User talk:Wknight94/Archive 17

Please note that I will likely respond to new messages here.

Archives

Archive 1 | October 19, 2005-January 13, 2006 Archive 2 | January 14, 2006-April 2, 2006 Archive 3 | April 3, 2006-July 22, 2006 Archive 4 | July 23, 2006-September 23, 2006 Archive 5 | September 24, 2006-November 19, 2006 Archive 6 | November 20, 2006-January 20, 2007 Archive 7 | January 21, 2007-March 26, 2007 Archive 8 | March 27, 2007-May 22, 2007 Archive 9 | May 22, 2007-August 3, 2007 Archive 10 | August 4, 2007-September 22, 2007 Archive 11 | September 22, 2007-October 20, 2007 Archive 12 | October 20, 2007-November 17, 2007 Archive 13 | November 17, 2007-January 29, 2008 Archive 14 | January 30, 2008-March 13, 2008

Old Forge-Taylor Football Rivalry

None of the arguements for deletion of this page were valid. I researched every score from every year personally and created this page for the thousands of people that ever witnessed or played in these games. It is very difficult to research this information as all of the Scranton Times archives are on micro-film. I did this as a benefit to all those interested, and there are many. What harm did this page do? Lou72JG (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"What harm did this page do" is not policy. And consensus at the AFD was pretty clear. You're free to try WP:DRV. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work

Thanks, Wknight94, for your help with the spate of vandalism tonight. Cheers, JNW (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Looked like a coordinated attack on that Rolling Stones article. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

AWB access

Hi. If you refused my access because I have just 424 contributions that's fine, but refusing my access because I was mentioned in the ANI this doesn't make sense to me. Please, I ask you to investigate these incidents otherwise you are making a pre judgement. Cheers --Mhsb (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

please don't give this user back AWB--he is placing db-no-context tags of many perfectly acceptable stubs, some for obviously notable people. I am trying to clean up after him. DGG (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but there is too much suspicious going on here to grant AWB access - less-than-500-contributions included. You can ask for another opinion at WP:AN or WP:ANI but I'm not doing it. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Every time I see that reference, I get a mental picture of Average White Band's logo. Maybe we could get permission from them to use it here? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Taunting

I didn't much care for this guy's edits, but the other IP address is over the top. You may swing your vorpel sword at your discretion: User talk:12.39.2.83 Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What's this? I don't see any edits from 12.39.2.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in two weeks. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what's weird about it. On February 20, user 12.39.2.83 deleted some stuff from his talk page. Over 3 weeks later this other IP address shows up to post "LOOOSER" on his page. [1] It's not necessarily horrible, it's just stupid. I'm thinking to remove that comment but retain the warning about removing other people's comments. Sound OK? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh, I see. Yes, removing silliness like that is fine. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Oddly enough, one year minus one day ago the same IP address 156.98.4.11 had been warned about disruption. Wouldn't necessarily be the same guy, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

I just sent you an e-mail on an unrelated matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Saw your answer, as it were. Thanks for your help. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ta

Thanks for the note. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

IP sharing and sock puppetry

Per your comment, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/212.187.213.69, can you clarify. If the other IP doesn't make it clear they are continuing a dispute from another IP, surely that ommission of fact is technically pretending to be someone else. His edit summary See discussion page. Undoing this edit can be interpreted both ways, as a continuer, or a new person. This complicates matters, as I believe I have adequately commented on the original IPs talk page about the reverts, and do not want to appear to have not engaged the second IP before reverting them, if they do not discuss and merely continue to revert. MickMacNee (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, when there are two IPs involved behaving identically, I assume they are the same person until told otherwise. Some people choose never to login - those same people may have a work and home computer which likely have completely different IPs. It's only if a claim of consensus is made based on the number of those IPs that a serious problem arises. Otherwise, treat them as if they're the same person - that's my recommendation. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account

He's been around awhile and has been warned more than once. [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, that one was ridiculous. Not sure why people aren't into blocking such consistent sources of vandalism. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Danke. He nearly made it to his first anniversary of such nonsense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Another Vandal

Please block this user, who is one of the many socks/possible TOR nodes of a serial troll/vandal. This one just wasn't discovered yet, I suppose. I followed some contributions and discovered this IP user. My guess is that it is a TOR exit, based on recent developments.

Evidence: This edit and this edit are identical to this edit which was made by a blocked IP recently used by the subject troll/vandal. That latter IP was also responsible for this edit as an example.

Thanks. Jonneroo (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

64.251.49.146

Looks like a vandal-only IP that's been around for awhile. [3] Repeated warnings have gone unheeded. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Spotteddogsdotorg is back

Thanks for the revert[4]. This edit[5] is also by the same user, even though he is attempting to pass off his edit as innocuous clowning. Should I raise the return of this vandal on AN/I, or would that just be giving the puppetmaster unnecessary attention?

How do you know it's the same? New M.O. I'm not aware of? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I Scott A Brown love my shrine and how it makes the evil spotteddogsdotorg who did not give me my WCAU as CBS tape that he promised is forever wronged. I Scott A Brown promise to add to it. That is the Scott A Brown promise. I Scott A Brown deserve the credit since I Scott A Brown am the one who did it because the evil spottedddogsdotorg and the tvnewstalk.net maffia run by Dylan and CFIF hate me and WCAU as CBS. I Scott A Brown will worship at the shrine you have created against the evil spotteddogsdotorg who did not give me the WCAU as CBS as promised and if will add more and more and more to it. I Scott A Brown love making the evil spotteddogsdotorg who did not give me the WCAU as CBS tape as promised. It makes to the world the evil spotteddogsdotorg who did not give me the WCAU as CBS tape as promised more evil to the world.