User talk:Wknight94/Archive 19

User :Television Radio, His IP socks, and his filter (177)

It may be time to re-enable the filter, see contribs for 76.237.206.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 64.107.1.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 64.107.0.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's back strangling the grammar in the CTA articles again. WuhWuzDat 02:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Wknight94 ^talk 03:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Material

Hi. A fellow editor persists in deleting proper, properly sourced material, such as [1]. I know that you are an experienced baseball editor and wikipedian; perhaps you can help out if the behavior persists?--Ethelh (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Thank you.--Ethelh (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with most of your edits, but think these two deserve insertion, are appropriate, and would like to put back in ... OK with you?:

"It's not the strikeouts that's bothering me, it's just that I'm not having productive at bats," Davis said.[10]

On July 12, Davis said he felt he was is ready to return to Texas.[11]--Ethelh (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Those seemed like trivial cliche things that everyone in his position would say. Not really worth adding to an encyclopedia. Wikinews maybe, but not here. Wknight94 ^talk 23:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I read them differently. The first quote -- you would expect the fellow to say he the opposite, that he is focusing on cutting down his strikeouts, which is what I would assume Texas management would be telling him. And the second one is interesting, that after he get sent down a mere 7 days later he is saying he is ready to return (which apparently his management doesn't agree with).--Ethelh (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Semiprot at Whitey Ford

Hey, there. While looking into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ron liebman, I noticed you set an indefinite semiprot at Whitey Ford; any chance you'd be willing to set some expiry date, there? I'd hate it if we forgot about the protection sometime down the road. I notice this page has been protected, before, but otherwise I assume you're more familiar with the issue at hand. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well he's been at that article for over two years now, so I don't know what a good expiry would be. An abuse filter might be better for his favorite haunts. I'll look into that in the next few hours. Wknight94 ^talk 23:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oof, I hadn't realized it was quite so bad. Whatever you think is best. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Our mutual friend

Thanks for reminding me of the need for cleanup. --Orlady (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

EF 175 help

Need help with EF 175 via email. Mind emailing me so we can discuss? tedder (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also in e-mail discussion with Tedder, and I think I know why it worked as it did. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

False positive - 177

Hi, could you take a look at this? It was reported on the false positives page, and looking at the changes, I don't see anything wrong with the edit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is another IP sock of Television Radio (talk · contribs). I really haven't determined what is going on. He goes back and forth between a rash of non-consensus edits that he's repeated for months or more - and edits that actually appear to have validity. I might think it's a case of mistaken identity except that, in your example above, the same IP followed that up the next day by adding a link to the 177 abuse filter on my user page. If it's someone else sharing Television Radio's IPs, that person needs to create an account so we can separate the good edits from the bad. Wknight94 ^talk 16:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like filter worked as intended, that WAS TV Radio. Notice the extreme overlinking of CTA. WuhWuzDat 16:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/153

Hi, I've disabled this filter because of the low number of hits. One hit per month doesn't seem to be worth the 1.5 ms (though one of our smaller filters). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And I assume you are going to re-enable it when he returns? Wknight94 ^talk 00:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Or you could if you catch him first. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Userpage

The immense amount of pictures on your userpage really lagged my computer when I tried to open it. Would you please consider moving them over to a subpage? Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Note regarding reverts

I confess to not spending too much time regarding the Mike Lupica; after reviewing the diffs, I chose to block the user for disruptive editing. However, per the unblock request, I reviewed the edits further and found that there was an edit war between both you and the user on two separate occasions. The edits bordered POV but were not problematic enough to be reverted per WP:Vandalism or WP:BLP. I'm merely suggesting that you should careful when reverting in future. Thank you for your time. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept that if you'll agree to keep an eye on that article. I've spent months or more fighting off people who use blogs and biased anonymously-substantiated reports by competing newspapers to foul Lupica's article. And I am not even a Lupica fan! I've never read any of his books or anything. I do know that he has been a prominent sportswriter since I was a child, but mudslingers here want to make me believe that one blow-up by one blow-hard talking to one blog, and getting himself fired, deserves an entire paragraph on Lupica's article! On the blow-hard's article, sure, but Lupica's?! Come on. And now an anonymous reporter on the web site of a free competing newspaper calling Lupica morally indignant over two years ago. How much of a reach is that?! And Lupica's isn't the only sports reporter's article being polluted with such nonsense. Look at almost any of them and you'll find something that will make you say, "wait, that's NPOV?" Wknight94 ^talk 03:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)