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

Thanks

Thanks for the revert. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Wknight94 ^talk 02:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you block this user and delete the Str8lace page?

I just stumbled onto Str8-Lace.

User:Crookedarmy and IP User:71.202.254.74 have been removing the speedy delete template originally put up by another user, and they refuse to use {{holdon}}. Crookedarmy has been warned umpteen times.

Can you block them and delete this article? Moogwrench (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, It was just recreated a bit ago by the same user, and he's deleting the speedy delete tags again. Moogwrench (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For undoing the vandalism on my userpage. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Wknight94 ^talk 02:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Pages

Can you please help me get notices off of The Final Riot! Tour and the Brand New Eyes Tour? There are multiple references, all from reliable sources, on both pages. But the notice stating otherwise is still there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.81.57 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 01:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you. Wknight94 ^talk 12:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone put some coal in that guy's stocking, it seems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just keeps getting weirder and weirder around here, eh? Wknight94 ^talk 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either that, or we're just noticing it more. Time for a holiday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And happy new year

but ... I didn't understand your edit summary here tx--Epeefleche (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which part? The list is not empty (which encourages admins to keep looking) and I only edited to decline one (hadn't edited in days). Wknight94 ^talk 16:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see - you added that report (it was unsigned). That IP hasn't edited in two days - what would be the point of blocking it now? We usually go by the assumption that the people behind IPs change from time to time. Wknight94 ^talk 16:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Sorry--I must not have signed it. I was reporting an IP vandal-only account, w/six or so vandal edits about a day and a half ago. OK--I had thought that as a vandal only account, without there ever having been other edits that were not vandalism, we would not assume that IP is a changing one. But tx for the explanation .. I wasn't clear from the edit summary. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll try to remember to include more info when you're the reporter. "Vandalism-only" is usually reserved for logged-in accounts, not IPs (unless something has changed recently...) Wknight94 ^talk 16:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a bother. Not familiar w/any technical meaning; was simply trying to save any reviewer time and indicate that every edit by the IP had been vandalism. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Can you block the IP 69.136.62.96 who continues to vandalize Curt Schillings page.--Yankees10 00:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And I got one of his accounts too. Wknight94 ^talk 02:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I took so long to respond, thanks.--Yankees10 16:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.160.26.102

I decline his unblock, but he really should have been escalated to a final warning before the hammer came down. Unless you believe he's a sock. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That area is rife with socks - Scibaby (talk · contribs) and such. And there were more than enough edits to warrant a block. What the hell is with that unblock request anyway?! "I have broken my leg"?! The intent was pretty clear there - to see how long it would take to be blocked. Wknight94 ^talk 20:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside High School for Engineering and Design - slide show GIF

Hi. I hope you are having pleasant holidays.

I just stumbled across Riverside High School for Engineering and Design (in Yonkers, where a new anonymous user has been doing a lot of edits related to public schools).

I've never before seen a Wikipedia article illustrated by a slide show. I don't like it, and I'm wondering if there is a policy (or a set of guidelines) on this sort of thing somewhere. (I haven't been able to find any such.) You know more about media usage than I do, so I figured I'd start off by asking you.

There's also a possibility that the slide show is a copyvio, but I haven't found it on the school website yet. --Orlady (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you too. I tweaked so it's not at the top-left. I still don't like it either but it's better than no image at all (I guess). You don't even need to find the full animated gif - if any of the individual shots are copyvio, then the whole thing would have to go. If you have a decent image program (which I don't in all honesty - although I may be getting one from Santa!), then you could probably separate the animated gif into individual images and re-upload. Wknight94 ^talk 03:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

major league franchises, etc

Hi!

i've just read about as much as i could of the HEEOOUUGE discussion you had here between 18-23 Oct and i have to say...you hit the nail right on the head with your first couple of paragraphs alone!

you see, i tried to re-start an identical discussion here about a week before you (11 Oct) but i guess we missed each other!

mine never really took off as much as yours, tho.

since you appear to be much better at arguing than me (i tend to go for the calmly-calmly approach, whereas the fuck you, this is what i think approach seems to work quite well for you!), here's the crux of my argument which you can use next time you argue with your detractors, because i think got omitted in your discussion:

my argument: there's no "NEED" for ALL previous incarnations of teams to IMMEDIATELY HAVE-TO-HAVE have their own articles; rather, if anyone WANTS to make a split-off article with the full info on, say, Brooklyn, they should be ALLOWED TO DO IT.

ie. there's no "NEED" for all 29 franchises to "HAVE TO" follow the example of Montreal, but we merely need to PROTECT THE RIGHTS of potential editors WHO FEEL THEY WISH to split off an article.

see!

if this one simple rule is followed, then such splits will happen gradually and naturally.

because i think that's what most of the detractors are afraid of - that if this "rule" is imposed, then all hell and damnation will be let loose. but no. as long as people have something to say on an old team, let them; if they dont, then we can always leave it for later and someone else who feels they can do it properly.

and i have to say, i got quite miffed at the contributor on your discussion who gave the proctor and gamble analogy, as i deal with this particular point on my page - that there IS a difference between sports franchises and all other kinds...the FANS.

anyway - i think your arguments helped, for now anyway, as the Brooklyn Dodgers article has at least been redirected to "History of the Dodgers" rather than to "LA Dodgers", which got overridden even after i'd tried to write a reasonably succinct version of it in Feb-Apr. keep up the good work.

hope i've helped!

Cheers, and take care!

BigSteve (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure that's my approach exactly... It was more that I was waiting for someone to give a good reason to oppose - one that even I could get behind - but I never heard one. I still don't like the "History of Brooklyn Dodgers" title, but it's as good a compromise as I could muster. It covers my main complaint of having older incarnations hopelessly and increasingly under-represented. I could not - and still cannot - understand the idea that having a separate article somehow tricks or misleads the reader into thinking it is a separate franchise. It's hard to say if your argument would alleviate that concern, but it is definitely an argument that should help pull a discussion to a middle ground, and I will use it in the future. For the "misleading" concern, one could direct the detractors to look at the existing Dodgers and Giants splits, and honestly say whether they sound misleading. I haven't heard anyone say they do.

Thanks for the advice! The key to a good discussion is to draw in as many people as possible. That way, you're more assured that you get the right answer - whether it's the one you wanted or not. Wknight94 ^talk 03:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely - the more, the merrier! wisdom of crowds and all that! BigSteve (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Television Radio, episode 127

76.223.72.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) same pattern as before. WuhWuzDat 12:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a few months. Wknight94 ^talk 14:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EPISODE 128, "Television Radio goes to Skokie": 76.223.71.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). WuhWuzDat 15:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again. Wknight94 ^talk 16:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

216.124.113.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), If he's anything, it's persistent. WuhWuzDat 15:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked yet again. Six months this time. Wknight94 ^talk 16:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 130: 76.217.32.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, he even reverted himself a few times. Are they even bad edits? This guy confuses me to no end. Wknight94 ^talk 19:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 131: 69.209.230.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). By the way, I just (semi-)unretired myself. WuhWuzDat 01:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. BTW, are all of the edits bad? I see few are actually reverted. Wknight94 ^talk 02:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only reverted the edits to a single article, as I no longer have any access to TW. WuhWuzDat 02:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has returned, see 99.137.149.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (was also a previous IP address for this smelly sock), and 69.209.208.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). WuhWuzDat 11:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, at 76.223.74.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). WuhWuzDat 19:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again at 69.209.206.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). WuhWuzDat 23:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again at 69.209.216.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block

Can you permanently block the IP's 98.203.213.238 and 24.19.12.246. They are the same one removing images and adding false info to baseball pages, and its really getting annoying.--Yankees10 02:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't permanently block IPs - like ever. But I gave both three months off. Wknight94 ^talk 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks hopefully this person stops now.--Yankees10 00:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy blanking

Hi. I have no idea what a courtesy blanking is, but you may want to look into this. It's a discussion that developed after I replaced Chris's warning on that project. Regards, Wutsje (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! (Or is it so new, after all?)

Happy New Year! You probably have noticed the OTRS ticket regarding newrochellenews.info. That website says "The newrochellenews.info website is a collaborative effort of the Huguenot and New Rochelle Historical Association, the New Rochelle Preservation Society and the City of New Rochelle, created to increase awareness, understanding and appreciation of the history and current life of the New Rochelle community."[1]

The Community Links list on that website (see the bottom of this page) names the city of New Rochelle as one of its links, but the link does not point to the actual New Rochelle city website at http://www.newrochelleny.com . Instead it points to a random page on the newrochellenews domain. A few of the "City Hall" links on the home page point to pages on the actual city website, but there is no link to the main city page, and some links are to the newrochellenews domain.

Another of the identified sponsors, the Huguenot and New Rochelle Historical Association, uses http://thomaspainecottage.org/ as its website. The organization appears to exist primarily or exclusively to maintain the cottage. Its domain registration is of long standing and appears straightforward: http://whois.domaintools.com/thomaspainecottage.org . The site's developer and maintainer is identified as insitefacilitation, incorrectly linked on the website, but findable at http://insitefacilitation.com/ . It's a small web design company in Torrington, CT. (See whois info.) Its website lists Thomas Paine Cottage as one of its clients.[2] Interestingly the e-mail address for membership queries to this association is painecottage@optonline.net

Insite Facilitation is also identified on the newrochellenews website as the owner of newrochellenews, but it's not named as a client on the insitefacilitation website.

The newrochellenews whois interesting: http://whois.domaintools.com/newrochellenews.info

The third identified sponsor, the New Rochelle Preservation Society, has a remarkably small web footprint, as indicated by a "New+Rochelle+Preservation+Society" Google search. (That restricted search turns up only its own domain and the newrochellenews.info domain.) Its website is at newrochellepreservationsociety.com -- which turns out to be a newly registered domain with the same anonymous registration data as newrochellenews. This site also claims to be maintained by insitefacilitation. The website has no information about the organization that it is supposed to represent, but it does have lots of malformatted nonworking links, as well as links to newrochellenews.info.

It may be a new year, but I have a strong sense of deja vu. I want to flag this domain as not confirmed to be a reliable source -- and there is no reason to think that newrochellenews can claim ownership of the images on it. Would you support me in this? --Orlady (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100%. WP:SPS policy is pretty clear - anyone can start a web site. I suppose the OTRS ticket says we can use prose which also appears on their web site, but without more verifiability, such prose would be inappropriate. As for images, I'd be interested to get specifics from OTRS. Did they claim to own images that appear on their web site? I notice there are no images at Commons anyway - and really not many links to the site here either. Frankly, I'm not sure what the point of the OTRS was. Wknight94 ^talk 18:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hunch that someone we know initiated the OTRS in order to give undue credibility to their self-published content. Additionally, I perceive the city/organization sponsorship that is claimed on the website as an attempt to endow this content with a mantle of reliability.

I'm happy to see that they self-published, instead of trying to get Wikipedia to accept their content, but I anticipate that they will be trying to use the OTRS -- and the sponsorship claims -- as justification for wholesale-inserting their unsourced text into Wikipedia articles. --Orlady (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a future attempt sounds plausible. It would probably be best to clean up the current links to that site - remove any poorly-sourced material, and other stray links in the external links sections - and then keep an eye out for future links. It might also be good to remove all the individual talk page OTRS messages and consolidate them into a list somewhere. I don't remember if Talk pages contribute to Google weighting, but the messages aren't really appropriate if the articles don't actually have content from that site anyway. I'd be curious what the OTRS person's thoughts are on placing so many messages despite there being so few actual links to the site. The whole thing seems a bit peculiar to me. Wknight94 ^talk 19:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I found the fire associated with the smoke. --Orlady (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! I see you deleted some - I deleted the rest. Wknight94 ^talk 23:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I got distracted by real life. --Orlady (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Chinese New Year is still "new," but this looks like Auld Lang Syne. This is just a heads-up; I know it's a duck, but so far there's not much wrong with the way it's quacking. (The contributions are reasonable ones.) --Orlady (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, all it's doing is categorizing? Maybe it's a slightly different bird. Anhinga perhaps? WP:SPI might be worth a try to make sure. Wknight94 ^talk 18:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Re: New York Jets page: Would be glad to discuss out debate over valid sources on a talk page. I apologize for any inadvertent Talk Page Guideline violations, as this is my first time using any talk pages (well, second time--I just posted on Baseball Bugs' talk page). —— Playsmarts (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for starting the discussion--its much appreciated, and I hope that we can hash this matter out once and for all. --Playsmarts (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye

As it has become painfully obvious, my contributions are no longer welcome or needed here. In light of this situation, I am leaving this screwed up bureaucracy for the conceivable future. Good luck, my friend and keep fighting the good fight. ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM WuhWuzDat 02:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't kept up to date on the matter and generally prefer fire ant immersion to WP:RFC. To anyone caught up in a bad situation, I recommend just getting out of it and trying something else. There are even other sites entirely - I've been playing in Wikisource some lately. No reason to leave entirely because of one issue if you're willing to try another. Wknight94 ^talk 17:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query on article deletion

Hi, I been working on the Baron Staffords and saw that you had previously deleted a page I was about to create The message says: 12:59, 19 August 2008 Wknight94 (talk | contribs) deleted "Edward Stafford, 3rd Baron Stafford" ‎ (G5: Creation by a banned user)

I just wanted to check there was no reason I can't continue with my page creation, ie it was down to the user, not to the content. cheers Rachelcgen (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. Wknight94 ^talk 21:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from above

Just wondering why you deleted the Juiceboxxx page. This man is amazing and I wanted to dedicate a page to him but wanted to check with you first. Amandabeck47 (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)amandabeck47[reply]

Wow, you're in the WAY-back machine. That was deleted about 18 months ago! What part of WP:N does he meet now? Wknight94 ^talk 16:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mets

I don't get what your signature has to do with the Mets.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. "A huge Mets fan"? He'll be chagrined... chagrined, I say... when you tell him. I'm not a Mets fan at all, and I got it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you said "signature", not "name". There's where you threw us both off, with subtlety. ("Place it on Lucky Dan", e.g.) And beware of inspiring ideas. >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should I colorize my signature? Will someone object because it's too many characters? Is it too "flash"? (An Aussie expression I learned recently) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned there is no limit to what people will object to. I can't imagine colorizing would upset anyone. I do it merely so I can find my own comments in long threads. Wknight94 ^talk 16:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, such as edit wars over whether to capitalize part of a title. If we could harness all that wasted energy, we could kiss the Middle East goodbye. So, is my color scheme reasonable? I have to ask, because my right-brain is underdeveloped. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh, hopefully you mean kiss the Middle East problems goodbye? You're sure to catch plenty of flack for wishing the Middle East to go away!

Wknight94 ^talk 17:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not the Middle East itself, just the problems, yes. In contrast to the Yankees, who I do wish would just go away. And now you've given me another idea. Except they probably wouldn't like it if I embedded a smiling orange in my signature (or a baseball, or Bugsy). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably get away with whatever color scheme you want - but images are generally a no-no. Wknight94 ^talk 19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even public domain images, I assume? It's the use of the image, not the image itself, that's kind of a technical issue with signatures, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Among other things, it would necessitate fully protecting the image forever so that your signature doesn't become the naughty body part du jour on 1,000 different pages! Wknight94 ^talk 21:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't thought of that. Too much assumption of good faith for my own good, I reckon. Still, it would be interesting to do it this way:

00:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that a guy who made the team out of Spring training, and was demoted back to the minors with a .156 batting average didn't live up to expectations.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or someone else got healthy or <insert some other explanation here>. How do you know they had expectations for Jones at that time? Need a source. Wknight94 ^talk 02:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need a source for "He was expected to bat higher than .156"?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need a source for anything anyone disputes. If he only made the team because Swoboda tweaked his ankle in Spring Training and someone else had the flu on opening day, then saying he did not meet expectations is untrue. Maybe hitting .156 was exactly what they expected but it was the best stop-gap a terrible 112-loss team could come up with. That's a far cry from what was written IMHO. The only undisputable facts that I am comfortable with - given the information available there - is that he was hitting .156 in early May when he was sent back to the minors. No presumptions there. Wknight94 ^talk 10:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that fact keeps it in bounds and lets the reader draw his own conclusions. As far as stop-gap things go, I'm thinking of some early-Mets comments from a sarcastically written baseball card book. Like they were listing the records of the Mets starters in 1962, and the one with the fewest losses they referred to as the "stopper". And there was something about Jay Hook fittingly belonging to a rocket club. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is it possible to restore the edit history of articles that were deleted and re-created. For example I created the article for Jarrett Brown in late June or early July, then it was deleted, and was re-created about a month later. I'm pretty sure it was done to the Jerraud Powers article because if you look at the history it was created on December 27, 2008, deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerraud Powers, re-created on January 6, 2009 and the old edit history was re-added. So im just wondering if it can be done to Jarrett Brown.--Yankees10 22:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the old edits. Jarrett Brown was actually deleted twice, so the history looks pretty odd now, but it should be fine. BTW, you can see the deletion log most clearly here. The other article's is here. Wknight94 ^talk 00:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks--Yankees10 00:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you can do Jamaal Anderson too?--Yankees10 00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. That's an even bigger mess. Wknight94 ^talk 00:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow your right, I wish I didnt keep re-creating it back then, thanks.--Yankees10 00:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Grote

More ownership issues over on Jerry Grote.Orsoni (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New message

I'm not sure how this forum thing works Wknight94, but deleting a repeating banner of "NIGGAS ARE BAD PEOPLE" from the contents pane is not vandalism. I'm going to assume that the message you sent me was sent in good taste, but undoing your last action was the only way to remove the banner. Thankfully its gone now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhymel (talk • contribs) 05:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which edit you are referring to but I see where it could be a misunderstanding. That vandalism was most easily fixed by clearing the browser cache, not removing the template altogether. But it's a technical issue that has since been resolved. Sorry for the confusion. Wknight94 ^talk 15:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tags Question

Per the page, it shows a tag called "test edits". I assumed this tag was still in use, since unlike some of the lower tags in the list, it doesn't say "This tag is inactive." Yet, I can not find any results when I search for it, and I do not have anything hidden. On a hunch that the tag was disabled or broken, I ran a search on all articles with the text "Headline text" and got 3,079 results. This is the default text for the button, adding == Headline text ==. to the page.

I then asked about this on the Help desk, and another user discover that the tag had been turned off. It seems that you might have done this, being an edit filter manager. I am wondering if there was ant particular reason for such? If there is someting broken with the filter, I undertand. If not, it may be helpful to turn it back on. Not sure if I should take this to Wikipedia talk:Tags or not, but I figured I would ask you first. --Avic enna sis 22:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, the edit filter performance was poor so I shut a few unnecessary ones off. If things are better now, it can be turned back on. You could mention it at WT:EF. Wknight94 ^talk 23:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done just that. Thanks for all your help! --Avic enna sis 01:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Grote

I still think you're wrong, and brought the debate up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you said we'd spent too much time on it already. WP:TE. Wknight94 ^talk 02:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:92.3.201.173

Looks as if he doesn't want TP priviliges either... raseaC^{talk to me} 16:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Taken care of. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 16:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Tara Correa-McMullen

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tara Correa-McMullen, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Correa-McMullen. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Bejnar (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Clark

I think I just assumed that it was not a valid image because it was a new editor and a lot of new editors dont know that the images have to be free and they upload pictures that are not valid. The picture is fine though right?--Yankees10 16:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with an edit filter problem

I can't figure out what caused this editor to set off the filter. None of the watch words seem to appear in either the lines he added or the whole article before or after. Am I reading the code wrong? Either way, this filter has been set off twice in the past few days, and is very difficult to work with because even false positives are still often controversial edits that I'd be hesitant to add myself. —Soap— 01:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out the problem. Send me an email if you want a copy of my explanation. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I should have looked around some more... Shirik explained the problem exactly on at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter#Filter 17. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rich_wiki.jpg

; Archives
	Archive 1 \| October 19, 2005-January 13, 2006; Archive 2 \| January 14, 2006-April 2, 2006; Archive 3 \| April 3, 2006-July 22, 2006; Archive 4 \| July 23, 2006-September 23, 2006; Archive 5 \| September 24, 2006-November 19, 2006; Archive 6 \| November 20, 2006-January 20, 2007; Archive 7 \| January 21, 2007-March 26, 2007; Archive 8 \| March 27, 2007-May 22, 2007; Archive 9 \| May 22, 2007-August 3, 2007; Archive 10 \| August 4, 2007-September 22, 2007; Archive 11 \| September 22, 2007-October 20, 2007; Archive 12 \| October 20, 2007-November 17, 2007; Archive 13 \| November 17, 2007-January 29, 2008; Archive 14 \| January 30, 2008-March 13, 2008; Archive 15 \| March 13, 2008-July 2, 2008; Archive 16 \| July 2, 2008-August 17, 2008; Archive 17 \| August 18, 2008-October 12, 2008; Archive 18 \| August 18, 2008-July 17, 2009; Archive 19 \| July 17, 2009-December 12, 2009;

Hi. Can you tell me why Rich_wiki.jpg was deleted from Richard Warren's page? I supplied all the necessary permissions months ago and those permissions still apply. Thanks Cronk69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Apparently OTRS did not receive your permission. You will want to ask at Commons:COM:OTRSN (I don't have access to OTRS). Wknight94 ^talk 12:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can you delete Glenn Murray (1930–40s outfielder), according to this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Dale Murray, Sr. it was supposed to be deleted but for some reason never was.--Yankees10 01:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Yankees10 01:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, done. Odd. I'll ask NW to make sure he didn't leave it for a reason. Wknight94 ^talk 01:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the reverts on the Somers, NY page. I didn't see the edits that were made. What happened there? MiracleValerie —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

They were done by a banned user, and therefore were undone. Wknight94 ^talk 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Hello! I'm have a question concerning AIV (see this diff). I was just wondering why my 74.218.193.178 submission is not applicable here? Thanks if you can explain this to me. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 14:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily, AIV is to stop a current or persistent case of vandalism. ~~The edits from 74.218.193.178 were around an hour old so it wasn't particularly current.~~ And before that, the previous edits were about six weeks earlier so it wasn't persistent. It's doubtful blocking that IP would have achieved anything. Wknight94 ^talk 14:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, now I see I forgot to fix my time settings for daylight saving time so I guess the edits were current after all. Still, the edits have ceased so the IP didn't need to be blocked after all. Wknight94 ^talk 14:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 14:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wknight94 (talk | contribs) deleted "EnergyMap.dk"

Dear Wknight94,

I just learned that the page Energymap.dk was deleted due to a G11 violation. ---> 14:45, 6 March 2010 Wknight94 (talk | contribs) deleted "EnergyMap.dk" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

We created the page in good faith, it was also the authors first article in Wikipedia and it was not our intention to violate any regulations. Of course we want to respect the terms of Wikipedia and your deletion also seems rightfully. We hope it would be possible to temporarily restore the article and we will do our best to re-contribute an article in a manner of which is fully on Wikipedia terms.

Energymap.dk is a NGO and non-profit organization, and any funding that should be addressed to the project, is put in to the aim and work of keeping the website Energymap.dk running and up to date.

EnergyMap.dk was established when the largest NGO organizations in Denmark, within construction, agriculture and food, energy, wind power and the Renewable Energy Network (part-founder) formed a climate consortium, aiming at facilitating international collaboration in the form of joint research and development opportunities within clean tech, and sharing this knowledge worldwide.

As mentioned, we would very much like to re-contribute the page, in a manner which is on Wikipedia terms. It would therefore be highly appreciated if the article is temporarily restored to the EnergyMap user space, enabling a full review of the article, where we will address those problems that led to deletion in the first place.

Would you please temporarily restore our article?

Best regards

EnergyMap (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've restored EnergyMap.dk. You should especially make sure that it meets our notability guidelines, including reliable third-party references. By the way, you may want to change your username since it implies that an entire company is using one account (see m:Role accounts). If I recall correctly, that is how I came across your article to begin with. Good luck. Wknight94 ^talk 12:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birth place

I'm all for staying away from that war. When he first sent me the message saying he was removing birth year, I sent him basically the same warning you sent me. It wasn't until I noticed that he was also removing birth place from the opening line of articles that I began reverting edits. That I am certain is wrong. However, your advice is noted, and I will heed it.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not even all that concerned about the dates: it's the fact that he has also removed birth places from the opening line that concerns me. That's a new argument that I've never seen before. Have you?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ack

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For being a highly active long-timer (on AIV)... and (unlike me) still manage to do even more CSD work. :-) -- Menti fisto 16:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, thanks! Actually most of my deletions are from WP:BAN enforcement and WP:UAA spam pages. I should do more CAT:CSD work myself... Wknight94 ^talk 16:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated vandalism of Gary Busey.

209.68.98.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked a couple of weeks ago, and is right back to vandal edits changing Gary Busey's birthname to nonsense. 98.192.185.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has also done this at least twice in the last week. May I ask you at least block the first user again, and if you can block the second one I would appreciate it. Should I or someone request a semi-protect of a week or two? This seems to work in getting the IP vandals to lay off. This is so frustrating to me because I use my IP address at work, where I cannot log in. And I see IP vandals repeatedly warned and never dealt with while they continue to ruin Wikipedia as a valid source for information. Anyway...I'll shut up now. Any help and/or advice you can provide would be appreciated. Thank you very much. Trista (User Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for blocking the first one. AIV just blocked the second one. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I blocked both and protected Gary Busey. Wknight94 ^talk 19:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BNP

Hi, I was wondering what are the options for the article, one disrupting editor has gone and there are requests to unlock on the talkpage, I have been looking for a better option but nothing has come from that yet and see my objection to unlocking as pretty pointless , one user SlaterStephen supports 1RR , all editors have had a time to calm down, it is time I think to throw it open again, your thought or comment are welcome on the talkpage, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and unprotected. Try WP:RFPP if things flare up again. Wknight94 ^talk 00:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WK. Off2riorob (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

This might be of interest:[3] Shall I post it on the project page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. There was probably a method to how they chose who they want to interview. You famous folk!

Wknight94 ^talk 11:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wikipedia logo

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia logo. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this look suspicious to you? user みや東亞

みや東亞 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I could swear that I came across a long term sock account with chinese or japanese characters tagging his own sock accounts earlier today, but I didn't notice the standard LTV name. May be nothing, but since I had remembered your name as one of the blockers of the socks I figured I'd run it past you. Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nipponese Dog Calvero (talk · contribs) socks do that - repeating old edits and re-tagging his own socks. I am not familiar enough to recognize user:みや東亞 though. Wknight94 ^talk 14:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since I am neither I'll just let it shake out from normal process then. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that was Jonathansamuel?

I went on to make the edit, which looked simple enough, but I have no experience with the sockpuppeter and wouldnt know how to spot signs of his editing. The way they waited and made 10 dummy edits does looks suspicious, though, so youre probably right. —Soap— 17:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what Jonathansamuel does. Becomes autoconfirmed ASAP and then edits one of a couple different pages. It's him. Wknight94 ^talk 19:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Improvisatore

Hi. I have been advised I should contact you about this article and its talk page. I have actually already had extended discussions on the subject here. I assumed everything was OK but I have just seen a message that I should contact you. -- Ipigott (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see a message? I only see my ID on Zzuuzz's talk page (where you linked), and it looks like the issue was resolved there. Is there more? Wknight94 ^talk 17:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's here. -- Ipigott (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. No, that just says I deleted the talk page at the time. I don't need to be contacted. You're fine. Wknight94 ^talk 12:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for telling me I'm fine but the message says very clearly "If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below." I have every reason to suspect that the page I was about to create would be similar or perhaps even identical to the one that was deleted as I wanted to add WikiProject Denmark, etc. But on the basis of what you say, I'll ignore such messages in future. -- Ipigott (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jeezy

Can you move Template:Jeezy to Template:Young Jeezy. Young Jeezy is his name.--Yankees10 16:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Yankees10 16:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gift

Ha ha, sorry! I love WildBot and wish it just automatically checked all articles, but until that happens, I have to summon it one-at-a-time apparently. Wknight94 ^talk 12:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is no problem at all. I just checked my watchlist one last time before clocking in at work, and I had 55 or so new changes from all of the award articles! Thanks for doing that, btw. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template policy discussion

You are invited to help consider a common template policy for all WP:SPORTS biography articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports#Template_policy_discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iachetta

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

Another Liebman sock, or pretending to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Webb article

Hi there. I was going to create an article about voice actor Jane Webb, but it seems that a page entitled "Jane Webb" has already been deleted twice; first by you, then by NawlinWiki.

Was the page you deleted about the same person, or a different one? If the same one, why was it deleted?

Wrightaway (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be junk pages - unrelated to each other or any voice actors. (One was about someone's friend, and one was just gibberish). Create away! Wknight94 ^talk 18:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

Hi, Wknight! Just to let you know that a deletion discussion you commented on has been taken to DRV. Those who argued the opposite way to you have already been selectively notified by someone else, so it's only fair that you get the head's-up as well. The relevant page can be found here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 11#File:The Time of Angels illustrative image.jpg ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 18:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFU

Deletion review for Takehiko Bessho

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Takehiko Bessho. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Aphaia (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:File:Kovpak.jpg

Hello, Wknight94. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy from your wikibay talk page

Source: http://wikibay.org/Benutzer_Diskussion:User:Wknight94

It's more confortable for you (and me) to have a copy on English wikipedia. Regards Mutter Erde 78.55.160.216 (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hallo

May 17

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=39435658&oldid=39435468 includes a fake by you

May18

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A78.55.62.206 Oh boy, do you really believe you can prevent this undeletion request? Well, let's see :-)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Woman_in_Bondage.png Does commons really deserve such admins? Commons is a file repository for 650 projects and not a playground for youngsters with bad manners. Unbelievable Mutter Erde 18:15, 18. Mai 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=362997839#Underaged_admins_on_commons Underaged admins on commons

May 19

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=362997839 Underaged admins on commons (today :-)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Biamyinmd&curid=10355299&diff=39492244&oldid=39482013 Reverted edits by 78.55.160.216 (talk) to last revision by Yikrazuul)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&diff=prev&oldid=39492316 huuh, double vandalism