This is an archive of past discussions about User:Wknight94. 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.
RfA nomination formally accepted and questions answered
Hi Wknight94. Sorry about the very long wait, but real life suddenly got very busy and I had to wait until I had some time to sit down and compose some answers to the questions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bkell. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do. Thanks again for the nomination. —Bkell (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I was recently looking into why Themes in Blade Runner was nominated for deletion earlier this year, which I found bizarre, considering that the parent article is too large, and the split article happens to be one of the most notable (and sourced) examples in the history of science fiction and film. Imagine my surprise when I found out that the nominator, User:BlueVelvet86 was accused of sock puppetry on his user page. Intending to learn more, I clicked on the talk page, only to discover that it had been deleted by you on 00:37, 25 September 2007 with the edit summary, "WP:CSD#G6 (temporary user page)". Forgiving my ignorance, can you explain why it was deleted? From what I can tell by the reason, the talk page history was merged somewhere else, is that correct? If so, where? Thanks for your help. —Viriditas | Talk08:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It's standard practice to delete the talk pages of indefinitely blocked accounts. I checked and there's not too much interesting in the deleted talk page: a welcome message, a warning about civility, then a block. The more telling page is Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Angel2001 where a checkuser confirms that the account is a sock used to evade a block/ban. —Wknight94 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That shows you how little I know, although things do have a tendency to change very fast around here. I'm curious, what is the rationale behind deleting talk pages of indef. blocked accounts, and when did that begin? This is the first I've ever heard of it. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk08:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the original rationale but I imagine it had something to do with there not being much reason for keeping the talk pages of dead accounts. Same goes for the user pages except in sockpuppetry cases. There's even a category to hold such pages, Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, with a little verbiage at the top. —Wknight94 (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense from an administrative perspective since you can view deleted pages, but bring yourself down to the level of an editor for just a moment. I've often found useful information about past conflicts and article disputes on talk pages, regardless of the status of the user. —Viriditas | Talk08:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess that just doesn't come up too often. (This is the first time I've heard someone balk at the practice). If you really needed to see a deleted page, you could always make a request at WP:AN. —Wknight94 (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The last time I made a request for a deleted page was a year ago. I'm still waiting for the restored version. Anyhoo, this isn't a big deal, but in my experience, most talk pages are useful and should not be deleted if the discussion crosses a certain size threshold, let's say 50 kilobytes. Preserving these talk pages also helps editors understand past conflicts on article talk pages, since they can follow the discussion back to the user talk page in many instances. It's also important when looking for sock puppets, as it is often the case that pattern matching occurs in the user space. And if the editor is using an AOL, dynamic, or new IP altogether, checkuser isn't going to find them; it's the average editor doing the grunt work, looking through past discussions. I don't know who came up with the idea to delete user talk pages, but it's a bad idea. —Viriditas | Talk09:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I may have found a partial answer to my question simply by looking through the contribs of BlueVelvet86. The nomination of Themes in Blade Runner at 14:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC) appears to have been a retaliatory AfD for a (eventually successful) nomination of Themes in Blue Velvet made by User:Masaruemoto on 01:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC) You may be saying to yourself, "Yeah, and so what?" Well, I found this retaliation highly reminiscent of a stunt that User:Eyrian pulled on AfD a while ago. I don't know if Eyrian still has his admin bit or not, but he was accused of or found to have been using sock puppets to nominate and delete large numbers of "In popular culture" articles on AfD. —Viriditas | Talk09:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've started editing the Joe Montana article and I noticed you deleted an article that was created. I would like you to consider "undeleting" the Chicken soup game article. It is a very notable event in College football history and cannot understand why it was removed. Thanks 24.128.23.117 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay - well i'm going to request that it is reviewed. I don't know about banning and such, just that if its a good article, it should stay. 24.128.23.117 (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd recreate it if I were particularly skilled - but deleting a good article just because you don't like the user (or whatever happened) doesn't make any sense. If the work is good - then maybe it can be improved upon..but doesn't need to be deleted. In any event An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chicken Soup Game. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 24.128.23.117 (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Quality of the article and my opinion of the author had nothing to do with anything (in fact, I wasn't particularly pleased that the banned user was banned in the first place). Any article created by a sock of a banned user - after the ban has become official - has to be deleted on sight, or else the entire banning system is useless. Since you so quickly knew where to list a deletion review, I am doubtful that you are really so unskilled as to not be able to re-create a new - and maybe even better - article about this subject. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
AWB typo file
I've reverted your addition of "incorrect" to the typo file - there's something wrong with the parsing which is causing the spellcheck to hang, and I freely admit not knowing enough about regexes to fix it. — iridescent17:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
In reviewing Hollerbird (talk·contribs)'s deleted contributions, it looks like she's pushing her own band, but I don't know that I'd call it vandalism. Someone might need to explain our content policies to her, but a block seems harsh, unless I'm missing something. Best, Mackensen(talk)16:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Well the Sonya esman article had to be deleted six times which seems pretty excessive. Several of those deletions cited WP:CSD#G3 - pure vandalism - so I'll admit that I was following the trend. I've restored the rest of the user's talk page which was full of warnings, etc. (and was truncated to just my block message for some unknown reason). I also received an unpleasant all-caps e-mail which finished with "JERK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Given all that, if you still think an unblock is warranted, feel free. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
RfC/Doruva
Taken from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Durova:
Wouldn't these sentiments be better expressed on the RFC and RFArb pages? Sniping at each other isn't apt to do much good at this point. RxS (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I apologize. These sections were an excuse for Ned to go thrashing about and I should have recognized that earlier. My bad. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Err, I might have gotten off topic, but my original intention was to discuss why we sometimes feel that blocking is so offendable. It certainly was not there so I could go "thrashing about". The second subsection was a failed attempt at me to point out that those who are "supporting" Durova are not endorsing what happened, and to let others know that even if we don't appear mad, we still agree with the bulk of you about many things in this situation. -- Ned Scott23:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Block IP address?
I had a minor run-in with an IP address over some issue about a talk page project tag. I asked on the project talk page for a "ruling", and got this unexpected response. I'd like your take on this. [2]Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?06:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did you move all the Days of our Lives family pages off of Days of our Lives to stand alone with the phrase "unnecessary dab"? There was a reason they said Days of our Lives because other soaps have the same family names in some cases, like Roberts and Brady. An explanation would be nice. Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I only reverted/moved back, didn't exactly use the revert, two and you did many. The pages are part of the soap project and the soap's name was decided to be part of the title by the project. It keeps it congruent with the other pages that are part of the soap projects. And you still haven't answered the question of "unnecessary dab" ~ what does that mean? IrishLass (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
An entire ArbCom proceeding was caused by similar project-level decisions supposedly being made. Please point me to where there was consensus for naming articles your way. "Unnecessary dab" means that you're trying to include a parenthetical disambiguating tag, i.e. (Days of our Lives), even when no disambiguation is needed because no similarly named articles exist. See WP:D for more information on disambiguation. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I just do what I'm told, I don't know where the discussion took place. The projects were just trying to be uniform. The pages looked better with (Days of our Lives) and made more sense. I'll get someone to make an infobox for the pages rather than get lectured or argue. The parenthesis had nothing to do with "a parenthetical disambiguating tag" it was just a notation of what show they were from. IrishLass (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Right. Exactly what was decided not to do for that ArbCom case a year ago. I'm not going to list the reasons that your reasoning is faulty - you can look at the endless archives of discussion at WT:TV-NC. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
My reasoning works for me. Soaps are separate from TV. The project is separate, the tags are separate, the infoboxes are separate. I just do as the project participants agree. Like I said, the pages had a title for a reason, can I please move them back now? Or just change the titles and leave out the parenthesis?IrishLass (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
But your reasoning goes against the very-longstanding content guideline at WP:D. If you can show me where project participants have agreed to bypass WP:D, let me know. Otherwise, I'm going to move a few other titles to get them in line with WP:D and you can try a WP:RM to move them back. I'll leave the two you reverted since they're common names - maybe I'll try WP:RM for those. But you can't convince me that there's a groundswell of articles that could be called "Kiriakis family". —Wknight94 (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Liebman?
That strangely-named user you blocked is a funny one. Meanwhile, I suspect this IP [3] is another Liebman, given the usual non-citation citation (a general reference with no way to look it up) and I'm reverting it, as it really adds no new information anyway. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?18:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm at the school where this IP originates and we've been blocked by you for a week. Let me say, first of all, that I'm one of the WP-savvy students here, and I completely understand the IP block and how it was justified - we do deserve it, and I believe that a bit of time off will help while we're dealing with the situation internally (educating students).
I have a question for you, or if there's somebody you know who could answer it better - is there anything school administration can do, except for just subscribing to the RSS feed of our talk page or disciplining students to prevent Wikipedia vandalism, rather than dealing with it after the fact?
Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. You were one of the fist admins with whom I had contact back when. I appreciate your support very much. I am both heartened and humbled by the confidence you and others have shown. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence and perceptiveness.
I see you marked as sock, any specific reason? When I talked to a CU for reporting him to the police, he didn't mention socks. — Coren(talk)22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I looked around Google and Immortal Kaine appears to be the ID he uses at other sites. When I did a search for that ID, the user page here came up and, sure enough, it's Tyler Warren. Checkuser wouldn't find that, I believe, because the account hasn't edited in a while. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the noticeboard. I was moving something I wrote to a more appropriate noticeboard and messed up. Thanks for fixing it.--Cberlet19:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
G'day Wknight94, No all I could see on creation of article was question marks. No I don't have the ability on this computer to see Chinese characters. Nor do I want to on English Wikipedia. My point was that it was/is an article on English Wikipedia. I could only see question marks so I tagged it with a speedy delete = nonsense. The article has since had the translation done and the English is in parenthesis after the (in my case) question marks. Even if I had seen Chinese characters when I first patrolled the page. I still would have marked it for deletion. By virtue of it still being nonsense to English speaking people. But I'm happy for the article to stay now that it has been translated. The version I tagged was not. Sting_auTalk05:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I left a warning. If it recurs, we'll escalate and eventually block. (I don't typically block spammers as fast as vandals since it's more often an understanding). —Wknight94 (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI - User:67.165.246.163 who you blocked on September 9 for 3 months has returned... 3 months to the day... to begin his same repeated blcking of sourced content from the Jimmy Page article. This user has a lengthy history of these same sort of attacks on the article presumably as a fanboy who doesn't like reading negative aspects about one of his heroes. The user has been warned numerous times and invited to join in more constructive discussion but has ignored all previous warnings and invitations in order to carry out their personal agenda. Any assistance would be great. Thanks and have a nice day. 156.34.208.51 (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Revert, block ignore, Tug McGraw vandal
Great advice that will be taken. I feel like I've been fighting an uphill battle, so thanks for your help and support. Keep taking those great baseball photos, Googie man (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, welcome back! Actually I don't usually like those tags in articles that already have disambiguation tags in their title - like WP:NAMB explains. The hatlink tags makes sense in The Simpsons and Tree and Tom Jones, but not in Thomas Jones (Archbishop) or Richard Stone (politician) or Gary Evans (serial killer). The difference is that the latter three are not the default target for anything, so readers wouldn't normally end up there unless they'd already been to a disambiguation page. There's no point in directing such readers to a list of people (or things) that happen to share the same name. (I will say that I don't feel strongly enough about this to fight anyone or even remove the hat links - not worth the effort). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Your Freddy Rodriguez (baseball) article is an example of another need for a hatlink. If someone is looking for info on Freddy Rodriguez, they'll type "Freddy Rodriguez" in the search and end up at Freddy Rodriguez the actor. From that article, there was no link to your baseball page or a disambiguation page so your page would have been difficult to find. In this case, Freddy Rodriguez is a primary search target so it may need hatlinks to secondary search targets. I added a hatlink to the top of Freddy Rodriguez (and Fred Rodriguez just in case). —Wknight94 (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
With the one edit? My pleasure. If I can't find the time to write the great featured articles you folks write, I want to at least help keep them clean. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Consensus?
Hi Wknight94. I don't agree that 74% is a consensus, although I understand Wikipedia rules may give discretion to a bureaucrat to tilt a decision one way or the other. I can tell you Opposion to Elonka was generally highly motivated, and as far as I know, justified. What is a "circus" indeed is to have to deal with Elonka when her opinion differs from yours. Actually for the last 3 days of the RfA, Oppose votes equalled Support votes iun number: the reality is that Oppose got more and more steam as the discussion drew on. Regards. PHG (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. When 216.11.32.33 (talk·contribs) was reported [14] to AIV, I declined [15] to block because the last two warnings (13:00, 13:05) were made after the IP stopped editing (12:58). This is only my eighth day as an admin, so I may have easily missed something, but has this IP been sufficiently warned to merit a block? Thanks for your help, Kralizec! (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, when the only activity from an IP is to insert a misspelling of diarrhea over and over, I don't have a problem with anyone blocking it as long as it's within a reasonable time. This was 10-20 minutes, right? Diarrhea diarrhea people are less likely to be affected by warnings. If you didn't want to block and the person went away, then you probably accomplished the same thing, i.e. preventing any vandalism from that source. Incidentally, if you spend any time at WP:AIV, you'll find block conflicts quite often. If I'd seen that you declined to block, I would not have blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about unblocking Callmebc, per a discussion I've had via email with him. There's a thread here which you, as an involved admin, might want some input in. --Haemo (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I have replied at ANI, but would confirm I would be happy for another admin (you?) to change things. If it is easier for me to use my contrib history to get and undo the range in question please let me know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Can someone upload an image without saying where they got the image from; and
Is an "old" image in a "new" book, free to use as public domain.
On issue #1, my understanding is that when someone uploads an image, they're supposed to say where they got it from. PHG's history shows that he's been uploading a lot of images, and he's putting the 14th century "Rashid al-Din" manuscript as the source. However, I have Jackson's book, and what PHG obviously did was scan in a cropped version of the cover of the book (cropping it just below the title and above the author's name), but he didn't state that he got it from the book. I'd seen a few other images show up from PHG that looked suspicious, but this latest one is really blatant. PHG is obviously working his way through modern books, scanning in images from them, and then not posting his sources for the images.
On issue #2, this gets really complex, since the laws change depending on where the book was published. In some countries it's okay. In others it's not. According to Commons Public Domain guidelines,[16] UK books are "not okay" for this kind of thing. And Jackson's book was definitely published in the UK.
PHG has evidently been challenged about these sources at his Commons talkpage, but he appears to just be ignoring the questions, and he seems to have been adding the Rashid al-Din source to many of his recent uploads, to make them look sourced.
Further, this "questionable" source problem is classic PHG, all through the English Wikipedia (and is one of the reasons that I'm fighting him so hard). He has a knack for making his additions look well-sourced, but when you actually dig in and do fact-checking, PHG is clearly misrepresenting, and at times flat out fabricating information. I've caught him adding sources that had nothing to do with the page that he's working on. He also has used sources from hobbyist websites, marketing copy, typos in history books, and the title of a painting, to try and make a case that a battle had actually occurred (when in reality there was no such battle). I recall one bizarre conversation where he quoted a Latin text at me and said that it proved his case, but I went and had the Latin translated and it said nothing of the kind. It wasn't just a "translation/interpretation" issue, it was just completely about a different topic. He's been doing this in many venues, where when he gets challenged, he quotes some source from an obscure book (especially a book in another language), and then his challengers often back down since they don't have access to the source, or can't read that language. But I speak multiple languages and have access to some great libraries, and I assure you that PHG is not acting in good faith. But the more he is challenged, the more he escalates and makes more and more ridiculous claims. Check the talkpage at the Franco-Mongol alliance article, where he's arguing with Adam Bishop and John k about the whereabouts of Bohemond during the Sack of Baghdad.
In short, what PHG is doing, is extraordinarily damaging to Wikipedia. But it's been hard getting enough people to actually check the sources and see the problem. And the really scary thing, is that at the same time as I'm challenging him for adding false information, other editors have been giving him barnstars for his "excellent scholarship," simply because he's so good at making things look well-researched, even when they're not. :/ He really has to be stopped. :( --Elonka20:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the book by Jackson was inded published in the UK, but you will notice however that the picture was taken in France (Bibliotheque Nationale) by a German company (AKG-Images), which makes it dependent on French copyright laws. France is listed as "Inconclusive" regarding PD-Art (it is not "generally considered to be protected by copyright" for 2D photographs of paintings.), thereby allowing the PD-Art usage per Wikipedia [17]. For the rest, it's quite amazing how Elonka can make up stuff... PHG (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been in a rather intense relationship with User:Elonka for a few months now. Things started back in August 2007 when I began to study the area of the Franco-Mongol alliance, creating the article and most of its content. A great subject, which is very much in sync with my general interest for cultural interaction thoughout history. I do like this kind of obscure, but totally fascinating, instances of cultural interaction (see also Indo-Greeks, Boshin War, Hasekura Tsunenaga etc...).
The subject seems to be contentious with some users however, and I soon entered into heated discussions with Elonka whether there was actually an alliance or not and other details. She first tried to have the article renamed, but failed (here). Despite the quantity of authors who specifically described this alliance (here), she kept arguing that the view was "fringe" and did not deserve balanced representation with the alternative view ("only attempts at an alliance"...). She then tried quite violently to discredit me through the Administrator notice board, but again failed (here), thanks to several users who spoke up for me. I responded by pointing out her behaviour (here), without asking for punitive action. Actually her actions in relation to this article generated many of the Opposes in her recent nomination as Admin (here). She still spends a huge amount of time leaving enormous diatribes against me on various Talk Pages and User Pages (A recent example). I even had to file a claim for harassment (here). Besides, I'm glad I'm not the only one: Elonka has a huge history of dubious disputes and litigations with many other contributors as well (an example).
What the heck? I'm here to share knowledge and contribute fascinating, referenced, stuff about ancient history and cultural interaction, and I must say I am not at all interested in Wikipedia politics or lobbying day long against specific users. Best regards to all and Long Live Wikipedia! PHG (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
In my earlier ANI posts, I was discounting many of those done by Ryulong with the reasoning that they are Tor node ranges, etc. Blocking or not blocking those is a question for the open proxy experts. Rather, the ANI discussion was involving a simple pest of a vandal. Cutting off huge swaths of Singapore because of one vandal is ill-advised except in small doses. The week done by LessHeard is fine (I refined the range since his original attempt missed the target completely) but the month done earlier by Jmlk17 seems excessive for a /16 range. I've had to undo /24 ranges after just hours because of collateral damage. A /16 is 256 times larger than a /24. I suppose if no one is complaining, then it's fine (although some may simply abandon Wikipedia rather than complain, esp. if there are language barriers). —Wknight94 (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to get too involved here, but I can't help noticing. I've been RC patrolling today, and have seen you multiple times pop up in RC with work done on socks with User:Sasha Callahan/User:New England. I think that is very strange because they are both in WP:BOSOX and it never crossed my mind. jj137♠03:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Davis.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not know what photo you mean.
Phil Konstantin
See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 October 25#Image:Davis.jpg. You had uploaded a picture of someone named David Davis, but you uploaded over the top of someone else's photo. You should use a different image name than just Davis.jpg. I see two others have also uploaded images with the same name. Besides, there is no article for David Davis so it may not make sense for you to re-upload anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Ya know I thought so too until I looked a little harder at this edit where he says, "Atkinson went on to pitch in the final game of the College World Series in 1952." I Googled and Googled and finally found this page. Search for "Atkinson" and you'll find that a Dick Atkinson of Missouri (near Kansas where Mantle was) is in a huge second-place tie for most runs allowed, set in 1952! I think the guy may be telling the truth! Of course, he's still violating all sorts of Wikipedia policies (and I don't have the time or patience to walk him through any of it) but I don't think we're dealing with a common vandal here. In fact, if it's really Atkinson himself making the edits, then he's probably in his early 70s! I thought about adding an entry at WP:COIN. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Baseball Bugs does seem like an idiot, or is dyslexic. What's this vandalism b.s. I, Dick Atkinson, did pitch in the College World Series in 1952, won one game 1 to 0, lost the championship game, allowing six runs. And I played amateur baseball against Mickey Mantle three different seasons. I also played in the Cardinals' and White Sox organizations a total of 7 years. Pitched a no-hitter for Sioux City (western League, 1956) Did "baseball bugs" ever play the game? Dickatkinsonsr 03 January, 2008. MORE about Mickey and Whiz Kids Team: The current article says, "His first semi-pro team was the Baxter Springs Whiz Kids....." WRONG! That was his LAST amateur team; he signed with the Yankees in 1949. I played against him before, when he was with the Miami (Okla.) Ban Johnson team; I played in that league with Pittsburg, (Kan.) And the article states, "He hit two homers.....into a river well past the ballpark's fences". Well, the fact is, there were no outfield fences at that ballpark in 1948 when Mickey and I, and Ken Boyer (Alba, Mo.) played in that league. And if anyone thinks that the feat of stealing first, second, third, and home isn't newsworthy, you don't know baseball as well as you should. I mentioned my name to give credence to the story; I was there. Delete my name if you choose, but leave the base-stealing feat in. I have many other accomplishments in my life that tops that. Goodbye, and better sthinking, next time. Dick Atkinson.
Actually, this guy's style, including attitude, refusing to hit carriage return, and insisting on acceptance without citation, is sounding like just another Liebman sock. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?15:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, that also sounds like a not-so-Internet-savvy person who is getting insulted on his talk page more than I'd like to see. But, if he's only willing to speak as he did above, there's not a lot I can do for him. Regardless, I'd need to see a checkuser result before I said he was Liebman. Doesn't seem the same to me. He uploaded a picture of himself, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just seeing a similarity in style, such as signing his name instead of using the tildes. Another point is making typos and not bothering to fix them, although that's very common by internet users. Regardless, there aren't any citations. That doesn't mean he should be blocked, only ignored until he decides to "play ball" with the rules. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?16:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
"Mantle's 1948 Whiz Kids team won the second half of a split season. the Columbus (Kan.) team had won the first half, and a best-of-three playoff ensued. Lions' pitcher Dick Atkinson, who later signed with the Catrdinals, pitched a one-hitter, an infield single by Mickey, who then stole second, third, and home in the Whiz Kids' 3 - 1 loss. Mantle's team won the next two, and the series."
-- Can someone explain how this is notable? Generally minor league feats are rarely mentioned - unless some sort of record is broken. Even Mickey Mantle: America's Prodigal Son By Tony Castro does not mention this game, despite mentioning that Mantle lined into a triple-play playing against the Whiz Kids while playing second base for Miami Oklahoma on page 38. I appreciate the historical corrections on the material currently there with regards to the fences etc., and I may have been wrong in tagging him a vandal as they do appear to be good faith edits but this constant re-addition to the article (along with other edits by this user) appears to be more self promotion than actual notable history. --Yankees76 (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Unchallenged. It isn't notable. But I really feel the event is a true account and expecting someone who is brand new to Wikipedia - and possibly new to the Internet in general - to understand Wikipedia notability is not always realistic. What's happened is that we as a community have gotten hostile to this guy without even giving him a chance. This isn't some kid inserting "poop" and "Fred is gay" into the middle of articles, it's someone who is genuinely trying to give what he feels is an interesting fact about Mickey Mantle and his relationship therewith. Rather than stomping on him as though he were a childish vandal, we need to try to educate. If educating doesn't work, then we can stomp him - as we had to with Liebman - but stomping first is why WP:AGF and WP:BITE exist. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. As I mentioned, the vandal warning was wrong (I'd tagged him after seeing nearly every edit he made was reverted by a couple of editors), and I do beleive this user is who he says he is - which is why I went to some lengths to verify the section above, to no avail. Dick Atkinson however, may have enough mentions in newspapers like the The Columbia Daily Tribune to have an entry... --Yankees76 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Guardian angel
Hi Wknight94. You said once that Elonka, upon becoming an Administrator, would never try to come after me, so I kind of consider you my guardian angel in this matter. Unsurprisingly, Elonka is trying to raise and inflate any issue she can find to threaten me with the worst. From my Talk Page: "Seriously, PHG, this is highly disruptive, you need to stop this tendentious behavior. When there is a clear consensus of other editors who want a certain course of action, you need to respect that. If you do not respect that, then you risk being blocked entirely from Wikipedia." (Elonka 19:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)), "Even if you were banned from Wikipedia today, it would take days, if not weeks of effort to cleanup all this "alliance" stuff that you've been pouring into multiple articles on Wikipedia. You have to stop." (Elonka 06:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)), and now the scanning of my Commons PD-Art uploads (for which she may have a few technical points, but as always I am ready to learn and correct if necessary). This sounds a lot like harassment to me. I would appreciate your vigilance in the matter. Regards. PHG (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
What I meant by that was she would be very unwise to actually use the sysop tools against you personally. Admins are not supposed to use tools in matters where they are involved and she has been very involved with you for quite some time. You might want to mention your concerns at WP:ANI. If you do, keep in mind that the more concisely you state your concern, the more likely it is that someone will listen. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem was caused by an edit conflict and I screwed up. I had added it to a group that failed to make it because of an edit conflict. Thanks for pointing it out. I'm ready to promote the next group, so I'll see that it makes it in the next group when I'm done. Sorry! Royalbroil13:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
On 31 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Daniel Conahan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
That would be very helpful. Christmas day DYK was interesting. I did all 4 updates (UTC) and they actually were more or less on time -- and I didn't have much time either. User:Gatoclass had the next update loaded each time, so all that I had to do was promote them. Most of the times I had just enough time to credit. It worked out perfectly with my celebration schedule. I gave Gatoclass a special one of a kind barnstar for doing such a great job loading up the Next Update so I could promote it. Royalbroil14:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey dude , im that 71.xx guy you left a talk page dude. Dude, I'm so sorry right there. That was my friend. He was being a idoit dude. Okay. I'm sorry.Eldorado91 (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
wknight, that was my idoit friend. He was drunk, he was being an idoit and found was messing around on my pc okay. I was busy watching a movie , and I saw the message you gave me on the talk page. Okay. I told him to stop his bull ____ crap. Okay. So I'm sorry to bugs. I dont know bugs okay. . Okay, my friend is just drunk iodit. Okay. Thats his problem. I dont drink. Okay. I didnt do it. Okay. So I'm sorry for this big misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldorado91 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Dude, I just applogized to him okay. Dude, I just said it was my friend that did that okay. I didnt say that. I just threw my friend out of my house for that outburst.Eldorado91 (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Wknight94, I applogize on behlaf of my friend who is not my friend anymore. Can I have one last chance to redem myself.Eldorado91 (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
It's just this stupid semantic argument I've gotten myself into [21] and one of the arguers against me is an admin, but it's the fanboy types that are threatening to have me banned for not letting the argument go as the mis-use of this word offends my sense of order. However, that has nothing to do with this "I'm going to kill u" stuff, near as I can tell. Anyway, the admin ignored it so far. But if that guy's serious, he's going to have to clear it with my supervisor first, as our development team is too small already. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?03:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that argument might make for a nice entry at WP:LAME. I don't want to get within 100 feet of that argument but one thing hit me - to say that a team "competes" in a division sounds a bit like they compete only in that division. That's not the case in MLB and, to my knowledge, that's not the case in NCAAF either. Otherwise, I couldn't care less which term is used. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
It started with eye-witnessing a Gophers game this year, and then wondering (after they finished 1-11, even worse than was predicted) how anyone could justify saying they "compete" in anything, let alone the Big 10. It's pretty clear that they are going to get their way on this wording issue, so I'm done with it. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?04:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Baseballl Bugs, I didnt threaten you okay. It was my ex-friend now. He is not my friend anymore. Okay, I'm sorry for his stupid behavior okay. Can I deserve a second chance. We all make mistakes okay. I'm sorry for his behavior , and what he cause to this site. Can I have a second chance, and in return I will promise this "bs" will never happend again. I swear to GOD this will not happend again.Eldorado91 (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Bugs, my friend didnt have an edit war with you. I dont know what your talking about. He was just an idoitic moron. Okay.Eldorado91 (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
That's enough. Eldorado91 has been blocked indefinitely. In addition to probably being a sock of an IP that made a death threat, he also has a talk page full of vandalism warnings and warnings about frivolous AFDs, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Only that he stopped editing a few hours before the time Eldorado started in earnest, and Eldorado vandalized other users who were in on the Bhutto discussion, WWGB and Joshdboz to name two. Other than that subject, I don't see where this is coming from. I doubt it was the Big Ten fans with whom I was having that semantics debate. It could just be random, of course. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?17:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not seeing much similarity except Bhutto, an article which has been on the front page since her death and therefore is going to attract a crowd. Otherwise, Eldorado91 seems like a common childish vandal who probably should have been indefblocked a long time ago (at least around the time he vandalized User:Jimbo Wales), while Mosura is more of an edit warrior. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Flushing, indeed. Like the home base of the Mets. Some users have a count of how many times they've been vandalized. I don't have that. It might only encourage them. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?23:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much. I had one for a short time but realized it was silly. The count can be determined from the history if anyone is really that interested. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If you still have my e-mail address, I wonder if you'd mind sending me a comment as to what you think I should do as regards the "death threat" situation. It will be a few days before I would see it. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?01:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me Baseball Bugs I am not that "person" your refering to okay. I was getting tired of this "dispute" on the boards okay. I was saying on your talk page that this "person" deserves a second chance. Iron Valley (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
By now I've forgotten who it was that investigated Tecmo and his sockpuppets. I know at one point they did a second checkuser, and that confirmed it. However, according to this, the data may have been lost. I wonder what problems that could cause, in case Tecmo decides to try to get back in here someday. [31]Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?09:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry I didn't have a chance to explain more fully at the time; I'd been involved in the copy editing during the FAC earlier this month so the article was still on my watchlist. When I looked at the reference list after your changes, several of them were reading incorrectly - bold in the wrong places, words that weren't actually in the references, numbers that didn't match; it appeared on a quick scan that some of the text had gone hiding as well. Having just done a stack of references on an article I have been rewriting, I know how easy it is to miss one little character and set the whole thing off. I don't personally have a problem with that style, but didn't want to leave a featured article in not-quite-100% form. Maybe you might want to put one of the "in use" templates on and do a lot of checking while working them up; I remember Giano saying something about this form of referencing, but I can't remember if it was "can someone put it in" or "it's too confusing." Well - I rather doubt it matters now that the article is stable and not in the middle of massive editing. Hope this is helpful, sorry I didn't explain more fully but I was on my way out the door at the time. Risker (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
copy vio template
Hello, Wknight94. I'm looking for a copyvio template that instructs the editor on how to release the source for use on Wikipedia. I've seen it but can't find it . Thanks, Dlohcierekim 15:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I know what you're referring to but I've never seen one in the Template: namespace. Last I knew (which was a long time ago), someone was using a boilerplate message of their own and I stole - I mean leveraged - theirs. I searched a bit just now and see that {{Nothanks-sd}} and {{Nothanks-web}} include bullet points similar to that boilerplate message. How do those look? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually haven't logged on to Wikipedia in a few months (hey, what can I say - school happens), and I didn't even realize I'd been vandalized. Thanks for catching the error (which turned out kind of funny, actually). I guess some people have nothing better to do than to mess with people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecthelion83 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see this [32] where, less than a week after being unblocked, he's back on my talk page, launching personal, unprovoked attacks, and being far less than perfectly civil. Please advise. KellyAna (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't consider what I did a personal attack. It was a genuine observation and it was made in a completely serious manner. I think it's something she should think about. I'll take her page off my watch list because I have no reason to be involved with her anymore, but I think she should reflect on why this kind of thing happens so often and what the common denominator is.►Chris NelsonHolla!01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Calling a discussion about sources conflict is personal attack and it is not civil. Being on my page for no reason other than to make false accusations is also far from perfect civility. Being on it twice is harassment. KellyAna (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
KellyAna, Chrisjnelson is going to take your page off his watchlist. Therefore - and I'm sure Chrisjnelson will agree - you will not be seeing a repeat of today's unprovoked unhelpful commentary. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if he supposedly takes my talk page off his watch list, he can still go there at anytime. He broke the terms of his agreement and apparently there's additional incidences [33] going on with his behavior tonight (I would be more than happy to log out and post to verify that that IP is not me. I have a 192.168 start to my IP). Even after stating I would report him, he came back. Please, seriously, don't just give him a free pass. If it was once, I could excuse it, but it was twice on my page and then here. This is not "perfect civility" it's perfect incivility. KellyAna (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The involved editor was removing a properly-placed trivia tag without reason, which I'd consider vandalism. Not that I should have to defend myself to her. Anyway, Wknight94, I'll be taking this page off my watch list as well (not because of you), so this will be my last post on the matter.►Chris NelsonHolla!03:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I also doubt that this [34] edit summary is "perfect civility" either. We all know what "BFD" is an abbreviation for. Where is the civility in that? Regardless of right or wrong, the edit summary is offensive.KellyAna (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
KellyAna, I looked at that exchange between Chrisjnelson and the IP and didn't find anything actionable. The IP is going against consensus and acting peculiarly - if it doesn't stop soon, it will likely be blocked. I can't imagine why Chrisjnelson decided to start things up with you but he won't do that again. Let's leave it at that. You're always free to go to WP:AE if you really feel it's worth your time. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Wknight94, this is KellyAna. I wanted to do an edit with just my IP so I'm not implicated in the other issue. Hopefully the IP will show and then I'll log in but the IP will remain. 98.24.34.110 (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The point was I'm not the IP Chris is arguing with. But still, I don't understand why he can behave as he does, making accusations, and be allowed to edit with reckless abandon. BTW, "whatismyip" just gets confused with my IP addy. It's a brand new company and messes with all the IP search engines. I hate it!! We were Time Warner now we are Podunk nowhere wannabe internet provider. It sucks. KellyAna (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Here, I see you deleted the larger sizes of a non-free image after reduction, but the problem is that this make the picture practically useless. I think that the original size was OK as an exception (see the discussion here - though other stuff was discussed as well). Would you mind if I restored the original images? Carcharoth (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
418 KB is low-res for all intents and purposes. I can be reused as a web image, but not really anything else. It couldn't be used on a T-shirt, or on coffee mugs or anything like that. That would require much larger file sizes. Hope that reassures you. Will undelete the revisions tomorrow. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
My edits to Mike Golic, Fonzie, and Haley Osment aren't meant to be funny. Fonzie really did have an episode where he endorsed Ike, Osment was driving a Saturn during his crash and not an expensive auto, and Golic really did make those statements about steroids. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
You are right about the doughnut edit for Golic. That was an error. Sorry. I have gone back and added sources for Osment driving the 1995 Saturn and Fonzie supporting Eisenhower. Those are not jokes. Thank you for your diligent devotion to wikipedia. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Fonzie Delete
So you don't like the location of a fact on the Fonzie page so you just delete it? I've moved it down further in the text. Is that better? Thank you once again for your diligent and selfless devotion to wikipedia. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Wknight94 - I'm a student at the school that you blocked in November for vandalism - since we returned to school yesterday the encyclopaedia has already been vandalised, so I'd like your opinion on whether it would be possible to issue a voluntary block on this IP; I've spoken to school staff about it, and they agree that it would be best until students are educated. Please do let me know your thoughts — alex.muller (talkpage • contribs)11:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, actually I see a few constructive edits in there since I last blocked. I am leaning towards waiting to see if any more vandalism edits come in. If so, someone will likely block - and for quite a long time given the size of the block log for that IP. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd ask you to have a look one more time - since you looked there's been vandalism on two more articles, and I'm afraid that given the size of the school, it won't stop quickly. I'd really appreciate a six week block (six weeks time is half-term break here) to prevent further harm, with the ability to create accounts from our IP so that students who want to can still edit constructively. The benefit to us would be just a six week block instead of risking anything longer, and the benefit to Wikipedia would (obivously) be less vandalism. It's easy to get the Director of ICT to get in touch with you via email if you feel that's necessary. — alex.muller (talkpage • contribs)16:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Just as I suspected - someone beat me to it. It's now blocked for a month. Account creation is disabled (as I would have done) so constructive editors will need to create accounts elsewhere and they can use those accounts at school. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well a month isn't as bad as I thought it might've been (given our less than overly attractive talk page...) Many thanks for looking anyway – will leave it for a month and see what happens after that. — alex.muller (talkpage • contribs)17:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Been protected for a week by both me and Acalamari. (!) A friendly note about WP:3RR as well. Hopefully a consensus can be reached on the talk page. Warm Regards. Woody (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I know, I'm treading close to 3RR but the guy's first edit revealed his edit as a poor attempt at comedy. I didn't figure reasoning with that type would accomplish much. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
What personal attacks? I'm being honest. I think it's awesome that you do so much for wiki. I wish I could, but I simply don't have the time what with work, family, friends, and other demands. Sorry you took it as an attack. That's the problem with the written word. You don't hear tone of voice, inflection, etc. No need to threaten anyone with blocks. I'm sorry you think I was trying to offend. I mean it when I say you are a true wiki czar and that I thank you for your devotion and personal (and I'm sure often painstaking) sacrifice you make for the site. Also, what do you mena by "that type"? Was that meant as an insult to me? OddibeKerfeld (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Per the guidelines indicated here [48], Chris is to maintain perfect civility and revert only once. He's reverted me twice, I did not vandalize a page and even went so far as to comment on the talk page regarding my edit, and did it with a nasty edit summary of "you don't know what you're doing, see talk." Telling someone they don't know what they are doing in an edit summary of a good faith edit is far from civil. Regardless, the two reverts constitute a violation. Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous. She removed a succession box because she didn't understand it's perfect, and I placed it back on there because it belongs. She's removing an accurate and normal piece of info on Wikipedia, and it should remain so I kept it that way. I also explained on that talk page what they are used for and why her reasoning for removal was misguided. I do not deserve any punishment here - I was not a bit uncivil and all I did was restore a contributing piece of info to an article.►Chris NelsonHolla!21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to clarify one statement I've made that I realize could be taken in a ton that makes it sound uncivil. In the edit summary where I said, "You don't know what you're doing," I did not mean that in a way that says "you're an incompetent moron," which I realize is one way it might read. I mean it to say, "You don't understand what this edit is doing, please stop." Everything else I still feel the same on.►Chris NelsonHolla!23:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm, this page is becoming Wikipedia:Chrisjnelson noticeboard, eh? While I'd love to see Chrisjnelson stick to the exact letter of the ArbCom case, that situation doesn't nearly warrant a block. Let's please follow Pats1's suggestion and have everyone relax. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we make one of those? He blatantly breaks rules and no one seems to care. Why have arbcom if no one enforces it and he can be as uncivil as he wants to people without anyone doing anything? Sorry but his behaviour and all he gets away with is frustrating. He's driven me away from a page I watched over for months while no one cared but because I was editing it, he's put it on his watch list and if any one other than his boys club edits it, regardless of the edit history on the page, he reverts them. Anonymous IP editors get more respect than my edits do from him. He's told me "you don't know what you're doing" before. His "clarification" is a lie to cover himself. He meant it the way he said it. Wknight94 you must understand how frustrating it is to be run off from an article because Chrisjnelson doesn't want those he hasn't hand picked there. KellyAna (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't see anything uncivil from Chrisjnelson in that exchange. I might take more notice of the 2RR but I don't understand why you were reverting in the first place. What is wrong with that succession box? Outside this incident and the one he was blocked for, how else do you think you've been driven off that page? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't me that reverted the box, it was IrishLass. I just saw the edits to Tyler when I arrived tonight and investigated what happened. Having had previous dealings with Chrisjnelson, I followed the trail. He still gets away with things because of his friends. Personally, I cannot understand how repeatedly using the phrase "you don't know anything" isn't uncivil. And doing so when he's violating the rule that he is not to revert more than once compounds his violations. But he gets away with it. As I can see the chain of events went as follows. An anonymous IP made what Irish felt was a questionable edit, she reverted it with the explanation of "Rm'd college template. He's not in college, he's in the NFL. Current box appropriate but will discuss." and then asked about it on Tyler's talk page. Chrisjnelson reverted her revert with the snarky comment of "there is no reason to remove this. of course he's in the NFL now but this is a piece of info about his college career". Irish reverted his change with "See talk page and don't be so anxious to revert changes before discussion" clearly indicating to please discuss why this is a valid edit. Chris again reverted her telling her "you don't know what you're doing, see talk" which is clearly uncivil and inaccurate as she immediately went to the talk page where Chris began his berating. Starting with "I take it you're not a common editor of football articles." Not a polite question or an assumption of good faith, just an assumption of "you don't know what you're doing." He clearly could have waited for Pats1 or anyone else to revert but he just had to be right and he violated the rules set for him, but no one does anything. Do you understand why, at least I'm frustrated with him. Irish isn't around at night, but I'm sure she'll probably not be happy about Chrisjnelson's behaviour. But that's up to her to say, I just know how his behaviour has influenced my decision to give up watching an article I've watched since before the season started. KellyAna (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have been noticing that most of the edits over the last few months to some of the Negro Leagues-related articles (mostly involving Satchel Paige, Jackie Robinson, and Negro League baseball itself) have been vandalism, and almost without exception those vandalisms have come from unregistered users. Is there a way to semi-protect these pages from the IP addresses and turn our efforts to actual editing? The pages are monitored well enough to revert vandalism pretty quickly, but I believe we could cut it down to near-zero with that one change. -- Couillaud (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I semi'ed Robinson for a few weeks since it's due for a break and could use it. The other two you mentioned see very little activity of any kind, constructive or otherwise. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it is. There appear to be quite a few Tacoman#### vandalism-only accounts but I'm only associating the ones created recently (117-119 so far). —Wknight94 (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I've had numerous friendly discussions with Baseball Bugs both on- and off-wiki. (We may even be related! ) I don't like when admins make "binding" admin decisions pertaining to either their friends or enemies. There are over 1,000 other admins here that are quite capable of making unbiased decisions. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, it looks like the user gamed the system enough to not fall into what he cynically refers to as a "3RR trap". However, WP:3RR reads as follows:
Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring regardless of whether they have explicitly violated the three-revert rule.
We have here a user who barely avoids 3RR but acts unapologetically for their edit-warring. Indeed, the user instead accuses everyone else for apparently "making him" revert, instead of choosing to discuss. One would think that the prior two occasions when the user was blocked would have been sufficient education in how not to edit-war or make personal attacks. His behavior was clearly disruptive. As per the definition above, the user should have been blocked for whatever block period is usual after a 5-day block for disruptive behavior. That the user dodged a bullet this time is cause for some serious time thanking his/her lucky stars. The next time it occurs, I am almost positive that his luck will not hold out, as others will be watching BB's edits from now on. - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
So much for the high road and staying away from personal attacks. I have never "gamed the system". I took it on faith that I was in violation of 3RR. Wknight94 thought I wasn't so I checked it out. Meanwhile, I had already abandoned the page and was ready to take a suspension, which a wise admin decided not to pursue. I do come from a family that has a strong sense of righteous indignation, and that's what typically gets me in trouble here. I am "unrepentant" because I am convinced that I'm right. But I abandoned the page because I concluded I could not win. Losing does not mean you're wrong, and winning does not mean you're right. Meanwhile, we are both soiling Wknight94's page with our discussion here. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Then stop posting and simply go away then, so I don't have to point out just about everything wrong with what you said. You said you were moving on; maybe just do that, okey-doke? - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought I was done arguing already, on the 3RR page, when the admin gave me permission to stop arguing, after I confirmed that you had your facts wrong on the 3RR point, after I "assumed good faith" and assumed you had the facts right. Then you resumed the argument here. If you'll stop arguing, then I'll stop arguing. I'm sure Wknight94's patience with the both of us is getting thin. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?19:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You didn't really say that, did you? Is this the fourth grade? There, now y'all can have a tie and I can get the last word. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
McDonald's
McD in Tampa, 1979
I get the impression you live in Florida. I wonder if this older-style McDonald's, pictured here in 1979, is still there and/or if it's still in the older style. Now you're probably going to ask what street it was on. I haven't a clue, although I think it was one of the main east-west drags. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?00:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, can't say I've seen one like that. There's rarely a big push to retain a historic look-and-feel down here so I doubt any McDs' would have escaped renovation for the last 28 years. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
200px}McD in Minny, 2006
I used Google Maps to look at all of the current Tampa-area McD's, and from overhead they now all look like the modern design. I'm thinking this one was on a road leading from Tampa Stadium eastbound to the expressway. So it's apparently gone with the wind. Luckily for us old-timers, we still have one in Bloomington, MN, that's in the old style, though I suspect it's of fairly recent construction. Feel free to delete this section once you're tired of looking at it. :) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you do me a wee favor and remove the tlx-es from his unblock requests, so they work proper? I'd do it, but thought maybe it was more an admin thing to do. You needn't consider his request (which I think should be totally denied, imho), just make it so that it can be considered. Thanks! :) -Ebyabe (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I should have explained it's that his main user page is protected, b/c he keeps using it like a Myspace page. He puts infoboxes for bands and non-fair use stuff there. Even says he's going to update it once a week like some kind of live journal. He's been blocked, but resumes once unblocked. I don't know if he's acting "cool" (the "Rawk on" stuff) of if he's a tween (amongst his favorite shows are Zoey 101 and Drake & Josh). Again, danke. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No apology necessary. Sorry if my edit summary sounded short - I got cut off! They need to expand that field length so I can write the novels I need to write in edit summaries. :) —Wknight94 (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Blocking and RfA
I've seen RfA opposes based on the nom reporting vandals at AIV without a full complement of warnings. They say it shows the nom has an itchy trigger finger. In the "real worl" of WP:AIV, I see admins blocking with much less hesitation that I'd have thought after reading those opposes. It's like you say, if it edits like a vandal, it is a vandal. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I've been debating starting a thread at WP:AN (again?) to discuss some admins' odd blocking habits. I'm not too hung up on warnings specifically - a blatant vandal doesn't care much about warnings - but I keep seeing admins jump from a one-week block directly to six months, or admins blocking someone because they made one vandalism edit two hours ago even though there are no other edits in the previous week, etc. I'm seeing some strange trends lately. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I love to do blocks but only when I know I'm getting the right people. When you get one edit per week and none of them are related, you have no idea which poor soul might walk up to the machine next. E.g., at my work place, I believe there are 3,000 people sharing one IP address! I don't want to block them all just because some kid typed "Fred is gay" once during bring-your-daughter-to-work-day. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The trend you described earlier, or perhaps the lack of a consistent trend, perhaps speaks to individual whims. Catch an admin on a bad day, and he might be more likely to do a longer block. If he's feeling good, he might do a shorter block. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you won't be able to protect images on Commons. They're nice enough to pre-emptively protect the Main page featured article picture and a few others, but they don't try to keep up with our DYK pictures. That's why those instructions are listed so we upload a copy here. Then they can vandalize Commons all they want and it won't affect our Main page. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Protecting an image is so fast. Uploading a copy takes longer. DYK takes time to fill up the next update if it's not full, review the hooks, move the update to the next page, update the archives, and credit the users. That may be why DYK is often late. Being a Commons admin would shorten the time it takes to protect the image. Therefore, I've asked to be a Commons admin. The chance of failure and ridicule is high if they act like WP RFA's of new users. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votesArchtransit (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
photos
Here's a copyright dilemma. Say a guy takes an old photo, from like 1909, and re-prints it on a postcard that he's selling. If I scan that postcard and post it here, am I violating anyone's copyright? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?21:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Try going to the sceintology website, its been DoSed. Many Users of the chan message boards have launched a war on scientology after the DoS attacked ED. People tried to edit it into your wiki site but many added extra shit that was irrelevant. You should post that on this day friday January 18 2008 Anon launched a global attack on Scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.41.220 (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to tell exactly where you are drawing the line. For example, you're arguing to keep hands off players who only played for one team at the same time your reverting pages of guys who played for more than one who in your opinion didn't have significant careers with the other teams because they only played one or two years with other teams. Well, the fans of those other teams might disagree with your view on that. Kinston eagle (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The idea was to introduce neutral colors before there are disputes to prevent edit wars from breaking out. This was something decided by consensus for the prevention of controversy, and you seem determined to create a controversy where there is none. Kinston eagle (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll repeat what I just said on the IP address talk page that Wknight94 cited above: I've never been too keen on the colors, as it's a wikipedia editors' invention, which is arguably "original research" and POV-pushing. However, they are no great harm, either, except in the few cases where battles ensue, such as with Reggie Jackson. And if a retired player spent all (or nearly all) of his career with one team and/or if he's in the Hall of Fame and his plaque identifies him with a particular team, using that team's colors seems OK. To put it another way, if they want to specify gray for everyone, why even have colors? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?08:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't big on going gray for everyone though. Only to break a tie. Breaking a tie on three or four articles by trying to pass a convention that all X-thousand retired player articles must be gray seems like extreme overkill to me. To make matters worse, the overkill is being implemented now, six weeks after that brief discussion at WT:MLB and I-don't-know-how-long after the last controversy ended. Or was this still an issue somewhere? Half the articles where controversy broke out were caused by a single IP troll anyway, and it was blocked at one point. The whole thing seems odd and unnecessarily disruptive. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it seems that way to me. I don't recall the timing for sure, but I'm thinking it was last summer when this last came up. Some guy insisted on putting Mets colors on Casey Stengel, for example, instead of Yankees colors. But I thought the issue was dead until somebody started making all these changes yesterday. Hard to figure. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?16:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The dilemma comes when team colors change. Among his many changes was to Travis Jackson, a Giants lifer. However, if I were to change it back, it would have the current Giants colors of orange and black, which I don't think were the colors during Jackson's days as a Giant. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?17:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Weren't they? I don't think I've ever seen Giants uniforms from that far back. I thought the Giants always had some form of orange, even before the move west. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
A great source, if you can find it, is Marc Okkonen's Baseball Uniforms of the 20th Century, which goes from 1900 (NL - not technically part of the 20th century) and 1901 (AL) through 1991. Since I brought this up, I thought I should check. The Giants team color in 1900 was black. They added a touch of brown for a few years there. For awhile in the 1910s, McGraw added violet to the trim, if you can believe that from tough-guy Mugsy. In the 1920s, red trim started to appear. Orange (with black) first appeared in 1933. In 1936 they switched back to red, and dropped the black in favor of blue. Orange and black returned for good in 1949. Travis Jackson was with the Giants during 1922-1936, so for most of his career it was red and black, not orange and black. There's a similar problem with guys like Mordecai Brown, who's page was once painted in modern Cubbie blue and red, but during his prime years with the Cubs the team color was a medium-dark blue, with no red, as opposed to the modern royal blue or brighter blue that they use, along with the red, which was introduced in 1916, consciously imitating the Chicago Whales colors, and coincidentally Brown's final year with the Cubs, when he was acquired from the defunct Whales. The Cubs actually had red in 1900, but dropped it 1901. 1900 was interesting. 6 of the 8 clubs wore red stockings and trim, either for home or road or both. The other colors were all dark blue or black. Not much imagination in those days. But the point being that the Cardinals introducing red to their uniforms was not exactly revolutionary, they were just joining the crowd. But red has always been a popular uniform color. The Boston Red Stockings, who were the original Cincinnati Red Stockings reincarnated, continue to wear red trim to this day, as the Atlanta Braves. They dropped it in 1907, and by the time they put it back in 1908, their cross-town rivals had co-opted both the color and the name "Red Sox". Don't get me started. d:) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?23:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I wouldn't have guessed any of that. I thought there was a web site with pictures of old uniforms. Suddenly I lose interest in the whole infobox color thing. Still seems like a bad idea to make thousands of edits to remove colors when so few instances cause any concern. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
There may be. It might even be comprised of Okkonen's illustrations. His book was given "official" status by MLB, so they might be on the MLB site somewhere. I hope it's not literally true that the guy made thousands of edits. I've tried to fix a few of them, but I can't be spending all weekend on that. But this whole deal reminds me of the business of putting national flags next to individuals' names, to denote where they are "from", and then getting into arguments about it as some editors do. That stuff, like the uniform colors, amounts to "original research", which is why it can't be settled properly, i.e. it's unsourced. Where is a source that says what the "proper" uniform color or national flag is to adorn a player with? Well, there ain't one. Wikipedia has enough trouble trying to keep facts verifiable, without inventing original constructs that are guaranteed to be fodder for arguments, and hence a distraction from what the purpose of wikipedia is supposed to be. [END SOAPBOX] :) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?03:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Tecmobowl
Although he's not around to defend it, it's good (for me) that the robot posted the message about the list-of-owners AFD, thus alerting me to it.[51] That was one of his little pets that he started in the fall of 2006 and never finished, thanks to getting into constant edit wars with everyone on every other topic. Ironically, he was the king of "talk about the content". If it had more content, it might not be up for deletion. That's the way things go sometimes. But the alternative (if any) is to create some new categories and succession boxes. Maybe the nominating party will be willing to do that work? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?16:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
That article does seem to be quote the hodge podge. I can understand the AFD'ing. Not sure I'll bother weighing in though. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the nominator, a grand total of 2 others (me included) have weighed in. I've also raised the issue of owners vs. presidents, which may or may not be the same thing, and both of which would be considered notable, I would think. In short, rather than voting yea or nay, I'm raising questions that the nominator needs to consider. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?16:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This guy...
...is an obvious troll. [52] I advised my pal Cinemaniac we should stop at the single comments we made, and let the admins take care of him, which I expect someone will soon. Just FYI, in case you're in a deletory mood. >:) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?00:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet).
I'm not trying to get the last word. I'm just trying to make sure that everyone remains civil. But yes, I will back off. RC-0722 (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. The problem is that the least civil thing going on now is the discussion about civility. Hopefully you see what a ridiculous situation that is. Best to just let it die out. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I know, sorry. I couldn't help myself. Every little comment is causing war on that ArbCom so I didn't want duplicate numbers to cause more bloodshed! —Wknight94 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
How am I doing?
Hey there again, Wknight94. I was wondering if I could get some basic feedback. I know that for a little bit I was inactive, but recently have been trying to get involved with discussions. Since the time of my RfA, "truce" with Chrisjnelson (talk·contribs), and my conflicts with you, I was wondering if you could tell me how I'm doing, as far as my overall behavior, avoiding huge conflicts, my civility, et cetera. I'm asking you because I believe the last conflict I had was with you, and because you're an administrator and I value your opinion. Thanks, Ksy92003(talk)14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This is just a test edit, to see if you saw this (which might've been missed due to the huge section below, which began not too long after my comment). Ksy92003(talk)22:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty far back. Does this have to do with wanting to be an admin? The better question than how you've been behaving recently is, Why do you want to be an admin?Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?11:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I re-read your contributions to one of the NFL discussions. I notice you trying to appeal to Chrisjnelson's guilt. By now, you should be well aware that he is going to be brutally honest with you and is unlikely to feel any guilt for that. As such, the following probably would have been better left unsaid:
Just forget it. I struck out my comment, just ignore it. I can't even get into any discussion anymore without somebody getting all mad at me. Forgive me for having an opinion. Four other people have given their opinions, and I'm pretty much forbidden from even giving mine. Forget I said anything.[54]
You're right. I have no idea what I'm talking about, I don't know anything about anything, I'm always wrong, you're always right. I'm stupid to think that this situation would be any different. Sorry for making you waste your typing energy for trying to discuss something with me that I very clearly don't know anything about.[55]
I guess I have "mental defects" to think that after all the times you've been blocked that you would've changed your character.. guess I'm stupid for that also.[56]
All of those are directed more towards you being bothered and offended than towards helping the encyclopedia. Ask yourself, "is this comment going to help the encyclopedia?" If no, then just put it in your pocket. For some it can be quite difficult. I see things I'd like to comment on all over the place, but I run that question through my head and actually articulate very little of what I think. You'll know when I am finally fed up with everything because I'll just disappear, very possibly with no comment whatsoever.
That said, there are plenty of helpful useful things said by you in the various conversations. But I don't figure that's the type of feedback you're looking for. You just need to filter better. And keep contributing content - that's where you excel. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that you did the work you had asked me to do and I did nothing about. But having seen the items you pointed out, which are from less than a week ago, I am inclined to agree with something you said a number of weeks or months ago: Ksy should totally avoid any contact with CJN, as they mix like fire and gasoline; or, at best, to keep it strictly to business (i.e. to bland discussions of article content) and to avoid making any kind of "why are saying this?" types of remarks. In my brief dealings with CJN here and there, I have found him to be dripping with sarcasm, and that's just the way it is, there's no changing it. Which is what you just said anyway. And I have found in dealing with other users that there is nothing I can say or do that is going to change their approach, so trying to do so is beating your head against the wall. The best response to sarcasm is to pretend you didn't hear it. And that's all I have to say about that. :) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?02:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Something that has always been a problem is that I always try to get in the last word.. by that, I don't mean to say that I always want to respond to a smart remark. I mean that it's hard for me (a bad habit, if you will) to let a comment directed at me, good or not, go un-responded to. If somebody says something, no matter what it is, I find it very hard to be the one to end a discussion. That can spill over to discussions here on Wikipedia, which is something that I'm trying to get over with experience off-Wiki. I'm also a person who has problems with thinking about what to say before saying it; if something's in my mind, I usually just say it instead of thinking of the possible consequences, which again could do more harm than good.
As for the comments that Wknight provided, that's just pure frustration on my part, which is another thing I'm trying to overcome. When I'm frustrated, sometimes in my mind, I think that my "adding-fuel-to-fire" comments are necessary. But I do try my absolute hardest to make certain that none of my comments are offensive to another person. I don't believe I've made any offensive comments (not intentionally, at the least), but if you've seen one in the past, I'd like to see it, please.
All in all, both of you have given me things to truly think about, and that's why earlier today I began creating MLB player articles once again, to try to get back in that form I was in over the summer and to focus more on expanding the encyclopedia more than getting involved in important discussions; both are good, but I think I need to take a break from the discussions. Thanks a lot, both of you. Ksy92003(talk)03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
True. You can damage the encyclopedia and hurt the feelings of another editor without being uncivil or making personal attacks. A great editor (and people-person) is the one who can recognize which are those times and how to avoid them. Ksy92003(talk)04:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I believe what he uploaded is a PDF file. The image that shows is just a little icon associated with PDF files (or maybe some embedded image in that particular PDF file). —Wknight94 (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You're right. It's an Adobe-format document with the contents of that stuff he keeps trying to post. Since he claims it as his own work, that means it's Original Research and can't be used (unless it's legitimately published, which I doubt). If it's someone else's work, then it's a copyright violation... and can't be used. Hence it's a candidate for deletion, yes? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?15:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I downloaded it. That was the only way I could think of to read it. It's the same stuff he had been trying to post in the article. Basically it's a vaguely-worded rant promoting "Intelligent Design", which is ironic, if you think about it. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?15:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't think of a specific policy against such a thing but you might want to try just slapping a {{db}} tag on it with a short note about the odd circumstance. Someone may bite. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey man, sorry I couldn't reply on nelsons talk page. He just keeps reverting all my posts and marking them as harassment. Anyway, I'm promoting we do something Change the article description (on the disambig page) to "American football player for the Carolina Panthers" or "American football player for the New York Giants" RC-0722 (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'd recommend staying away from Chrisjnelson. It's best to leave people alone when they give clear signs like that. The text on the disambiguation page is not what's at issue in that discussion. We're talking about the title of the articles themselves. The text in big font at the top of every page is that page's title. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm going to try to stay away from him. But what I'm saying is that if we change the disambig article description; we can change the article name to something without an initial or team name. RC-0722 (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
But disambiguation pages aren't the driving force behind article naming. Per WP:NC, WP:D, etc., article names are supposed to be something that make sense while still being unique. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Since "[ethnic group] football players" would be nothing more than a list, I would think a category would be more appropriate than an article. Not that that fixes the issue. :) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this sufficiently notable for an article of its own? Do we have articles on sections of St. Pete?? Lived in Pinellas for 30+ years and never heard of it. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be. Unless you can find reliable sources to verify, it looks like a good candidate for WP:AFD. Has the standard SPA author earmark as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Golic did make claims on his radio show that he wouldn't have taken part in a steroids investigation and that he thought of it the same as speeding. I can't find the ref though so I'll let it go. Anyhow, what does Wknight94 mean? Does that mean you are a fan of Jeff McKnight and watched him play in 1994? Don't worry about the Golic page. I didn't realize the steroid portion had been placed elsewhere in the text. Again, I admire your wiki prowess. Honestly, how are you able to do as much editing as you do? OddibeKerfeld (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
re: Liebman sock edits
Sorry, I should've looked at the diffs more carefully - I was wrong about your revert redoing . But the article had serious POV and sourcing issues without the sockpuppet edits, and I've made (what I think are) improvements to the article since the edit you reverted to. I don't think there was any sockpuppet vandalism in the edit before you reverted, but I think you're more familiar with this editor than I am. Thanks and sorry about the confusion. --Mosmof (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
—Wknight94 (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
) I don't like when admins make "binding" admin decisions pertaining to either their friends or enemies. There are over 1,000 other admins here that are quite capable of making unbiased decisions. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
![[30]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alkivar#Disputed_fair_use_rationale_for_Image:HebronAcademyLogo.png){kind=link}
