User talk:Wknight94/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Tonalsoft Encyclopedia external links

I know that you have been diligent at removing external links to my Tonalsoft Encyclopedia from Wikipdedia articles on music, and that you consider it "oft-repeated spam". Why? In most cases it was not me who added the external link, it was other users of my Encyclopedia, which is a frequently consulted source for information on music-theory and history in general and tuning-theory in particular. Often the link would be to an obsolete URL and i fixed it ... only to have you eventually delete it. My Encyclopedia pages cover the subject in far more detail than Wikipedia ever will, and i see no reason why you call it "spam". Is it simply because Tonalsoft is a commercial site? Anyway, our product is now available for free. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monz (talk • contribs).

For the most part, it seemed the links were all added by one person and with no explanation of what the links were for. Classic spam. For the most part, even if your Tonalsoft site content is informative, it is still original research and is therefore not a good choice for us to link to per WP:NOR. If on the other hand, the content on your site is objective and cites other sources, perhaps it would be okay to link to. Of course if that's the case, it would be even better to bring that properly-sourced material into Wikipedia itself rather than keeping it on your own site. I'll admit I didn't examine every single link that I removed - I detected a pattern (which is perpetuated by anonymous editors here every minute) and removed them all. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

On 5 February 2006 I added a comment about microtonality on the page about Robert Johnson, and also a link to the page on my Encyclopedia which is devoted entirely to this topic; you can see both additions with comparison view. The comment about microtonality is still in the Wikipedia page, but the external link to my webpage was deleted by you. Meanwhile, the Wikipedia page now also begins with a "nofootnote" tag. So would you be so kind as to reinsert the external link to my page, and add a citation to the comment about microtonality which cites my webpage? Then i would know the proper way to do it ... if in fact the Wikipedia editors will ever allow me to add links to my own webpages, maybe they won't. -Monz 19:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that there's a discussion here about the page about Monzo and the links to his encyclopedia being deleted, and now the page I created for Monzo's Tonescape software is currently tagged for deletion, and this is really a shame. Tonescape is a unique piece of software. The company is apparently having some problems getting off the ground, but they've been nice enough to release the current version of Tonescape as a free demo so that anyone can try it out, and it really is an awesome program, especially if you're interested in microtonal music. It's also too bad that the external links to Monzo's encyclopedia have been deleted from Wikipedia, because his work is an invaluable resource for anyone interested in musical tuning, and even in music history and theory in general. It's scholarly and thorough, and its accessibility is so much easier than having to hunt down old volumes in a library. Perhaps the article about him can be rewritten with an emphasis on his notability as an encyclopedist. -Starky32 02:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Really, it's quite ridiculous that Wikipedia has a page about pitch space, and it doesn't contain a single mention of me, my work, or my software, or any external links to these (it used to at least have two of these, which you removed), because pitch space is the single most important focus of decades of my work.Monz 15:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Twelve Times Over

Why did you delete my article on Twelve Times Over. I see numerous band entries.. I assume it is cause I did not add the "This article does not cite any references or sources."? I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to figure out how to do that? Whatever the reason could you please let me know. Of course I want to conform to the rules.

JasonDamianUs 02:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiBreak

This user appears to be on an extended abscence from Wikipedia. He's not made any edits since the end of April (2007). I'm sure he'll respond back to folks when he returns from that strange place called the real world. Not to be confused with that other place. :) -Ebyabe 18:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

74.97.46.60

Could you take a look at this user, please? Every one of his or her edits so far has been malicious, despite repeated warnings. Pats1 03:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Saul Rogovin article

Hi ... If you have a moment and interest, you might help out on the Saul Rogovin article. I am trying to avoid an edit war. Thanks.--Epeefleche 14:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why have you deleted the page for Philip Wilkinson (entrepreneur)? What possible justification....

The guy is a well known internet entrepreneur and the founder 3 businesses - one of which was Kelkoo UK. http://www.thinkvitamin.com/team/philip_wilkinson.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.161.137.66 (talk • contribs) June 6, 2007.

thanks for winter alert

Thanks for the 31 Dec 2006 notice that YYYY in baseball is under discussion. It looks like my participation may be limited to the summer, solstice to equinox, but I appreciate the alert. --P64

Your recent user block

Hello Wk-- In reponse to my report at AIV, you (quite properly) blocked User:Nosoyyo who was inserting improperly-uploaded pornographic images into an article. On the same subject, could you take the time to look at my recent post to another user's talk page: User_talk:DavyJones7#Tom_Welling? It is self-explanatory and I'm not sure how this should be handled. Thank you. Kablammo 00:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (It appears that the latter user first attempted the edit, then created a new user identity-- now banned-- which successfully uploaded the material. The edits are identical and the timing of the events occurred within 10 minutes.) Kablammo 01:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Churches in Amsterdam

Dear Wknight94, you recent renaming of articles regarding churches in Amsterdam is understandable in light of WP:UE, but for some these, the new name is not an accurate translation of the actual Dutch name. IMO North Church should be Northern Church (Amsterdam), South Church should be Southern Church (Amsterdam), West Church should be Western Church (Amsterdam), and East Church should be Eastern Church (Amsterdam). These are also the English-language names given in the body of the article. Could you please rename these articles? Thanks in advance, Jvhertum 10:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I considered this but a Google search does not support it. A search for "South Church" Amsterdam gives 15,500 hits while a search for "Southern Church" Amsterdam gives only 450. Similar comparisons for the other churches gives similar results. When I took an English-language tour in Amsterdam, the churches were all called North Church, South Church, East Church and West Church, not Northern Church, Southern Church, Eastern Church, and Western Church. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That begs the question: is the proper English equivalent the most commonly used translation or the correct translation? I honestly think the latter. I am fluent in both Dutch and English so please believe me, Northern rather than North is correct. "North Church" would be Noordkerk. Thanks, Jvhertum 11:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That level of detail is probably worth a WP:RM. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

I had just about given you up for dead. I'm guessing you went on a Baseball Sabbatical. d:) Baseball Bugs 17:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (formerly Wahkeenah)

To show you that some things don't change, the "Ron Liebman" sockpuppet brigade is still at it. I have just now sent a note to the actual Ron Liebman at SABR (who I don't know personally) and alerted him to this fact, as it has now been going on for nearly 6 months. Baseball Bugs 18:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've trolled around a bit but severely cut down on my activity. Probably permanently. Liebman - or whoever - is a nice example of the nonsense which was taking up far too much of my time. I'm back to upload photos from my latest vacation, etc. but then I may disappear again. No drama or political agenda - just way too much time taken up. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's part of the reason I abandoned my old identity. Too much time being taken, too many pages being watched, too much aggravation. Baseball Bugs 18:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I can understand. I'm trying to upload pics from my sojourn around the Orlando area, and am being sidetracked constantly having to report Ronnie's sockpuppets. Oh well... :) -Ebyabe 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for archiving my talk page a while back. Much obliged.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I had a brief (so far) e-mail exchange with Ron Liebman. It's actually him, although he says a lot of the more recent stuff must be copycat vandals. I gave him some advice on how to work within the wikipedia guidelines. We'll see what happens, if anything. Baseball Bugs 04:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hard to believe about the copycat vandals. What would be the point of that? Something's amiss. I'm at a point where I will block without hesitation just based on the massive disruption already. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I had sent him the link to the sockpuppet page. Among his other comments: "I submitted the edits under the name of 'Ron Liebman' prior to being blocked indefinitely as a user. I submitted some IP edits and edits under the name of a friend of mine (in and out of SABR) who gave their approval during my temporary blocks... I have not made edits to Wikipedia since May under any user name or IP number. It's obvious that people are imitating my changes... Until your e-mail, I didn't know that this 'sockpuppet' network (including names of active and former SABR members (some deceased) and some radio and TV newscasters and sportscasters in New York - with many strange names included) was so widespread." He would like to be reinstated IF his edits will be allowed. I told him I would help in that regard IF he shows a willingness to follow policy. I haven't heard back, although it was a few days before he answered my first query also. He's not a loony (no more than I am, anyway), he's a long-time SABR member. We'll see how things go. Baseball Bugs 04:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to see his entire message, let me know, and I'll activate my e-mail. Baseball Bugs 04:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Max Goldberg

Tried listing a better reason for deleting it, according to the table at Wikipedia:Redirect, this is not one of the reasons why redirects exist. Isn't that right? -Mike Payne 21:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

68.221.255.121‎

There is a sockpuppetry case about this guy. See Wikipedia: Suspected sock puppets/68.221.255.121‎ because I'd like some help. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 02:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk page protection

This user User talk:142.163.97.233 is vandalising talk page after being blocked. I think page protection is needed. Momusufan 03:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Spamming Wikisource

I am not questioning the legitimacy of the link itself, just that it was being added indiscriminately to any article having to do with Hinduism. After the first warning, the IP did not attempt to justify the addition of the link. To my mind, that is spamming just as if the link was to a commercial site. I hope that explains it. ... discospinster _talk 01:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Perry Weissman 3

Hello, my name is Rick Benjamin. I'm the trombone player that played on the Neutral Milk Hotel recordings. I'm also a member of the Perry Weissman 3, the band mentioned in the article. I would appreciate any assistance in adding an article to the Neutral Milk Hotel one. Thank you.----

Famecity

Notes:

1. I live in Australia. The time zone I live in is called CST and is UTC+9.5
2. I am placing this on User talk:Eliz81, User talk:Anthony.bradbury, User talk:Wknight94, User talk:Gilliam, User talk:Coredesat and User talk:Pdfpdf

(Is there a better way to do a "group posting"?)

• Weeks ago I started creating a page and then forgot about it. It did not assert its notability.

On Saturday 23rd June:

• 21:12 (CST) 11:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC): Eliz81 noticed this, marked the page for speedy deletion, and left a very nice explanatory note on my talk page.

• 21:18 (CST) 11:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC): Six minutes later Anthony.bradbury deleted it, leaving: deleted "Famecity" ( { { db-corp } }

• 21:47 (CST) 12:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC): I left a note on Anthony.bradbury's talk page.

• 21:52 (CST) 12:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC) I left a note on User talk:Eliz81

Sunday 24th June

• no replies received yet.

• 01:29 (CST) 15:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Still no replies. Left a note on Wikipedia:Help desk

• 02:00 (CST) Went to bed.

• 03:00 (CST) 17:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Eliz81 replied

• 03:10 (CST) 17:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Anthony.bradbury restored page and put a { { hangon } } on it. (Thanks Anthony)

• 04:00 (CST) 18:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Wknight94 deleted "Famecity" (content was: ' { { db-bio } } { { hangon } } Famecity Entertainment Limited and Famecity Management Ltd are two similar British companies.* Both have the same ...') [No explanation for deletion. No posting on my talk page]

• 04:02 (CST) 18:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Wknight94 restored "Famecity" [No explanation for restore]

• 09:00 - 16:15 (CST) - Dog damaged eye. Took dog to emergency vet. Organised operation.

• 16:15 (CST) 06:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Started to write Assertion of Notability.

• 16:23 (CST) 06:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Coredesat deleted "Famecity" (CSD A7, no assertion of notability)

• 16:30ish (CST) (I think) 07:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC) - hit the save button - found that page had been deleted. As advised by Eliz81, now that I had written assertion, recreated page.

• 17:00 (CST) 07:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Wife ill. Took wife to doctor

• 18:00ish (CST) 08:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Dog in distress - back to emergency vet.

• 19:00 (CST) 09:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Gilliam deleted "Famecity" (content was: ' { { db-bio } } { { hangon } }:-----I agree this page did not assert it's importance.
  Unfortunately, my dog looks like it's going to lose an eye, so I ha...' (and the only contributor was 'Pdfpdf')) [Pardon?? What is the reason for deletion?]

• 22:00 (CST) 12:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Got home. Made dinner.

• 23:00 (CST) 13:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Looked at Famecity page. Not there!! Looked at deletion log. Started writing this.

Monday 25th June 2007

• 01:00 (CST) 15:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Finished writing this.

• 08:00 (CST) 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Take dog to eye specialist, and then to animal hospital for eye operation.

• 20:00 (CST) 10:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Look at Wikipedia to see what response I have received.

I thought I had made a copy of my changed page-with-Assertion-of-Notability, but I can't find my copy.

If any of you can resurect the "new" page and put a copy of it in User talk:Pdfpdf/Famecity that would be appreciated. Pdfpdf 15:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Cy Young

I've gotten into yet another squabble with Tecmobowl, who insists on pushing the misleading and pretty much irrelevant point about how Young's perfect game was not officially recognized by MLB until 1991, which is technically true, and "not recognized during his lifetime", which is completely false, and the 1991 ruling had no impact on his game one way or the other. I will probably have to do an arbitration with this character on this stupid point, and will probably need an admin's help on how to set one up, not having done one before. Baseball Bugs 16:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you followed other steps of the WP:DR procedure? If not, there's a good chance that an ArbCom case will not be heard. Also, per my limited understanding, they don't "do" content disputes. They are geared more towards addressing conduct issues. I've kept up very little with the recent disputes involving Tecmobowl but from what I can tell, better diplomacy tactics could be afforded by everyone involved. I've stayed clear of the whole thing! —Wknight94 (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You are very wise to be Leary, Timothy. (How's that for an obscure reference?) I had thought arbitration could be used to decide content issues. Well, we'll just see how this goes. Your advice is good on all counts. :) Baseball Bugs 17:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't want to get you directly involved, only to advise on how to proceed. Which you've done. :) Baseball Bugs 17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

If you're still in the business of shooting down vandals, here's one that has only two edits, but basically says his purpose is vandalism. Honesty is good. [1] Baseball Bugs 23:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Baseball player naming conventions

Thanks for your input into the proposed naming convention for baseball players (made either here or here... or both). Hopefully, the final tweak has been made to the proposed guidelines. If you get a chance, please review them here and add any comments/suggestions/feedback on the talk page. If there are no major issues, we'll put this thing to a straw poll in a few days, and if successful will then submit for inclusion on WP:NC. Thanks again, Caknuck 04:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing this discussion about names, and I'm not sure what to make of it. If there are two or more movies of the same title, they are designated by year, as with Ben-Hur (1959 film), for example. Trying to pin them down by position is slippery. How about by range of years. If someone puts in "Frank Thomas" it would go to the disambiguation page and they could select "Frank Thomas (1960s baseball player)" or "Frank Thomas (1990s-2000s baseball player)". A bit awkward, but you can't go by position, because they could have played the same position. Baseball Bugs 04:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Bugs, it's more of a problem with wikilinks as opposed to searching. Many names don't have an associated disambiguation page, so people wind up at the articles for the wrong people. See the talk page at the proposal for the Frank Thomas issue. Thanks, Caknuck 05:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I see, from the second item of your two references, that the issue is trying to establish some kind of standard. Good luck. You could always go with the IMDB standard of Roman Numerals (I), (II), etc., but that doesn't seem very satisfactory. Obviously, you want to keep it as brief as possible. So "(baseball)" is better than "(baseball player)". I like how you have a sentence-long qualifier on each Frank Thomas. I was thinking of a similar qualifier (without looking it up, as the edit page will time out) for the Alex Gonzalezes, who faced each other in the 2003 NLCS. They could read "the shortstop who booted a potential double play ball after the Steve Bartman incident" and "the other one". :( Baseball Bugs 09:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that User:Tecmobowl has horned in on the discussion on one of those pages, and naturally disagrees with my (not-yet-posted) view on it, I'm leaving it. :) Baseball Bugs 11:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Death threat

I assume you didn't watch the episode that the article was about, then! The main part of it included a video of the Doctor saying, "Don't blink. Blink and you're dead. Don't look away, and don't turn your back. And don't blink! Good luck!".--Rambutan (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WMAC

FYI, I just changed the WMAC from a redirect to a disambigulation page. There is an AM radio station in Macon, Georgia with those call letters. Chris 00:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply

To reply to your message at WP:AIV, the IP in question switched voice actors here, added junk here, added a fake plot synopsis here and is sock of a vandal who I refer to as "The Hidden Message Vandal". I have yet to report said vandal on anything yet, but I was wondering if you had any advice on how to proceed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP. You may want to start tagging the talk pages with {{sockpuppet}} to track them so WP:AIV watchers can pick up on the behavior more quickly. Otherwise, the vandalism is sneaky enough to cause admins to take pause. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Carbogen

I think this user is actually trying to contribute constructively, but just doesn't understand policy. From my brief interactions, s/he appears to be a new user who needs some guidance rather than a returning troll. I'll let somebody else review the request, since I was conversing with this user, but I think Carbogen could benefit from a nudge in the right direction and a second chance. - auburnpilot talk 03:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The behavior seems too over-the-top and sockish (bizarre nonsense pages, odd talk page comments, conversing via edit warring edit summaries, overwriting entire pages) to be innocent but I've been known to be wrong. I won't interfere if anyone - including you - wants to overrule. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You may have been wrong with blocks, but I tend to be wrong and hand out good faith like free candy. I agree the behavior is a bit odd, and considering a user who I insisted was not a troll (Doctor11) turned out to be a sockpuppet intentionally created to appear like a normally editor, I'm not too willing to stick my neck out for anybody. I'm not necessarily pushing for an unblock, but I guess I'm not pushing for the block either... Either way, - auburnpilot talk 03:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what this situation smelled like to me. No good. I'll unblock and we'll see which of us is right :) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it still wasn't really sitting right with me. I looked a little further into the history, and found Special:Contributions/74.211.84.233, which is unquestionably User:Carbogen logged out (pre-registration). Looking at those contribs, I believe your initial block was more than justified. This edit is especially nice. Seems you were right... - auburnpilot talk 00:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reinstated the indef block on the registered account and placed a full month block on the IP. This is the 5th block for the IP, including two previous 1 week blocks, so hopefully this will finally get the message across. - auburnpilot talk 05:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

more Ronnie

Thanks for the blocks on the Ron socks. Another one has cropped up, Special:Contributions/149.4.108.72. I've alerted Netsnipe, who has previously done a range block. If you can do so, that would be loverly. If not, we can wait for Netsnipe to do so. Welcome back to the jungle! ;) -Ebyabe 15:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I had been wondering where Ron went. I was reminded of an old joke about two assassins waiting for Hitler. Remind me to tell you about that one. Baseball Bugs 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • He's been keeping it on the down-low recently. Which is good, less to revert. He seems to be diversifying, doing a few edits on several different accounts. He must think that'll fool us somehow. Not so long as his behaviour (the edits, the style of his abusive edit summaries) remains the same. I've tried to explain that, but it's like talking to a dead horse. Or riding a wall into the ground. Did you get that I'm not good with the whole metaphor thing? *hehe* Anyway, I'll keep an eye out and report his offenses, and not let myself get provoked by him. B/c that way, he wins. It seems like at this point, it's all about who'll outlast whom. Dunno about him, but I can do this for a very long time. We shall see... -Ebyabe 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, Special:Contributions/149.4.108.72 is getting snippy with Momusufan. How predictable. *sigh* -Ebyabe 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Any more contact with the actual Mr. Liebman? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • No, nor do I expect to. He had asked to be unblocked and said he wanted his edits restored. I told him he needed to provide citations. End of story, end of communication. He refuses to do it. Finis. Baseball Bugs 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: I'm really not kidding

Per my username violation removal, my last boss's first name was Sushil and his last name started with Bh... After that it was different but Sushil is definitely a person's name in Asia. See here —Wknight94 (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh Ok. Thanks! Have a great day! MAJ5 ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Userpage in IE

Hey, cheers for letting me know. Unfortunately I don't have access to IE as a mac user and it's fine in Firefox and Safari, so I'll have to get back in the library and try it sometime! - Zeibura ^(Talk) 19:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

IOTW Deletion

I was wondering why the article was deleted. It is in reference to a board with over 35,000 members worldwide, so it hardly seems like an "insignificant group" of people. Thanks. (I had already posted this, then deleted it because I thought I had the wrong admin. But after double checking it, I have the right one)

Dear Wknight94

Hello, this is Carbogen just saying thanks for assuming good faith and unblocking me. I am indeed a genuine wikipedian who has nothing but the best of intent, although many people frequently think I am a vandal. The reason they think I am a vandal is because I try to explain to them that if any number multiplied by zero equals nothing then any number divided by zero should equal everything! In other words, if 0/1=nothing then it is true that 1/0=everything. Right now they say 1/0 is undefined but you see there may be a real definition that will cause us to really think about everything. Anyway, I don't want to bore you with that too much because I see you're not a mathematician or a physicist. At any rate, it's something everybody can understand. One thing divided by nothing is something that is undivided, and something that is undivided must therefore be unified. Therefore the unified field that everything is theoretically made out of is literally the definition of 1/0, according to english. Anyway, thanks again for unblocking me. Never again shall you think I am a troll.

peace

"War on Webcomics" article deletion.

May I ask why? The article was ill-formatted, naturally, but it has, like, a dozen links confirming the terms use and meaning. Mark it for editting, edit it, whatever.... the term itself is still notable.

IP block

Just to let you know, as blocking admin, that there's an unblock request at User talk:217.41.217.22 - as {{block}} isn't on the page, the normal instructions for requesting an unblock haven't been followed. (I thought about adding that template, but saw someone get some flack at RFA this week for doing so!) Regards, Bencherlite 19:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Dick Bartell

I was wondering why you removed him from Category:Alameda. He's pretty famous around there and it would be notable to have him in the category of Alameda, wouldn't it? Skhatri2005 01:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you find many other examples of people in city categories because they died there? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is one who's listed in "People from Minneapolis". That might not be what you're getting at. But I find it funny that they say he's "from" Minneapolis. It's more like he's "to" Minneapolis, as he's entombed here: Tiny Tim (musician). Baseball Bugs 02:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "from" terminology has always struck me as too vague. But I certainly would not say someone was "from" a city if they only died there. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking he had resided here for awhile. But he's not "from" Minneapolis, he's "from" New York City, as far as I know. They need a category for "residents of..." Baseball Bugs 02:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That opens a whole other can of worms. Army brats and such would end up with dozens of categories. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hence the category "Army brats and such". Or maybe "vagrants". :) Baseball Bugs 02:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Player of the month

Thanks for moving it back! --AndrewHowse 14:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Ksams42198

While his edits were somewhat disruptive, I'm not convinced he was a sockpuppet of Roitr. He wasn't adding any bad information, merely engaged in replacing existing images with his own redundant (and possibly incorrectly sourced) versions. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a symptom of Roitr. I've blocked him once before. Anyway, I'll stop deleting and you can resume or undelete what I've deleted so far. I have hand cramps from deleting regardless... —Wknight94 (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you've seen this behavior from Roitr before, I'll accept your judgment. I don't watch the whole spectrum of pages he's vandalized in the past, only a small part. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides, I wasn't saying that he didn't need blocking, reverting, or deleting. I just was concerned that there was a rush to judgment that he was a sockpuppet. Not every bad edit need be blamed on Roitr. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm always open to a second opinion. I'm certainly no expert on Roitr - just seemed like a very sockish and Roitrish account to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank god!

We had a serial vandaliser (making a blanking per like 30 seconds) and a minute after he was posted, you banned him. Thank you for saving an article. -Flubeca^Talk 03:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

75.69.230.146

Could you please block User: 75.69.230.146? He went over the 3RR rule. Cheers, JetLover 03:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of entries

Thank you for correcting the caps in my N.I.L. entry. Could you please explain how I can do that myself, because I couldn't figure it out... I also have an entry on N. Imperial where I don't know how to capitalize the initial "I" ... ~ Thanks! Branko 18:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you created it incorrectly in the first place, there is a "move" tab at the top of each article page. WP:MOVE gives more detail. BTW, I fixed the N. Imperial for you. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and fixing N. Imperial! I still don't understand how I could create such entries properly... Branko 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The best way is to type it into the search box with correct casing and then hit Go. There will be a red link at the top of the resulting page and you can click on that and make your article. In general, you just need a red link somewhere that you can click on. Try creating User:Bvoppen/N.I.L. by clicking on the link here. It should come out correctly cased. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Extremely Lengthy Usernames

Hello. Lucasbfr has started a discussion at WT:UAA#Extremely_lengthy_usernames to try to find a limit on when a username becomes obviously too lengthy. Seeing as how I've seen you participating at WP:UAA, I thought you might want to drop by. Happy editing! Yours sincerely, Eddie 20:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I Have Placed An AFD On An Article And Need A Touch Of Help

What's the tag message to notify the creator of the article? I can't seem to find it. >_> -WarthogDemon 01:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

{{AFDWarning}} —Wknight94 (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I came back from a wikibreak and it was like all the tags changed... Thanks again. ^_^ -WarthogDemon 02:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Melody from discord

Hi there; this is a question only; do you think that an indefblock of this user, who has posted in WP:UNBLOCK, is possibly slightly too harsh? Your call. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Posting a message on your user page claiming to be waging war with another user seems pretty serious to me. It's obviously a sockpuppet of someone so I'm curious why s/he can't just use that other account instead. I've asked the target of the "war" for details but have not heard anything yet. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

HELLO Wknigght94

Interesting...this person (if it was indeed the same person) posted an accusatory statement on my talk page which I removed. He/she had made edits to the Evangelion (mecha) article which I repeatedly reverted for what I felt was an improper (for Wikipedia, at least) tone, as well as (in one of the last edits) trying to make a point which I felt was too minor to make a big deal about..the article's talk page has this discussion. I may have not handled this correctly by not going to the article's talk page sooner to discuss the changes, but I tend to deal with edits from anonymous IP addresses more harshly since in my time here, the vast majority of edits I've seen from IP addys in any article are either incorrect in one way or another or outright vandalism. I had no idea that this person had posted what he/she posted on his/her userpage...sounds extremely juvenile to me. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

OK; fair comment, good call. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Headline text

I edited the "Duntisbourne Abbots Soulmate Devestation" page by adding a track listing. I did not add the resource (I am new to editing, I apologize) but it is indeed confirmed at the official record label website, http://www.planet-mu.com/ .

Channing Tatum

You may want to think about changing the protection status of Channing Tatum back to protected, because people are already vandalizing the profile. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.213.98 (talk • contribs).

How are the edits vandalism? I am unfamiliar with the article. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of John Lamb (bassist)

I see you deleted this page a while back as an attack page. Any chance that the information originally had anything to do with the John Lamb mentioned in The Far East Suite? Burzmali 16:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not by that title. Definitely not. There is only one revision and it talks of him being an idiot savant and his "fathers both became unruly drunkards" and he "persisted with his studies and prozac untill year 11", etc. It's actually pretty elaborate for an attack page (I had to re-read to be sure) but is definitely an attack page. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I just ran over it while dabbing, so I was checking to be sure. Burzmali 17:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Always good to check. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

re:Siw username

Ahh.. i believe you are right..sorry..I have been busy elsewhere and I might have overlooked that..yes it can be created and since you are an admin, you can create similar usernames easily.. (hard time for us though..hehe)..I apologies for that mistake..sorry ..--Cometstyles 20:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ronaldinho

I'm not sure why my edits on July 9 were considered vandalism. Article was cleaned up (as requested) and condensed, because there's too many subsections with little content, and a few instances of doublespeak and going off-topic (Brazil winning the 2002 World Cup is irrelevant to Ronaldinho's performance in the 2006 Club World Cup). Proseline and generalizing sentences ("Despite offers from bigger clubs") removed; grammatical errors and mechanics corrected; dead links in the reference list removed. And then I repost my version because I (now wrongly) assume there's some yahoo who's being cute and reverting back to the original because he/she believes their word is law. I've fixed up pages like that before and never received any kind of reprimand, so to dismiss yesterday's cleanup as vandalism was rather harsh. If anything, I've removed attempts at vandalism from other entries (i.e., frequent abuse on the Kaká page). Just frustrating, that's all, because I spent nearly six hours fixing up the entry and now it's gone. Thank you for your time. 69.109.233.16

Sorry if your edits were legitimate. When an anonymous unknown user removes thousands of bytes of content from an article without any explanation or edit summary, it is vandalism about 97% of the time. If you fell into the other 3%, again, I apologize. In the future, please do use edit summaries for large rewrites to avoid this situation. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

recentchanges

I'm RC patrolling. If I see a sudden change in bytes (>+/-400) I revert.Bakaman 00:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, 97% of the anon edits are illegitimate. Replacing a page with "I love PENIS" leaves no room for imagination.Bakaman 00:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I reverted myself (or reverted earlier) after that.Bakaman 00:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron liebman

I've posted a thread at the admin noticeboard regarding his currently outstanding unblock request, since it seems discussion may have stalled. Looks like you've had some involvement in this, so I thought I should let you know. Feel free to comment. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrs Chambers Westgarth

I'm on the National Marketing team for Corrs Chambers Westgarth and I'm trying to upload our profile on Wikipedia. I'm unsure as to why you have deleted our previous entry:
01:47, 4 April 2007 Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) protected Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Salting [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) 01:44, 4 April 2007 Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Corrs Chambers Westgarth" WP:CSD#A7

As I didn't work on the entry myself, I'm unable to see the problem the article has caused.

I wish to be able to create another article on Corrs Chambers Westgarth in the same style as all the other law firms (please see Deacons, Mallesons Stephen Jaques, Allen Overy for reference).

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yichen123 (talk • contribs).

The article did not assert notability at all per WP:N or WP:CORP. Just saying that it is traced back to 1841 does not assert notability. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Teeej78

Beland, I received your e-mail and unblocked Teeej78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I will spare you the details of the tirade e-mail s/he sent me. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okey, thanks for your consideration. Hopefully we'll see them contribute something positive now. ::sigh:: -- Beland 12:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

New York Yankees GA/R

New York Yankees has been nominated for a good article review. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are delisted. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Schmuckschumer

Hi, I had asked if someone could explain why the name was a blatant violation, and shortly afterward you hardblocked the username. I'm not questioning the block, but I think the explanation would help me since I didn't really understand. Thanks a bunch. Leebo ^T/C 02:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Schmuck + Chuck Schumer. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Leebo ^T/C 03:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

I really hadn't meant to harass the person, it was more a matter of keeping the record apparent. Thanks for pointing me to the policy. While I take a little offense at being indirectly accused of harassment, I do understand the point better now and appreciate the feedback. Douglasmtaylor 15:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of harrassment. WP:HA is just where the relevant item resides. I agree there should be a better place to refer to. (WP:TALK would be a good place. Feel free to discuss adding it there as an alternative.) I do try to let people blank their own talk pages - IPs included - except for really egregious situations. In this case, it was an IP that had just become active, only made a few edits, and was clearly just getting the feeling for how WP works. In such a minor case, if it is a kid just poking around and doesn't feel like seeing that anymore, I'm all for letting them clear it. If it does indeed turn out to be a pattern of abuse, the earlier warnings are always in the history. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if similar vandalism occurs and indicates a non-shared IP, please let me know and I'll block aggressively. I jump past the usual 1-day, 2-day pattern when it's clearly not a shared IP. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Really, thanks for the feedback. I've made mistakes in the past, but they've been more oversights than anything else, not an issue where I was sure I was in the right only to find that I really wasn't. Looking at the contrib history on the IP, I agree completely with you now and genuinely thank you for the feedback. With another shot or two of coffee, my ego will hopefully survive.  :) Douglasmtaylor 15:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking of Teeej78

Seems very little has changed with his newly found sock account Punkrulez. Assside from pleaing to have his old account, Teeej78 unblocked, there has been no constructive edits from this user. Just a heads up.--Hu12 11:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Now they're both permablocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Teeej78

FYI, if someone comes begging for Teeej78 again, read this. At least they got a nice laugh. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, dear. I thought that might happen, but I guess now it's crystal clear that blocking them is the right call. And that will only work for them once. Maybe now they will find something better to do with their time. Sorry for the trouble. -- Beland 15:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No sorry necessary. It was worth a shot. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: GFDL violations

Hi, you might want to take a look at these: User:Deskana/GFDLViolation and User:Deskana/NoGFDLViolation. As you can see if you look at the deleted history of the first one, the edits that I made as Deskana are now attributed to DeskanaTest resulting in a GFDL violation. In the second one, I deleted vandalism in the middle of the page history, and there is no GFDL violation since no derivative works (subsequent edits) were made after the vandalism, except the revert. Sorry if I'm explaining something you already understand. --Deskana (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that is different from what I understood. I'll simply refrain from selectively restoring in the future. Thanks for the explanation. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:ॐ

The username policy explicitly allows non-latin usernames. Users with such names are recommended to place a transliterated name on their user page and in their signature. I was just about to leave a message saying the same thing to the person who reported it. At the very least, shouldn't it have gone to RFCN? Leebo ^T/C 13:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Woops, my bad. Either that changed since I last read it or I misread it the first time. I reverted the block. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That part of the policy has faced some disagreement, and I have to say I agree that non-latin usernames are confusing, but it's been upheld at RFCN. I don't mind leaving a note for the user asking for a transliteration. Leebo ^T/C 13:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for pointing out my confusion. I'll check that line item more often in the future. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I do have problems with this particular username, because of browser-related peculiarities apparently. I also misread the section on non-Latin usernames. Silly rabbit 13:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Familiar?

Well, our old "pal" loves baseball cards. We'll just have to watch this bird. Tecmo tried a sockpuppet named Long levi, then a day or two ago he got on as an IP address and tried to update Louis SOCKalexis. Cute, eh? Baseball Bugs 03:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

More vandals

This one is obsessed with posting "Mike Brunelle" in various places. [2] Baseball Bugs 04:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This one's sole purpose appears to be vandalism: [3] Baseball Bugs 12:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone got him. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Check, please :)

Hey dude. Could you do me a small favor, no hurry, when you get a chance? Please look at Special:Contributions/Vermont120. They're link-only additions, and the link is to an online magazine and video. I'm not sure if these would qualify as useful (like linking to a USA Today article), or as linkspam. Just want some rationale if I try to delete the links again. Thanks! -Ebyabe 12:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a tough one. If the links are really interviews with the article subjects, that has some small merit I suppose. But the site is pulsating with spam - check out the home page if you want to really feel ill. It's a tough call but I guess I'd go with removing them just for the spam factor on those links. Inappropriate. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good enough. Was leaning that way, but needed a second opinion. Off to delete. Thanks! :) -Ebyabe 14:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Many thanks for moving Talk:Stephanie Hoyland to Talk:Stephanie Scully (WP:RM) - Silver Nemesis 12:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. That was an easy one.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Railpage

I wasn't game to remove deletion tag. I requested an administrator to look into it. Glad you did. My request for peer review has gone too. (Deleted by an anomyous IP user), do Wilipedia guidelines allow me to request peer review again?Tezza1

The peer review thing was removed with an inappropriate comment that you had requested incorrectly. Maybe you should ask someone how to do it correctly. (I honestly don't know myself having never requested peer review for anything). —Wknight94 (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I asked for peer review according to the guidelines on the peer review request page, after asking for help on Editor_assistance/Requests [4] Just not sure if it is vandalismTezza1 14:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Tezza, check the Railpage talk page - it looks like Isotope23 has just added the peer review request.Johnmc 15:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going to also put a "thank you" note, but Tezza beat me to it :-). Likewise, I suspected that the AfD was vandalism, but was also leery about removing it, AfD's being so "offical" and all. This influx of odd edits coincides with the removal of semi-protection on the 14th July. I fear it is something we will have to live with. (I'm guessing that it's a touch too early to re-request semi-protection?)

My theory (untested, unproven, etc.) is that there are a great number of factions within the Australian Railfan community, and I suspect that some of it has spilled over onto the Railpage wiki article. The last AfD (February 2007) received such an influx of posts as a result of Usenet "call to arms" articles, that it had to be semi-protected, and an <afdnewbies> warning tag inserted. I suspect that it is only a matter of time before someone manages to correctly fill out an AfD tag, and we have to go through the entire process again...Johnmc 15:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

bleh

You know, I came to retire and now I'm having to argue about who I am. It's just not worth it to me so if they want to give my account to some imposter, let them, I'm sure you will notice as soon as you do though the very disruptive edits that come with it. Good Luck, I'm off to the movies. Ispy1981 16:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A request

Hello Wknight94. I came across your page while searching for an administrator who can delete my user and my user discussion page. My account has been inactive for over a year and I intend to leave it that way. As I can see that you have been active within the last hour or so, I was wondering if you could help me. --EurowikiJ 19:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. What would you like deleted? Just your user page and user talk page? I assume you are invoking your right to vanish? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I would like to invoke my right to vanish. I don't know what else can be deleted besides my user page and user talk page, but if there is anything else that can be taken care of I am all for it.--EurowikiJ 19:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, they are both gone now. You're always welcome to return. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am getting to old for this. I guess I haven't got enough time for some other hobbies of mine :-). In any case, thank you so much for the prompt and helpful assistance. Best wishes. --EurowikiJ 19:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the project will always be here so everyone is free to take a temporary break too. I took one myself not too long ago and probably will again before long. Good luck and come back soon. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

ANI for DanMS

Thanks for being the voice of reason on my recent ANI thread. Despite all the fuss, it is still not clear to me what I did wrong. Could you enlighten me? I am a relatively new admin and I don’t know all the policies yet, but I am trying to learn. Thanks. ●DanMS • Talk 20:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically what you did was a copy and paste move. When someone does that, the entire history of the article is lost and that is a bad thing. In WP:DRV cases like that, instead of just copying the deleted text, you should do a restore of the deleted article (see Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops), move the article to the requesting user's subpage location, and then delete the resulting redirect (per WP:CSD#R2). Then, if the requesting user turns the article into something salvageable, they can move it back to the original location and the article's entire history will be kept intact. It was an honest mistake. My assumption is that the person complaining was just trying to make a point of some kind. Let me know if you have any other questions about this or anything else. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the response and clear directions. Should the situation arise again, I will (1) Restore, (2) Move, (3) Delete as you explained above. I know about the prohibition on cut-and-paste moves, but I did not realize that would apply in this type of situation. I thought that since the user simply wanted to see the text of the article, I could just copy it into his user space. But I see the point now: If he re-creates the article from the deleted text, then the history of that original text is lost. One more question: When restoring the article prior to moving it to user space, do I restore all deleted revisions of the article (standard restore)? ●DanMS • Talk 21:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  I would say yes, restore all revisions. The only rare exception would be if the article had been deleted more than once. Then I'd think you'd only restore revisions since the previous delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• This issue raises another interesting question, though. Suppose that the deleted article is posted to the user’s sub-page. He edits and expands the original text to be a good article. Then, rather than moving his sub-page to the main wiki, he creates a new page in the main wiki and copies the text from his user page to the new article with a slightly different title. In that case the copied text would have no history. If he re-creates the same title, then the history would still exist as “deleted edits”, but if he creates a page with a different title, then there would be no history. ●DanMS • Talk 22:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  It's a valid point. I was going to actually propose that except I think the GFDL requirements here even apply to user pages. I guess look at it this way: if you copy-paste content without the history into a user page, then you are violating the terms of GFDL. If you do things right but the requesting user copies the content back into the main space without the history then they are violating the terms of GFDL. Save yourself!  :) I suppose the best course of action is to keep track of times when you restore to people's user area and make sure it gets moved back properly if applicable. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting my own user pages

I have a user subpage that I no longer need. Is it acceptable for me as an admin to delete my own user subpages, or do I need to go through the CSD U1 process? ●DanMS • Talk 23:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I do all the time and I've seen others as well. At some point, WP:IAR kicks in and we're allowed to use common sense. I had the same guilt pangs when I was first sysopped but realized that few even notice what you do, esp. if it's to your own pages. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Seasonal articles

Jaranda (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to redirect the articles 2006 Kansas City Royals season and 1980 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season. I've saved them and put the underconstruction tag on them, but enough has been said, he's going with the non-notable card. Just an FYI that he is trying to redirect them. Soxrock 23:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

While I like the idea of individual season articles, it's hard to justify when they're so sparsely sourced. The Royals page - just like several other teams' individual season pages I've seen lately - has almost no content! There is literally a single line at the top and then a statistics dump straight from baseball-reference.com. That really isn't an encyclopedia article. The Bucs one has no source at all so it just looks like WP:OR. I might be willing to consider other examples but those two in particular need a lot of work. The whole issue may need some discussion and a WP:RFC. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Their under construction. I'll be working on expanding them. Don't worry about that. Soxrock 00:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

B-R, Forman

Well, don't forget this:

We only include a portion of his stats. There is still much more at his site than we will include here. I talked to him and expressed concern for him, but, you really can't forget that he has much more valuable information at his site. It hopefully won't take a hit and it'll still be good on this site. But don't think I wasn't concerned for him. In fact, remember the " Oh, so your concern is that, by using a portion of your stats on our pages, we will reduce the number of visitors on your site, which will lead to fewer ads, which in turn will lead to less money, making it harder to keep your site on. I see your concern now.". So I did address this carefully. Either way, with it still being cited, and the fact that a lot of people check it daily, regardless of whether they see it here or not, I don't expect it to be affected. And, being an EL, a general reader may think that it will include additional info on the subject. Eitherway, thanks for your opinion Wknights. I want stat tables, but not at someone else's expense Soxrock 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I like Ksy's idea. I mean, it's simple, doesn't clog up the page, and makes the B-R link meaningful again for "full statistics". I'd go ahead with it. Soxrock 17:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and that it's easier to add. You could do hundreds in a single day, instead of like 20 per day. Soxrock 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, good job at the California Angels page. Remember, there are going to be standings and a team roster from that year. Game logs are unlikely. I talked with the webmaster at Baseball-almanac yesterday, due to his beliefs, he will not give out copyright information. Soxrock 17:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Game logs are available at http://www.retrosheet.org as well but again, we should just link to them IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think baseball-ref has game logs too but they just use Retrosheet's. Retrosheet's license appears to be very similar to the GFDL we use, i.e. use all you want, just give us credit whenever you do. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to decide what to do, because I don't know how to do this. Thanks for the site. And those retrosheet people are awesome, they do that research for nothing financially Soxrock 17:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrosheet is slightly more difficult to link to because they use frames (us web programmers know that frames are evil!) but, for instance, you could link to http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1965/VCAL01965.htm for the 1965 Angels. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. And, again, that makes the links meaningful instead of just being used to verify info in the article Soxrock 19:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My thanks

For banning those IPs. I just dread what will happen their blocks expire. =/ Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We'll block harder. Eventually they'll get bored and go away. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection types on George Elokobi

Could you please tell me what were the first two protection types you've instated on that page when it was under repeated vandal attacks earlier today? Thank you.--The Fifth Horseman 16:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Protection policy. I first semi-protected the page because it was being vandalized by newly-created accounts. The first time, I forgot to set an expiration (which I often do) so the second time I continued semi-protection but set an expiration. After that, it was still being vandalized by older sleeper accounts (created days ago) so I upgraded the protection to full protection with the expiration left the same. Why do you ask? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've asked because I'm compiling the evidence for the entire George Elokobi vandal case [User:The_Fifth_Horseman/Notes|(see here)], and the protection log didn't contain information which protection type was instated first. Thanks for explaining. --The Fifth Horseman 08:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for bugging you again, but... is it possible to find information in the user creation log for 20th July, period between 15:00 and 15:20? I don't see any option to set a specific time period in the log search and pages from before 25th don't show up (tried getting there manually), even though the user accounts can be found by name search. --The Fifth Horseman 08:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think you can determine the protection level from the article history: autoconfirmed means semi-protection and sysop means full protection. For the user creation log, I can't figure that out either. I couldn't get before July 25. You may want to ask at WP:VPT. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your block

Thanks. Clearly a rascist [5], SqueakBox 22:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize:

This isn't for something that I did directly, but it was something that you had to do. I took it upon myself to adopt Sadkfkai who had me believe that he/she was a "reformed vandal". Unfortunately, it appears that when I helped him/her to excercise their right to vanish, they immediately went on a vandalism spree with what appears to be their IP address, 151.203.42.39. I feel like a total sucker, and just wanted to apologize for helping create that mess. --HAL2008talk 14:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't apologize for that. And don't be disheartened by this one instance. It happens to the best of us. It's easy for us to block obviously disruptive people and it's forgotten almost as fast as it's ended. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I must admit, I was a bit skeptical when I first started, and kept monitoring their contributions. Who would have thought that they would play the game so long. Anyway, thanks for the kind words, and thanks for taking care of them. ----HAL2008talk 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Since this involves ignoring last weeks ANI resolution, I'm informing everyone who was involved there. Miss Mondegreen talk  14:10, July 30 2007 (UTC)

My reply

Hi there! I've just sent you my reply by email. Have a beautiful day, Phaedriel - 23:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I just read it and replied. Sorry for the delay - I rarely check that e-mail and should add a note here to that effect. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert.

Thanks for the revert. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 23:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What?

How was that vandalism, how can a comment be vandalism, unless I was calling the guy names or something.

NBAonNBC

Well, that was an interesting chain of events. That guy told me he was going to construct an archive of all the stuff that Tecmobowl had blanked from his page. Seemed like a strange thing to be doing, but whatever, ya know? I don't know what happened. I was watching the story about the I-35W bridge collapse near downtown Minneapolis. No, I was not on it at the time, thankfully, although I've been over it many times. What the real story is with NBAonNBC, at this point I have no clue. Baseball Bugs 02:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If it weren't for that one edit, I was on the path to reopening the Tecmobowl RFCU case(s). It did not sit well with me that NBAonNBC was Tecmobowl. It's a bit odd that Tecmo had (and has) so many followers considering how briefly he was active. It's always made me uneasy that his existence here started with connections to the Spotteddogsdotorg sock mega-ring. Very weird coincidences. I can't help but think they're all related - and I have my eye on other related candidates that are still quite active and involved. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Verrry interesting. That's a whole new wrinkle on this thing, a connection I was unaware of. Irishguy had pointed me to his apparent start as User:Blacksoxfan. Sounds like there is more to all this than meets the eye. Reopening the RFCU case in what way, though? I don't quite follow. Anyway, it's amazing what can happen when you go away for an hour or two. Check out some news when you get the chance, and see about that I-35W bridge collapse. In addition to the tragedy of the deaths, it's going to wreak havoc with traffic for however many years it takes to rebuild it. Baseball Bugs 03:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand the Sarah Goldberg / A. Shakespeare connection now. And the wording is similar to those user(s), the rants about being Christian and so on... and being from Florida. Tecmo is from Atlanta. What's unclear to me is why the user was so interested in building the comprehensive archive. Could be to prove a point of some kind, eventually. All it proves to me is how disruptive Tecmo was, as far back as last fall before I ever heard of him. But there's just no accounting for some behavior. Baseball Bugs 03:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant I wanted someone to do a checkuser to rule out the NBAonNBC = Tecmobowl connection. But then the Sarah Goldberg connection came up and made the Tecmo rule-out unnecessary. That bridge collapse is something. It reminds of when I was a kid during the nearby Schoharie Creek bridge collapse in NY. That was a nightmare scenario of a bridge collapse in the dark! It was finally someone living in a nearby house that ran on to the Thruway with a flashlight and stopped cars from just driving right over the edge. But a few people died before the good samaritan got out there. (Actually that would be a good article to have here in its own right). Now I'm in the Tampa area (no I'm not Sarah Goldberg) where the infamous Sunshine Skyway Bridge collapsed. That was national news in its own right but was forgotten by many because Mount St. Helens blew up just a few days later. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, understood. Aha! So you're in Tampa! But if you're Sarah Goldberg, then I'm the Pope. Maybe you could visit her sometime, in whatever asylum she's in. I do recall that Tampa bridge collapse, though, because my in-laws lived in that area. I have a vague recollection of being there and driving across the new bridge before they had razed the old bridge, and being able to see the missing sections. Or did I only dream that? It was quite awhile ago. But timing is everything. The Peshtigo, Wisconsin, fire of October 8, 1871, might be better remembered if the Chicago Fire hadn't happened the same day. Baseball Bugs 03:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you're right. The abandoned sections of the old bridge stayed up for a while even while the new bridge was up. Or at least I read that somewhere (or maybe saw a picture somewhere). I was a kid in NY at the time so I don't remember anything about the Skyway collapse. I only heard about it after moving here. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha, so I didn't dream it. I wasn't aware of the Schoharie Creek incident. That topic does seem ripe for an expansion. And I had forgotten that the Sunshine Skyway Bridge collapse was due to some idiot plowing a ship into it. Baseball Bugs 03:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

During a nasty storm though I think. We do get some wicked storms down here - even outside of hurricane season. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Back to whatever my original point was, I would say from observation of the style and behavior that it is highly unlikely that NBAonNBC is Tecmobowl, and highly likely that it is Sarah Goldberg. Baseball Bugs 04:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well stay with it - now he's accidentally roped in two other accounts including a couple established ones. Getting ugly over there. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Methinks I'll watch this sideshow from a safe distance. :) Baseball Bugs 04:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion process

I speedy deleted The Igloo (note that the discussion page was vandalized), but I did not delete the talk page. What is the policy on talk pages of speedy deletions? Do the talk pages get deleted at the same time? I could not find a specific instruction for this. ●DanMS • Talk 03:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I always delete the talk page as well, yes. WP:CSD#G8 has a few exceptions but I've never found any of them applicable. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also undo the vandalism to the AFD if I were you. It's completely confusing in the vandalized state. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. I thought about undoing the vandalism, but I was not sure it was worth doing. If the article comes up for DRV, then anyone will be able to review the history. If you strongly recommend it, I will do it. ●DanMS • Talk 03:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your call but I would. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at it, but I think I do not know how to fix it, since the vandalism is interspersed with the good edits. Is it possible to delete specific edits in an article's history? ●DanMS • Talk 03:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You can delete specific edits but that is frowned on (even vandalism edits depending on who you ask). To do so, you would need to delete the whole page and then restore just the non-vandalism revisions. (Although it's frowned on as I said, it is sometimes done when personal info or other extremely nasty messages are included in edit summaries). For this AFD, I did some copy-and-paste to stitch the proper votes back together so I think it's all set now. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. OK, if the situation arises again, I'll just do it the old-fashioned way with cut-and-paste. ●DanMS • Talk 04:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There's also the undo functionality but that is pretty limited. I'm not sure it would have handled such entangled vandalism. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

I have an e-mail set up in wikipedia, but I normally keep it disabled. Are you online right now? Baseball Bugs 11:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I just sent YOU a quick e-mail. My e-mail may be acting up just now, though, as another message I'm trying to send to someone else, directly from my e-mail, is not going out. Baseball Bugs 11:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you get it? The copy just appeared in my own e-mail, so it's working again. Baseball Bugs 12:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Back at you... —Wknight94 (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kudos. I'll have to get it later, as I can't access home e-mail from work. Baseball Bugs 13:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well maybe I'll do what I was going to do without waiting. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be able to check it in about an hour from now, if that's soon enough. Baseball Bugs 15:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. I got too busy myself to do anything constructive so no problem. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe another half hour. Too many problems here at the office to duck out when I wanted to. Baseball Bugs 17:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Just sent an initial response. More, later. Baseball Bugs 17:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

WikiThanks

For being a voice of calm. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Awarding "Openminded" Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		As I'd call this one, the "Openminded" barnstar. This is for a willingness to reevaluate your position as the situation warrants (as with [6]), a trait I see all-too-rarely.

Sox-puppets

I'm not gonna give my opinion about the "alleged socks" but I don't think it's right to block him... at least for now, anyway. You [Wknight94] say that he was indefinely blocked by yourself... I don't think he should be blocked yet. Until it is proven that he is a sockpuppet, if that is the case, he shouldn't be blocked. Ksy92003(talk) 04:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to turn your attention to User:Soxrock. I'm getting this directly from the page's template at the top:

See block log and lists of suspected and confirmed accounts.

I noticed that you created the page Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Soxrock, yet moved it to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Soxrock. The reason for this is quite clear and apparent; there are no confirmed sockpuppets for Soxrock. I don't think that Soxrock, even if he was abusively using sockpuppet accounts, should be blocked until those accounts are confirmed to be sockpuppets. After all, what is this country's legal system? Doesn't it go something like "Innocent until proven guilty?" So Soxrock is innocent until any sockpuppets are confirmed. He's innocent until he is proven guilty, and therefore his block should be lifted. Ksy92003(talk) 07:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wknight94 is absolutely correct about the puppetry. IrishGuy ^talk 07:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR violation of Soxrock was some time ago, perhaps 2-3 weeks. That was an issue that was resolved and any alleged sockpuppets weren't being used during the time that Soxrock was MIA. Soxrock e-mailed me after the 3RR block and said that he was seriously considering quitting Wikipedia because he felt that he was wrongly blocked by reverting a dynamic IP address. I don't even understand the link you gave me; the IP address was last used a whole two months before the 3RR violation of Soxrock.

As far as A. Shakespeare, This user's only block occured on August 1 by Wknight94 (talk · contribs) because of the "believed" sockpuppetry, so that user was never blocked for any reason, and Wknight has still yet been able to determine that these are, in fact, illegal sockpuppets. Until any of these other accounts are confirmed to be sockpuppets of Soxrock, then Soxrock should still be allowed to edit.

Ugh... you know what? Right now, I'm far too tired to do any more... I'll return in the morning and respond to any comments that require my response. Until that time, farewell. Ksy92003(talk) 08:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

...alright, whatever. I don't entirely know about all the other users, so I can't say anything about them. We'll just... see what happens, I suppose. Ksy92003(talk) 16:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Soxrocks =/= Tecmobowl

It's pretty obvious now that they're not the same based on geography and apparently style. I hadn't examined the link carefully; the names were connected for me from A.Shakespeare's userpage. I figured I'd post it and someone would either verify or shoot down. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In fact that's what caused me to hunt this all down in the first place. Ryulong suddenly blocked NBAonNBC and claimed he was a Tecmobowl sock and I vehemently disagreed. The behavior did not seem the same in any way. But trying to prove that, I stumbled on all this other bewildering stuff. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hunting for one thing and finding something else instead that's even more interesting... there's a term for that. In this case, let's call it "Sarah-dipity". :) Baseball Bugs 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Soxrock

Yes, I've seen that. We're kind of talking to each other indirectly. However, at the moment I'm focused on trying to improve the wretched mess that Field of Dreams has become. :( Baseball Bugs 19:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-lock

Hi,

Could you please restore and re-lock the Temporal single-system interpretation article? The issues that led to the protecting of the page haven't been resolved. A few hours ago, Watchdog07 substituted his preferred version without consultation. This is likely to start an edit war. andrew-the-k 20:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)