User talk:Wknight94/Archive 19

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 Archive 15 | March 13, 2008-July 2, 2008 Archive 16 | July 2, 2008-August 17, 2008 Archive 17 | August 18, 2008-November 9, 2008

Rawlings Page

Hi, I'm the brand manager for Rawlings in charge of communications. I noticed several errors on the page, so I made the neccessary changes.

Lindsey

Donnie Edwards accusations

no my friend these are absolutely true facts from first hand experience. user: Matthew.Horibe

of course people wont believe it cuz hes an NFL player and everybody thinks hes some great dude in reality hes a jerk but he does "nice" things so he can make himself feel better or what not its excatly the samething from me saying OJ killed his wife comeon man this is BS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew.horibe (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Creole (markup)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Creole (markup). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Liebman

"He's a one-trick pony / One trick is all that horse's patootie can do..." Appy polly loggies to Paul Simon. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Edit

Yeah, can you delete it please, i'm sorry for starting all of this trouble, I actually thought that it would only be a personal attack if I said to to the user, I wasn't thinking, thanks.--Yankees10 06:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you--Yankees10 16:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

baseball infoboxes

Please help uphold the consensus established in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_6#Changing_active_infoboxes_to_retired. Thank you!--IceFrappe (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a new message from an IP

Please see User talk:68.52.36.127 k thx by 217.39.5.79 (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And again, more messages there: User talk:68.52.63.127#Blocked.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And I see you've replied already. Never mind. :)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Censured or reprimanded United States Senators

Hiya. I noticed you deleted Category:Censured or reprimanded United States Senators under G5 (banned user). While I don't dispute your reasoning, I was curious how you would feel about a re-creation of this topic. I'm not a psychotic "inclusionist" or anything silly like that, but it does seem to be a very useful, appropriate category, if not coming from a banned user. Or maybe it's redundant in some way - I'll freely admit that I haven't really delved into the category's history (and, since the history's been deleted, I can't see any archived Talk discussion which may show why this category is not needed). Feel free to reply here or on my talk page. Badger Drink (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it would be fine as long as there is a clear definition. Is "censured" an official term? How about "reprimanded"? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

cowjesus (talk · contribs)

Kind of quick on the trigger there, pard. The user makes three minor vandal-edits, gets one warning, and then you indef-block two minutes later with no intervening edits? (No, I have have nothing to do with this account -- I was in process of leaving a message on the talk page, and the warning-crunch sequence happened so fast that it ec'ed for me twice. Yikes!) looie496 (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry - you want I should wait for six or eight more meaningless edits? Let me know how much nonsense you'd prefer and I'll take it under advisement. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I prefer that you wait until the user vandalizes after receiving a warning. In this case, having actually looked at the edits, I think there is a decent chance that this was a new user who was experimenting. Probably not, but there is a procedure for this and one might as well follow it. looie496 (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Doubt it but I'll bite. I've unblocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

When you get a chance, might you check what was added to my talk page under "County Templates"? The dude's trying to say Flagler Beach is in Volusia County, whassup wit dat? :) --Ebyabe (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, according to this, it may be so. But on maps, it looks way too far from the Volusia County border for any of it to extend into it. --Ebyabe (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Liebman sock 11-19-08

This is either a sock or an imitator: [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And I forgot to mention this one from yesterday: [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And another one today: [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Suspicious behavior by an editor

I reverted an obvious vandalism by User:Ironic Username, and checked his other edits and found a few other instances. The one I noticed was pretty obvious (he changed the title of a Patty Larkin song from "Open Arms" to "Open Legs"), but the others were much more subtle. His method is to change a year of an event or an ordinal number (22nd to 23rd, for example); for the article Hafeez A. Pasha, he changed the phrase "Commerce Minister" to "field marshal". I confirmed that some of his changes were incorrect and reverted them all, assuming a pattern of vandalism.

He came to my attention again this week when he reverted my vandalism warning with a summary of "removed vandalism". He is still making similar changes to a disparate variety of articles, changes that might go unnoticed, and he reverted one of my earlier reverts, one that I had already confirmed to be incorrect. I believe he's doing nothing but vandalism.

He did not respond to the warning, either with an "oopsie" or by denying he'd vandalized anything. He just quietly makes minor changes to lesser-known articles that on the surface look legitimate, and might escape notice while two or more subsequent edits help bury the evidence.

I could be wrong. He could just have made a couple of mistakes, or done some vandalism a few times but be working honestly now. I suspect, however, that I'm not wrong, and that he's doing exactly what I suspect him of.

Can anything be done? -- Couillaud (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I permablocked the account. After checking a couple of his edits, I blindly reverted the rest where his were (top). If you see any that should not have been reverted, let me know and more thorough investigation may be needed. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked one of the other edits (Black Hills Playhouse), in which he'd changed the year it was constructed from 1933 to 1930. Of course, it was constructed as a CCC project, and the CCC was only established in 1933. I'm guessing that since none of his edits seemed related to each other (indicating a random pattern instead of having some specific knowledge), they were all just part of his overall pattern of vandalism. I've reverted all of his edits, as I could not find anything that supported any of them, so they'd be unsourced changes anyway. Thanks for responding so quickly. -- Couillaud (talk)

Editing Whitey Ford

• Hi. A few weeks ago, we dealt with a wave of Ron Liebman vandalism over Whitey Ford's birthdate. In a move that I thought was going to clear things up, I added a link to show that Retrosheet lists his birthdate as 1926, the very date that the Liebman sock is trying to add to the article. The Liebman sock has continued his reign of errors since then and he now keeps changing my citation to say that "most sources claim a 1926 birthdate" instead of some, and I think it's just given him more fodder to spam the article. Anyway, should I just remove the Retrosheet reference so as not to entice the idiot to vandalize? I was asked by Baseball Bugs to ask you this before I did anything rash, so I was just wondering if I should do so.

• BB makes it sounds like I should delete it because he's claiming (I think, to be honest, incorrectly, given that Baseball Library, which bases its bios on a 1990 book, uses the same birthdate) that the sock puppet is the REASON why Retrosheet lists him with a 1926 birthdate. I'm not buying that. But nevertheless, should I just disavow the Retrosheet reference? -- Transaspie (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• • That was a guess. I know he's weaseled his original research into some sites, I just don't recall for sure which ones. I've found mistakes in Retrosheet here and there, so it can't be taken as gold. It's "a" source, but it would be hard to prove that "most" sources list one or the other. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• I like Retrosheet but I'm sure no source is infallible. The short answer is that either of you are welcome to do whatever you'd like on that article and if there is a dispute among non-banned users, you may all discuss it civilly and come to a consensus. The even shorter answer is, if you're not Ron liebman (talk · contribs), you can do whatever you'd like. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Jose cartagena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hard telling if this guy is a Liebman sock or not. Could be coincidental. [4] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's him. Look at the Jordan edits compared to Alan blumkin (talk · contribs). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that one was under the radar. I wasn't sure it was him, because he seemed capable of creating a paragraph correctly, and he seemed relatively polite. As Bugsy would say, "Weeeeeeell, goodbye!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning for disruptive reversions of constructive edits

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you dare revert constructive edits (even if they are done by a banned user) again, you will be blocked from editing. StreetSharksFan (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wknight94, I have reviewed your edit history, and ALL your reversions to edits by ThunderCatsFan were completely and utterly inappropriate. If you revert useful edits, even they are done by a banned user, ever again, you will be blocked permenantly from editing. StreetSharksFan (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have you reported to the WP:AIV. You better watch out. StreetSharksFan (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Banhammer deployed. HAND! Tony Fox (arf!) 03:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of these guys have a unique sense of humor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The Irish guys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Maybe it's Ron? The misspelled edit summaries make me suspicious. --Ebyabe (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that one too. Hit a couple pages on my watchlist today. I'm not 100% convinced but we should try to remember to request a checkuser before the latest edits go stale. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Dokee-okee. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm treating it as a Liebman sock, given the usual unsourced trivia, and reverting the 2 changes from today an 1 from a year ago (the other 1 from a year ago was legitimate reversal of vandalism). This one flew under the radar a year ago plus a day. He can't resist his usual M.O. including adopting a guise similar to a legit user (IrishGuy). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point on the IrishGuy connection. If it's Liebman, we'll know soon enough since he'll be edit warring with you any minute. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not right away, as he last edited 8 or 9 hours ago. But he's on the radar now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you know if deceased pitcher Joe Kennedy actually was called "The Patriarch", or did Liebman make that up? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No idea. Ya know, with the IrishGuy connection, this is probably worth bringing to WP:RFCU. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I just did, though I'm not sure I did it correctly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I messed it up even worse than I thought. Never send a bozo to do an admin's job. :) Thanks for fixing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh, no problem. That's why that area has clerks. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

A sleeper account for a year, suddenly wakes up. Like the famous Washington Irving classic: Ron Van Wrinkle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Irish boys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And today we have this variation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIV and now blocked - although he did mount a mild protest, which is unusual. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Jparramore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This one should be blocked, imho. Only vanity articles and silly edits being made. Maybe for only a day or two, but I get the feeling he won't improve, sadly. Oh well... --Ebyabe (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we'll give him one more chance. Seems like a kid who just figured out the appropriate place to put his own name. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: AIV note

Whoops, I didn't notice that. Thanks for letting me know. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Liebman 12-04-08

Thanks for finishing the job with the latest Liebman. I had turned him in to WP:AIV, and then you beat me to it before I could tell you about it. Also thanks for semi-protecting my talk page, although it will probably keep the red-links away, and that would be a real shame. Or maybe NOT. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The lock on the semi-protection template is a little misleading. Maybe what they need is an illustration of a semi bearing down on the interloper. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:JacksonMorton.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JacksonMorton.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:JamesWestcott.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JamesWestcott.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

Gasp! Uploading 18th and 19th century images! Now I'll have to report you to an admin! Oh, wait... :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Delmon Young...

...is apparently on the trading block. Before that happens, and before this disappears, here's a Youtube of that "Twins sages" ad I was telling you about: [5] Let me know if you don't recognize the participants. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha! I recognize Killebrew and Carew, right? The one talking is Oliva maybe? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the guy at the end of the ad, acting very un-sage-like, would be Kent Hrbek. Oliva advised Young to "see ball, hit ball" and further advised going to Murray's to get a big steak. Murray's is a well-known steakhouse in downtown Minneapolis. I recall a quote from Rogers Hornsby when he was asked what he liked best about the big leagues, or something like that, and his answer was, "Them juicy steaks!" Ooooh, yeh. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That was Hrbek?! Wow, I totally would not have guessed that. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not totally sure, but one of the commenters said it was, and I can't think who else it would be. I used to see him in local TV ads, but not with the goattee. As a side note, he's wearing the same shirt as the others, with a little TC in the upper chest. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw his name in the title of some fishing show - but I didn't actually go to the channel so I didn't see him. If I see it again, I'll check it out. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he does host a fishing show. He also does local TV ads for various things, although I haven't seen him for awhile. He's a Minneapolis native. Hrbek, along with the 3 "sages", are the 4 living Twins who've had their numbers retired and whose pictures hang from the outfield upper deck curtain. Image:Metrodome curtain of fame.JPG Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Jvolkblum

Thanks for deleting some of the most recent Jvolkblum articles. I can't tell who created Wildcliff this latest time, so I don't know if the user is one that I have listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Jvolkblum. Given Jvolkblum's propensity to change hosts and to use proxy servers, I think it's helpful to list all known usernames there... --Orlady (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. It was the NRlibrarian account that created most of the recent ones. They were all re-creations, some for the third time. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war brewing

Sorry to drag you in, but I need someone to weigh in on this. We've had a non-ID user (IP only) making some changes to the article on Peter Roskam that I believe are POV. It's clear that the editor is a Roskam partisan, as his only edits other than this article are from 9 months ago and were vandalism at that time. I got in because the comments he includes in his edits show a POV to what he is doing. This article has long been the subject of POV fights, but the portion in question has been in place for better than more than 21 months (I checked back to March 2007), and he has just now concluded that it should be removed.

The link to an article that was previously used as a source for a criticism of his actions has expired, and the editor believes that this now makes it "unsourced", and has removed the information. The user then claimed that the article (which was written in 2006 and can no longer be accessed online) is "fanciful speculation" and demands that a link be provided now. I have provided references that are not online to help prove some facts, and the fact that this article still exists in hard copy or on microfilm is sufficient to leave it there.

Roskam won re-election by 16%, and this editor believes that the word "decisively" MUST be added to the statement, as if 16% does not already make that statement. There are a few others, and I have tried to make the point in discussion, but his reply has not offered much hope of any consensus.

This is probably only a coincidence, but I'm getting an uncomfortable sense of deja vu with this discussion, as it reminds me of the battle about a year ago with Yoy So Guapo, who was using an IP address when he started, kept citing Wiki rules, occasionally using all-caps, and used some poor spelling in his messages. I always suspect that someone who quotes rules so heavily and doesn't use a regular Wiki ID is hiding something.

Again, sorry to drag you in, but I don't want to get into an edit war, but also don't like to see what I think are POV edits by newbie editors to go without challenge. -- Couillaud (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this is another case of Joehazelton (talk · contribs). His suspected socks go all throughout this range of IPs (among others). No point in arguing with him - he's been doing this for years it seems. I semiprotected the article for three months. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've heard of this guy, but I've never dealt with him before. -- Couillaud (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jwalte04

Can you take a look at the actions of this user? First, he placed a speedy delete tag on Category:African American sportspeople. Regardless of whether or not we think this category should exist (and I'm not so sure) his claims that it is "racist" show he clearly doesn't know what the word means since it's not the case.

Now, according to his own edit summaries on player pages (so far members of the Redskins) he's adding Category:Caucasian sportspeople to "prove a point." This is pretty obviously a violation of Wikipedia:POINT. This user might have a point with his feelings on the African American category, but he's not going about it the right way.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a note and deleted the category. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

block of Joshua125 (talk · contribs)

Hi, could it be an indef block of Joshua125 (talk · contribs) is a bit too harsh? The original article he created had issues, but wasn't vandalism. He seems to be a very invested editor which makes him a bit disruptive, rather than an all out vandal. And now the article in question is semi-protected, perhaps we could get some talk page action going? Anyway, just a thought. --fvw* 19:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I would argue that the deletion of the spamming section was appropriate given that it was sourced to webfora etc[6], though obviously the edit warring over it wasn't. --Slp1 (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, was the references section part of the spam? I was thinking he was blanking the whole end of the article but I guess not. I'll unblock. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

JackyRT

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KingsOfHearts, technical evidence indicated that a relationship between the above user and KoH is unlikely. While their may exist behavioral elements, you may wish to contemplate an unblock. Thank you -- Avi (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I did see that. Since the account was created and, within minutes, had found KoH's issues and found ANI, etc., it's obviously at the very least a meatpuppet. I am leaving blocked unless someone has a good reason not to. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. You are the sysop on the scene, I'm just checking the technical data. -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Question: does this constitute original research?

I've been working on the article 1942 Colored World Series awhile, and I'd like to add batting and pitching totals and averages for the series. Totals that were published in the Baltimore Afro-American are probably about 90% accurate, though I can make corrections based on the published box scores. Would compiling such totals be considered doing original research? -- Couillaud (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wickipedia Baseball Project

What is the procedure for affiliating with the Wikipedia Baseball Project? Is it tied in with SABR or BB-Ref.com, etc.? --Susan McCarthy (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you define "affiliating"? If you wish to speak to people there, you can simply leave a message at WT:BASEBALL. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)