unique story, something these otherwise-obscure players were known for, to flesh out the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if you're going to try to table'ize the roster. I want to try to make the Mets one sortable but my short attention span is getting the best of me. If you want a table like that to be sortable, some planning needs to be done beforehand. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't really figured on messing with the list itself. My objective is to try to reduce the number of redlink entries. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Macrophage

User:Dlohcierekim has given you a Macrophage! Macrophages promote WikiLove through infiltration and by smiling on those who keep Wikipedia healthy by increasing its resistance to vandalism. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! --~~~~ —Preceding comment was added at 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And now I have carpal tunnel syndrome from all that reverting. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't catch ou. You were waaaay in the lead. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what the WP:ROLLBACK button is for. Still hurts though. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Robot Rock (song)

Some very strange vandalism seems to occured on this page recently. I was hoping if you could help keep an eye the page, please. Just64helpin 13:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

John Barrymore

A couple of us are having an ongoing skirmish with an IP address who insists on a minor but speculative entry in that article. He doesn't seem to get the point about speculation vs. citation and fact, and now I conclude he's being a troll. Please advise. [43] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's protected now. I'll keep an eye on the talk page there. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The issue is simply that the IP address insists on saying that Barrymore's trip to India was "soul-searching". Someone else had reverted him first, I just joined in because I happened to be watching that page for reasons I don't recall. His activity last night and this morning accelerated, and he kept skirting the issue. My "troll radar" then kicked in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks a bit odd, yes. The original Kama Sutra-related edit makes the whole thing smell quite trollish. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Another oddity is that the guy posted to my talk page and I moved it back to the article, and he then complained on my talk page, "why are you being elusive. Why can't you talk right here. This is what it's for. I don't want to follow all over Wikipedia", which was an odd (and oddly familiar-sounding) complaint. And he lists some sources, which I told him how to incorporate appropriately. When he wouldn't do that, I got suspicious. I don't think this is Liebman, though I wouldn't rule it out. Now I wonder if the trip to India is even true. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't even considered Liebman but you're right that it sounds vaguely familiar. The IP addresses all resolve to the Maryland/Washington D.C. area though so I don't think so. Plus s/he let up on the Kama Sutra thing pretty quickly while Liebman has never let up on anything ever. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of his usual IPs show up at that article and then the blocks will commence. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out this complaint by that IP address to another editor, which distorts the argument and accuses me and another editor of "religious fanaticism", which is every bit as speculative as the uncited "soul searching" phrase he insists on using: [44] More trolling behavior, as I see it... trying to stir the pot, for "fun". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wknight thanks for putting the protection. I tried talking to Baseball and he's nitpicking over the term soul searching. This after I had edited down the KamaSutra reference, which in reality is true about Barrymore. I edited down my original text from the Kamasutra but kept the reference to the India trip in 1937. Only Baseball & Monkey had a problem with it. I gave them two reference sources for the India trip and Monkey kept deleting the whole thing verbatim without doing the research. I've contributed numerous times to the Barrymore entry to help build it. For instance early in the entry it's mentioned that Barrymore entered a bordello when he was 15. This by all counts is true and there are references to it but nobody referenced when it was entered. Later there's a whole paragraph about the 1906 earthquake and how he 'supposedly' fabricated what had happened. In all my readings on Barrymore I've never come across this dubious info on him. I was tempted to delete the earthquake paragraph or rewrite it to a more accurate presentation based on the facts about him. But I never deleted because I wanted to check my facts first before removing somebody elses hard searched facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.100.208 (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

This is obviously a vandalism-only account: [45] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Seems pretty trollish but I'll keep an eye on this one. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

With regards to that account, I noticed them earlier and I have concerns about the Morrison's pouch article they created. It seems to have been created, speedied as nonsense, and then recreated; the web address in the references doesn't appear to have any relevance but it's in Cyrillic so I don't know for sure, and from Googling the term seems to exist but not where it says it is (i.e. the article says it's in the heart and everything else seems to say it's between the liver and kidney). I have no medical expertise so I'm not in a position to work on it but does it all seem suspicious to you? MorganaFiolett 16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

John Barrymore continued

Hey Wk. i may have entered in the wrong place. I entered last paragraph above. Baseball Bugs is nothing but a vandal. I tried putting a protection on the site myself with the help of another poster as well as a block on Baseball so that he can't continue to vandal CORRECT info on the subject. I've been contributing to Wiki for years but never faced the prospect of blocking someone as I wanted to with Baseball. I talked to him on his talk page and explained the sources and he kept running to other places in Wikipedia. alas it wasn't even about the research it was about the bitchery over an acceptable term soul searching. Baseball, if you have a religious hangup, which I think you do, that is your problem. The term was acceptable within the context of the sentence and the surrounding of the facts as per the two sources I quoted. Know your facts before you start calling somebody a troll BaseBall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.100.208 (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

from 129.2.100.208 since this is your talk page Wknight I speak to show you. Look at how Baseball talks. He says I edited down the Kama Sutra article and that makes him suspicious. If he read my response to Monkey I said I edited it down because "I" didn't think it was appropriate even though it was TRUE. Baseball then says "I Wonder if the India trip is true". This is just the point. I gave him at least two sources where he could go to for verification. He doesn't have to WONDER nevertheless he didn't have to make deletions on info he wasn't sure about or did not cross check to verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.100.208 (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Both Monkeyzpop and I have advised you on putting citations in the article, which you won't do, hence the conclusion that your purpose is trolling. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You've also been advised to sign with four tildes, which you won't do either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I take it Baseball that you are researching 'on line' sources which is okay but are sometimes questionable without backup. The two sources I gave were 'in print' sources with copyright. I even gave two online sources where the books can be bought. okay here's the tildes. 129.2.100.208 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)129.1.100.208 129.2.100.208 16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Folks, sorry to interrupt. The correct place to discuss a particular article is the talk page of that particular article, Talk:John Barrymore. If there is an unresolvable dispute, the correct procedure is documented in WP:DR. If someone thinks administrative action is truly warranted (blocks or un/protection), try WP:ANI or one of the more specific venues. (WP:AN3 may result in some immediate blocks from today's activity). Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Block it up

Thanks for your help with that shared ip just now. Man that got frustrating. Anyways, good job and thanks again. Carter | Talk to me 13:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

A vandalism-only account: [46] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Users that have vandalized Ball

Hi Wknight, I saw that you had declined protection for Ball, and I just wanted to share with you the vandalizing edits by user made since protection has been lifted:

• Special:Contributions/69.152.239.89[47]
• Special:Contributions/82.111.213.5[48]
• Special:Contributions/140.88.66.206[49]
• Special:Contributions/69.251.231.182[50]
• Special:Contributions/155.48.255.20[51],[52]
• Special:Contributions/162.127.13.5[53] (self-reverted)
• Special:Contributions/74.130.39.81[54][55]
• Special:Contributions/66.232.207.227[56]
• Special:Contributions/Ethanengland[57]

I encourage you to reconsider the decline of protection. Many thanks, ~Eliz81^(C) 22:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's only an average of two vandal edits per day. If we can't handle that, we should pack it in. But I'll meet you half way and remove my decline to see if someone else will protect. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Persian Poet Gal has protected until 11/3. Thank you so much for the halfway meeting, it's fully decent of you! ;) ~Eliz81^(C) 01:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I agree but that's fine. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)