User talk:Wknight94/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Thank You

Thank, you for protecting the article on Soleil Moon Frye.
As it was resulting in a edit war.
--Jamie Shaw (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

PrimeFan case

See the note I just dropped on User talk:Del arte. I'll take care of the case rename and tag changes. Let anyone else know that you think should know.

Donnie Edwards accusations

no my friend these are absolutely true facts from first hand experience. user: Matthew.Horibe

of course people wont believe it cuz hes an NFL player and everybody thinks hes some great dude in reality hes a jerk but he does "nice" things so he can make himself feel better or what not its excatly the samething from me saying OJ killed his wife comeon man this is BS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew.horibe (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Creole (markup)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Creole (markup). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Liebman

"He's a one-trick pony / One trick is all that horse's patootie can do..." Appy polly loggies to Paul Simon. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Edit

Yeah, can you delete it please, i'm sorry for starting all of this trouble, I actually thought that it would only be a personal attack if I said to to the user, I wasn't thinking, thanks.--Yankees10 06:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you--Yankees10 16:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

baseball infoboxes

Please help uphold the consensus established in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_6#Changing_active_infoboxes_to_retired. Thank you!--IceFrappe (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a new message from an IP

Please see User talk:68.52.36.127 k thx by 217.39.5.79 (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And again, more messages there: User talk:68.52.63.127#Blocked.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And I see you've replied already. Never mind. :)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Censured or reprimanded United States Senators

Hiya. I noticed you deleted Category:Censured or reprimanded United States Senators under G5 (banned user). While I don't dispute your reasoning, I was curious how you would feel about a re-creation of this topic. I'm not a psychotic "inclusionist" or anything silly like that, but it does seem to be a very useful, appropriate category, if not coming from a banned user. Or maybe it's redundant in some way - I'll freely admit that I haven't really delved into the category's history (and, since the history's been deleted, I can't see any archived Talk discussion which may show why this category is not needed). Feel free to reply here or on my talk page. Badger Drink (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it would be fine as long as there is a clear definition. Is "censured" an official term? How about "reprimanded"? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

cowjesus (talk · contribs)

Kind of quick on the trigger there, pard. The user makes three minor vandal-edits, gets one warning, and then you indef-block two minutes later with no intervening edits? (No, I have have nothing to do with this account -- I was in process of leaving a message on the talk page, and the warning-crunch sequence happened so fast that it ec'ed for me twice. Yikes!) looie496 (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry - you want I should wait for six or eight more meaningless edits? Let me know how much nonsense you'd prefer and I'll take it under advisement. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I prefer that you wait until the user vandalizes after receiving a warning. In this case, having actually looked at the edits, I think there is a decent chance that this was a new user who was experimenting. Probably not, but there is a procedure for this and one might as well follow it. looie496 (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Doubt it but I'll bite. I've unblocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

When you get a chance, might you check what was added to my talk page under "County Templates"? The dude's trying to say Flagler Beach is in Volusia County, whassup wit dat? :) --Ebyabe (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, according to this, it may be so. But on maps, it looks way too far from the Volusia County border for any of it to extend into it. --Ebyabe (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Liebman sock 11-19-08

This is either a sock or an imitator: [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And I forgot to mention this one from yesterday: [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And another one today: [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Suspicious behavior by an editor

I reverted an obvious vandalism by User:Ironic Username, and checked his other edits and found a few other instances. The one I noticed was pretty obvious (he changed the title of a Patty Larkin song from "Open Arms" to "Open Legs"), but the others were much more subtle. His method is to change a year of an event or an ordinal number (22nd to 23rd, for example); for the article Hafeez A. Pasha, he changed the phrase "Commerce Minister" to "field marshal". I confirmed that some of his changes were incorrect and reverted them all, assuming a pattern of vandalism.

He came to my attention again this week when he reverted my vandalism warning with a summary of "removed vandalism". He is still making similar changes to a disparate variety of articles, changes that might go unnoticed, and he reverted one of my earlier reverts, one that I had already confirmed to be incorrect. I believe he's doing nothing but vandalism.

He did not respond to the warning, either with an "oopsie" or by denying he'd vandalized anything. He just quietly makes minor changes to lesser-known articles that on the surface look legitimate, and might escape notice while two or more subsequent edits help bury the evidence.

I could be wrong. He could just have made a couple of mistakes, or done some vandalism a few times but be working honestly now. I suspect, however, that I'm not wrong, and that he's doing exactly what I suspect him of.

Can anything be done? -- Couillaud (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I permablocked the account. After checking a couple of his edits, I blindly reverted the rest where his were (top). If you see any that should not have been reverted, let me know and more thorough investigation may be needed. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked one of the other edits (Black Hills Playhouse), in which he'd changed the year it was constructed from 1933 to 1930. Of course, it was constructed as a CCC project, and the CCC was only established in 1933. I'm guessing that since none of his edits seemed related to each other (indicating a random pattern instead of having some specific knowledge), they were all just part of his overall pattern of vandalism. I've reverted all of his edits, as I could not find anything that supported any of them, so they'd be unsourced changes anyway. Thanks for responding so quickly. -- Couillaud (talk)

Editing Whitey Ford

• Hi. A few weeks ago, we dealt with a wave of Ron Liebman vandalism over Whitey Ford's birthdate. In a move that I thought was going to clear things up, I added a link to show that Retrosheet lists his birthdate as 1926, the very date that the Liebman sock is trying to add to the article. The Liebman sock has continued his reign of errors since then and he now keeps changing my citation to say that "most sources claim a 1926 birthdate" instead of some, and I think it's just given him more fodder to spam the article. Anyway, should I just remove the Retrosheet reference so as not to entice the idiot to vandalize? I was asked by Baseball Bugs to ask you this before I did anything rash, so I was just wondering if I should do so.

• BB makes it sounds like I should delete it because he's claiming (I think, to be honest, incorrectly, given that Baseball Library, which bases its bios on a 1990 book, uses the same birthdate) that the sock puppet is the REASON why Retrosheet lists him with a 1926 birthdate. I'm not buying that. But nevertheless, should I just disavow the Retrosheet reference? -- Transaspie (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• • That was a guess. I know he's weaseled his original research into some sites, I just don't recall for sure which ones. I've found mistakes in Retrosheet here and there, so it can't be taken as gold. It's "a" source, but it would be hard to prove that "most" sources list one or the other. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• I like Retrosheet but I'm sure no source is infallible. The short answer is that either of you are welcome to do whatever you'd like on that article and if there is a dispute among non-banned users, you may all discuss it civilly and come to a consensus. The even shorter answer is, if you're not Ron liebman (talk · contribs), you can do whatever you'd like. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Jose cartagena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hard telling if this guy is a Liebman sock or not. Could be coincidental. [4] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's him. Look at the Jordan edits compared to Alan blumkin (talk · contribs). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that one was under the radar. I wasn't sure it was him, because he seemed capable of creating a paragraph correctly, and he seemed relatively polite. As Bugsy would say, "Weeeeeeell, goodbye!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning for disruptive reversions of constructive edits

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you dare revert constructive edits (even if they are done by a banned user) again, you will be blocked from editing. StreetSharksFan (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wknight94, I have reviewed your edit history, and ALL your reversions to edits by ThunderCatsFan were completely and utterly inappropriate. If you revert useful edits, even they are done by a banned user, ever again, you will be blocked permenantly from editing. StreetSharksFan (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have you reported to the WP:AIV. You better watch out. StreetSharksFan (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Banhammer deployed. HAND! Tony Fox (arf!) 03:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of these guys have a unique sense of humor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The Irish guys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Maybe it's Ron? The misspelled edit summaries make me suspicious. --Ebyabe (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that one too. Hit a couple pages on my watchlist today. I'm not 100% convinced but we should try to remember to request a checkuser before the latest edits go stale. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Dokee-okee. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm treating it as a Liebman sock, given the usual unsourced trivia, and reverting the 2 changes from today an 1 from a year ago (the other 1 from a year ago was legitimate reversal of vandalism). This one flew under the radar a year ago plus a day. He can't resist his usual M.O. including adopting a guise similar to a legit user (IrishGuy). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point on the IrishGuy connection. If it's Liebman, we'll know soon enough since he'll be edit warring with you any minute. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not right away, as he last edited 8 or 9 hours ago. But he's on the radar now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you know if deceased pitcher Joe Kennedy actually was called "The Patriarch", or did Liebman make that up? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No idea. Ya know, with the IrishGuy connection, this is probably worth bringing to WP:RFCU. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I just did, though I'm not sure I did it correctly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I messed it up even worse than I thought. Never send a bozo to do an admin's job. :) Thanks for fixing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh, no problem. That's why that area has clerks. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

A sleeper account for a year, suddenly wakes up. Like the famous Washington Irving classic: Ron Van Wrinkle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Irish boys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And today we have this variation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIV and now blocked - although he did mount a mild protest, which is unusual. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This one should be blocked, imho. Only vanity articles and silly edits being made. Maybe for only a day or two, but I get the feeling he won't improve, sadly. Oh well... --Ebyabe (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we'll give him one more chance. Seems like a kid who just figured out the appropriate place to put his own name. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: AIV note

Whoops, I didn't notice that. Thanks for letting me know. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Liebman 12-04-08

Thanks for finishing the job with the latest Liebman. I had turned him in to WP:AIV, and then you beat me to it before I could tell you about it. Also thanks for semi-protecting my talk page, although it will probably keep the red-links away, and that would be a real shame. Or maybe NOT. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The lock on the semi-protection template is a little misleading. Maybe what they need is an illustration of a semi bearing down on the interloper. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:JacksonMorton.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JacksonMorton.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:JamesWestcott.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JamesWestcott.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

Gasp! Uploading 18th and 19th century images! Now I'll have to report you to an admin! Oh, wait... :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Delmon Young...

...is apparently on the trading block. Before that happens, and before this disappears, here's a Youtube of that "Twins sages" ad I was telling you about: [5] Let me know if you don't recognize the participants. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha! I recognize Killebrew and Carew, right? The one talking is Oliva maybe? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the guy at the end of the ad, acting very un-sage-like, would be Kent Hrbek. Oliva advised Young to "see ball, hit ball" and further advised going to Murray's to get a big steak. Murray's is a well-known steakhouse in downtown Minneapolis. I recall a quote from Rogers Hornsby when he was asked what he liked best about the big leagues, or something like that, and his answer was, "Them juicy steaks!" Ooooh, yeh. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That was Hrbek?! Wow, I totally would not have guessed that. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not totally sure, but one of the commenters said it was, and I can't think who else it would be. I used to see him in local TV ads, but not with the goattee. As a side note, he's wearing the same shirt as the others, with a little TC in the upper chest. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw his name in the title of some fishing show - but I didn't actually go to the channel so I didn't see him. If I see it again, I'll check it out. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he does host a fishing show. He also does local TV ads for various things, although I haven't seen him for awhile. He's a Minneapolis native. Hrbek, along with the 3 "sages", are the 4 living Twins who've had their numbers retired and whose pictures hang from the outfield upper deck curtain. Image:Metrodome curtain of fame.JPG Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Jvolkblum

Thanks for deleting some of the most recent Jvolkblum articles. I can't tell who created Wildcliff this latest time, so I don't know if the user is one that I have listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Jvolkblum. Given Jvolkblum's propensity to change hosts and to use proxy servers, I think it's helpful to list all known usernames there... --Orlady (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. It was the NRlibrarian account that created most of the recent ones. They were all re-creations, some for the third time. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war brewing

Sorry to drag you in, but I need someone to weigh in on this. We've had a non-ID user (IP only) making some changes to the article on Peter Roskam that I believe are POV. It's clear that the editor is a Roskam partisan, as his only edits other than this article are from 9 months ago and were vandalism at that time. I got in because the comments he includes in his edits show a POV to what he is doing. This article has long been the subject of POV fights, but the portion in question has been in place for better than more than 21 months (I checked back to March 2007), and he has just now concluded that it should be removed.

The link to an article that was previously used as a source for a criticism of his actions has expired, and the editor believes that this now makes it "unsourced", and has removed the information. The user then claimed that the article (which was written in 2006 and can no longer be accessed online) is "fanciful speculation" and demands that a link be provided now. I have provided references that are not online to help prove some facts, and the fact that this article still exists in hard copy or on microfilm is sufficient to leave it there.

Roskam won re-election by 16%, and this editor believes that the word "decisively" MUST be added to the statement, as if 16% does not already make that statement. There are a few others, and I have tried to make the point in discussion, but his reply has not offered much hope of any consensus.

This is probably only a coincidence, but I'm getting an uncomfortable sense of deja vu with this discussion, as it reminds me of the battle about a year ago with Yoy So Guapo, who was using an IP address when he started, kept citing Wiki rules, occasionally using all-caps, and used some poor spelling in his messages. I always suspect that someone who quotes rules so heavily and doesn't use a regular Wiki ID is hiding something.

Again, sorry to drag you in, but I don't want to get into an edit war, but also don't like to see what I think are POV edits by newbie editors to go without challenge. -- Couillaud (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this is another case of Joehazelton (talk · contribs). His suspected socks go all throughout this range of IPs (among others). No point in arguing with him - he's been doing this for years it seems. I semiprotected the article for three months. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've heard of this guy, but I've never dealt with him before. -- Couillaud (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jwalte04

Can you take a look at the actions of this user? First, he placed a speedy delete tag on Category:African American sportspeople. Regardless of whether or not we think this category should exist (and I'm not so sure) his claims that it is "racist" show he clearly doesn't know what the word means since it's not the case.

Now, according to his own edit summaries on player pages (so far members of the Redskins) he's adding Category:Caucasian sportspeople to "prove a point." This is pretty obviously a violation of Wikipedia:POINT. This user might have a point with his feelings on the African American category, but he's not going about it the right way.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a note and deleted the category. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

block of Joshua125 (talk · contribs)

Hi, could it be an indef block of Joshua125 (talk · contribs) is a bit too harsh? The original article he created had issues, but wasn't vandalism. He seems to be a very invested editor which makes him a bit disruptive, rather than an all out vandal. And now the article in question is semi-protected, perhaps we could get some talk page action going? Anyway, just a thought. --fvw* 19:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I would argue that the deletion of the spamming section was appropriate given that it was sourced to webfora etc[6], though obviously the edit warring over it wasn't. --Slp1 (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, was the references section part of the spam? I was thinking he was blanking the whole end of the article but I guess not. I'll unblock. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

JackyRT

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KingsOfHearts, technical evidence indicated that a relationship between the above user and KoH is unlikely. While their may exist behavioral elements, you may wish to contemplate an unblock. Thank you -- Avi (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I did see that. Since the account was created and, within minutes, had found KoH's issues and found ANI, etc., it's obviously at the very least a meatpuppet. I am leaving blocked unless someone has a good reason not to. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. You are the sysop on the scene, I'm just checking the technical data. -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Question: does this constitute original research?

I've been working on the article 1942 Colored World Series awhile, and I'd like to add batting and pitching totals and averages for the series. Totals that were published in the Baltimore Afro-American are probably about 90% accurate, though I can make corrections based on the published box scores. Would compiling such totals be considered doing original research? -- Couillaud (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wickipedia Baseball Project

What is the procedure for affiliating with the Wikipedia Baseball Project? Is it tied in with SABR or BB-Ref.com, etc.? --Susan McCarthy (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you define "affiliating"? If you wish to speak to people there, you can simply leave a message at WT:BASEBALL. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Does this look like a Fangusu sock?

This looks like a Fangusu sock to me, but I would appreciate a second opinion so I can be sure I'm not jumping to conclusions. Fangusu was the one who originally added the raccoon image (adding animal images to articles was one of her characteristic patterns), and her sockpuppets have taken to "warning" me for the "unconstructive" editing practice of undoing her illicit sockpuppet edits. The raccoon image was added legitimately before Fangusu was blocked, and I removed it per talk page discussion and not as part of undoing all of Fangusu's sockpuppet edits, but the similarity to her overall pattern still caught my attention. Her interest in video games also makes username look like a likely sock. I think it's a pretty obvious case, but I don't want to put myself in a position of being accused of thinking that any user who reverts one of my edits must be a known vandal, lol.

Oh, and thanks for reverting Fangusu's "warning" on my talk page a few days ago. I was just finishing up an enforced wikibreak (studying for finals had to come first!) so I was unaware of the latest sock's activity, but it was nice to see that it was taken care of by the time I got back :-) --Icarus ^(Hi!) 18:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Not doubting you at all, but it might be best to wait for a bit more evidence. For one, the dog image was actually added by a different user here. However, this is usually a sign that a checkuser is in order to find some sleeper socks. Otherwise, we should wait and see what else that account does, IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Musicals

Can you point me to the discussion where Category:Films based on musicals was deprecated in favor of Category:Musical films? There is a distinct different between a musical film based on a stage musical, and an original film musical, which this change seems to have eradicated. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a discussion so much - WP:BAN. Category:Films based on musicals was created by very-long-term abuser, MascotGuy (talk · contribs). —Wknight94 (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that category was one of his less contentious creations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Disney Channel Original Movies

Might there be any chance this could be semi-protected for a few days? Longer would be wonderful, but that's probably too much to hope for. Mostly it's b/c of persistent additions of 2008-2009 movies that aren't documented. Frankly, it's pretty much a complete list, so I don't think it needs much in the way of updating anyway, imho. Anyhoo, happy holiday of your choice! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I semi'ed for 3 days to get through Christmas. I'd go longer but that article's going to be a constant source of speculation by its nature. We should create a List of upcoming Disney Channel Original Movies so we could at least give people like MascotGuy (talk · contribs) to play. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Is that possible, the "upcoming" list? I dunno if that'd help, but maybe. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's happening again. Any chance of a repro? :) --Ebyabe (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, sah! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

HHoYC

	<font=2> HHoyC (Happy Holiday of Your Choice)! Ebyabe (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You two... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Block on User:82.11.240.201

I was reviewing the contributions of this user, and I'm thinking this might not all be bad faith. Could you re-check the contributions, and see if you still believe a block here is justified, or that maybe some guidance is all that is needed? Thanks! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to try to explain what she's doing wrong to get some assurance that s/he will stop, feel free. I'll allow for the possibility of a language barrier. Otherwise, I see that someone at that IP is trying to completely take over an article with some musician bio, despite being told several times to desist. Regardless, I'll leave to your discretion to unblock if you feel it is warranted. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment on the talkpage, but so far nothing. The block isn't too long, but I still hope I get some feedback from the annon, cause templates don't seem to be working. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Mets, etc.

Ndnewbus makes 3 edits, 2 years ago, and then turns up to mess with the Mets pages this week. That's not just a sleeper account, that's a WP:Rip Van Winkle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I hadn't noticed the years in the contribs. Folks don't seem to understand that constantly logging in and out doesn't help their credibility. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It makes it easier to identify them, though. What did someone call that recently, during the KingsOfHearts/Fru23 situation... a "poor man's checkuser"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Trouts

I gave up on the Teixeira thing a couple of days ago. A no-win situation. I'll accept a slap from that trout, though, due to having contributed to it. On an unrelated but also trout-worthy situation, I sent you an e-mail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

All of those are unwinnable. There's no point discussing which way to have them because you're going to have edit wars regardless. I've even seen IPs edit-warring with each other over this type of thing. E-mail coming soon from my cool new T-Mobile G1 from Santa. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Silly me, I thought I had logic on my side. But nowadays I'm only willing to fight so far on something, unless it's really important, which this ain't. Wow, a new toy. And here I am on my souped-up TRS-80. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Important

Semi-important, anyway - another e-mail on its way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ron again

Check out User talk:Elkman. *sigh*

The one good thing about him posting this stuff on admin's pages is the likelihood of a quick block. Elkman was quoting Elmer Fudd, intentionally or otherwise, when he advised him to scamper away into the forest, "Far, far away." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's like he's going, "Please, block me quickly". I can't figure it out. It's so hard to believe he thinks he's fooling anyone. Oh well, Happy New Year, let's hope. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't care. All of these are one-use, throwaway accounts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock again

Would you do the honours, please? Thanks. :) — neuro^(talk) 13:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Greg Olsen

Is there anyway that the edit history of Greg Olsen (American football) can be cleaned up, a while back someone screwed it all up by copying and pasting Greg Olsen (football player) to Greg Olsen (American football).--Yankees10 21:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

All done. Looks like the last admin to do a history merge there botched it a bit, but I think it's all fixed now. Might want to check Greg Olsen just in case. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks right, thank you--Yankees10 22:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Javon Nanton

Do you think you can delete the Javon Nanton article. I made the article when he was still in college and thought that he would play in the NFL, and its been two years and that hasnt happended, let alone be on an NFL roster.--Yankees10 00:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

All done. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks--Yankees10 18:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

24.115.204.135

The guy must love those week-at-a-time blocks. It occurs to me his editorial could be pre-empted by a mere statement that the Mets, since 2000, have struggled and have experienced a series of disappointing seasons. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at his/her other edits, it's just a Phillies fan being funny. Adding "World Champion" wherever "Phillies" appears, etc. Quite transparent. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha. Next time he does it, maybe he could be blocked until the Phillies win another World Series, another 25 years or so from now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Archbishop of Armagh (Roman Catholic)

Hi. Do you have any objection to my selectively deleting the c&p from history, to prevent its inadvertent later restoration? (watching you here. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily I wouldn't, but I can see those edits being raised further down the line during dispute resolution (and, who knows - maybe even WP:RFAR). Personally, I would leave them in place and make a note to delete them when everything has clearly died down. Up to you, though... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaving them until things die down seems like a good plan. :) I'll make a note to myself to follow up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Pharmacologic categorization

I saw you working on the categorization of ATC codes, and wanted to drop you a line. I have started a discussion of categorizing pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT and would really appreciate your input. Also, could you please pass word of this discussion to any other editors you think might consider contribution to the conversation? kilbad (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Shelly Dass

In retrospect I agree with you. However, I was reverting someone who was vandalizing (removing content) from the page for the last several minutes. Good Day! Ndenison ^talk 06:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, now I see the IP was removing every section, not just the criticism one. I've blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Rachael Ray

Could this be protected for a day, perhaps? Someone seems to have too much time on their hands. --Ebyabe (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Danke! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Wknight94. You have new messages at Jac16888's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Knopfler/block

Looking at the pattern, and the updated Excuses pages at www.knopfler.com, I would not be surprised if the ip is (or is an agent of) Mr K himself. I have posted talk on the ip page re the "copyright consent" as the image is over in commons it would likely need an email/OTRS ticket to sort it out. Would you consider unblocking the ip to allow dialogue?--Alf ^melmac 21:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with you unblocking if you think the person will stop warring over the article. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Liebman?

I don't know if this [7] is a Liebman sock, or just an unwitting imitator. But a claim that so-and-so holds such-and-such record absolutely requires a citation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an imitator to me. Similar, definitely, but not quite as clueless. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

NRHP deletes

When you get a chance, could you respond to this comment? I see you deleted the articles b/c they were created by a banned user, and I suspect that's who anonymously posted the comment. A brief history of what happened would be useful, doncha know. Thanks! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I responded. Jvolkblum has a sock farm that would rival Ron liebman. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Hm, maybe there's just one big sock farm, that all the puppeteers get theirs from. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I am having some trouble figuring out how bans and potential unbans work. As a test case, about the user Moriarty09, where is the discussion / nomination that this user be identified as a sockpuppet and/or banned? Notably, at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum, i see no mention of Moriarty09. For this user, I see the user made just 4 contributions. I don't have any complaints about how processes work, i am just trying to understand. As mentioned at wt:NRHP, I am interested in negotiating an unban. I am hopeful about resolving what i state and view as a poor situation for admins and others. doncram (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:BAN is a good read. WP:AN or, per WP:BAN#Appeals process, WP:ARBCOM would be good places to mention an unban. But without any actual words from Jvolkblum - either explanation for past behavior or promise not to continue such behavior in the future - there is basically no chance of an unban happening. One of the problems is the lack of community trust in people who violate WP:SOCK as egregiously as Jvolkblum. No one can even be sure who they are talking to! As for Moriarty09, I have taken to pre-emptively blocking such accounts as obvious socks of a banned individual. In every case, a later checkuser has proven that action to be correct. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I added a comment to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum, mainly to note that the possibility that more than one person may have been swept up into this, so it is technically not clear to me that Moriarty09 is the same person as the original Jvolkblum. I am browsing in some previous unban proposals, and will follow ur reading suggestions. Also, could you please email me the deleted article for Wildcliff? I believe that i added material to it that I would like to use again in a new version. Thanks, doncram (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

Can you converge the history of Jackie Harris (football) with Jackie Harris (American football)--Yankees10 00:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

All done. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you--Yankees10 02:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a WikiCake for you!

TigerSharksFan has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

wha?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&diff=1344825&oldid=1342952 ...  ? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Paine Cottage

Hey, I substantially rewrote the Paine cottage article starting from scratch with the sources, not the reverted text. Please take a look and feel free to improve. dm (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User page

What's with the red link? Have you switched allegiance to Boston or Cincinnati? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Arizona! Just taking some time off. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Arizona Cardinal red! Or is it sunburn? It's a sobering thought that the Cardinals, who last won an NFL championship in 1947, have still won one more recently than the Cubs have been in one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Page history fix

Can you fix the page history of Phil Hansen (American football), someone copied and pasted it from Philip Hansen.--Yankees10 06:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Woops, no I can't, sorry. I had the sysop bit turned off for a time. If you post a note at WP:AN, someone will get to it pretty quickly. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding, I forgot I left this post, ok Ill leave it at WP:AN--Yankees10 01:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandal alert

A new user, "Uares0gaY", vandalized the King's Daughters article today; they were his only edits, and his name indicates that he has no serious intent of being constructive. Can this one be nipped in the bud? -- Couillaud (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable but I no longer have the buttons to do it. WP:AIV is your best bet if the account resumes. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem Editors Report

Hi, this is George. You appear to have overlooked the problem editors report, which was due at the end of January. Please submit the report by the end of this month or as soon as possible. Xerox copies are acceptable. Include the vandals, sockpuppeteers, and other Wikipediam parasites, Also mentrion you Wikipedian ID number so that I'll kniow that eh report is not a hoax. I hope you have enjoyed your vacation. This report is late - but I hope that you pay your income taxes on time. Regards to you and yours, Georgewilliamherbert --Georgewilliamherbert (discussion) (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)+ Impersonation permanently blocked.

Another sock bites the dust. You'd think they'd find a girlfriend or something, but apparently not... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I've heard about Liebman, you don't even want to bring that up. Touchy subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Please get the report off to me as soon as possible. Thanks in advance. --Mr. Georgewilliamherbert (message) (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC) This is not a sockpuppet entry. --Georgewilliamhurbert (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC) --22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.202 (talk)

Hey, Ronnie, thanks for giving us one of your IP addresses. It gives us some more of your junk to revert. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Too late, as it's been used in the past. But now this one's on ice for a year. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Where to go from here in Fangusu case?

Hey Wknight94. I'm wondering if you have any insight as to how we ought to proceed with the Fangusu situation. This is going to be a little long, but I hope you'll take a few minutes to read over it. Her sockpuppetry is so prolific and sneaky that it's difficult to keep up with. She's also put us in a difficult situation where many of her edits are useful, in line with how she was not blocked for being a blatant vandal but for refusing to learn and abide by rules regarding copyrights and editwars.

Part of me thinks that it might be in everyone's best interest if she had a second chance so she can do her legit edits and we can relax from reporting and undoing what is, to a significant extent, useful edits that are only illicit because of the block. I find it distasteful to undo edits that are genuinely useful, but fear that doing otherwise will send her the message that her perseverance with sockpuppets will pay off.

On the other hand, great efforts were taken to help her reform her behavior, for a long time before the indef block was instituted. Additionally, some of her sockpuppets do continue the sort of editwarring behavior that got her blocked in the first place. Additionally, the extreme sockpuppetry, while perhaps understandable from someone who wants to come back to make legit edits, still shows flagrant disregard for standards of behavior. The last thing we'd want to do is reinforce the idea that such behavior will pay off in the long run, or allow her to continue her old patterns of editwarring etc. simply because it's exhausting to keep up.

Do you have any insight as to where we should go from here? Keep up the current practice of following WP:RBI? Try to extend an olive branch in the form of a second (or... I dunno, 20th by now maybe!) chance? File a WP:LTA report to engage other editors in helping to continually clean up after her? File a WP:RFC to see what the general community thinks?

I don't know if the general community will see the long chain of misbehavior that led up to the block, only the recent situation of a little girl forbidden from making even useful edits. And I'm wary of giving recognition or creating a shrine. But the current strategy is becoming tedious and perhaps (given her expansion into Commons to upload pictures for IPs to add to articles) futile. As someone else with long-term involvement in this situation, I would value your input. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My activity here has dwindled to near zero so I am probably the wrong person to ask. So-called banned and blocked users move around here pretty much unchecked anyway so I'd recommend just forgetting about Fangusu and getting on with life. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Shangwen Fang

An article that you have been involved in editing, Shangwen Fang, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shangwen Fang (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Robofish (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of the Chromium BSU page

Explanations about this request are there: wp:Deletion_review#Request_for_undeletion_of_the_Chromium_B.S.U._page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Prawn (talk • contribs) 19:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

New Rochelle discussion notice

New Rochelle problem discussion notification: I've opened a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Long-running problem with respect to New Rochelle area articles.

This relates to the 4 part proposal i opened on March 26, which was closed on March 27 and archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady.

This is a courtesy notice to all parties who had more than a one word comment in the previous discussion. I think it is a problem that won't go away, and I hope that you will be part of the solution, whether or not you and I have agreed previously. I hope that we can at least clarify the problem, if not immediately agree upon a solution. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate canvassing, I am sure they will express that. I don't anticipate too many separated discussions on this topic, but if this one is closed and a new one opens, I'll probably notify you again, unless you ask me not to. doncram (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Wknight94/Archive 18's Day!

User:Wknight94/Archive 18 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Wknight94/Archive 18's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Wknight94/Archive 18! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 18:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! —Wknight94 (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Oh Wow, thanks, I forgot all about that. I just have one more if you dont mind, some of the history of Pat Williams (American football) is located at Pat Williams--Yankees10 19:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Yankees10 19:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I hereby award you this "Welcome Back" Cotter Pin.

Like the baseball season, you were in hibernation, and are emerging just in time! d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh, thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Filter disallow turned off

Of course I'm willing to participate in a discussion about the filter. :) I've checked about two dozen filter hits yesterday, and about half a dozen of those were false positives. I know that the filter isn't supposed to catch "..." and the like, but it seems that it does. This is the most recent hit, for example, of someone trying to sign a talk page comment. Here's another one, an edit to a user's user page. Here's an edit to the sandbox. Another perfectly legitimate edit, I'm not even sure why the filter caught it. And all those are random examples I just found, in addition to those that I found yesterday (like this one, which seems to block "..."). It might be a good idea to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter and ask someone who's good at regular expressions to minimize the false positives. Then we can talk about setting the filter to disallow (or warn). --Conti|✉ 11:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. If the filter has a warning message, it should definitely be a custom one, and it should be as friendly and as non-bitey as possible, because even if the filter will be perfect and catch only what it intends to catch, there will still be false positives (since there are numerous reasons why repeated characters are appropriate in an article). It might be a good idea to restrict the filter to the main namespace only, that would probably reduce the false positives quite a bit already. You should check the filter hits regularly, I'm pretty sure that there will be more false positives, considering the huge number of edits that the filter catches. --Conti|✉ 12:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering another shot at RfA

I'd like to talk with you about your objections at my previous RfA and see if I can address any concerns. Please contact me on the User:BQZip01/RfA4 talk page at your earliest convenience. I figure if I can convince you, I can probably convince others. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI Discussion about you

Hello, Wknight94. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Exxolon (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Hello Wknight94. I noticed your attempt to archive this case. Please be aware that this is done by clerks and checkusers only. Thank you. Synergy 01:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:!!

As per The Durova arbitration case, User:!!'s name was cleared 3 days before you protected his User page (That is, 1 December 2007). Although I admit that the user has left and thus this may be considered a matter of little importance, I would like to request that you (or any other Sysops) unprotect the page or simply delete it so that !!, on his unlikely, yet possible, return, will not be discouraged from further constructive editing (see !! encouraged). Thanks,  Aaron  ►  04:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure I follow your logic - but I unprotected all the same. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the editor's user ID, I wonder if he's a fan of Kimchi, which is kind of a Korean sauerkraut, and could safely be described as Seoul Food. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Another request

Sorry to bother you again, but can you combine the history of Bill Brooks (American football player) with Bill Brooks (American football)--Yankees10 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. This is a tough one. It wasn't really a cut/paste, it was accidentally created twice and then merged (there was even a merge tag at the top of one of them for a few weeks). We're not supposed to merge histories in cases like this. The history becomes incredibly confusing. In this case, it would look like a full article that was suddenly trimmed down to a little stub, and then changed back to the full article a few edits later. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh Ok, thanks for looking into it anyway--Yankees10 22:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Why did u declined the vandalism action on WP:VANDALISM ? He clearly wanted to make the sandbox unable to be editted by anyone. 81.184.38.148 (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar I promised...

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For creating an abuse filter to deal with a particularly annoying person, I hearby award you this Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Although it hasn't found anything yet. It won't be worth keeping enabled if it's not doing anything. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:The-pba

You apparently declined to block this username as a spamname, despite their edits to the now deleted Professional Bodyguard Association - may I ask why? – ukexpat (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"The-pba" is not a disruptive username. Even if clearly a company name - which it isn't - per the trend of the conversation at WT:U#Company names not (as yet) being used for spamming, company names are not perceived as blockable per se. If the account's edits become blockable, the correct place to report spam is WP:AIV. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Poker Face

THANK YOU so much for protecting the "Poker Face" article, it was maddening reverting all of that vandalism! :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 23:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Please look at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Here's an idea. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 03:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Block length

Dear Wknight94, you blocked 216.201.236.225 for 72 hours. I've increased the block length to 1 week because the IP has repeatedly vandalized WP. Happy with that? AdjustShift (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been blocked before - but not since February 2008. And before that, not since January 2007. I almost blocked for a week before I noticed the years didn't match. Who knows if the same provider even owns the IP after that long a period? Given that, if you want to leave at a week, that's fine by me. Wknight94 ^talk 18:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't noticed that it was February 2008. I only noticed February! Blunder from a newbie admin. :-) I've reduced the block to 72 hours. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, no problem. Like I said, I almost did the same thing. Looks like three blocks in four months but it's actually three blocks in two years and four months! LOL. Wknight94 ^talk 19:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick Note

Hey, I saw your note at RFPP after I semi'd the page. I wasn't sure if you'd see my message there so I'll post it here as well. If you think you can get an abuse filter to work that would be great. Personally, I'd prefer the filter over page protection, since it seems to be one user, so if you do get the filter up and running that would be awesome. If you do go through with making the filter, feel free to remove the protection or let my know and I'll just take it off my self. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 03:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thank you for the note. Wknight94 ^talk 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about the BLP page

Hey, I saw that you are in the same predicament that I was a day ago about Lar's BLP page and I'd like to hear your opinion about the situation. I had a brief discussion with Kevin here about a page that was protected for a whole year. I tried to reason with him that one, there wasn't a BLP issue to begin with so protection wasn't necessary (it was only a vandal who deleted the reference), and two, that protection for a year is a bit too long. After a bit of discussion with him and some thinking I figured he wasn't going to budge on the issue so I left it alone, figuring it was just an isolated incident. After I left you a message I saw your edit contributions at the page and checked out the discussion at Lar's page, and now I'm as concerned as you are about the whole issue. It does seem a bit cabal-ly and the page essentially seems like a bypass for WP:RFPP. Secondly, I'm a bit concerned about how other people are following the suggestion of one year as if it was policy. (The part where it says per liberal use of semi-protection) Finally, while not as big of a concern as the others, I'm not too fond of inclusion of the repetitive "please consult me before unblocking". It's usually expected to discuss with the admin who took action so it doesn't seem necessary. Plus, I'm just worried that a few users might take it as if they're are the ones who have the final decision of whether the article stays protected or not.

So after reading my long and drawn out story, my question for you is how do you think we should handle this? Should we just try and continue to discuss this on Lar's page? Should we take this to AN and discuss it or would that just create too much drama? (Final note: I realize you're involved in the situation as well, so please don't think I'm searching for someone who would best agree with me. I'm just trying to find out the best way to approach this. ) Thanks. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd give you a long answer but I pretty much agree with everything you've said. I am waiting to see a response to my last post there and I am expecting to have to bring it to the community's attention somewhere soon. Wknight94 ^talk 03:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You got a response. Issues #1 and #2 of Icestorm815's list are being discussed already, I hope you both will join in the discussion of them (and the rest too). ++Lar: t/c 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Billy Brooks

Can you delete the Billy Brooks redirect page, so I can create the actual football player who went by this name.--Yankees10 00:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

All gone. Wknight94 ^talk 00:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Yankees10 16:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oversighting edit summaries on User_Talk:Chris 73

I asked Chris 73 if the edit summaries from General Tojo socks should be removed. See Here. Momo san ^Gespräch 貢献 21:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the offer, but that is not necessary. (see User talk:Momusufan) Many thanks, -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"edit conflict" Actually, he prefers not to have them oversighted, see his response on my talk page Here. Momo san ^Gespräch 貢献 21:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Apparently you know who now is targeting my talk page, would you be able to delete his edit summaries? Momo san ^Gespräch 貢献 13:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Wknight94 ^talk 14:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. Momo san ^Gespräch 貢献 14:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim Clark

Hi Wknight94. Unfortunately, the "alternate method" for protecting Jim Clark doesn't seem to be working. We still seem to be getting exactly the same sort of edit. Sigh. DH85868993 (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That edit was done three days ago - before my latest changes to the filter. It stopped two edit attempts yesterday. It will take some time to get perfect but we'll get there. Wknight94 ^talk 11:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. DH85868993 (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like your filter has done the trick. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank the filter. It's a great new tool. Wknight94 ^talk 03:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bubble tea!

-download | sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Template for transclusion in article

Hi Wknight94 — The page I created was intended for transclusion in the article. There is probably a better way to do this. For the moment, I'll just repeat the words from the page in the article itself, so I've got no real objection to the deletion. Can you tell me how I could do such a transclusion, or where I can find the help page that explains this?  Cs32en  02:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Troost spam?

Would you mind telling me how adding an external link of a Q&A with author J. Maarten Troost to his wikipedia page is spam? And the reason for your removing it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shackleton7 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear (removed inappropriate word): an interview with the person whose wikipedia page you're looking at is not an inappropriate link. An inappropriate link would be a link that led you to an unrelated topic. The links I have been including are on the same topic. So stop deleting the four or five links I've added to some pages. I'm not spamming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shackleton7 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Updating of {{Birth year and age}}

You fully protected {{Birth year and age}}. Could you please substitute the existing template with the contents of {{Birth year and age/sandbox}} (leaving out "<noinclude>{{Template sandbox notice}}</noinclude>")? The new template deals with the point raised by bender235 on the template talk page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded at Template talk:Birth year and age. I have that watchlisted now as well... Wknight94 ^talk 20:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a random question

But can an editor come back even if he leaves wikipedia? --Abce2|Howdy! 01:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If he leaves Wikipedia voluntarily? Of course. Wknight94 ^talk 01:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Dr CyCoe

Greetings! I realize you're trying to clean up after a sockpuppet of CarolSpears, which is a big task, but I do wish you were more discriminating on what you reverted. I see nothing wrong with this edit and many of the others which added valid external links or sources. --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You're free to redo any of them yourself. Just verify that the edit is 100% correct - a task which CarolSpears and socks have little interest in. As for the talk page edits, I hardly think a banned user's assessments should be considered worth keeping. Toss 'em. Wknight94 ^talk 01:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This also seemed an unnecessary and counterproductive revert. I get what you're saying, which is why I qualified my above statement with an acknowledgment that this is no easy task. The user wasn't banned for inaccurate project assessments; from what I've seen, most of those seem to be OK. Anyway, you're well within policy guidelines to revert the banned user's edits outright. It just irks me to see some productive edits flushed away with the potential unproductive ones. --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not too troubled about losing stub tags either. That's not exactly a vital piece of information to lose. Some of my reverts lost links to Commons categories, etc. - I'll go back and try to recover those. If you want to spend hours pouring over source links that I removed, feel free, but those are precisely the type of things s/he took very little care in getting correct. Hence the ban in the first place. Wknight94 ^talk 02:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The article Cleome ornithopodioides is a legitimate article and does not seem to be a copyvio and should be restored. This should I believe be quite independent of the author's reputation and there appears to be no policy to delete otherwise legitimate pages created by banned users. Shyamal (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I was analyzing the edits of recently blocked users, and I ended up analyzing the edits of Dr CyCoe. I've reverted your edit to Robert Brown (botanist).[8] After you reverted Dr CyCoe's edit, this happened to the bio. Cleome ornithopodioides meets out WP standard. I think it should be restored. Banned users are not welcomed here, but sometimes, we have to ignore all rules. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and restored Cleome ornithopodioides. Shyamal (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't say it's not within policy. WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits is pretty clear policy. Now, if you review the edits and find them to be good and want to take responsibility for them, so be it - that's also within policy. But please don't accuse me of breaking policy. Wknight94 ^talk 12:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Hedgehog0

Hi!

You deleted this user page as a G11; could I ask to undelete it and move it to a sub-page? It's an article-under-construction. In hindsight I should have asked the creator to move it to a sub-page - apologies for that. There's some background to the article's creation in userspace here.

Many thanks, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Try User:Hedgehog0/Hedgehog Java API. Wknight94 ^talk 13:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

the user has now made an apparent request to put it in mainspace at Deletion Review; you may be interested in commenting. DGG (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I never made a request to place the article in mainspace in the deletion review section.

If you actually read my comments I sought clarification of wikipedia's rules wrt deletion.

Graham —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedgehog0 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi both of you!

I've commented at DRV. In summary I believe that DRV probably isn't the pace to discuss this (as the article has been restored), and I've provided some context and asked for any help other editors can provide. One editor mentioned that "Hedgehog0" may be a username violation; if that is the case then that's entirely my fault and I've asked that we work amicably to address that.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Request

Can you delete the Keith Moody redirect. It goes to a school because he is there prinicpal, and he most likely isnt notable.--Yankees10 22:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Wknight94 ^talk 01:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Yankees10 23:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi

My page Hedgehog0 was speedily deleted with the following stated message:

"This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article."

This states nothing about "notability" and hence why was the page deleted based on the above when pages [9], [10], [11] etc, etc, etc remain?

Graham

PS. I am contacting you as your username was attached to the deleted page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedgehog0 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

For future reference: Reaction to your recent block of an IP

Hi. See this diff and compare the timing to your recent action. --Orlady (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Request

Can you combine the edit history of Albert Lewis and Albert Lewis (American football)--Yankees10 18:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

All done. Wknight94 ^talk 20:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have one more, Steve Jordan (footbal player) history with Steve Jordan (American football)--Yankees10 23:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Keep 'em coming. Wknight94 ^talk 23:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Yankees10 23:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

John Mayberry, Jr.

Can you delete the John Mayberry, Jr. re-direct so I can start it from the beginning.--Yankees10 16:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

All gone. Wknight94 ^talk 18:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you--Yankees10 18:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

UAA

Thank you for promptly blocking Niiigggerrrrrrr (talk · contribs) - I appreciate the fast response.  Chzz  ►  15:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. It's good that you included the name in the edit summary since that appears in our watchlists. People get quicker results that way. Wknight94 ^talk 15:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

misc.

You had said something about granting me authority to do certain things, and I said I would think about it. I've thought about it. You can go ahead and do that if you want. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Give it a shot. Wknight94 ^talk 10:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, is there any consensus for this? The abuse filter is a very dangerous tool which I wouldn't trust many admins to use, where's the discussion for giving this right to a non admin? --Chris 12:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Admins can give themselves the right so that's a moot point. Baseball Bugs is more responsible than most of the admins here anyway IMHO. Is there consensus that we need consensus to give people the right? I haven't found any discussion on the subject but maybe I missed it. I assumed it was like WP:RFR. Wknight94 ^talk 14:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, now I see there are indeed zero non-admins with AFE rights. So I undid my action. But someone is going to need to explain what the hell the point of that is. Only admins get the right but admins can give themselves the right! We may as well just make it the same as the admin right. Wknight94 ^talk 15:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No big deal. We can discuss this when I can get back to my regular e-mail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to be creating filters directly. But I'd like to be able to read them and learn more about them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with you just reading filters (personally I think a separate read only right should be created). However as I said before I don't trust many of the admins with the right to use it safely. Its not that I think you're going to intentionally abuse the right, its just that I don't think you (and indeed many admins) have the technical knowledge necessary to use it safely. Also as for it being an admin assigned right, I'd prefer it to be crat assigned. --Chris 08:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Unlike some of the guys who write bot programs and apparently don't test them first, I'm a programmer by trade and am very careful with testing. On the other hand, I don't foresee much need for my writing these things directly. It would be more like coming up with a design and asking someone else, "What about this?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So you're telling me that you've never had to work to a deadline and release some code before fully testing it? If so you're one lucky programmer. --Chris 08:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't say "never", but not often and not recently. We do things carefully at my company. And I don't see where a "deadline" would figure into writing either a bot or a filter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not writing the filter that's the problem, updating filters is generally when mistakes happen. Basically in situations where you have /b/ hounding many pages (like when 4chan was the TFA, but that was pre abusefilter) or when there's a large amount of page move vandalism coming in, you can feel rushed to update the filter (or bot as the case may be), to try and stop the vandalism; this is when the mistakes are made, forget to escape a | in a regex and bam, anyone who puts a link in their move summaries is automatically blocked. --Chris 09:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there was a horror story like that just recently. That might be what you're referring to. And that kind of concern is why I'm hesitant about it. Another thing this place seems to lack, in comparison with my company, is a test environment. The philosophy seems to be, "If it works, it's production; otherwise, it's a test." Hence the periodic ANI complaints about runaway bots, which apparently many users can write and which sometimes go berserk on a large scale. I have to say that, in general, I am not that keen on automating these kinds of things. The filters I've had some involvement with recently, though, were pretty specifically targeted. And they were tested properly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not totally objection to you having the right, its just that if you got the right this way it would set a very dangerous precedent. The fact that Wknight linked to WP:RFR scares me immensely, treating the abusefilter right as if it was rollback would be suicide for wikipedia. --Chris 09:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. If I get it, others will want it, including some who shouldn't have it. I've seen a number of supposedly responsible users get caught up in even just the rollback trap. I can think of one who was granted it recently and within a few days was being rung up on ANI for grossly abusing it. I've had rollback for over a year, and have never been accused of misusing it. But not everyone takes my approach to power tools. Filters are no doubt a sword with two very sharp edges. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And obviously the workaround can continue to be what it is now, communication via e-mails in which the structure of the filter can be stated without the "wrong eyes" seeing it. That might be the most appropriate solution anyway: a read-only privilege so that a non-admin could advise but let the admin himself do the work. What kind of effort would be needed to create a read-only capability? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

All that needs is on wiki consensus for such a change and someone to file a bugzilla. Its a very trivial config change to add a new usergroup now. --Chris 11:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I was away for most of this. Just a few responses and points of fact: I only pointed to WP:RFR because the rollback privilege is the same as the AFE privilege in that admins can assign it (whether that should change is another matter). And also, the abuse filter cannot block anyone here - although I often wish it could. The worst it can do is prevent someone from doing an action and possibly revoke autoconfirmed status for a time. Otherwise, I see your points and agree with some of them. It's a dangerous privilege and one that should only be given to responsible people - but Bugs is one of those people and is quite a bit more responsible than most people here. If not for his outspoken personality (more to the point, people's reaction to his outspoken personality), he would have been an administrator long ago and could have given himself the AFE privilege. Wknight94 ^talk 12:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

FA Nomination; Ryan Braun

Hi. I've nominated Ryan Braun to be a Featured Article. As you are a significant baseball editor, you may wish to contribute your view as to whether it should be a FA. The discussion of the FA comment process can be found at [12], and the page that you can go in through to leave comments is the article's talk page at [13]. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

!!

hey, i noticed you swooped in pretty fast there, & have been kind of jkeeping an eye on the page; i'm surious, why the concern for an old, ex-user page?

also, did you feel that my wording was inaccurate in some way?

Lx 121 (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted too. There's no reason to disrespect the retired users' wishes and no real compelling reason to provide a confusing note. I didn't realize I still had the page on my watchlist as it's been several years and this is the first time anybody had a problem with it. --JayHenry (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

@LX 121: It happens to be on my watchlist since I protected it. I guess I would ask you the same. Since when do we modify user pages of retired users to say what we want? Who is getting confused by his message? He clearly directs the reader to the explanation. Just let it go. Wknight94 ^talk 17:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

where? is the "clearly directs the user to his message" part? i seem to have missed that? it reads as a sockpuppet ban, which is not accurate. i read thru the case & wrote a very npov summary, to clarify the situation. if you can cite any inaccuracies, please do so. if it really is a problem, shall we skip the prelims & go to straight arbitration? i'm not an admin, but i've been around for a while, & i've made some pretty decent contributions here. don't like getting steamrollered. Lx 121 (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many inaccurate things on user pages, but that doesn't give you license to edit war to add messages to other people's user pages, especially when the inaccuracies are innocuous or satirical commentaries or, in this case, both. He's not inappropriately categorized in any way, nor is he actually blocked. Since he's not edited for a very long time it's hard to imagine the sort of situations that might arise where there would be a problem with someone thinking that he was blocked. --JayHenry (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

@LX 121: !! (talk · contribs) is being sarcastic on his user page, which is very much his right. It hasn't caused anyone any distress for two years so I really can't imagine what has brought this on. Wknight94 ^talk 17:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: PD claim at Commons

That image should be deleted, because it's a clear violation of copyright. I did translate the Momofuku Ando article into Vietnamese, but the image hadn't even been included in the article by that time, and I don't remember adding a rationale for it. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 02:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

CFSR request

Hello Wknight94, you recently made a request for speedy renaming of a category, I've dropped you request into the categories with objections section, you can see my reasoning here, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your note. I think #2 just happens to be an example of lower-case to upper-case, while mine is upper-case to lower-case, but either way is a valid speedy criteria, no? There are four other requests just like mine in the speedy queue so why is only mine moved? Wknight94 ^talk 10:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I just assumed that, as per the example, the proper capitalization was always upper case, my apologies Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Ol’factory is renaming it now, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. I was just puzzled. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 10:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User:EdsKavalee

Hi Wknight94. I was responding to an unblock request by User:EdsKavalee, who you blocked in July 2008. I know it'd be a stretch to try and remember any of the details, but you blocked the user for abusing multiple accounts. I have narrowed the other account down to User: NijatShiznit, but if you remember any other details about it, it would be helpful. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the account. The block was for this. The modus operandi is to consistently make unblock requests, deny other accounts' unblock requests, and generally act the fool. I recommend you protect the talk page when you deny the unblock. Wknight94 ^talk 14:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#90.193.250.0.2F24

I wasn't aware of this case when I range-blocked 90.193.250.0/24 a little while ago. I made a post at WP:ANI#Rangeblock on 90.193.250.* about it.-gadfium 00:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. If checkuser says it looks okay, I'd go for a month or two on the whole range. Some of the individual addresses have been blocked three times for a couple months or more. Time to put that to an end. Wknight94 ^talk 00:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Principal vs. Principle

Sorry, an honest spelling mistake. My quotation marks were simply because in the UK we use a different term (headmaster) normally. Ironholds (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Leading the league in wins; Deletion of material

Hi ... can you please give us some guidance as to your thoughts on the issue discussed at [14]?

In short, I input a sentence that pitcher x was leading the league in wins. That is mentioned in more than one article, and in fact the focus of at least one -- as reflected by its title.

A fellow editor believes the sentence should be deleted now. I am happy with it being deleted when out of date, but believe that deletion is not mandated now. Analagous to our having stats in infoboxes, that turn sour with time (and are replaced, in time). Many thanks.--Ethelh (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

user:99.184.223.225

I saw that you recently temp blocked this user as a probable sockpuppet of user:Television Radio, most probably as a result of the abuse filter. I do not believe that this particular IP is part of TV Radio's pattern, as the attempted edits to the Midway (CTA) would have been constructive, (correcting bus route 379 name as confirmed by my check of www.pacebus.com ), and the fact that this edit actually concerned suburban transit (Pace operates mainly outside the city of Chicago), as opposed to TV radio's normal "city only" pattern of edits to the CTA articles.

The "popular culture" content of this IP's other edits to Lockheed JetStar seems to be on the fringe of what could be part of TV Radios pattern, but I do not recall TV editing any other aircraft articles in the past.

In addition, there are obvious TV Radio hits to the abuse filter from user:76.217.38.146, both before AND after user:99.184.223.225's edits. TV Radio jumps IP addresses fairly often, but I cannot recall any time when he actually jumped back to a previous address.

I would ask that you consider AGF'ing user:99.184.223.225's edits and reconsider the block of this address. TV radio can be a painful rectal itch, but we don't need to alienate potential constructive IP editors with blocks. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I unblocked. Wknight94 ^talk 17:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

AA Bondy

Would you mind userfying this page for me? I'd like to see if there's anything in the deleted page that lays a foundation for a legit page for AA Bondy, though the G1 classification suggests I may be disappointed with what I get.

Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The "article" was:

With his cd American Hearts he stepped into my life as "THE MAN"

Enjoy. Wknight94 ^talk 00:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

Can you block the user:Bamboon he continues to change the birth date on Whitey Fords page. He is without a doubt a sockpuppet of a user who kept chaning it a couple of months ago.--Yankees10 16:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I can. It's Ron liebman (talk · contribs). Now blocked. If you see similar activity at other baseball articles, let me know. It may be him again. This type of thing is what got him banned so many years ago. Wknight94 ^talk 17:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks--Yankees10 17:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Filter 177 and The Chicago Transit Authority (album)

While the target of filter 177 does tend to edit articles related to the Chicago Transit Authority, this particular article is not part of his pattern, as it is about an LP by Chicago (band), (related in name only). The only 2 hits on the abuse filter for this article were recent, false positives. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a good edit as well. Prodego ^talk 16:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, Prodego, That is a Classic example of a "TV Radio" edit, exactly what this filter is supposed to catch, a banned sockpuppeteer who just won't go away. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that TV Radio has returned, and his previous edits may have been intended to "probe" the filter, to determine its boundaries. Please check the contributions and edit summaries of the following IPs:

• 99.132.128.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 99.141.123.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.223.89.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.209.218.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.223.67.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

...and especially this contribution: [15] The ISP and geolocation match his previous IPs on all counts. He also managed to avoid tripping the filter, with two exceptions [16][17] WuhWuzDat 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering. There were many suspicious edits but some looked legitimate and no one else seemed to care so I stopped paying attention. E.g., the recent history of Ja'net Dubois - you reverted one of the IPs but not the three previous edits from another IP. Are the Good Times edits just plain vandalism? The whole case puzzles me. Feel free to e-mail me if you'd prefer to stay offline. Wknight94 ^talk 22:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Email sent. WuhWuzDat 00:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

GAN for Hamilton Disston

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've passed the article for GA, please don't think I was not appreciative of the work you'd put into the article, it was excellent, I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't any coverage in secondary sources about other aspects of his life. As I told Moni, with some more research it might make an excellent FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Thanks to you and Moni both for getting it closer to the current standards. I guess I have been away from article writing for too long and was just way off on what makes a GA. I'll try to get back into things at some point. Thanks again. Wknight94 ^talk 18:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

GA standards are on the rise, just like FAC. If it'd been horrible, I'd have failed it, it was close to GA. Keep hunting and you'll really have a great article! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hes Back

Another Ron liebman (talk · contribs), using the account Yankees96 (talk · contribs) and changing the birthdate of Whitey Ford again--Yankees10 16:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And he's not the only one. You made a nice catch earlier today. --Orlady (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. That's pretty much life here lately. Wknight94 ^talk 22:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

German Wiki image

I am sorry, I have no more info on that image other than what I wrote at the time. Haiduc (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Artist: Franco "El Gorila"

As being a huge fan of Reggaetón music, I'm always interested in reading articles and histories of popular musicians who belong to this genre. So I just figured out that the article about Franco "El Gorila" has been removed for several times already. I noticed that your name appeared in touch with those users who were involved in the deletion then. So I thought to catch up with you for a short request because I'd like to see it unprotected and I'd be pleased to rewrite it. I've been following the career of this artist for a longer while now and I assure that I use information from serious sources only - including technical websites from Latin America. I've already written articles about a couple of artists for Wikipedia in other languages and none of them has been deleted yet. Of course I'm not able to make a promise that my essay will fulfill the high standards Wikipedia articles usually have, but I'd be definitely giving my best, foremost in respect for the artist. I hope you might give me a chance to enrich the encyclopedia once more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.206.212.76 (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well how about creating it in user space? User:79.206.212.76/Franco "El Gorila" perhaps? Then you can go to WP:DRV to request that your article be used in place of the deleted one. Wknight94 ^talk 16:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Catalepsy

I just got your post about my catalepsy picture. Is this you trying to help me with my metadata problem? Or is this some thinking that I did not make the picture? If the former, I now know how to strip metadata and will reupload later. love Saudade7 19:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

it is a collage from a nineteenth century book, an early 20th century book, some victorian wallpaper, some crazy Photoshop colors, and isolated subject. I made he collage for another project, but seeing that the page had no image I added it. Then, the day before you wrote, I asked on the well? Warercooler? Wiki question page how to get rid of my name in the metadata and they said add a new image and then ask an admin to take the old one off. So I thought maybe you were trying to help me, but it was confusing. Sorry if there are mistakes in this I am txting. Saudade7 05:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)