User talk:Wknight94/Archive 19
PrimeFan case
See the note I just dropped on User talk:Del arte. I'll take care of the case rename and tag changes. Let anyone else know that you think should know.
Donnie Edwards accusations
no my friend these are absolutely true facts from first hand experience. user: Matthew.Horibe
of course people wont believe it cuz hes an NFL player and everybody thinks hes some great dude in reality hes a jerk but he does "nice" things so he can make himself feel better or what not its excatly the samething from me saying OJ killed his wife comeon man this is BS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew.horibe (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review for Creole (markup)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Creole (markup). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Liebman
"He's a one-trick pony / One trick is all that horse's patootie can do..." Appy polly loggies to Paul Simon. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Edit
Yeah, can you delete it please, i'm sorry for starting all of this trouble, I actually thought that it would only be a personal attack if I said to to the user, I wasn't thinking, thanks.--Yankees10 06:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you--Yankees10 16:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
baseball infoboxes
Please help uphold the consensus established in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_6#Changing_active_infoboxes_to_retired. Thank you!--IceFrappe (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
You have a new message from an IP
Please see User talk:68.52.36.127 k thx by 217.39.5.79 (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- And again, more messages there: User talk:68.52.63.127#Blocked.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- And I see you've replied already. Never mind. :)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- And again, more messages there: User talk:68.52.63.127#Blocked.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Category:Censured or reprimanded United States Senators
Hiya. I noticed you deleted Category:Censured or reprimanded United States Senators under G5 (banned user). While I don't dispute your reasoning, I was curious how you would feel about a re-creation of this topic. I'm not a psychotic "inclusionist" or anything silly like that, but it does seem to be a very useful, appropriate category, if not coming from a banned user. Or maybe it's redundant in some way - I'll freely admit that I haven't really delved into the category's history (and, since the history's been deleted, I can't see any archived Talk discussion which may show why this category is not needed). Feel free to reply here or on my talk page. Badger Drink (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose it would be fine as long as there is a clear definition. Is "censured" an official term? How about "reprimanded"? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Kind of quick on the trigger there, pard. The user makes three minor vandal-edits, gets one warning, and then you indef-block two minutes later with no intervening edits? (No, I have have nothing to do with this account -- I was in process of leaving a message on the talk page, and the warning-crunch sequence happened so fast that it ec'ed for me twice. Yikes!) looie496 (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh sorry - you want I should wait for six or eight more meaningless edits? Let me know how much nonsense you'd prefer and I'll take it under advisement. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer that you wait until the user vandalizes after receiving a warning. In this case, having actually looked at the edits, I think there is a decent chance that this was a new user who was experimenting. Probably not, but there is a procedure for this and one might as well follow it. looie496 (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Doubt it but I'll bite. I've unblocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer that you wait until the user vandalizes after receiving a warning. In this case, having actually looked at the edits, I think there is a decent chance that this was a new user who was experimenting. Probably not, but there is a procedure for this and one might as well follow it. looie496 (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you take a look?
When you get a chance, might you check what was added to my talk page under "County Templates"? The dude's trying to say Flagler Beach is in Volusia County, whassup wit dat? :) --Ebyabe (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, according to this, it may be so. But on maps, it looks way too far from the Volusia County border for any of it to extend into it. --Ebyabe (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Liebman sock 11-19-08
This is either a sock or an imitator: [1] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- And I forgot to mention this one from yesterday: [2] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- And another one today: [3] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Suspicious behavior by an editor
I reverted an obvious vandalism by User:Ironic Username, and checked his other edits and found a few other instances. The one I noticed was pretty obvious (he changed the title of a Patty Larkin song from "Open Arms" to "Open Legs"), but the others were much more subtle. His method is to change a year of an event or an ordinal number (22nd to 23rd, for example); for the article Hafeez A. Pasha, he changed the phrase "Commerce Minister" to "field marshal". I confirmed that some of his changes were incorrect and reverted them all, assuming a pattern of vandalism.
He came to my attention again this week when he reverted my vandalism warning with a summary of "removed vandalism". He is still making similar changes to a disparate variety of articles, changes that might go unnoticed, and he reverted one of my earlier reverts, one that I had already confirmed to be incorrect. I believe he's doing nothing but vandalism.
He did not respond to the warning, either with an "oopsie" or by denying he'd vandalized anything. He just quietly makes minor changes to lesser-known articles that on the surface look legitimate, and might escape notice while two or more subsequent edits help bury the evidence.
I could be wrong. He could just have made a couple of mistakes, or done some vandalism a few times but be working honestly now. I suspect, however, that I'm not wrong, and that he's doing exactly what I suspect him of.
Can anything be done? -- Couillaud (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I permablocked the account. After checking a couple of his edits, I blindly reverted the rest where his were (top). If you see any that should not have been reverted, let me know and more thorough investigation may be needed. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I checked one of the other edits (Black Hills Playhouse), in which he'd changed the year it was constructed from 1933 to 1930. Of course, it was constructed as a CCC project, and the CCC was only established in 1933. I'm guessing that since none of his edits seemed related to each other (indicating a random pattern instead of having some specific knowledge), they were all just part of his overall pattern of vandalism. I've reverted all of his edits, as I could not find anything that supported any of them, so they'd be unsourced changes anyway. Thanks for responding so quickly. -- Couillaud (talk)
Editing Whitey Ford
- Hi. A few weeks ago, we dealt with a wave of Ron Liebman vandalism over Whitey Ford's birthdate. In a move that I thought was going to clear things up, I added a link to show that Retrosheet lists his birthdate as 1926, the very date that the Liebman sock is trying to add to the article. The Liebman sock has continued his reign of errors since then and he now keeps changing my citation to say that "most sources claim a 1926 birthdate" instead of some, and I think it's just given him more fodder to spam the article. Anyway, should I just remove the Retrosheet reference so as not to entice the idiot to vandalize? I was asked by Baseball Bugs to ask you this before I did anything rash, so I was just wondering if I should do so.
- BB makes it sounds like I should delete it because he's claiming (I think, to be honest, incorrectly, given that Baseball Library, which bases its bios on a 1990 book, uses the same birthdate) that the sock puppet is the REASON why Retrosheet lists him with a 1926 birthdate. I'm not buying that. But nevertheless, should I just disavow the Retrosheet reference? -- Transaspie (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- That was a guess. I know he's weaseled his original research into some sites, I just don't recall for sure which ones. I've found mistakes in Retrosheet here and there, so it can't be taken as gold. It's "a" source, but it would be hard to prove that "most" sources list one or the other. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I like Retrosheet but I'm sure no source is infallible. The short answer is that either of you are welcome to do whatever you'd like on that article and if there is a dispute among non-banned users, you may all discuss it civilly and come to a consensus. The even shorter answer is, if you're not Ron liebman (talk · contribs), you can do whatever you'd like. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Jose cartagena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hard telling if this guy is a Liebman sock or not. Could be coincidental. [4] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's him. Look at the Jordan edits compared to Alan blumkin (talk · contribs). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, that one was under the radar. I wasn't sure it was him, because he seemed capable of creating a paragraph correctly, and he seemed relatively polite. As Bugsy would say, "Weeeeeeell, goodbye!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Warning for disruptive reversions of constructive edits
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you dare revert constructive edits (even if they are done by a banned user) again, you will be blocked from editing. StreetSharksFan (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Wknight94, I have reviewed your edit history, and ALL your reversions to edits by ThunderCatsFan were completely and utterly inappropriate. If you revert useful edits, even they are done by a banned user, ever again, you will be blocked permenantly from editing. StreetSharksFan (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)