User talk:Wknight94/Archive 17

you have issue with my facts on joe t take it to the discussion board

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

IAF

I'm curious why the International Aikido Federation stub was deleted (by you) despite the justification for notability that was in that stub's talk page. Had any disagreement been raised to that justification? (Is there a way to view the talk history of a deleted page?) Was the deletion because the article was still just a stub, or genuinely because you think it is not notable? Cesiumfrog (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The content of the article was "The International Aikido Federation, headed by the doshu (heir to the founder of aikido), facilitates training between people from different national organisations." That is not even an assertion of notability. If you can find third-party corroboration for the things you claimed on the talk page and third-party corroboration for its notability in general, feel free to re-post the page with those. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Let me correct myself; actually, that user is definitely a sockpuppet of User:FatSexuallyActive, who I am reasonably sure is one and the same as Spotteddogsdotorg, but I could be wrong..--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record - [6] regards A Rather Hot Donkey Named Bob (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; I stand corrected.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Help

Can you please remove everything off User: Destructo_087/monobook.css I can't clear it even from User: Destructo_087 even though he is my alternate user. I can't clear it because you made my page secure against all but Destructo but I can't log in and do much because there is something in there because once I try my Internet Explorer goes into a not responding state.--Everlast118 (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for helping me get onto this user. I couldn't get on before and I think it was because of that page. But thank you so much still.--Destructo^{Talk to me} 01:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Honus Wagner

Suddenly we have a minor rash of redlinks and IP's trashing the article on the great Flying Dutchman. [7] If it keeps up, I'll take it to WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

24.127.22.57

This guy, in particular, [8] is a vandalism-only IP and has been blocked and warned before. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

IP blocking

No, I actually meant to indef block the two usernames I mentioned at WP:ANI and block the IP for one week. I'll change that. Thanks for the heads up. Useight (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been nothing but vandalism by that IP address since last fall. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't indefblock IPs except in some cases when they are open proxies. Usually IPs fluctuate. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I had considered doing just 72 hours (as a step up from the previous 31, but he did vandalize a lot and used sockpuppets). Useight (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't begrudge that at all. It's probably bad if we all follow the exact same escalation plan and become too predictable. As long as it seems reasonable. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just thinking a week might not be long enough. But we'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I generally step up slowly. 31 hours, 72 hours, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months - even 1 year if the block count gets up into the teens. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Aha. It's a step-on function. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Another way would be to double it each time. Comparing with your first 8 iterations: 31 hours, 62 hours, 124 hours (5+ days), 248 hours (10+ days), 496 hours (20+ days), 992 hours (41+ days), 1984 hours (82+ days), 3968 hours (165 days or about 5 1/2 months), and then it starts to really pick up. The burning philosophical question, then: How many doublings would it take to equate to an indefinite block. Don't answer too quickly. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem is those aren't all choices in the length-to-block dropdown. And I'm too lazy to type in a custom time!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I figured. That was just an illustration. Doubling nearly catches up to your increments after 8 iterations. So let's round my last one to 1/2 a year. So the 9th iteration is a year, the 10th is 2 years, the 11th is 4 years, the 12th is 8 years, the 13th is 16 years, the 14th is 32 years, the 15th is 64 years, and the 16th is 128 years. Unless the vandal finds the fountain of youth, or leaves the account to his junior vandal in his will, 16 iterations equates to an indefinite block. Q.E.D. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I generally stay in the 3- or 6-month maximum. That usually covers a semester or two for the kiddies. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

By semesters. Of course. As the Guinness Brothers would say, "Brilliant!" Just one more reason why you're an admin and I'm not. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This page in general and this topic in particular is a convenient and educational stop on my way around the Wiki. I get my math lesson and my beer commercial in one quick, easy read.

Just kidding. Thanks for staying on top of things, guys. When I grow up, I wanna be just like you two. :) Jonneroo (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's good to have goals and objectives, warped though they may be. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My Talk Page

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE? YOU ARE LIKE THE 5TH PERSON IN THE LAST 2 HOURS TO THROW SOME STUPID CRAP ONTO MY TALK PAGE!!! STOP EDITING MY TALK PAGE!!! I DO NOT APPRECIATE BEING HARASSED LIKE THIS, I AM NEW TO WIKIPEDIA AND DO NOT APPRECIATE HAVING USELESS GARBLE ON MY TALK PAGE WHEN IT IS FOR PEOPLE TO TALK TO ME, NOT HAVE STUPID CRAP POSTED ON THERE, STAY OFF OF MY TALK PAGE!!!! thank you AnnaJGrant (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to help her but got much the same attitude. Oh well. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too, similar response. -- Roleplayer (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

She's been blocked (by someone else) for 24 hours. Maybe that will snap her out of it. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

His/her/its first visible edit (presumably after having added a now-deleted page) involves messing with someone else's talk page. [9] I'm sensing animated hosiery. Nah, probably not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

AnnaJGrant

Just to let you know, she blanked your welcom message too. Hope she isn't going to continue as she started off. Problem seem to be a dispute with NeilN over a Notability issue, and from what I can tell, it could also be a COI issue as it appears to be something to do with a band she is involved in. As she is new, she may not be completly understanding of the rules. Mjroots (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Btw

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page last night. -- Roleplayer (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

204.39.68.196

Another IP address with nothing but vandalism since its last block. [10] Semester! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

24.154.93.14

Another one needing a semester break, warned twice and won't stop. [11] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

131.109.28.246

And yet another one. [12] Must be something to do with Spring Break coming. Maybe they need to be given an "early start". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

64.251.53.200

And another one. Strictly vandalism from day one. Warned numerous times, blocked once before. [13] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

24.166.104.60

Another vandal-only account from day one. [14] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Now this is a tempting one. Not many edits but the pattern is hard to miss... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have discovered the beauty of rollback. You can tell at a glance, on his "contributions" page, whether there is an opportunity to roll back. If not, you have to check and see whether someone else rolled it back, or whether someone blindly added to it. But it's still a time-saver. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For continuous efforts against vandalism. Dave (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, well thank you!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not much, but at least I'm trying to be polite enough to thank for the help. Dave (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

210.243.112.139

All or mostly vandalism, has been warned repeatedly. Maybe needs a semester break. [15] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

67.155.105.62

Nothing but vandalism recently, warned repeatedly. [16] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Lightmouse

...was blocked once already for de-linking years, and he's doing it again [17] despite my warning him and turning him in at WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Theresa Knott has this one covered. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You may still want to weigh in on this. The guy has done nothing but run AWB for the last several weeks, changing thousands of articles, including rubbing out "year in baseball" entries, which I take from this discussion [18] there is no consensus for that to be removed, but only renamed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

151.198.105.140

More vandalism. [19] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

You know how on the Template:Infobox NFLretired when you remove the highlights section that it says:No notable achievements, do you think you can do that for the Template:Infobox MLB retired--Yankees10 01:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Always seemed a bit harsh to me but I did it anyways. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks, sorry it took me long to respond, I forgot I left you this message.--Yankees10 15:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My Idea

you might want to check this out--Yankees10 01:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

New editor review

Hey. I am currently undergoing a new editor review to see how much I've improved since my first nearly five months ago. If you could, I would greatly appreciate if you could give me whatever criticism of my activity you can. Thanks for your time, Ksy92003 (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reds Pics

Thanks for the pictures of Bailey, Encarnacion and Volquez, it makes my job in WikiProject:Reds that much easier. But if you could pleeeease re-size the images after you've added them to the player pages, I'd love you forever. --Lesserm (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

Wonders never cease. A man asked me the other day if I was familiar with the term "bezzler." I said that I learned about it on Wikipedia from an eccentric user. In fact, I added it to my vocabulary list last year when I found (somewhat to my surprise) that it was a legitimate word. This made for lively dinner table discussion with my wife! Ebyabe 17:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reported this to WP:UAA, since it came from Mr. Ebyabe, not me. -Ebyabe (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And as you noted on your own page, he was quickly blocked. Subtlety is not exactly the Liebster's middle name, eh? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Vague threats

Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has apparently gotten a bug up his butt by the fact that I tag indef-blocked or about-to-be-indef-block user talk pages with {{temporary userpage}} and has ordered me to stop. When asked why, he simply says (to paraphrase) "because I said" and (directly) "This is disruptive because these talk pages shouldn't be deleted". I know that you've deleted such pages in the past: perhaps a word with him to actually do more than wave his hands and issue threats backed by nothing would be helpful here. --Calton | Talk 15:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A bug up my butt? WKnight - there's a thread about it on WP:AN if you're interested. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection on Kirk Cameron

Hi. What is your philosophy/WP policy on the proper duration of protection? Is the observation that after some span of protection, the vandals won't return? (Just asking.) Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a wiki so there will always be vandals - at certain pages just like at certain IP addresses. I try to stick to some sort of escalation plan when protecting, similar to IP address blocking. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Eleusis/Zwitterion

Hi! I noticed that you were the deleting admin in this AfD last year: AfD: Eleusis/Zwitterion. I wonder if it would be possible for me to get a copy of the last version of that page for a non-WP article that I'm working on. I'm mostly interested in the press links from the end of it (i.e., you don't have to worry about me reusing the copyrighted text). Thanks greatly in advance! Heather (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviousmulti(n)

Hi Wknight, I see you got the job of blocking the lot of them. I noticed their creation a day or two ago, and I knew in my heart this wasn't legit, but didn't think I could justify blocking them right off (although I briefly toyed with a pre-emptive block, with a promise to unblock if they could explain the names and the 5 account creations). I'm just curious if you would have done things differently than I did if you had noticed them first? I hope my note on their talk page helped a little. In the grand scheme of things, 3 vandal edits weren't damaging, but I really puzzled over what to do there. --barneca (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It was the combination of vandalism and socking that prompted me to indefblock them all. Without the vandalism, I probably would have only kept an eye on them as you did. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback. --barneca (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Hi. Noticed you were the protecting admin for Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Being that it has been indefinitely protected for 2 months now, any chance of opening it back up for edits? Thanks. Yaf (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a few other admins have been more involved with the article since its protection. You should ask one of them or try WP:RFPP. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We'll see if it stays protected, or if someone shoots it down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:AIDS/references history merge

Sorry to bother you again on this one, but I was hoping to merge the information from article space into talk space, since the list of references isn't a subpage of the article itself, but instead is a record of references used in the development of the article. This and several other topic based talk sub-pages from 2005 are hanging around from the article's development back then. Could you please merge the information from AIDS/references to Talk:AIDS/references, so they can then be moved into properly formatted talk archives. -Optigan13 (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've just went ahead and posted this along with a set of moves at the uncontroversial moves sections, thanks anyway. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoegazing - article renaming

Hi - I noticed you were the admin that concluded a debate on renaming the article shoegazing, which ended with no consensus back in August 06 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shoegaze#Requested_move. Apparently there's been another debate which has concluded the page should be renamed (according to the article edit history) - however, this didn't happen on the article talk page - or anywhere else I can find for that matter. Any chance you could help shed light on this or perhaps let me know what is a fair way to proceed? NickW (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been a unilateral rename a few days ago with no discussion at all. You'd probably be best served to ask the person that renamed it. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Vampire Warrior

I saw the unprotection reason of my talk page. My suicide claim was not a prank. It was a method, and a very stupid method, I admit, to get away from the person who was stalking me. I'd appreciate your support in my trying to change this account's name to Vampire Warrior, and to remove the Sockpuppet status because ImmortalKaine is my old account, but I forgot the password and email. Vampire Warrior II (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Weird question

So, is there a way to block a word from being added to an article? I know links can be blacklisted, but is there something like that which is article-specific?

The reason I ask is that the following keeps being added to Ashton Kutcher:

Ashton Kutcher is also believed to be the twelth and final Cylon.

Admittedly funny, but inappropriate for here. It started out around the beginning of this month, with Fistsofham. Now it's also coming from various IPs. I think it's likely the same person. It's low level vandalism, but annoying and repetitive. I was hoping there might be a way of blocking the word Cylon from being added to the article. Probably a vain hope, but thought I'd ask. Thanks! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I don't get that joke. I semi-protected the article. Some of the anti-vandal bots will try to detect spam - they may also be able to detect individual words as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, and the joke is to do with the new Battlestar Galactica. There are twelve new Cylon models that seem completely human. Eleven have been revealed, but the last one's still a secret. More here. This will probably start up again when the protection expires. This is the last season of Galactica, and the twelfth model is supposed to be revealed before the end. And I guess they're trying to say that Kutcher acts as well as a robot or something. Though I'm surprised they didn't add it to this article instead. :) Anyhoo, danke. --Ebyabe (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't get the connection to Kutcher but I suppose vandals shouldn't be credited with meaningful senses of humor. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the minute the protection tag expired, the same thing started again. It seems silly to have to keep re-protecting it, but I can't think of an alternative. :( --Ebyabe (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I doubled it to 10 days. I can do this just as long as they can. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully, Galactica will reveal who the real twelfth Cylon is soon, which should stop this. We hope... :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If it turns out the be Kutcher, wikipedia will have missed a scoop. Oddly enough, I always assumed Cylon was an artificial fabric invented by Cy Young. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

I was recommended by another user to come talk to you. I am wondering if it'd be possible to have my original account, Vampire Warrior unblocked. If I may, I can clear up a few things. The suicide note, as I've stated was my way of ditching the stalker. The police did show up to my house after tracking my IP and I explained it all to them. As for ImmortalKaine, he isn't a sockpuppet, persay, but an old account of mine. I forgot the password to the account and I don't remember the email I used. So I was wondering if I can get Vampire Warrior unblocked and I can move my userpages over to his name myself (if that's possible). I've taken some time to cool down. It's been about 4+ months since I was last here. I'm also on new meds so I'm much calmer, etc. Thanks for a speedy reply! Vampire Warrior II (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Post an {{unblock}} tag on the talk page but I wouldn't agree with unblocking any of your accounts. All of them have been blocked numerous times and now someone's had to call the damn authorities because of you! Put yourself in my shoes - would you unblock you? I think not. We're trying to do nothing more complicated than write an encyclopedia - you're more interested in creating some sort of real-life soap opera, with you as the main character. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I took a couple months away from Wiki to cool down. I ain't here to create some damn soap opera. And yes, I would unblock me. There are alot of people WORSE than me. Vampire Warrior II (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Name one. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to name the many IP addresses that vandalize every day. If memory serves me correct, there was a certain member who used usernames with "Candice Michelle" in the name who persistently kept adding week-by-week synopsis' into Candice Michelle's article. After he/she was blocked, he/she came back several more times under varying nicknames, usually involving WWE or Candice Michelle and frequently attempted to add back the information. That one's off the top of my head, as I dealt with him/her and I think...but I'm not sure...that you dealt with him/her as well. CANDICEMICHELLEFAN was his or her name, if memory serves me correct. Vampire Warrior II (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And a volunteer here had to spend their time and risk their privacy, etc., to call the authorities because of that person? And then they were later unblocked? That's basically what you're asking to happen. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, I've admitted the suicide note to throw the guy off was a mistake. I explained it all to the police officer and he assured me he'd be watching the guy. Haven't heard from the stalker since. Also, they didn't risk their privacy. You can remain anonymous. You dwell on the past too much. That is why you fail. Also, apples and oranges? Where? Vampire Warrior II (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I directed him here, I'll comment. Personally, I am inclined to agree with Wknight here. Not only did you cause problems as VW, but as your previous username as well. I am however, willing to see what the community as a whole thinks. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem with that. Mass community things normally don't go well. Not many people know me, and as such, will be inclined to go with the crowd and possibly give negative comments. That's why I don't like community-based stuff. I've changed. I'm no longer the immature fool you once knew. If you'll excuse me, I must go shower. I'm going out for dinner tonight. Vampire Warrior II (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have returned. Oh, and thanks Wknight, for removing that administrator template x] I forgot about that. See, I used Dfrg.msc's user page template (he gave me permission on Vampire Warrior). I forgot to change a few things over. Vampire Warrior II (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I see all the accounts are blocked now. Good riddance. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Or in the plural colloquial participle form, good riddin's. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes :)

Thanks for this edit. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem - although it didn't matter after you untranscluded (or detranscluded?). Prior to that, it shaded every RFA below it on the page!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Good god. I actually correct that mistake on AfD all the time! <shakes head around> This is going to make me switch from copying and pasting the tag and just do it with the subst:rfa's. Thanks again. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

request

to fully protect Race of ancient Egyptians for a while due do editors making major changes on this very controversial issue and not trying to come to a consenus about the edits so an edit war is happening--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with something petty and annoying?

This user keeps making the same "stealth" edit to the same link, undoing any changes. They've been warned, they've been blocked, but still they come back for more, they never respond to anyone. Whatever help you may provide would be appreciated. Ultimately, I wonder if the site could be blacklisted, 'cause I don't see anything else working *sigh*. Anyway, Good Night, and Good Luck. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I reported the user at WP:AIV. He was already blocked once, and obviously didn't learn his lesson. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He gawn. [20] As Wknight94 had told me some time back, the WP:AIV page is constantly being watched and if a complaint has merit, they will block the offender. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank y'all. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

schoolblock sig

I've reverted your edit which broke previous cases of {{schoolblock|sig=~~~~}} on User talk pages where it displayed ~~~~ instead of a signature. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, dammit. I thought there was a bot to subst all those? That would have solved that issue... —Wknight94 (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Triangle Moovment

Hi, Yesterday you removed the page 'triangle moovment' because it dosent have any significance/importance. However, where i live (derby) it has a lot of significance and is now a large group of people with over 300 members and ranges all acroos derby and partly nottingham, I know i didnt post any evidence that it had any significance on the actual page because i am not quite sure how to show you it does. I assure you this page has great significance in our part of england and a lot of members are deeply dissapointed you removed it. If you had a look at the talk page of the 'triangle moovment' you would of seen i had promised to find evidense by tonight which i intended to do if you gave me a chance!!. Anyway, can you please un-delete the page because it does have significance, maybe not to you, but it does to many people around my area. Thanks. 03thowoo (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Does part of that project involve teaching how to spell English words? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, 300? I guess my chess club should get an article too then, eh? And my condo association? Etc., etc.? Not every group of 300 people gets an article here. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I understand that the group is fairly small at the moment, however, it is growing rapidly (unlike your chess club), and therefore deserves a page on wikipedia so that people can see what the group is all about and join if they want. i think you are wrong comparing our group to a chess club, because a chess club is only school/club oriented, perhaps with a few out of school/club competitions, whereas, our group is citywide and soon to be country-wide. therefore it deserves a page. 03thowoo (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't diss the chess club. The chess club is huge! And we have a guy who is Canadian so that's international. Surely that's more deserving of an article. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite an appropriate source that discusses this organization? It needs to be confirmed that (1) it actually exists and (2) is notable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Which one? My chess club? Haven't I explained why it's notable? It's more than 300 people! —Wknight94 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt the notability of your chess club. But until I see a reliable source for this misspelled organization, I assume it's a hoax. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget my condo association. It's awfully notable too. Stonewall Manor Condominiums should be a blue link, no doubt! —Wknight94 (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And unlike the misspelled organization, it can be proven not to be a hoax. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Will a link to a 'bebo' page which shows it has many members from different areas be enough ?? 03thowoo (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That depends. Show us the link. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, try WP:DRV. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: T:DYK

Woops, sorry ;) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for blocking 163.153.76.21. The students involved have been identified, and the district has reported that it is taking appropriate action. --NERIC-Security (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. FYI, The block has expired. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I am hoping that the district intervention (which now includes the student who defaced Louis Leakey‎) will be effective. In my experience, short blocks (to stop the immediate problem) combined with the cooperation of the district (to stop the long term problem) tends to be a good combination. Most kids stop this sort of activity once they realize that it has consequences. Take care, --NERIC-Security (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear! Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto

Wknight94/Archive 17, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Registered Historic Places in Florida table-ized

Thanks to Elkman's county list generator, and much help from Clario, the entire Florida NRHP list is now in table format. Now to fill all the photo holes (and summary sections, I guess). Wheee! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy/regular deletion

Greetings, Wknight94. You removed the CSD templates I placed on American Specialty Cars. I'm curious about your edit summary, in which you stated Article has been like this for over a year so "speedy" is impossible at this point. Can you kindly please explain how the latter follows from the former? The first paragraph of the speedy deletion protocol states In this context, "speedy" refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created. Perhaps there's a countermanding provision I've overlooked...? Thanks for your time. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In general, there must be a previous revision that could be reverted to. WP:CSD#G11 is intended for articles that were recently created for no other reason than to advertise for the subject. If reverting can be done rather than deleting, it would be preferable. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt answer. Can you please point me to these provisions and requirements you mention, so I can study them in detail? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Too bad we can't use the Alka-Seltzer claymation elf to illustrate "speedy" deletes, etc. "Click-click, fizz-fizz, oh what a delete it is..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And for "banned" users, instead of big red "X" I would use a picture of Ban roll-on, which seems fitting in more ways than one. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

...please?

Wknight94, will you please take half a minute to point me at the provisions you cite? It's obvious you've plenty to do, and I don't aim to be a pest; I want to understand clearly this area of Wikipedia protocol. Regulation per se is one of my areas of interest, and I do best when I can see how the regs are written. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WQA filed

Resolved

Wknight94, I thought my two requests for clarification were pretty basic, but your nonresponse suggests I might've misstepped, so I've opened a WQA to try to get some perspective on the matter. Just FYI, I hold no grudge against you for cancelling my nomination for speedy deletion. Regards, Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, a tempest in a teapot. Have you even found anyone to disagree with my determination? You're more than welcome to find a second opinion, I won't be offended at all. (In fact I wouldn't even notice unless someone told me.) But I would prefer that you spend less time with this matter and more trying to build an encyclopedia. I feel silly even spending the time to compose this message... —Wknight94 (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you the issue itself is minor, and I appreciate your taking the time to explain. To answer your question, I repeat myself: WP:SPEEDY appears (to me) to disagree with you. That is what I find problematic. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind; Jaysweet (talk · contribs) put up a detailed explanation in the WQA. I now understand your reasons for cancelling the CSD nomination and their legitimacy, and I have a better understanding of the CSD policy itself. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Operating authority

The information has allready been merged into another article, as I mentioned in teh speedy tag. Do I need to do a 5-day nominate for delete now, or what? I am far from an expert at all the twists and turns of wiki policy, so perhaps I should have been more explicit with the information for your benefit. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you could just redirect this one to the other one. See WP:CSD for valid speedy deletion criteria. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Huggle Config File

You say my Huggle config file (huggle.css) wound up at CAT:CSD? How in the world did it get there? Is there anything I should do about this? I just installed Huggle today and User:AnnaFrance/huggle.css is where I was supposed to put the config file—which is exactly what I did. I sure would appreciate any help you can offer. --AnnaFrance (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of looking around and I'm very confused. The config file seems to be where it's supposed to be and I can't find it at CAT:CSD. Could you explain to me what you meant when you said my file wound up at CAT:CSD? Thanks. --AnnaFrance (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've worked it out with MZMcBride and he's fixed it following my suggestions. Please see my post on Anna's talk page for more info. Regards Astral (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Walt Disney

After protection was removed, it took the IP's all of 41 minutes before they started attacking the page again. Oy! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh*. Well, it was protected for one of the longest durations in the whole system. It would be nice to give it a fighting chance... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

4 vandalisms in the 4 hours since it was unprotected. I wonder why he gets targeted? Bill O'Reilly, I could see. But Walt Disney? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

One full day/24-hour period: 10 vandal attacks & reverts. 10 x 365 = 3,650. 3,650 other things that constructive editors could be doing. IP4240207xx (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It was re-protected, for another year. [21] Maybe they should have made it 13 months, to extend past the end of the semester. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Googie Man

He declared he no longer intended to edit Wikipedia. He was blocked for vandalism. He evaded the block in order to repeatedly accuse another editor of being a pedophile. How is that acceptable behavior? An indefinite block is not an infinite block. He is welcome to request an unblock, and if he withdraws the accusations against Another Solipsist and apologizes, I'd support unblocking him. But I do not tolerate personal attacks of that nature. Oh and I do not accept that a message saying "prove to me you're not a pedophile" is anywhere close to sufficient. Sorry, Gwernol 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Googie Man left me an apology and - much more importantly - left one for Another Solipsist. I am impressed by that. Very impressed. I've unblocked his Googie Man account, effective immediately. I hope he decides to stay and remain a constructive contributor. That would be by far the best outcome here. Best, Gwernol 19:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Googie Man here

WKnight, I really appreciate your kind words in defense of me more than you'll know. I sorta blew a gasket though, and apologized to everyone. It's really not worth all the time, and money and effort I've put into getting decent baseball pictures for Wikipedia. Keep up the great work on the greatest sport of all. Best regards, Googie Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.17.243.178 (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

If I'm reading this right, they've semi-protected the noticeboard. How ironic is that? [22] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Probaly the first star you get for deleting a user's page, but hey, life's full of surprises.

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For deleting my page and history, and in doing so taking food away from the trolls.  Channel ®   21:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh, thanks.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

C-Upload

I did c-upload. Unfortunately, I had something of a dilemma with that image, because it was named "MaryShelley.jpg.jpeg" and when I saved it to my PC it saved as "MaryShelley.jpg.jpg", so I c-uploaded it under that name instead. Gatoclass (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bernie Williams

Can you move Bernie Williams (baseball) back to just Bernie Williams, the baseball player is way more known than this other basketball player--Yankees10 23:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's done. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

thank you--Yankees10 01:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My talk page - another

I've never had an archive block put around a section of my talk page. I feel honored. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed there was already a section on here with that title. A section that actually contains some drama. Or at least some CAPITAL LETTERS. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well what a silly section that was, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, to lighten the tone on that talk page (since the admin claims the "minor incident" comment was also his attempt at humor, which I somehow overlooked), I would like to quote that passage as an example of "real" drama, if you're OK with that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

From this, I think he got the idea so you might want to let it die peacefully. I would anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was talking about. He's the only one who thought that was intended as humor. Meanwhile, I already posted it, and pointed out that for real drama it needs to read like that. I also added a smiley face, which he forgot to do on his comment. And that's my last entry under that item, hopefully. It's a dead issue, unless that user reneges on his promise, and if he does, I'll let the admins slug it out. I might even sell tickets. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I also added a statement that indicates we should just let it be. Whispering words of semi-wisdom. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm neglectful again. Thank you for coming to my defense. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

64.91.165.77

Hi Wknight, I noticed that you called this a content dispute. However, this editor is removing clearly cited information and changing other parts of the cited info so that it is not correct. This article has been trolled frequently by extension school alumni who try to make the school look better. Anyway, he's also blanking the article talk page [23] where another user stated that he questions the "article's statement about HES having a "rigorous" admissions policy." I don't think this is a content dispute so much as it is a blanking of sections. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the talk page removal is peculiar. I'm not far from blocking on disruption/edit warring grounds but I still question whether the edits are purely bad-faith vandalism. Let me know if it continues. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, will do. I'm not going to revert the actual article for a day because if it's not vandalism then my edits are certainly at 3RR. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your assistance in clearing the backlog at WP:RM, as this is only the second time (if not first time) it's been completely cleared in 2008! JPG-GR (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh, my pleasure. I only did the last few so don't give me too much credit! —Wknight94 (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Times Union

Hello. You recently (1 June) closed a WP:RM for Times Union as "no consensus." A few hours later someone moved it anyway. Can or should anything be done about that? Thanks. Station1 (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd contact the user that moved it. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ThisCity

Hi, I just saw that ThisCity are referenced as playing Latitude festival this year but apparently their page was deleted. Can you put it back up for discussion for undeletion? I don't know what the page said though - can't figure out how to view it now.

ref: 01:02, 16 May 2008 Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) deleted "ThisCity" ‎ (A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance)

Bethgranter (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You can try WP:DRV. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnW^talk 07:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I got one of these messages today also. What's the usual approach? Ignore it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I do but I haven't seen what others are doing. I can't imagine that will be tolerated for long. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It hardly seems worthy of raising an alarm bell at WP:ANI, but maybe I'll do that anyway, since I'm not really sure what the appropriate response is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am the author of this message. Acctually it's not a spam. I really need your help. It's an little experiment about my thesis. I do hope that you can help me, and I'll appriciate your favors.

JnW^talk 13:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk page deletion

Re your comment on User talk:Olaf Stephanos. My intent is, upon a request I received, to remove an e-mail address found on the talk page and ensure that it cannot be found in the edit history. I will revert everything else afterwards. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 04:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for fixing my stuff, after that lunatic swept through wikipedia like the tornado that trashed the northern metro suburbs last week. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Or "lunatics", so to speak, as he got another user ID and did the same thing. Just what you needed, some excitement on a dull Friday afternoon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, thanks rev:33565. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

recursive page move

I see you referring to a "recursive page move" facility. What does that mean, please? (You can reply here: I'm watching.) AndyJones (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See rev:33565. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. AndyJones (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Half hour eh? Well you probably need this then :): importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/moverevert.js');

Make sure you are using FF3 or IE to operate it.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's cute, thanks. But it turns out the recursive moves could have been recursively unmoved if the unmovers had known better. That function just needs to be locked down. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted GraalOnline article maliciously recreated secretly in german...

The main English Wikipedia GraalOnline article was deleted back in 2006, yet I find it secretly recreated in German wikipedia as if nobody would notice... Unless this article is vastly different than the one that was previously deleted in English, then this too should be deleted and stay that way, same with all other languages... http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graal_Online Vipercat (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not an administrator on German Wikipedia. An administrator there will have to do it. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Our friend

Hey! I left it unprotected as a kind of snare for more dirty laundry, but no need to change it back now. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, except MascotGuy's MO is to never ever stop. Been years now, right? You'd have to protect it eventually anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

protecting my talk page

Thanks! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

J.delanoy^gabs_adds has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Block of McSaucePaste

Generally I follow a 1RR when it comes to fellow admins, however I am not sure I can agree with your decision to indefinitely block McSaucePaste (talk · contribs). The editor had only received a single warning [24], and it was only a {{uw-vand3}}. More importantly, this individual had not made any edits since receiving that warning (other than to blank his or her own user talk page). --Kralizec! (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And you're not counting the nonsense hoax page Asdania - which he created twice (warning)? Or the first warning? Or the fact that he's part of a little ring of vandals including Hardguy999 (talk · contribs) and suspicious accounts Canpop (talk · contribs) and Nigel321 (talk · contribs)? Don't worry, the two I blocked will be back tomorrow so no harm done. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then please accept my apologies. However next time I might recommend putting something in the block description about it being a vandal sock, as otherwise it looks like an out-of-process block to an un-involved admin. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So the three ignored/erased warnings and twice-created nonsense page alone make it an "out-of-process" block? That's news to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The two speedy deletion notices were just that, notices not warnings like {{uw-create1}} thru {{uw-create4im}}. Regardless the editor never received a level-four warning for anything, and the last warning he or she received was a level-three. Considering McSaucePaste apparently took heed of that warning and did not vandalize any more articles, but was blocked anyway ... yes, I call that an out-of-process block (because in essence, the account was blocked after a single level-one warning). However the knowledge that the account in question is a vandal sock makes it not an out-of-process block ... which is the point I was trying to make: outside observers like me may not be aware of the history here and/or sock issue that was the ultimate reason this account was blocked so rapidly. Without that knowledge, otherwise uninvolved admins like me just see it as an out-of-process block. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, if you really think that this is the talk page of an account that we need around here - whether or not he was part of a mini-conspiracy - then one of us is way off-base. And check that contribution list. Not a single constructive edit. Here are some gems he wasn't warned for: [25][26][27][28]. That he wasn't indefblocked a week ago is a shame. If the culture here has swung so far in the vandals' favor that following the warning levels to the letter is more important than saving the good editors from having to waste their time with idiot children like this, then I'll be happy to desysop myself right away. Please say it ain't so. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you that it is a shame how this editor was reverted a dozen times but people were either too lazy or too indifferent to issue a warning. In an ideal world, vandals would be warned after each edit and blocked after their fourth or fifth vandalism attempt. But who should be punished when the community fails to educate new editors when they make test edits? How will editors like McSaucePaste ever learn to stop making bad edits and become a productive contributor if we never give them a chance?

Perhaps you and I have a philosophical difference of opinion on this, but when I am processing AIV reports (like when McSaucePaste was reported today), I feel that the AIV instructions are very important, especially the part about vandals must have been given sufficient warnings. When it comes to McSaucePaste, he received a {{uw-vandalism1}} warning at 05:14, 11 June 2008 [29], ignored the warning to vandalize Limbo at 16:24, 11 June 2008 [30] (which was his only article edit since receiving the warning), then was indefinitely blocked 14 hours later. Are you really advocating that vandals be blocked after just a single level-one warning? --Kralizec! (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am really advocating that someone wasting that much of good editors' time should be blocked, warnings or not. Absolutely. How many times do you think someone needs to splash nonsense across obviously serious pages before they realize what's going on? This was clearly some kid who was being a jackass and laughing every time, not caring if he got blocked. And he will continue to do so tomorrow after he creates another account - or borrows one of the two I didn't block. Don't forget that I didn't block the person forever - just this account. It's not even like he chose some deeply-personal username. How will he learn to stop making bad edits? Maybe when he grows up a bit. Warnings ain't gonna do it. If we're lucky, eventually he'll create a serious account (using some IP where he and his friends didn't get account creation blocked). Until then, just patiently block the stupid accounts he and his friends create and try to waste as little productive time as possible. That's my honest suggestion. And don't cry for this kid - he spent the rest of the day vandalizing any other wiki site he could find, and he'll be back here same time tomorrow. I'll let you block him next. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing but stupid stuff from that guy from Day One. No way he's interested in being a contributor, he's just testing to see how much he can get away with. The attitude of too many admins is the California approach, that if you just reason with a vandal, he'll stop being a vandal. I agree with Wknight94's approach. But I'm from the midwest. 'Nuff sed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have a better understanding on Wknight94's perspective. Thank you for taking the time and patience to help me "step out of the box" on this. As to Baseball Bugs's comment, not sure I can agree with this ... I too am from the midwest (lived in Ohio for most of the past 34 years), and I almost never block someone unless they have received a final warning (with exceptions for socks and vandals currently running rampant with mass edits). --Kralizec! (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a judgment call. If he's messing around with stuff, tell him to stop. If he does it again, tell him to stop or he'll be blocked. If he does it again... he's blocked, for at least 24 hours. If he does it again, he's done, as he's obviously too much of an idiot to be of any use here. That would be my approach. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I employ a very different approach for user accounts vs. IPs. I'm more careful with IPs. You can really mess things up blocking an IP inappropriately. But the worst damage you can possibly do blocking a user account is a 24-hour autoblock. I think most kiddies know that and that's why they hurry to create a bunch of user accounts, and we need to respond by quickly indefblocking and at least slowing them down. If that means foregoing the full set of warnings, then so be it. Notice how few indefblocked user accounts even bother requesting an unblock? Because they know exactly what's going on. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How to detect non-shared IPs

Hello Wknight94. I support 110% your recent block of 69.219.138.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). But I notice in the block log that you've marked him as a 'non-shared IP.' How does one learn this key bit of info? I've been assuming that IP vandals that keep on doing the same stuff month after month are probably static, but I'd like to know a more reliable method. EdJohnston (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you guessed my method. An obvious pattern in the contribs. Vandalizing Jim Thome on May 11 and on May 24 and again on May 28, and those make up more than 10% of the overall contribs. Plus, I neglected to leave a block notice on May 28 (not sure why) but he managed to find me to vandalize my user page on June 11. Did he find the block log somehow? No, the June 11 vandal is the same adorable kiddie that I blocked on May 28. Sorry, I wish I had a more technical answer for you!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Sons of Eilaboun

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Sons of Eilaboun. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wknight94,

I have just seen the article about the film has been deleted. I think indeed the film has not enough 2nd sources analysis to justify an article about it.

Following this you proceed to this edit.

Nevertheless, I think it is a known enough film about the 1948 Palestinian exodus to justify to be quoted in the film section of the article.

Do you mind if I add this back ?

Best Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, if you think the external links are helpful to understanding any of the article subjects, I don't mind if you reinstate them in those articles. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wknight94

This film meets the following WP:MOVIE criterias:

• Other evidence of notability”
  • 3.The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio.
• The film also meets the following principles of WP:MOVIE: General principles 3 & 4
  • 3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of film making.
  • 4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.

Why did you ignor that? why was the film deleted? Arab48 (talk)

Please see WP:DRV. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Wknight94, I would like to draw your attention that some users (e.g. Number_57) are trying to destroy the delete review of The sons of Eilaboun by adding notes, and unhelpful remarks "Note that FriedenMann (talk · contribs) is one of the meatpuppets in question" and someone added a warning tag. I found the following article that might explain this: Wikipedia Under Attack by Pro-Israel Groups Distorting Palestinian History http://theinternetguy.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/wikipedia-under-attack-by-pro-israel-groups-distorting-palestinian-history/ Please do something about it, because each time any user votes against the deletion of the article, he is labeled as a meatpuppet. The user Number_57 seams eager to delete the article "The sons of Eilaboun". Regards, FriedenMann (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection/range ban

That user's been incredibly disruptive in the last few weeks.

Quick question, what does range block do? All 217.xxx.xxx.xxx are block from all articles, or from select articles?[[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]) 15:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Range block blocks the given range from editing at all (except their own talk page). —Wknight94 (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Jenna Bush

Sweet-pea-1981 knew what he was doing when he was vandalizing Jenna Bush. Check out his statement on my talk User talk:Dinkytown page under Jenna Bush - he was quite proud of it. Take Care... Dinkytown (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That comment was from 74.224.113.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I think that person added the sex appeal crap as well as changed the name to Hager. Sweet-pea-1981 has commented in the past about wanting Mrs. Bush/Hager's name used consistently - see Talk:Jenna Bush#Bush or Hager. When he saw 74.224.113.172's edit reverted - including the Hager change, he reverted back without seeing the sex appeal/abortion crap. Seem plausible? Sweet-pea-1981 has a pretty spotless record in the past as far as I can tell and I think just didn't look at the crap added near the bottom of the diff. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Dagger of xi'an

Not so much a disagreement - more of a pointless redirect (given the comments made in Talk:Dagger of Xian). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 15:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The spelling is close and it was originally created at that title I guess - so that sounds like a pretty useful redirect to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 15:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your Revert to Manchester, New Hampshire

Wknight94, what reason did you have to label that link to a group of 56 photos of downtown Manchester as spam? There's a comment in the talk page saying that the article is lacking modern photos. Have you seen this same link elsewhere on Wikipedia, or even any other links pointing to that CivicImages web site? If you have not your use of the term "spam" to refer to my edit seems a bit pejorative.

For lack of finding anything to support the "spam" characterization and because I see no reason to exclude this resource from the article I have restored that link. If you would like to discuss this further I have created a discussion in the talk page. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 20:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the article talk page. And yes, someone else was adding dozens of links to the same website today. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know Mount Hood was visible from New Hampshire. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for reverting this. – ukexpat (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

An edit you made to UAA

removed a username which had not had the chance to be reviewed and blocked. I realize you are an admin, but please be careful with your edits. The edit I speak of can be seen here. I'm going to report the user again, who was a spambot likely due to the type of edit they made, so they can be blocked as needed.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 06:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, my edit removed two names and my edit summary said "2 not blocked". I.e., I saw the name you added, reviewed it, and determined it not to be a name violation. The name of the account had nothing to do with the spam that was added in its only edit. A true spambot should be reported at WP:AIV or WP:ANI, but if the name of the account is okay, it shouldn't be at WP:UAA. As I type this, I notice that Jonny-mt (talk · contribs) independently came to the same conclusion after your second report. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletioin of June Anderson image

Could you please provide me an explanation for the deletion of the publicly-released governmental photo image of June Anderson recently receiving the Commandeur medal from the French Ordre des Arts et des Lettres? Your notation (like those given for dozens of other images you deleted on June 15) simply says "invalid justification" which is not terribly informative. In addition, I was not notified in advance and I believe the policy you cited expressly states that: "Non-free images or media that are used in at least one article and that fail any part of the non-free content criteria (except criterion 1) may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader, except that for media uploaded before July 13, 2006 or tagged with the Replaceable fair use template, the uploader will be given seven days to comply with this policy after being notified.

Thanks ever so much. NickInBigD ^(Hey!) 22:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Image:June Anderson.JPG. You uploaded that as a non-free picture of a person so it was automatically tagged with {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}}. The warning would have been apparent while you uploaded it. If you're now claiming that the image is freely available, or you think you have an exception to the general fair use practices here, you can bring it up at WP:DRV. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your message from my page...

Thank you for your message, and I do apologize. I was getting all confused with the different edits being made, and lost track. Thank you again. Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC) I don't know if this is good news or bad news, but I have decided to call it quits on Wikipedia, this time for good! In April, 2007, I pulled out for a few days then changed my account name. I hope that I have made a constructive contribution to Wikipedia - even though I have embarrassed myself (even being suspended) several times, and have bullied some decent editors - even driving them off the site. "Tecmobowl" probably was the most unique editor I encountered, but there were others. I hope that I haven't done enough people wrong to cost me my chance to go to heaven. Thanks for all you have done for me over the years. I will stick around until the end of June. --Baseball Bugs - What's Up Doc? (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The above is an impostor, obviously. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I just did a username block. Let me (or Wknight94) know if he resurfaces with another "copy" of your username. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Kudos. He's asking me about going to heaven. Well, if I were to run into the likes of him there... and my true friends have gone elsewhere... well, as Mark Twain once said, "Heaven for climate... Hell for society!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That idiot is back again. [31] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was about to tell you about this one, and you beat me to it. :) [32] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I had been wondering whatever became of Liebman. This reminded me of the punch line to an old joke about two Jews waiting to assassinate Hitler. When he fails to come by at the expected time, one says to the other, "I hope nothing happened to him, God forbid!" (That last part is supposed to substitute a Yiddish expression, but I can't find it in my copy of Joys of Yiddish). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think these last few messages are too well-written to be Liebman. But I don't care enough to pursue it any further than that. WP:DENY. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Roger. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for the results of that RFCU, to be sure I'm not someone else's sockpuppet. You can't be too careful these days. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wuh-what?! Did someone actually file an WP:RFCU for that?! —Wknight94 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of. I'm just being funny, or trying to. It's been a trying week. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I was actually kind of hoping they would, just for total vindication. But what if it proved true? It would mean that guy is using a matter transporter to randomly beam into my office, several hundred miles from his own site, and randomly use my PC. Yikes! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Lest you think there's no such thing as a matter transporter, I've seen them at Wal*Mart for under $100. They're made by a company called Acme, so I'm sure it's of top quality. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Manny Hawthorne

Hi Wknight94

I understand the rationale for denying the speedy for the above-captioned article, but could you explain why you didn't replace the speedy request with a general AfD? I'm not questioning the decision, just trying to understand the deletion process in more detail.

Bongomatic (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically because I didn't feel strongly that it should be deleted at all. You can bring it to WP:AFD and I probably won't give an opinion. If I thought it should be deleted but didn't think it was a speedy candidate, I would have brought it to AFD. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

on bans, just some comical humor :)

I think we should make "you are blocked" messages redirect the blocked user to Encyclopedia Dramatica or Uncyclopedia, just to have one less vandal waiting for blocks to expire. :P M1N (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, there ya go. Make that happen. Try to only send the funny ones to ED though - they could use the help. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

ED... They have drugs to fix that now, don't they? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't Make it happen (just a lowly user), although we could easily make block templates that redirect the user to ED or Uncyc(Template:uw-block-ed and Template:uw-block-un - appropriate block template names, not real templates yet). We should make polls about these templates :). M1N (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream Renewable Power

Hello Wknight94. Can you please outline your reasons for speedy deletion of the Mainstream Renewable Power article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hman3050 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A7. Basically, the article, as it was, did not even assert why the company might be notable. It was only stating that the company exists and that's not sufficient to survive speedy deletion. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Window Washer

You deleted Window Washer citing A7, but it seems clear to me that A7 doesn't apply to software. Brian Jason Drake 15:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, same idea. No assertion of notability. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the process leading to this policy being formed, but surely they had a good reason to explicitly exclude software? I can't find any evidence that this software is notable, but I have questioned the ignorance of this provision. Brian Jason Drake 10:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

They didn't explicitly list jars of peanut butter either but I don't think an article about one would survive long. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be gone in a Jif. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You were saying?

[33]

"Don't worry about Pats1. When you're saying things like "my wiki-life is over" and that you "Can't eat, sleep", you're taking things far far too seriously. The silence you're hearing at ANI is your answer, i.e. Pats1 following you from one article to a second is not enough to make a stalking case. But I'm sure he's not dumb enough to follow you to a third article because he knows that that would look real bad."

If he did follow me to a third article what would happen?72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What about four?=

[34] 72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocking the Sox

Don't know how long this will be on eBay, but this is the S.I. cover I mentioned awhile back, which should be the theme for any admin. [35] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Help 2

Weird contribs. It's possible they're all friends, but if you look more closely at the edits, there's something very odd going on there. Notice how he adds the list of friends to some pages. I dunno. It smells funny. Also, one of the listed editors is one you indefinitely blocked (MrSaucePaste). Enigma ^message 17:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Canpop . Canpop has been reverting some of the vandalism the other users have perpetrated such as here. A group of schoolboys where one of them is less vandalism prone than the others? Or a bunch of socks talking to each other? --Bonadea (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

They're definitely all related but eight or nine schoolmates all editing Wikipedia is not in itself against policy. I nearly blocked Leedsunited325 (talk · contribs) and Nigel321 (talk · contribs) (the latter has already been blocked once) and I don't expect anything good from U340 (talk · contribs) if it ever comes back to life, but Canpop (talk · contribs) itself has been fairly productive. Maybe that one is the teacher or something. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like sockpuppets to me. I have no evidence, but it's some very odd behavior. I mean, adding a list of "friends" to userpages of indefinitely blocked users? Not to mention the severe vandalism emanating from nearly all the accounts involved. Checkuser definitely needed. I was going to request it myself, but now I see it's been done ^^. Thanks Enigma ^message 17:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And the checkuser agreed with my assumption above. Good to keep an eye on but I'd block them each one-by-one and not take them all out without further analysis. I'd hate to lose one or two good-faith editors just because their friends are nitwits. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering how many sincere folks hang out with nitwits. Then it occurred to me that one way to appear intelligent is to hang out with idiots. (It works for me!) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My whole high school was filled with morons. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess they may not actually be the same person, but it seems to be coordinated vandalism anyway. Similar in practice. Enigma ^message 17:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they're all sitting next to each other in a computer room at various times, but if the one slightly more serious kid doesn't see the point of the playtime, we shouldn't block him too. IMHO anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This might go almost as well as this. Enigma ^message 17:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Block of Lethalvandal

I agree wholeheartedly with your block of this guy. I had to revert a change to Arcade game which took quite some time as it was copied and pasted about 10 times. Had just warned (just after your block it seems) and was about to report. Thanks for saving me the time — Relyimah ^(t-c-e) 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. That Rollback button could have helped you there. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

True enough. Was using WP:AGF until I saw his contribs — Relyimah ^(t-c-e) 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The word "contributions" itself implies good faith. When the situation is otherwise, what's a good antonym? "Detributions"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ambox and cmbox margin problems

Today you changed the margin in the ambox CSS class in MediaWiki:Common.css. That instead broke it in Opera. So I made some examples and suggest another solution over at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Ambox and cmbox margin problems. Browser bugs are annoying...

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Harmon Killebrew

I wonder if you'd mind looking at the photo I uploaded for that article. It's a mediocre shot of a big banner that's been hanging in the Metrodome for a number of years. I'm assuming it's fair use or whatever based on "fredoom of panorma", but I don't know what the right tag would be. I'd like to get it tagged correctly before the deletionists go apoplectic. Also, I'll try to get a better-quality photo the next time I'm at the Dome. Thank you! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I don't like its chances. That would be whacked pretty quickly at Commons. If this were allowed, then anyone could try to hang any non-free picture on a building and then claim Freedom of Panorama. Per commons:COM:FOP#United States, I think the idea is to allow pictures of architectural works, meaning the building itself, not pictures on the building. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a large photo the Twins themselves have hanging. So presumably if I took a photo of that portion of the field, it would be OK as an illustration of the ballpark, but if I used a portion of it to illustrate Harmon, it would be against the rules? Typical wikipedia bizarreness. Anyway, I reckon I'll see what happens to this, if anything. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What you said sounds about right. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Willie McGee

Can you move Willie McGee (baseball player) back to just Willie McGee, the other Willie McGee article isnt even created and the baseball player is much more known anyway--Yankees10 18:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, yes, I will. It's done. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but the user moved it back again, I looked on google to try to find info on the other Willie McGee to see if he was a well known person, and could barely find anything, so I dont think people will be going here looking for him.--Yankees10 18:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Me neither but I guess you'll need to go to WP:RM. Let me know if you do - I hate two-item dab pages. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Joe Morgan

Why is it vandalism to post the truth about Joe Morgan? He blatantly makes up facts on the air and that was just 1 of them. It is public knowledge that Ernie Banks was with the Cubs until 1971 and it is also known that the basket was built in 1970. He only hit 8 home runs during that time so why would it be called Banks Boulevard for that? It makes no sense because he just makes things up. Summerguy811 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you expect to find the following in an encyclopedia? "But like most of those stories, this one was pure, grade A bullshit." Of course not and you know it. That's why it's vandalism. There are plenty of places to vent your frustration - this isn't one of them. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording was like someone writing in a blog. It's also unsourced. There's no source given that Morgan said this, nor why he said it if he in fact said it. As for when the basket was installed, I'll look into that. But regardless, it merits no more than a single sentence, not an essay. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

minus that little outburst... the rest is in encyclopedias. Joe Morgan makes up facts, which is a known fact. Summerguy811 (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC) And I WILL try find proof of him saying that Summerguy811 (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You would also need to prove that he "makes up facts". I happen to think he's pretty good at what he does. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You'd also have to prove that he does it any more than anyone else. You're going to tell me Vin Scully hasn't made a mistake or two or twenty? In over 50 years? Come on. Go back to your FireJoeMorgan site please, where everyone is apparently infallible. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The complaints against Morgan are stupid. He's not Steve Stone, who probably is infallible (you could ask him), but mostly he's just providing entertainment and bouncing things off Jon Miller. There was one youtube deal where he was going on about who was the hardest line drive hitter, and the answer was Al Oliver. I'm guessing he would know, since he would have played against him. It was just some harmless banter while the game was going on, and yes, they were seemingly ignoring the game, but the TV picture tells you what's going on. Maybe they'd rather those guys say nothing until something actually happens on the field. That would make for scintillating TV. But the fact is, I like Morgan, so I'm willing to cut him some slack. And that other guy hates him, so he's going to jump on everything. P.S. As far as the "Banks Boulevard" comment, Morgan apparently said that's what his fellow players were calling it back when they were both active players. I don't see where there's any issue with that. Apparently the complainer thinks Morgan should have known, in 1970, that Banks was only going to hit a few more homers into that basket before he retired. And it's an obvious play on Ruthville, Williamsburg, Greenberg Gardens, Kiner's Korner, etc. I should point out that the basket itself was added on the order of P.K. Wrigley, to stop the rash of drunken, idiot bleacher bums jumping or falling onto the field. Maybe the complainer would have preferred that Morgan put it that way? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just watching my "Great Chicago Sports Moments" video (yeh, yeh, it's a short one - it was 1987, before the Bulls had their great run) and the basket was in evidence when Ernie hit number 500 on May 12, 1970. Yes, it's true he only hit 12 more homers after that, in two seasons, as his career was winding down. But I'd like to know how the complainer expects Morgan to have known, in early 1970, that Ernie would only hit a dozen more homers in his career? In 1969, he had had a pretty good year for a 38-year-old, with 23 homers and 106 RBIs, playing nearly every game on the schedule. In 1970 he would only play about half the schedule games, but his numbers were on pace with 1969. In 1971, at 40, he really slowed down, playing only about 1/4 the games on the schedule. But how was anyone supposed to know all of that in the spring of 1970 when the basket was installed? Children. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Willie McGee

Is this baseball player really that famous? I generally tend to just keep notable people with the same name on the same footing unless one in particular is uber-famous (like a President or something); peoples is peoples. I'm fine with the sportsman being the main article, if you are fine with a WP:HAT over to the article on the convict. The journalist who is my main source is writing a sprawling book about the whole case (which I guess was kind of a big deal at the time, intersects in many ways with the Red Scare oddly enough) so don't be surprised if some years down the road the bookish class insists on a dab. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How many home runs did the other Willie McGee hit? How many World Series did he play in? And was his nickname ever "E.T."? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, we didn't have baseball back in central Texas, unless you count the San Antonio Missions. I'm unwinding my little mess; in a few hundreds years I'm sure there will be just as much dust upon each of these men's stories, and perhaps a few more famous Willie McGee's as well. Or as Jefferson said to Monroe in the debate over slavery in the Constitution, It's getting late. Let's just let future generations figure this one out. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's good enough for me and Willie McGee. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)