User talk:Wknight94/Archive 17
 Archives |
|---|
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- (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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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...
- 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)
- Okie dokie! Thanks. Want another question or are you having fun deleting temp user pages? LOL Ariel♥Gold 02:18, 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)
- 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)
(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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Responded. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:56, 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)
- I'm confident it's him, and I've reverted the entries. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:13, 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- I whacked 'em both and sprotected everything. And no, I never heard of Nippy Jones. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:35, 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)
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)
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) The aim should be to get the stats and trivia right - not to abide by a personal agenda. The original purpose of Wikipedia has long been distorted.--Sun yung ming 15:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)