User talk:Wknight94/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

User blocking

Thanks for blocking User:Cspam - I'd given them countless warnings (all of which were scrubbed) and would have ARVd them had you not intervened. I did find it amusing how the user had to have the last word though (well, in this case they haven't). Thanks again! Booglamay (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:IndianapolisColts 1001.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:IndianapolisColts 1001.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Deletionist Daleks strike again. "Ex-ter-min-ate! Ex-ter-min-ate!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Goofy bot. I didn't upload that - just reverted someone else. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The root word of "botch". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What is your issue?

I just want fairness. Further, this is a specific item, a speech by Chris Long. Only Pats1 disagrees so far. What I expect from you and others is to jump on the bandwagon and support him. But, as of now, he says something is "non-notable". I say it is noteworthy enough to be in the article. What you are doing is really not that intelligent. It is illogical. It is saying since a few people diagreed on the last thing, they disagree on this. That is false logic. Also, If a group of people are going to fight me on everyhting then they are guilty of un-wiki activity. My objection is that those who are Admins get special treatment and that is true. I get punished yet Pats1 got away with stalking me. You did nothing about that. So, it is fair for me to doubtyour good-faith. We are required to assume good faith, yet within reason. You, sir, are part of a mob right now. So, that calls into question your objectivity here. Your veiled threat is proof postive that you will act against me yet you will not act against a fellow admin. That is the very definition of untouchable. IF an admin can stalk another editor and get away with it, how can I have faith in you? What evidence can you show that you still are fair and objective and not taking sides because you have a personal issue with me? I will give you the benefit of the doubt but tell me why I should trust your view on "non-notable"? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

part 2. You have a duty, I would think, and just because you are questioned does not make that an attack. You are a witness to a lot of stuff yet you have targeted ONLY me. Why did you ignore Pats1 wikstalking? Why? Did you not see how he followed me around DURING a heated period? Did I follow him around? He didn't get so much as a warning, so why is it unfair and why will I be disappointed? WIth great power comes great responsibility. You should exbrace that. What I have seen is admins doing nothing to a fellow admin . . . why is that fair? Question: If I had followed Pats1 around what would you have done? If I had gone to an article I had never been to and just wrecked it? What if he asked me to stop editing until a consesnus is reached and I treatended to block him? What if I ignored the consensus building going on at the Jack Younbglood page? You would have jumped down my throat, right? Why didn't you act then? Why did you take sides? I made a mistake, I don't deny it and I won't lie about it yet Pats1 did all the things I say he did and lies about it and you accept that. Open your mind a bit, if what has heppend to me happened to you, you fight for fairness too, and if that means asking for admins who are uninvloved then you would. Everyone likes to think they are fair, they liketo think they don't make mistakes. Well, you are capable of making mistakes. You have made one here. You have backed tyranny over fairness because you don't like me. Wiki is not supposed to be tryanny. It is supposed to be open, all are to be welcome. Well, all except me because I stand up to bullies who think they [WP:OWN]] the NFL project. Try denying that.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to respond to these but found that I would only be repeating things I've said to you several times in the recent past. Your communication style is simply not befitting a wiki. Your long monologues are almost impossible to respond to without writing half a novel. Anyone that disagrees with you - which is almost everyone I've come across lately - is simply following orders from Pats1 and part of some grand personal conspiracy against you. This is a persecution complex like I've rarely seen here (you even used the word "persecute" on the Chris Long talk page!). It's histrionics, plain and simple, rife with propaganda words/phrases like worship, destroyed, persecute, bandwagon, mob, veiled threat, subverts, tyranny, ... It's so much easier to claim that everyone is out to get you than to admit that you're hopelessly in a minority on a particular issue. Hopefully you can muster the courage to do the latter. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) Furstration often causes the need to be clear. However, this is simple, where does it say wikipedia is majority rules? Answer this simple question without calling me names, please. IS WIKIPEDIA A DEMOCRACY? Yes or no? A one word answer will suffice72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(2) How can I be in a minority and a NEW subject? A Chris Long speech? Is a 1-1 decision put me in the minority? Your bias is really showing. You've made a character judgement and you won't look at the facts and the rules, it seems to me. You'd rather marginalize me rather than deal with the facts as they are. no?72.0.36.36 (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much the same answer as before. I'm not responding to histrionics or upper-case yelling. I'm also not going to repeat myself. Calm down and have a sensible discussion without accusations of personal bias (which is ridiculous since I don't even know you except for your behavior here) and I'll be happy to oblige. But I really need some indication that you're even listening to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here is your indication that I am listening. There are a few people who don't like "my edits". In that case I am in the minority. Now, I have admitted that. You, enigman, chrisjnelson, Pats1 and a couple of others "don't like my edits". Okay. Now, without capital letter "yelling" I ask, "Is wikipedia a democracy?"72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that you agree that wiki is not a democracy? or have you not had time to answer, I don't want to put words in your mouth or anything . . . but it's been a couple of hours, usually you respond quickly. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What is wikipedia? Well, it's a community. It's not a crazy den of pigs. Or is it? Baseball Bugs

^{What's up, Doc?} 00:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Does a community respect the views of a minority? Does a community respect the contributions of those who are not registers? Are there "levels" of this community that stake out a claim and hold that "turf" as their own? Does a community utrn on an outsider and pummel him and his dissenting views? Should a community reach out and say to owns own (Pats1) "hey, back off, let something of the IP stand". Did this community the 5 or 6 of the so-called "majority" participate in the WP:CONSENSUS process by compromising? Did the IP do any compromising if his own? These are some ofthe questions that need to be asked and answer. My definition of crazy pigs would include abuses of power, but that's just my opinion.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The ridiculous accusations and histrionics are getting quite tiring. I'm sick of getting smeared because I don't happen to agree with this IP, who seems to think that his opinion is the only one that should matter. Consensus? Nay. Seems he wants to be appointed ruler over the encyclopedia. Enigma ^message 04:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you are upset, walk away. I do not want to be the rule over the eencyclopedia. I want to be able to contribute without harassment. You do not understand consensus they way you ar using it. WP:CONSENSUS requires parties to comprimise. I have compromised. I am trying to consensus build in a difficult situation. If you don't want to help then take a break from Chris Long.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Manually archiving

I noted that you manually archived the ANI submitted by Treasury Tag against myself. Contained with that was a request to range block an IP address. Was that acted upon? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. You have an RFCU active though, no? Feel free to unarchive - it's just ANI was getting so huge I could barely open it! —Wknight94 (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would have been better to archive (or hide) the initial TT part of it, leaving the remainder open. By archiving it, you inadvertently closed the reporting of an anon IP troll. It would be rather pointless to un-archive it, and might even be seen as disruptive. Perhaps a little more thought should enter into the equation in the future, no? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Harmon Killebrew

If I had known you were going to put a "fact" tag on Killebrew Drive, I would have taken a picture of it today. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just did those as a sort of "to-do" marker - not questioning verifiability. Actually a picture of that street sign would be pretty cool IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The best signs are on the expressway, but it's kind of risky to take pictures while driving. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I was an early bird today, and got one. What do you think? Too bad it's under construction. There are two seasons here, you know: Winter and Construction. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

MOA and Killebrew Drive

Looks good! That will look nice in the article. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I took it early this morning, and the highly-reflective nature of the street signs make them seem to "glow" a bit, in contrast to the building. That seems like a fitting touch. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

sheepnacidadegrande

He's at it again. He just blanked out portions of the Jordin Sparks article. I think he should be blocked again. --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 14:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I don't know what's going on there now. Is that Hot 100 Brasil thing even real? I almost want to take it to AFD to find out. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Woops, already been done - a month ago. This doesn't bode well. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Subpaging the Betacommand thread

Can I ask where you found consensus to subpage the thread? Kelly is right, subpaging tends to kill converstations, and shouldn't be done without consensus, something which I can't find, but must clearly have existed 'else you wouldn't have done it. _TalkIslander 15:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Kelly said the whole thread should be archived. Regardless, that section was quickly headed towards 100 KB and needed to be subpaged. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware what Kelly said, just as I'm sure that you're aware that myself and another editor quickly disputed that. I still feel that you shouldn't have subpaged without consensus. Regardless, quicker than a yo-yo can complete one cycle, BC has yet again been blocked. I'm all for his blocking, but I have to say, block-unblock-block-unblock-block is a bit much... _TalkIslander 16:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Killebrew continued

Complicating matters is that the Street and Smith Baseball Yearbook claims that Boog Powell hit one 508 feet at Baltimore, into the hedgerow. As far as Detroit is concerned, one source is the book The Corner by the Detroit Free Press, 1999. They have a list of the rooftop homers to both left and right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This source, on MLB.com, though it might be a blog, anyway discusses the Powell HR. I found other internet references also. [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Note they say it went 469 on the fly and rolled to a stop at 508 feet. Hardly the same thing. So the Killebrew homer still stands, if its 471 measurement is correct. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That same Street and Smith showed Killebrew hitting a 480 footer way beyond left at K.C. Municipal Stadium. That ties another 480 footer to right, by Mickey Mantle. If the distances are true, Mantle's is the greater feat (pardon the pun) because it was uphill to the street it landed on, whereas Killebrew's hit would have been pretty much flat ground all the way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Range block

Then I am at a loss for how to address the anon's repeated attacks - attacks which I should not have to endure. Perhaps a specific indef block, aimed at the user would address the issue. That way, if the user returns under a new anon IP, they can be blocked, using the SSP rules and the AN/I discussion as reasoning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Scene fashion = Scene kids?

I just put WP:CSD#G4 on Scene fashion — I was going to nominate for AfD it then noticed that Scene kids has been salted and you were the last sysop to touch it. I don't have access to see if it was substantially the same, but I can't see how the new one could be better. I'm mentioning it in case you feel Scene fashion should get salted too. --Closeapple (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Similar subject but different article. This one actually has sources - or at least external links... —Wknight94 (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were going to be fair

I never demanded anything of anyone. I am not in a position to demand anyhting. I never demanded that anyone not edit Chris Long. I suggested they leave. It is funny people make fun of by English skills but few here can understand the literal meanings of words. I asked that you me fair. I didn't demand it. I asked that the rules be applied to everyone. I didn't demand it. I would think you could choose your words a bit more carefully in a heated topic. Instead, you throw falmes on the fire. Why? Why is that needed? You have the ability to type words that are less imflamatory and more WP:CIVIL. I would ask, not demand, that you do so in the future. If you are not able to contain yourself I would ask you go elsewhere until you can be civil. It is your duty to lessen the impact and you chose to go the other way. Demand and ask are not synonyms. Consensus and democracy are not synonyms either. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally reducing the impact

These suggestions may help you maintain civility in the face of difficulties. Use common sense and personal preferences to choose an appropriate option, or create a solution that better suits the specific situation you find yourself in.

• Balance criticisms by providing constructive comments.
• If possible forget about offensive comments without replying, and forgive the editor. Do not escalate the conflict.
• Alternatively, respond to perceived incivility with greater civility and respect. Many editors will then moderate their tone to match yours.
• Please. Thank you. I'm sorry. You're welcome. You're a good person and I know we'll work this out. Treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project.

* Walk away. Wikipedia is a very big place. Just go edit somewhere else for a while and return when tempers have cooled.

• You do not have to like an editor as a person to appreciate that they are also working for the good of the project. If you do not like a fellow editor, try not to hold that fact against them.

02:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I've seen your tactics too many times. When you're in the minority, you lawyer and lawyer, you claim bias and incivility, then when someone comes along and points out the flaws in your logic and you fall further into the minority, you move the discussion to another venue as though the previous discussions never happened. You can stop with the propaganda above - that doesn't work with me. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so you are not going to be fair? Fine. Your dslike for my "tactics" prevent it? It seems, and I could be wrong, that when you are caught you shut down the conversation. No? I came here because you made remarks that were not helpful. You can engage or not, but I think you need to read those things, they are not propoganda, they are from a wiki-page and they are good advice for everyone even you.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So, if it bugs you you should find a better way to put things. I will repond whne attacked and my reponses will point out the flaws in yours or anyones' logic. So far, all I have heard about ym edits is "no one agrees with you" and "I don't like it". That is just not enough.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not going to be fair? Who said that? Sounds like straw man argument to me. Another common tactic of the vocal minority. I don't need you to quote and copy pages for me so please stop. In fact, I don't think anyone likes that. And if you seriously think that "no one agrees with you" is not enough, then there's not much I can say to that. This is a community and we need to work together. Saying you don't care about "no one agrees with you" does not bode well for you. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Here you and I agree. This is a community. We do need to work together. Again, let's be clear. I didn't say I "didn't care" I said I reject the premise that WIKI is a democracy. That is why I started the consensus building, that way those who really care about the article can have input and those who dislike me will be weeded out.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. You don't get to weed out those that don't like you either. That's too easy. Turn every issue into a long drawn-out mess across multiple pages, ignoring the fact that you're all alone, taking up everyone's valuable time, effectively pissing everyone off - and then try to claim their opinion is invalid because they don't like you?! Who's really being unfair here? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the power to weed anyone out only that those who have real issues stay and I suggest that if this is a waste of time, then don't bother with it. That is the suggested route of wikipedia and it makes sense. If you want to consensus build, then let's do that. If not, you don't have to. It is as simply as that. In this community all have a voice. All. Not just a few. And majority does not rule as in a democracy.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The 64 dollar question remains, why is 2X.0.X.X so obsessed with this one player? Was he a high school buddy or something? P.S. I've got past friends who actually have wikipedia articles about themselves. But I don't edit them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to be able to edit any article I want to without undue, UNDUE, hurdles. I view what some admins and editors have done is throw up roadblocks that only apply to articles I edit. I know you can understand that.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Edie Bukewihge

Can you take a glance at Edie Bukewihge? The article creator seems to have a conflict of interest and continues to sign the article even after being told repeatedly not to. -WarthogDemon 03:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Hate makes you strong"? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Whaaaaaa? -WarthogDemon 03:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You said you hate it when you forget question marks. I think it was either the Emperor or Darth Vader that said hate makes you strong. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like a good WP:AFD candidate. It was already deleted per WP:PROD but those are not binding. I guess an entry at WP:COIN is needed as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll be a tadd lazy and just AFD it. :P -WarthogDemon 03:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll watch for the article. One question though - is this a notable figure? How many votes did she get in any of the elections? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Harumph! Harumph!

I think I deserve some points for showing some restraint (for once) and not posting that into the "pugs" thread on WP:ANI. I stashed it as a comment, though, in case I change my mind. 0:) I should really stay away from ANI. Some of the stuff in there is too funny not to comment on. If that sinks my adminship chances, so be it. (Get it? "sinks"? admin"ship"?) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

More on Killebrew

I have to wonder, at this point, what Killebrew's status is in the LDS Church. Seems like a lot of those glowing praises were from years ago. If the hero has feet of clay, maybe their view is a little more tempered now. Although didn't Marie Osmond get a divorce also, and is she still in the relatively good graces of the Mormon church? I have to wonder, though, whether Killebrew's comment about washing dishes was just a cover story - like when Sammy Sosa said his incredible strength came from Flintstone Vitamins. Yeh, that could be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you notice my hesitation to add any of that to the article itself. I like to be extra careful in WP:BLP situations. The whole adultery thing could have been tabloid nonsense during a nasty divorce, who knows. But the son robbing a bank was in the NY Times so I'll probably add that in. Also, I don't know what the Mormon stance on divorce was. I know Catholic churches are strict about that - a relative of mine couldn't get remarried in a Catholic church - but others may be less strict. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There are always "special circumstances" to get around the theoretically strict rules. The thing about his son sounds vaguely familiar, but I don't know about the rest of it. It could be argued as to whether his son having done something bad belongs in Harmon's article. But I suspect that's fairly common. What could be more telling or useful is whether Harmon himself had anything to say about it for the public record. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The only reason it hit the NY Times is because of his last name. Interesting if he actually does own a brewery now. Most bank robbers go away for a very very long time! —Wknight94 (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And Mormons don't own breweries, either, so either the son is no longer a Mormon, or never was one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Killebrew sources?

Somewhere I've got a Twins program from a few years ago that had a cover-story interview with Harmon Killebrew. Would that be a valid source, or would a game program's here-today-gone-tomorrow nature raise questions about it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I have no idea really. I suppose it would have to be valid to source something he said - it might be the only place it's reported. Other info in it I imagine would be reported elsewhere as well - referencing somewhere else would probably be preferable. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how long this will be for sale, but someone has a few on e-bay. And it also tells me where to look for my copy: August 1999. [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew it was a three-part header of some kind: "Home runs, records, and baseball's all-century team." This is also the older standard-magazine-size program, before they shrunk it down to about the size of Reader's Digest. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing really expository in terms of this article. Kind of amusing, in summer 1999, before anything was being said much about steroids. It all seemed so innocent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

non-free image uploader - going heck bent for leather :)

A new user has been uploading fair use images [3]. I added some to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 July 8, but he's deleted the notices from the articles and images themselves. Maybe this could be moved up the chain, b/c he shows no signs of stopping. Yeah, me, passing the buck, doncha know. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning of sorts. Let's watch and wait. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Danke. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Fajita1/User:Fajita2

Thanks for blocking this user, I dont see what other possible outcome if you had not have done. Once again thanks, yours. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Of course, be on the lookout for more. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Now you have blocked both of these, is it right to assume that he can never create an account again? Or something of the sort? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not true. He'll probably be unable to create an account for as long as the WP:AUTOBLOCK is in place but that's about it. If this persists, you could file a WP:RFCU report to see if the underlying IP address is safe to snip. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

He might turn up again. I'll leave that check user thing until he does though. Yours, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

C on a C

It fits the Grawp pattern -- strange username, minor vandalism reversion until the account is autoconfirmed. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

...for protecting all those templates. If you know a bot operator, perhaps having someone scour Special:MostLinkedTemplates for heavily-used templates that aren't currently full protected would be a good idea? — Scientizzle 21:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah maybe. I haven't written any bots here but I'm sure someone could do that pretty quickly. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't agree with this at all. For editors who work heavily in templatespace to either be restricted to marginal templates or to have to go begging people to make edits for them all the time discourages people from working in templatespace at all, and it's not exactly an area overburdened with editors already. I could understand if the templates in question were actively being harmed by edit wars, but just blanket-protecting any template with lots of transclusions hurts more than it helps IMO. Was there a policy decision made at some point which said that it were always acceptable to preemptively protect any template with lots of transclusions? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

See the policy section WP:PROT#Permanent protection. Go to Encyclopedia Dramatica and planning mass-vandalism template attacks are a frequent topic of conversation. The result is WP:ANI#Template vandalism, WP:HD#Vandalism on Gregory Peck?, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#How disappointing..., and http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v120/joshmaul-001/avriltroll-strikes.jpg. And that was all caused by about four template edits just yesterday. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy says "may". Interpreting this as carte blanche to fully protect all templates over a certain threshold of transclusion seems to be something which should be discussed further. You've fully-protected over 20 templates in the last 24 hours, including things like {{intro-tooshort}} (less than a thousand transclusions), {{last.fm}} and {{French literature (small)}} (less than 500 transclusions respectively), all preemptively and without history of abuse. If 500 transclusions is taken to be a threshold for full protection on a project with two and a half million articles then templatespace is going to become largely unmaintained because of the difficulty in contributing to it. It strikes me as a little like banning people from taking bottles onto aeroplanes in terms of the inconvenience/security ratio. Are you open to unprotecting some of these? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(typically, as I was writing this comment, some of my recent work was hit by user:Ability and agility doing exactly this. But the point stands that there must be better ways of countering this than to fence off most of templatespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

If you can think of a better way, I'm all for it. Maybe suggest a new role that is allowed to write into protected templates (similar to the separate rollbacker role)? I'm fine with temporarily unprotecting one if you have plans to actively work on it but it would be preferable if you could make a temporary copy of whatever template you want to alter, test it on an article and then have an administrator move it over the top of the existing high-risk template. This is clearly a coordinated vandalism effort that has been discussed at ED for quite some time. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, the proposal for role-based access is years old and I don't think it'll happen any time soon. And yeah, sandbox-based testing is always important for high-vis templates, but there's a difference between something being a good idea and it being mandatory.

As for the ED people, the whole point is that they thrive on drama and WP being forced to change for them. The less attention that is paid to them the less impact they'll have. That's why I was very pleased that the petulant decision to salt the ED article as a sort of hangover of BADSITES was reversed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, to your original point, you need to weigh risk vs. reward. The reward to not protecting them is that the very rare case when someone such as yourself needs to edit one, it's a slightly bigger pain in the ass. Sandboxing - which, as you said, you should be doing anyway - and then getting an admin to make it live. An extra what? 10 minutes? Less? The risk OTOH is that thousands and thousands of people see giant red letters saying assinine things (or huge pictures of penises or abortions or whatever) across a multitude of our pages, and not for a few seconds or minutes, but for as long as it takes them to figure out how to clear their browser cache! And the whole project looks like a rinky dink nonsense site to all those people. To me, that's an easy call. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The "very rare case"? I've got 1500 templatespace edits under my belt, with only ten or so templates having 10+ edits. Work out how many multiples of 10 minutes that would be, even discounting that editprotected requests aren't universally as quick and painless as all that.

Again, the point here is that if this is going to continue then it needs discussed properly. I don't consider the current wording of the protection policy to be a blanket endorsement of preemptive protection of untargeted templates, especially those with limited transclusions. Full protection doesn't inconvenience admins at all, but it's an extreme inconvenience to that set of Wikipedia's contributors who are neither admins nor vandals. Locking down the whole namespace to temporarily prevent the Grawps of this world from disrupting it shouldn't be done lightly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Bot_requests#High-risk_templates. Chris, I understand your POV, and perhaps a more general discussion should take place. I think protection for very highly-transcluded templates isn't unreasonable, given the damage these idiots can do. Wider input may come up with a better solution... — Scientizzle 15:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that full protection is sensible for the project's most visible and targeted templates. But IMO this shouldn't be applied preemptively and indiscriminately, and if the process were ever to be automated we'd have to ensure that those most heavily impacted by such changes (non-admins who do lots of templatespace work) had the chance to give input. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry, I was typing this earlier and got interrupted...) Doing a random scan of the ones I protected most recently, only one of them had more than a few edits per year on average. Several of them were also redirects to templates - I think many don't realize that those are equally dangerous targets for mass vandalism and some of them were moved templates, in which case the move source does not keep the protection. Like I said, I don't have a problem with unprotecting one for a time but, until something better is invented, pre-emptive protection is the only good alternative. Anything else is allowing people to vandalize hundreds of articles at a time and would be irresponsible of us, esp. given the recent attacks. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of a fully-automated system, either...I think the bots are useful to highlight highly-linked templates that should be checked for potential protection. That last human step allows common sense and clearer accountability to allow, hopefully, a cleaner process. Pre-emptive I'm okay with, and I think it can done very sensibly. Incidentally, Chris, if you ever need to edit a protected template and don't want to mess w/ editprotected, just let me know & I'll help. — Scientizzle 17:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Maybe the editprotected system is a bit broken. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to butt in, I'm a newbie and I don't know where the appropriate place to report is. Avriltroll hit Richard Morgan (author), too, and I couldn't dig down myself to root it out. Found you while looking at the history to Infobox Writer. -Saraid (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Twins

I'm watching the rerun of today's Twins disaster in Boston to see what specifically transpired in that 7th inning. I caught part of a cute ad featuring Delmon Young, as a neophyte seeking hitting advice from a trio of Twins icons dressed in robes like Lamas. Harmon is one, I missed who the second one was; the one in front was Tony Oliva, who did the talking, in his Hispanic accent, of course, and this was his advice: "See ball. Hit ball." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, cute! I kinda ran out of steam on the Killebrew article. But there's no time limit, right? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Except on items with fact tags, apparently. :\ The Twins nearly got a triple play called in the 7th, but it was rightly ruled a trap, and the Bosox ended up with 7 runs. Gardy was ejected, and he was right to be frosted, only because the umps missed a fan interference call earlier in the game. You've got fans leaning over the Monster to grab baseballs. I wonder if a drunken fan falling 37 feet would feel much pain. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For for this [4] and this [5]. But just a head's up, you protected the redirect by accident; {{African American topics}} is where the action is. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually there were enough transclusions of the redirect that it needed to be protected too. But now that you mention it, I've upgraded the protection on the template itself as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it was the redirect (d'oh!), but it's all good now. Thx. --Tombstone (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Kenshukai Karate

Why was this page deleted? It seems quite noteworthy.--Duamutef (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#55-gallon_drum

Wknight94. Please read my response. This “44-gallon/55-gallon” issue has been debated for years. Further, that article existed for a month and the edits I made today were trivial. How can there possibly be harm in allowing the article to "exist” while this is debated further? Greg L (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We need more separate articles on objects that are identical but have different names. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

55-Gallon Drum

Hello. Can you undo your redirect, and recreate the 55-Gallon Drum article? I think you may have not understood the fact that a 55-Gallon Drum is different, and is certainly a type of drum in America. I'd appreciate your prompt action. Thank you, Beam 01:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Are they physically different? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Beam 02:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

How about writing an article in your userspace where there is more of a difference than just 44 vs. 55? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's enough of a difference. Heck, rape the 44 gallon article and create a stub for the 55. Beam 03:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Enough difference for now. Please create the stub. Beam 03:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What the hell does "rape the 44 gallon article" mean? I just a did a diff between the last 55 article and the 44 article at the time and proved that you're wasting my time. Now shoo. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Shoo? By "rape" I meant borrow enough for a stub. A generic intro like "55-Gallon Drum is the name for a standard barrel used to transport a variety of goods" to be used in a stub. Now what are you talking about regarding the last articles? Also, I insist you assume good faith. Please. Beam 03:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Get consensus at Talk:44-gallon drum. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This is getting close to the level of the "The CW" dispute. You're right, they need to roll on over to that page and try to drum up some support. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's rediculous and honestly bordering on stupid. Why would i need to get consensus at "44-Gallon Drum" to make an article about "55-Gallon Drum"??? Would I need to get consensus at the Ford article to make a Chevy article? Consensus from tennis shoes to do walking shoes? If you won't revert your moves, than that's fine. I tried to use some Wiki etiquette and offer you to revert them yourself. But now you seem to be... well not really insulting but, brushing me aside? Meh, nothing personal, right? You just hate me! ;) Beam 04:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Are they, in fact, physically different? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

Yeah, looks like I somehow missed actually reducing that image. I guess I must have accidentally closed that window before saving or something when I was reducing a batch. I don't have time to go fix that right now, but I've bookmarked it so I can go fix it later today or tomorrow. Thanks for pointing that out to me! --Icarus ^(Hi!) 16:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Grace 1 Kurtis 5 (2001)

Hey, I see that you declined the speedy deletion of Grace 1 Kurtis 5 (2001), which redirects to Germany 1–5 England (2001), on the grounds that it wasn't recently created. You're quite right that it wasn't and I only tagged it as R3 because it was closer to R3 than to R1 and R2. The page would basically appear to be vandalism, created by a user called Kurtis as a joke. It's certainly an implausible misnomer; indeed it's unimaginable that someone would enter it in the hope of finding the article in question. As vandalism, I assumed there'd be some way of speedy deleting it but, as it doesn't meet the "recent" criterion of R3, maybe there's another way of getting rid of it without going through RfD? — Lincolnite (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that what happened? It was hard to tell. The history was confusing. It was created as a joke you think? And then moved to a non-joke title? But then that one was turned into a legitimate redirect? Very odd. Let me take another look. Sounds like it needs to be deleted as good old fashioned WP:CSD#G3. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with your assessment. It's gone. Thanks for your persistence. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

GuitarCase

Hi!

Do you think you'd be willing to protect this page from future recreations due to the fact that it's been recreated 3 times in the last week?

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's give it one more shot. Author has written another article so I don't want to discourage a good-faith newbie too much. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Thanks for the help!

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Expiring protection

I gathered as much. :) Thanks for the heads-up. Happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Eat My Faeces

I saw your name as someone who blocks people in WP:UAA. There is a user named Eat My Faeces. This person is not blocked. This person has edited, but not in a long time. Should this person be warned (and probably not see the warning) and blocked? If not, is there an exemption for improper names as long as nobody caught for a long time? Chergles (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the rules would be but I don't usually see a point in blocking old silly names. If you look through the list of usernames, you could find hundreds (or maybe thousands?) of inappropriate names over the years. If they haven't edited by now, it's unlikely they ever will. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for clearing vandalism. However the anon is very persistent so I think the vandal would appear on the article again sooner or later. Anyway, I appreciate your help. --Caspian blue (talk)

Notifying blocked user

Hi, I notice you blocked User:99.241.149.152 recently. Thanks for your swift action, you performed it before I was able to report it to WP:AIV. However, I notice you didn't notify the user on their talk page of the block. Was that intentional? I know the blocking policy says one doesn't have to notify the user if there's a good reason not to, but I am ignorant as to what those reasons might be. I'm just curious. -kotra (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Same vandalism as last block. He knows he was blocked and he knows why. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You told him afterwards? Beam 03:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If he tried to vandalize his 12th consecutive user page, the system would have told him he was blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that it's probably still a good idea to notify them, but it's no big deal. -kotra (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he'll file a nice, civil request for unblock. He has much to contribute to wikipedia. And if you believe that, I've got a slightly used bridge to sell you. Some assembly required. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Giving the blocked user a chance to contest the block isn't the only reason for notification, or even the main one. It's just tactful to notify a blocked person of their block, particularly if they are an IP address that may be shared with someone else. I'm not making it up that blocked users should normally be notified, either. It's policy. -kotra (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The possibility of a legitimate user happening to get onto that IP is the only reason in this case. The vandal is a jerk who doesn't deserve any courtesy. And dat's da twuth. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of those who are blocked are just as much "jerks", yet the policy still stands. But like I said, this one case isn't a big deal, I basically just wanted to find out the reasoning behind the lack of notification. Back to work for me. -kotra (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

When they're blocked the second time for doing the same thing they got blocked for the first time, they have forfeited any assumption of good faith and any deserving of courtesy. I'm sure the admin enjoys my making his arguments for him. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is what I was trying to explain in my first response. He was doing the exact same vandalism as before. So kotra's argument that the IP is shared is not correct. Userpage vandalism is especially egregious since they are doing nothing other than attacking other users. So of course they are blocked. And the reason - and recourse - for the block is the same as the last time. That would be like telling User:Grawp that he has been blocked and explaining the unblock procedure to him every time one of his socks moves fifty pages to X sucks Grawp's so-and-so. For vandalism that is so blatant and repeated, he already knows the drill. Leaving another block message is just wasted energy. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Wkinght94, from Googie Man

I hope all goes well with you at Wikipedia, and you're as always, enjoying the world's greatest sport. To answer your question, yes, I am the one who left a nasty message on a user's page whose name now escapes me. Why did I do it? He took off the picture of Bobby Abreu that I took, looks like he tried to replace it with a copyrighted photo, and the Abreu article went for a few weeks without an image. Now I don't mean this as anything personal against you, as I've respected you and your work for years, and you've been nothing but nice to me. But, what I don't get is this: I can't tell you how many times I've had to re-introduce legititmate images that have been taken down by people who upload stolen images, or images of lesser quality. This detracts from the quality of articles, and frankly, I think people who detract from the quality of articles should'nt be allowed to edit. What I don't get is that whenever I pop-off at someone for doing this, I get busted immediately, yet no one replaced the Abreu image, or scores of others that are taken down. Furthermore, the guy who did this is just another red link - someone who doesn't even bother to fill out a user page. It's all a matter of common sense and etiquette - it's not the best analogy, but you just don't go to MySpace or Facebook and start putting useless garbage on other people's pages. Same goes for Wikipedia - you just don't go around making articles worse, that legitmate volunteers have worked for years to constantly improve. So, I take it upon myself to discourage users who don't add to the site. And yes, I've been blocked permanently from editing Wikipedia, but look what happened to the guy who was the ultimate reason for my block. If I'm a jerk, I'm a jerk towards people who deserve it, and these two most abundantly deserved it. Anyway, sorry this is so long winded. I miss the old days of Wikipedia, when baseball articles were buried on the 10th page of Google results. The quality of the overall work was much better. Take care, and I'll try not to cause you anymore trouble. The former editor Googie Man.65.34.60.77 (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wknight94, thanks for your response, and thanks again for your willingness to stick up for me. I'm not quite ready to beg forgiveness to the powers-that-be, but if/when I am, I'll let you know. Trust me, if this happens I'll tone it down. Keep up the great work! Best, Googie Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.60.77 (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI...

..What that IP address said to you sounds like something I would say. 'Tweren't me, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Creole wiki markup deleted

Not sure if this is the right place to ask - but: It looks lige Wknight94 deleted the creole(markup) page. I disagree with the reasons. I have noticed a somewhat rise in interest, and I personally find creole to be an exiting endavour. As for 3-party references theres is ca. 13 wikis that currently offer creole support (BoltWire, DokuWiki, JSPWiki, MoinMoin, Oddmuse, PmWiki, PodWiki, ScribbleWiki, Socialtext, TiddlyWiki, Wicked, Wikia and yawiki - according to wikimatrix.org). Therefore I kindly ask that you reconsider the deletion. Achristoffersen (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creole (markup). The main concern was that there were no third-party references. If you can find some of those, let me know and I'll undelete. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball Newsletter

The Baseball WikiProject Newsletter Issue I – July 2008

"A home opener is always exciting, no matter if it's home or on the road." - Yogi Berra News and announcements Welcome to the first Baseball WikiProject Newsletter, dated Tuesday, July 15, 2008. The Article Improvement Drive has been revived. Check it out! The Outreach department is in the works, please contribute your ideas! Featured content In the past month, WikiProject Baseball has had the following articles promoted to Featured Article status: Art Houtteman 1926 World Series St. Louis Cardinals seasons Philadelphia Phillies seasons List of Major League Baseball players from Puerto Rico This month's newsletter was designed and written by Wizardman, jj137, and Blackngold29. If you would like to contribute to future newsletters, please contact the Baseball WP outreach dept.

News from the diamond The 79th MLB All-star Game is scheduled for this evening. The 2008 Home Run Derby took place yesterday. Justin Morneau defeated Josh Hamilton in the final round, 5 home runs to 3, although Hamilton broke a record with 28 home runs hit in the first round. From the Editors Baseball has a history unlike any other sport. It has been played in countless countries throughout the decades, and it will undoubtedly continue play for many more. On this eve, some the finest players the sport has to offer will take the field at the Yankee Stadium. Four popes spoke there, Pelé scored goals there, "The Greatest [football] Game Ever Played" was battled out there, John Philip Sousa lead a band there, George Costanza worked there; but what do all these events have in common? They fail to reach the level of greatness that the baseball that was played there did. In 1923, a man named Babe Ruth decided to build a new house, and over the years, that house was a home to some of the greatest baseball ever played. If I were to list out all of these great moments, it would be longer than the bill for the New Yankee Stadium. So I'll sum it up by saying that we can remember these great moments by adding them to this place we've gathered at for future generations to read about, to learn about, to dream about; but more importantly we can watch tonight and we can remember how baseball is unlike anything else that we will encounter in our lives. — Blackngold29

--  jj137 (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply

No, I meant Cy Young because I plan to improve it to GA, and I would like vandals to be unable to edit it for the week that I work on. It gets to be annoying. However, I can understand if it doesn't pass for protection.--LAAFan 17:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

151.67 - poss range block

Hi Wknight, this is this morning's collection of edits by PIO [6]. A fairly typical sample, and obvious disruption, in my view. Regarding yesterday's discussion at AN, do you think it's worth a range block of his IP range, or would that not be appropriate? Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Looks like I wasn't the first to use that range. —Wknight94 (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Hopefully he'll go and find another hobby now. Much obliged, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK

Agreed not to conduct any disturbtion again, however I will not let wikipedia to become a tool for propoganda, so I prefer to prepare a series of documents agains MSJapan's activity. Thanks anyway. (cantikadam (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

Actually I contribute but the contribution is not a direct text edition, it is more like this. So passive contribution is a way. But I will start also text editing in future. (cantikadam (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

Care to check. [[7]]. (cantikadam (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

on the top you say the post be answered but my last 2 posts have not been answered yet. (cantikadam (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

Socks

I saw you created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fumer tue. There is a current RFCU running here, so I went ahead and added your suspects. Just an FYI. KnightLago (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I only added the one IP to that category. The rest were already there before I blue-linked it. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability standards for boxing

Hi, basically the notability for boxers is set at WP:ATHLETE. Although they may not be "well known", I've been through the pages you listed and they have all competeted in professional bouts - so they pass notability. However, those articles are in a serious need of a wiki-clean-up.

As for amateur boxers, they usually meet notability if they've competed in Olympics or some sort of major international competition.

Hope this helps. --Jimbo^[online]

Liebman - thanks for fixing

He's a funny guy. He should be on TV or something. If you hadn't deleted that nonsense from Ebyabe's talk page, I was going to add this, "inspired" by John Fogerty: "It ain't me / It ain't me / I ain't no sockpuppet, son, no, no ..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. Like he thought I'd be fooled by it. Or fool you with another one of his vandalism report requests. I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but Ron's worn that out ages ago. The child is seriously demented. I mean, at least he's stopped with the mega-vandalism, but I wish he'd take the next step and really go away forever. Oh, cheers. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected request

Hi,

I've merged the largely overlapping {{infobox computer}} and {{infobox Information appliance}}, but can't complete the merge because {{infobox computer}} is locked. Can you either redirect it to {{infobox Information appliance}} or move that template over {{infobox computer}}? (I think the latter is the better option.) I'll fix the documentation myself afterwards, seeing as it needs rewritten. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I downgraded protection on {{infobox computer}} so you can do what you'd like. When you're done, let me know so I can re-protect. (That template in particular was vandalized in a way that crashes people's browsers!) —Wknight94 (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected it; I'll discuss moving the template back to the simpler title on the talk page. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've re-protected {{infobox computer}} and now I've fully protected {{infobox Information appliance}} since it now has all of the transclusions. I can swap the names too if that's the consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll put it out there for a few days to see if there's any opposition. These templates are curiously unwatched (I've merged three different templates in the last few days, with a total of six comment threads on the lot) so I don't imagine there will be much discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Fumer

Well, before going back to CU I would like to have a list of names that have appeared since the two IPs were blocked. As you find them could you add them to User:KnightLago/Admin under the Socks 1 section? Once we have a bunch I will file another request. In the last CU they said they blocked an IP where most of the recent vandalism had come from. So I guess our next step would be try and get a range block. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Same old, same old....

Remember him (or her or it, for that matter)???? I think he's asking for another of your nice blocks. Thanks Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} 05:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

user:rollosmokes again?

Of the three Special:Contributions/Black Waves edits, it looks like most are repeating a known Rollosmokes pattern: repeated reversions to TV station articles (such as the removal of DTV-related information), with a couple of the edits in question [8] [9] not only hitting the same articles Rollo had been editing before being blocked but primarily restoring changes he'd previously made under his original userID. The last edit as User:Rollosmokes is July 19, the first as User:Black Waves is July 20, resuming part of the same edit pattern on the same articles. It may be a good idea to keep an eye out for more socks; whether two that match will appear should come out in the wash soon enough. :) --66.102.80.212 (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree but, like you said, let's keep a look out for more edits from this account or for more accounts. I'm not familiar enough with his editing pattern or I might have blocked Black Waves already. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

IP 66... has posted on the accounts of several users who are familiar with this guy's editing pattern, so we'll have several knowing eyes watching it. Of course, he's pretty clever. It's not everyone who can work himself into two indefinite blocks in the space of 8 days. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A cousin of Rollosmokes? That's a good one. At least it's not the old "evil roommate" story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not a cousin so much as an identical twin? This user seems to be editing on a very narrow and systematic pattern, where most of these edits are not additions of content but very narrowly and very specifically-targeted reversions. So far, the primary contribution of User:Black Waves to Wikipedia is to revert:

• WNAC-TV analog 64 digital 54 (UHF) After 2009: 12 (VHF)
• WVUE analog 8 digital 29 (UHF), returning to 8 in 2009
• KCOP-TV analog 13 (VHF) digital 66 (UHF), returning to 13 in 2009

Nothing particularly WP:AIV worthy in its own right, but the insistence that the final channel assignments be moved to the article body is continuation of a pointless two month-old edit war, in which {{Infobox Broadcast}} and (briefly) WP:RFPP were full-protected because of repeated reversions. The incident appears to go back to May 27 here "I differ with you on the subchannel affiliations; as they differ from the main channel, I think they are better off (at least for now) with the mini-table I've inserted into several articles." --Rollosmokes 16:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)". And now, July 20/21, Rollo's "cousin" can find nothing better to do than repeat that one specific narrowly-targeted edit (to move final channel assignments and subchannel assignments out of infoboxes on individual stations). Rather pointless, tempting just to turn off the PC and go see what's on "Channel 50.2, The CW" "50.2/21.2 the CW" "50.2 The CW" that channel no one watches as even fifth-rated network TV can't get less exciting than this. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Black Waves is indefblocked as an admitted sock/meatpuppet. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. And 66...212 raises a funny point. It reminds me of a fake logo for the predecessor The WB that once surfaced. It had a smiling Michigan J. Frog and the Warner Bros. logo and the slogan "Our Shows Suck!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And given that user ID, maybe he was just testing the "waters", to see if the wikipedia admins are dumber than he seems to be. His test failed. Now we'll see what he tries next. It will be looked for with all the anticipation of a show on The CW. Watch for it! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page--Yankees10 18:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Scams

I'm reminded of these two obscurities, which are probably based on jokes a lot older than these guys were:

• Jackie Vernon: "I saw an ad in the paper that said, 'Send me a dollar and I'll tell you how I make money.' I sent a dollar and got a postcard back saying, 'Thanks for the dollar. This is how I make money.'
• Joey Forman as the "Mashuganishi Yogi" is asked where his donations go. He says, "They go to the Temple Treasury, and from there directly to the Lap of Heaven." A reporter asks, "The Lap of Heaven?" The Yogi says, "Yes, that's the name of my Swiss bank!"

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

More Chris Long stuff

The IP user has decided to re-add the content on the speech Long gave about athletic trainers. What is there left that we can do here? Is there some way we can get a vote or take it to a noticeboard, where once there is a decision he is not allowed to re-add the content. Common sense tells me he could never get a majority on its inclusion, because most people will agree it's pretty irrelevant. One worry I have though is that his endless battling will make those who oppose him stop caring, and he shouldn't get his way just because of that.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it, in this case, I say simply keep reverting. He's so far in the minority, it's a joke. You can try WP:ANI if you'd like more eyes on it but it doesn't seem necessary to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think it's a good idea, especially for someone in my case, to get into an edit war. Plus I'd rather not even approach 3RR. It's just a ridiculous situation. He says it's not a democracy, and maybe that's the case, but between the majority and the minority, why exactly would we let the minority's edit stand?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't even be an edit war so much as an edit slaughter. This is an age-old issue here - when one tendentious editor simply won't stand down, no matter what, even if it requires them to spout policy as though it doesn't apply to them. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I will revert once more, since he's threatening to take it to ANI and I'd welcome it. I just don't want to be alone on this, but like I said I worry he will exhaust the people who oppose him.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll help as needed. Consensus is that it doesn't belong. If he takes it to ANI he'll be laughed out of "court". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

He actually took my name to ANI, and all he got was discussion about whether or not he should be blocked and more people at ANI that disagree with him. It's silly.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Try to see the humor in it. Maybe we could pair him up with that guy on Talk:Atlanta Braves :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Claims are still active

The absurt claims are still unanswered. Calling an issue absurt is a subjective opinion, I am giving evidence. So the reliability of Wikipedia is very questionable for me. Higher rank you have righter you are, that is what I have been witnessing here. (cantikadam (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Hey, Wknight94, he's accusing you of absurtidy. How da ya like that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cantikadam, I'm really not interested in your evidence of whatever you think you've found. Just forget it and move on (wow, I'm saying that a lot lately) or you'll probably find yourself blocked again (that also sounds familiar). —Wknight94 (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Every admin should have canned paragraphs he could copy-and-paste for just such situations. Electronic rubber stamps. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I am sick of it...I will let you play in your playgrounds. Voi tutti siete stronzi. (cantikadam (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

Re: ANI archiving

Heh, no problem. :) Google is ticking me off so much though...refusing to load and all...of all the times it doesn't work. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

On a separate note, when you get a chance, I'd appreciate your input on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Article_Probation proposal on the Obama pages, so that it can either be enacted or dismissed soon (and then this bit can be archived :D heh). Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the archiving it btw. ;) I do like the idea of having 1 central board, but if there are more users who are going to be adamant that the bot is the only archiver, I'd certainly support splitting up ANI, without a question. What a mess! Currently, it's sort of manageable...I think :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Back down to 290 000 bytes :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, only 290,000?! LOL. Still three times larger than most of our larger articles. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL...:) well better than only 450 000. :D

On a separate matter, forgive me, for I have sinned. And to make matters worse, I put it in the wrong archive the first time around (466) - later put it back to the right one (456). Would you mind deleting 466? :) Sorry for the trouble!! Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia gods shall smite thee. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

I know the feeling :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for reverting the vandalism again--Yankees10 00:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure again. Got a few friends there, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Felidae nav

Hello, Wknight94! Would you mind lowering the protection to semi on the above template, I am going to be doing some formatting fixes on some of the carnivora templates over the next few days. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Eikenskaden

In your reasons for declining the speedy deletion of this clearly non-notable article, you said the article has been around "for years". The last time I checked the reasons for declining a speedy deletion, it did mention how long an article had been around as being a factor. Please take note of this when making statements like "and article has been here for years" in future edit summaries. I'd also like to note that "romantic black metal" is a music genre which actually doesn't exist, nor does it have its own Wikipedia article, thus dismissing the blatantly false claims of notability, and the reasons for your refusal of speedy deletion. I've used WP:PROD instead, and will AFD the article if someone objects. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Important part of my comment was that notability is asserted. It may not be sufficient to survive but it is definitely asserted. The other part was more of an editorial comment - the slowest "speedy" deletion I've seen. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's more due to the fact that such non-notable acts have fallen under the radar. There are a whole swathe of non-notable metal articles doing the rounds on Wikipedia unfortunately. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt. But ones that have lasted that long tend to be right on the edge of speedy range. I'm one to err on the side of caution when it comes to speedy deletion. AFD doesn't hurt nearly as bad as some folks seem to think. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

An article you might be interested in

I've been working on a major facelift for the John McGraw article, including WP:BOLD-ly moving it to the main McGraw page, and creating a stand-alone disambig page for other people who happen to have had the name. As you did some work on the article a couple of years back, I thought I'd let you know. S. Dean Jameson 18:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• What are you doing at the article? Are you undoing my move, or giving it the official "admin stamp"? (You are an admin, right?)S. Dean Jameson 18:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I merged the history of the two articles (and yes, I am an admin and merging histories is an admin stamp of sorts I suppose!). Wow, that is bold. Maybe too bold. I proposed that move a while ago and was shot down. But I won't tell anyone if you don't!  :) In the future, at least let an administrator know if want to do moves like that, i.e. where the history of the page will be divided. Per GFDL requirements, we need to have every edit of an article living in the history of that one article whenever possible. Your page is all stitched back together now, so enjoy! (If someone does come to me and complain about the move, I'll have to move it back though, and we'll have to go through the proper WP:RM procedure). —Wknight94 (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what to do with such a low-traffic, but (in my opinion, at least), high importance article, so I thought "what the heck" and just did it. In my view, IAR was created for just such a circumstance, wouldn't you say? S. Dean Jameson 18:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm Sergeant Schultz - I...see...nothing!!!!! —Wknight94 (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete:List of emo artists

This should be a G6 maintenance delete to revert the page move of the original article. Why was it declined? --neon white talk 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there some discussion saying it should or shouldn't be moved? Sounds like you're in a content dispute of some kind. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It was actually a disruptive article move with no discussion or consensus to an poor and ambiguous article title (List of artists referred to as emo) in order to create a content fork at the original title which is now merged into the original according to guidelines on content forks. The only thing that needs doing now is to delete the fork in order to revert the move. --neon white talk 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll take your word for it and moved it back - but it looks like a few different people have moved that article around so maybe some discussion is needed. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The other move was to correct the spelling, as the new title was mispelled. I'll encourage the 'mover' to discuss the change on the talk page and gain consensus if he/she feels strongly about it a page move. --neon white talk 19:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy removal

Hello :-). I was wondering if you could tell me why you removed the redundancy speedy here? I was a little confused. Isn't it a lower resolution copy of the image in question, thus making it redundant per CSD I1? Thanks! --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Woops, I think you tricked me!  :) You tagged both versions as I1 redundant versions and I didn't notice they were both copies of a third image so I just deleted one and untagged the other. The smaller is deleted now and the third image is probably going to be deleted as a fair use violation anyway. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideas for baseball articles

Well no, I mean I am willing to learn more about baseball if you have any cool ideas. It actually would probably make it more fresh and interesting for me to write about topic that I don't really know about. So I'm all ears about any of your ideas for baseball articles :) --Jaysweet (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Banning request

You have banned harass account Fiumina [10] . Can you now solve my "new" problem [11]--Rjecina (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

All done. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Next. I am having other 2 possible accounts but they are having only 1 edit so for now I am using good faith policy--Rjecina (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done again. We may need an RFCU to root out the other little sleepers and get to the bottom of this. (One hasn't been done yet, has it?) —Wknight94 (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have started Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PravdaRuss ? If you are having better idea be free to start action. In my thinking checkuser will show proxy servers and ......--Rjecina (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Check has ended with around 20 puppets and 1 great surprise. It is sad to find that old user which has ulmost became administrator is puppeteer. This will be shock for users from ex Yugoslavia. I am happy and sad--Rjecina (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Another request.... His 4 today puppets are banned but he has created 2 new and banning on noticeboard is going very slow (administrator has blocked 4 and in my thinking nobody notice 2 new puppets). This are: user:Decensi and user:CreativePower. On my "demand" first 4 are latter confirmed (after banning) by checkuser Thatcher but I do not want to call him for every new puppet because he will kill me and puppet master :)--Rjecina (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming crazy.... He has created new puppets (see user:Pristine man ). I will ask checkuser Thatcher to block his new IP (he is having IP number)....--Rjecina (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

All blocked and tagged. I also protected a few of the articles. But yes, a checkuser will need to block the underlying IP(s). —Wknight94 (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted newly created user:ContributorPoland because of his revert of Slavonia article to Pax version and his edit of Slovakia article (in my thinking he is Pax puppet). I have not looked other edits but only reverted. Checkuser has looked this new accounts (not last 2) and Pax is using new IP and new provider [12]. Now you can enter our checkuser discussion. I am sure that you will be better in that !

I have earlier given demand for semi-protection of 5 articles attacked by Pax. Can you solve that little problem ?--Rjecina (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

During night I have started new ANI, but nobody of administrators has answered. On other side user:Kubura has put tags on user pages of this suspected puppets. This is link to Kubura edits. IP 62.63.212.xx is not connected with Pax. We are not having new suspected edits (OK maybe 1 but this is another story) so maybe Thatcher block is holding ?--Rjecina (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I need to ask you for 2 protections. Can you please put on banned user:Roremaster tag for Pax puppets (Roremaster is banned puppet of user:Roramaster which is puppet of Pax ) and after that protect user page (Pax is reverting my puppet tag ??)

Can you semi-protect my talk page because of Pax edits [13]. Before creating archive he has edit my page with user Joka account (which is now banned) Thanks --Rjecina (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

New (old) puppet is user:Wederes. I have asked Thatcher check but he is on wiki vaccation. Case is very simple if you look history of articles which he has reverted in 2008.--Rjecina (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mark Corey

That stemmed from [14] where I say a Mark Corey play for three seasons in the early 80s. However, that was the outfielder I had disambiguated earlier, not a pitcher. I've went and fixed it, thanks for catching that. Wizardman 15:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Casey Blake

Can you move Casey Blake (baseball) back to Casey Blake--Yankees10 16:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--Yankees10 19:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Full to semi-protection request

Hi. Request Template:Aafooter is made semi-protected, so, per the discussion here, I may:

1. Rename it "African American topics";
2. update it and its usage notes accordingly.

Hope that's okay. Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

All set. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks -- I now realize, though, that I also meant to ask you to use your admin powers to rename it to "African American topics". (The three pages linking there are all userpages that are already set to handle the change.) Sorry to bother again. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Done again. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks again. All now sorted. Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Baltimore Orioles all-time roster

I just wanted to thank you for picking up the ball on the necessary disambiguating on this page. If I had any clue on how to use bots properly, I might've done it myself -- and if I had any clue on how to give out those Barnstar things, I'd give you one. Darn me for being new and stuff. Dewelar (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh sure. I knew this was in bad shape when I converted it into a table, but I didn't know it was this bad. BTW, I don't know if you could get a bot to do this - I'm having to do a lot of manual investigation with some of these. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread

If you want to archive that top thread now, I won't revert. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I thank you and my computer thanks you. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Worthy of deletion

An example of a ball player who I believe is less worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia is Josh Rabe. He played for the Miracle back in 2002, had a cup of coffee in the major leagues, and is now retired. The book is closed on this guy, and he never made a significant contribution. Why is he still on Wikipedia?

Kelley Gulledge played for the Miracle in 2002, and was the catcher for the New Britain Rock Cats in the first half of 2003. He was demoted back down to the Miracle after Joe Mauer got promoted to the Rock Cats midway through the 2003 season. His first game back with the Miracle, just about everyone in the stands collectively gasped at the amount of steroids he'd done in the past year. The Twins released him, and he was picked up by the Texas Rangers (which is just about the most tollerant organization in baseball when it comes to steroid use). He was playing independent ball last I heard, yet he is still on there.

James Tomlin-- another former Miracle who has bounced around just about every minor league organization there is without making a significant contribution to any-- has an entry.

If I put effort in, I could come up with more. Look, I'm not saying that I believe that everyone on the Miracle roster will one day be a major leaguer or that you may not have a point when it comes to SOME of these ball players, but all of them? That really would be doing one of the finest farm systems in baseball an injustice.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Again

Wow whats with this vandalism on my page, thanks again--Yankees10 16:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Orioles/Yankees piping

Even with the Yankees playing as the Orioles to begin with, wouldn't the most appropriate piping be to the Orioles 19th century article? I'm not certain, but isn't that the team McGraw played for and managed? S. Dean Jameson 19:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he did both for both. The 19th century one is the NL Baltimore Orioles but they were folded (or contracted or whatever that word is) after the 1899 season. The AL started in 1901 and had an AL version of the Baltimore Orioles but was a completely separate franchise. After just a few years, they moved to New York to become the Highlanders. The Highlanders were eventually renamed to the New York Yankees. Looks like McGraw was a member of both NL and AL Orioles. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Perhaps there should be a short sentence or phrase in the article to that regard. It's a bit confusing to those unfamiliar with the history of it, as indicated by my unpiping of the Yankees wikilink. S. Dean Jameson 19:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup

I never thanked you for resetting my protection level for my user page, so I just wanted to say thanks.--Bedford ^Pray 05:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dan Brouthers

Hey there, just curious if the changes made to the GA Nomination for Dan Brouthers were sufficient for pass. If not ready for pass, anything else I can do to expedite the process? Neonblak (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Today's trivia note: What's the connection between this ballplayer and Groucho Marx? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This question didn't go unnoticed, but the only thing I can come up with was: Dan Brouthers was mentioned in one of Groucho's books in reference to the rights of "Brothers" as in Marx Brothers. Something like that.Neonblak (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And the boy wins a cigar! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit I was a bit confused. Is it only one person that weighs in at GA reviews?! That whole process looks a bit odd. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, It would seem to be that way, I have only submitted one before this one, Bob Ferguson, and it was one reviewer that submitted needed changes, that I corrected, then he passed it. I don't think is much more to it than that for GA. Featured Articles up for review definately get the full meal deal.Neonblak (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

List of baseball parks used in film and television

I started this on a late-night whim. Before I do any more work on it, I'd like to get your brutal assessment as to (1) whether it has a future and (2) what it's lacking, in general. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems pretty good to me at first glance. I'll admit I haven't seen pages like this so I don't know if there is a precedent. WT:MLB might be a good place to get smarter opinions than mine. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your revert on my user page!

Thank you! That guy has been pestering me all day. Any chance I can get you to semi-protect my user and talk pages for a few days until this blows over? He has proven quite adept already at IP hopping. Steve Carlson^Talk 03:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Another Liebman impostor

Here: [15] You can leave his comment in place after you block him. I'll just archive it for amusement. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't resist asking how things were at the Looney Bin, or whatever it was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I hear ya. I'm tempted too, esp. with his bizarre new brand of vandalism. It's rare that you can't determine what a troll is even trying to accomplish. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And another one. --Ebyabe (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Restored redirects

Just FYI, I restored Man-ram and Man Ram which you deleted as vandalism. Man-Ram is a real nickname for Manny Ramirez, see [16] for examples. Mike R (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Miracle Deletion

Based upon the debate that ensued over the deletion of the Miracle articles I wrote, I believe the absolute wrong decision was made. I don't know who made the final "Delete all" decision, but it was just plain wrong. There were too many promising ball players with promising careers on that list. Apparently, there are Wikipedia editors out there with big egoes who just like to impose their wills.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Miracle" is a way-overused hyperbole in sports and elsewhere. I'm reminded of this line from the film, Oh God!: "The last miracle I performed was the 1969 Mets. Before that, I think you'd have to go back to the Red Sea." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:MLB discussion reply

I'm not sure when the next newsletter will be delivered, but I added something about it here. It hopefully is enough, but feel free to change it around if you want.   jj137 (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Killebrew banner photo

It took them awhile, but they're about to tear down the banner photo. [17] Thanks to the relentless deletionists, I don't even bother trying to make fair use claims anymore, but someone else could try if they feel like a fight today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't say I'm surprised. (I always wonder how they find them so reliably?!) I think you'd be better off trying to coordinate a picture-taking project. Volunteers could be arranged by location. You could make a request for the Arizona area to try to contact Killebrew and ask when he's making a public appearance so that you can simply take a picture for a non-profit organization. People love chances to do stuff for non-profits! —Wknight94 (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a fundamental problem with a so-called encyclopedia using amateurish snapshots as its source of pictures. Photographing buildings is one thing. They just sit there. But photographing people is a special skill that is visibly lacking in a lot of the picture taking I've seen here, and nobody among the deletionist corps seems to think that matters. I'm done fighting with them, but I won't submit to their approach, either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I resemble that remark!  :) I've actually found where a few people have used some of my better baseball pictures outside of Wikipedia. But I'll admit plenty of mine are clunkers. But if you go to Commons or take a look at some of the more prolific picture takers here (User:David Shankbone comes to mind), there are some pretty high quality photographs. The point is they are free. It's "Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia", not "Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia once you remove all of the non-free pictures that we've leveraged from other sources just because we haven't had enough of a push to recruit good photographers and photographers with access to high-profile people". But I know, we're on different sides of this issue and I generally try to stay away from it completely whenever possible. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your pictures are good. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

First Impressions

Regardless how I may look to you or anyone else out there, I sincerely feel the way I feel. You took part in the debate about the Miracle ball players, so you saw how it went. There isn't one comment either way from Wizardman. He just came in at the end and waved his hand in a God-like manner and just erased everything but one article. As if he is the absolute law of the land.

Sorry, but I believe that there were enough intelligent, thought out opinions on the other side of this argument that this was completely inappropriate. I don't think that was appropriate behavior from an "administrator" with my articles OR ANYONE ELSE'S. Regardless, of how you felt about the Miracle entries and whether or not they should have been deleted, Wizardman was out of line.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Spasm: the deletion policy states for the admin who closes it not to be involved. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

NFL template move and distortion

Wknight94, I noticed you moved Template:NFLSecondaryColor and at that time, all NFL team articles experienced an issue with "junk" at the top of each page. Can you double check your move and make sure that it was/wasn't involved with this. View any NFL team page and you'll see what I mean. For the Kansas City Chiefs, it appears as f2c800; padding:5px;" | and for the Baltimore Ravens as E2BE10; padding:5px;" | I'm guessing that since color codes are invovled, your move had something to do with it. I checked other sources and couldn't find any cause. Please follow up. Thanks, --Daysleeper47 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, looks like it was me. I reverted and will re-test. You can either do WP:NULL edits or wait for the things to reset themsleves. Blast...

Thanks for taking care of that. It looks like it was a pain. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The pain was trying to make it work. Giving up completely and reverting took no time at all.  :( —Wknight94 (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

I just read in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball the part where you decided to "put my bad guy hat on and AFD the whole lot of them." As I've explained several times, I'm new to this whole Wikipedia thing, and when I was including the "See Also" and the categories on each entry, I had no idea I was doing anything wrong.

The first ball player I did an entry on Was Deolis Guerra. I didn't add the categories to his article. Someone else did. Check the article's history if you don't believe me. After someone added it to his entry, I thought it was something that I was supposed to do, and that is why I did it to all the others.

As far as the "See Also" section, that was something that I copied off another entry, and again, thought I was supposed to do.

It was also my impression that articles were supposed to be "Wikified" as much as possible. Hopefully, this will also explain some of the questions you or anyone else had about my entries and why they were written the way they were written.

There was no intention on my part to "get over" on Wikipedia or anything of that sort.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: And, for the record, I'm still of the opinion that those other articles I listed the other day should be restored.

Apollo

Thank you for fixing and protecting. That one IP is a sock of one that was just blocked a little bit ago for the same activities. I turned them both in to WP:AIV, at separate times. That page is the one really-really controversial page I have stuck with, in part due to wanting to assist the dedicated efforts of User:Bubba73 to keep the page honest. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. The two came from far too wide a range for a range block so I went with semi-protection. I protected your user and talk page as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I don't mind vandalism on my own talk page so much, because who cares anyway? But it's still against the rules, and I will often turn them in for it, especially if it's part of a wider vandalism issue as this one (or two) was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I try to get them to find something better to do. I doubt they mind too much - they just vandalize some other wiki or forum site. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hence it's somebody else's problem. Kind of like putting on mosquito repellent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

NFL Colors

Just saw what you did here: Template:NFLSecondaryColor. Extremely clever! When I first created that template I tried to figure out how to do it that way (just the hex for the color, not the entire color parameter) and just couldn't get it to work. How did you figure out that using the <nowiki> tags like that would have the needed effect? --JayHenry (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I got some good advice from CBM (talk · contribs). —Wknight94 (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's fascinating. I never would have guessed that the parser worked that way. I figured something like <font color="<nоwiki>#</nоwiki>4682B4">works</font> would display gibberish, but surprisingly it works. --JayHenry (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

40th Man

Oswaldo Sosa has been added to the Minnesota Twins' 40 man roster.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's restored. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I corrected the source.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Jvanhorn11 (talk · contribs)

Sockie? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Who knows. Hasn't done anything worth looking into ---- yet. But worth keeping an eye on I suppose. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is serious. His first edit was a lengthy keep all. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 13:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

...in an AFD that was long since closed. Hence my revert. More generally, if we blocked every editor whose first edit was at AFD, we'd be blocking a lot of accounts! —Wknight94 (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Another Soliptist

What happened to that guy? I thought he was in a feud with Googie Man.(Planecrash111 (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

Looks like he got axed. I don't know any details. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Liebman sock 8-7-08

Here's another one today: [18] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Slama

Did you see how the debate for him went? He seems to have more people in favor of overturning the deletion.

Brett Anderson
Brian Barden
Matthew Brown
Jason Donald
Dexter Fowler
John Gall
Mike Hessman
Brandon Knight
Mike Koplove
Blaine Neal
Jayson Nix
Nate Schierholtz
Jeff Stevens
Taylor Teagarden
Casey Weathers

Also, someone went into Matt LaPorta's Wikipedia entry, and added that he will be on the 2008 Olympic team. At the risk of stating the obvious-- I did it on the two former Miracle. No one went into any of the entries of any of the other players on the Olympic team and added that fact to their entries. Jake Arrieta, Trevor Cahill, Jeremy Cummings, Kevin Jepsen, Lou Marson & Stephen Strasburg don't have entries. Is being an Olympiad noteworthy? I'm not gonna waste my time if it's just gonna get deleted.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Would that be the one and only Anthony "Grand" Slama? Which reminds me: Until The Boomer assigns a nickname to a ballplayer, he cannot be considered notable. That's a little-known wikipedia rule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. If Chris Berman calls him "Grand" Slama when he makes it to the majors, I owe you a beer--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine they would be notable but you might want to check WT:OLYMPICS or WT:MLB to be sure. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Joe Morgan

I hope I've been civil and reasonable in spite of our disagreements, and I really hope you're not accusing me of what you appear to be accusing me of on that talk page. --Kajerm (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I haven't commented there in over a month. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

List of baseball parks in Chicago, Illinois

What do you think of the general format of this article/list? Be brutal. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it! Looks like you've started several of those, eh? You may want to ask at WT:MLB before you create 100 of those and then someone complains. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of what I'm getting at. I've just done 3 or 4 at random. To be honest, these are mostly for my use. But if someone else can use it, and define it more rigorously, all the better. I think I floated this once before and got no response. I'll try again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

photos vs. text

After 3 1/2 years here, it has finally occurred to me what the problem is regarding photos. There is a schizoid situation, a gross dichotomy, about the "original research" rule vs. the "free content" rule. Consider this: Supposing I see Al Franken on the street, and I happen to have a recorder and a camera, so I get some comments from him and I take his picture. According to wikipedia rules, I can't use the comments, but I can use the picture. Yet they are both "original research". I post a picture here that I say is a photo of Al Franken. That's because I think it is. But what if it isn't? What if it's just some guy who happens to look and talk like Al? What I'm getting at is that any fact in wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable. Hence, the only appropriate photos to post are those that some other source has verified. But I can't post such photos, because wikipedia rules don't allow "fair use" photos of living persons, in general. Applying the rules strictly, we cannot allow any photos at all on wikipedia, unless they were either published prior to 1923, or expressly released to the public domain. OY!!! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

But your assertion that your picture of Al Franken is indeed the person Al Franken is based on pictures of Al Franken that you have seen published in other reliable sources. Ha! Is that enough BS for you?  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that still makes it original research on my part. What I need is for a "third party" to validate that it is Al Franken. P.S. I don't actually have a photo of Al Franken. That's just an example. So how does the thought of "Senator Al Franken" grab you? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

commons:Image:Earl's Palace, Kirkwall sign.jpg

Image deletion warning

commons:Image:Earl's Palace, Kirkwall sign.jpg has been listed at commons:Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Team Roster

I made a roster for the US Olympic Baseball Team, but I have no idea where I would post it.

USA Baseball Olympic Team roster

Players				Coaches/Other
Pitchers 40 Brett Anderson 34 Jake Arrieta 30 Trevor Cahill 47 Jeremy Cummings 45 Brian Duensing 39 Kevin Jepsen 15 Brandon Knight 21 Mike Koplove 49 Blaine Neal † 37 Jeff Stevens 29 Steven Strasburg 35 Casey Weathers		Catchers 6 Louis Marson 19 Taylor Teagarden * Infielders 18 Brian Barden * 17 Matthew Brown * 2 Jason Donald 10 Mike Hessman 3 Jayson Nix 26 Terry Tiffee Outfielders 24 Dexter Fowler 7 John Gall 44 Matthew LaPorta 14 Nate Schierholtz *		Manager Davey Johnson Bob Watson (general Manager of USA Baseball Professional Teams) Coaches Reggie Smith (Hitting) Marcel Lachemann (Pitching) Rick Eckstein (Bench/3rd Base) Dick Cooke (Auxiliary Coach) Rolando de Armas (Auxiliary Coach) 7-day injured list * On [[Major League Baseball |Major League Baseball]] [[Template:Major League Baseball roster|40-man roster]] ~ Development list # Rehab assignment ∞ Reserve list ‡ Restricted list § Suspended list † Temporarily inactive list → More MiLB rosters → [[Major League Baseball minor league players]]

Could you let me know where or post it for me.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

See corrections above. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved

Why was The International Society for the Social Studies wiki deleted?

thx

Should have checked Victuallers (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Liebman sock 8-14-08

Another one: [19] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And another one: [20] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Not Ron, but oddly related

Could these articles be semi-protected a while, por favor?

Jat people

Khatri

Kshatriya

The Doon School

They've had long-term anonymous IP vandalism and edit-warring for ages now, some more than others. I stumbled on these ages ago b/c one of the vandals uses one of Ronny's NYC library computers. I don't think it's him, but maybe his brand of kooky is contagious. Which is a scary thought! Cheers. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)