User talk:Wknight94/Archive 7

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

Sorry

I am sorry- one of my friends logged into my account and fooled around. I'll be sure to change my password. --paradigms (talk

Mets Refugees

Why is the "Mets Refugees" link taken down every time it is posted? It is the largest Mets message board on the internet, with over 1,100 members. I am not trying to spam, but rather add it as a resource for fans. The site has up-to-the-minute Mets information. In fact, as an example, it was Mets Refugees that actually broke the story about the Chan Ho Park signing and called WFAN with the news.

Also as a precedent, the Red Sox page lists the message board "Sons of Sam Horn" under their External Links.

Thank you for your time.

TV vandal

Hi, thanks for your interest. :) The position I took was that all the edits from that address were not to be trusted. Some few of them were easily verifiable, and at first I verified them and left them in - later I reverted them as unsourced on the grounds that all the address's contributions were untrustworthy. Most were clearly untruthful, and I reverted those. A few were only verifiable through user-edited databases like Amazon and IMDB. In the absence of any other sources, I thought it best to revert those. Vashti 02:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Representative's templates

I noticed you commented that having a template for each new Congress may be the way to go in the future. I disagree with this, since the current template formatting would make the representatives' pages very long. However, I would be more inclined towards something along the lines of how Supreme Court justice's templates are laid out (i.e. William Rehnquist), and I feel that a similar format could be adapted for Congressional templates. I was visualizing something that would, in place of the date ranges on the Supreme Court templates, have "1st", "2nd", "3rd", etc, with the header saying something along the lines of "<state>'s Representation in the 1st through 3rd Congresses". Something to think about, because I've never been a fan of the formatting of these templates. --tomf688 (talk - email) 21:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CarlosDelgado.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CarlosDelgado.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mosmof 01:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you, the gay comments were rather unappreciated. Darth griz⁹⁸ 16:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you banned that person, honestly he seemed harmless, if not stupid.JJ the Crusader 19:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I haven't been here in a while so excuse me for that. This user wasn't causing any harm, he just wanted a friend to help him learn the "way of wikipedia". He obviously had a report on homosexuality which he needed help on. I think he may be mentally challenged, we should have just talked to him and helped him out. Too late now, I guess.JJ the Crusader 14:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this sneaky vandalism edit to the featured article of the day (a "penis" and changing 47,000 to 47,000,000 hidden among many white space changes) makes my sympathy drop to zero. He can always create another account. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed that. JJ the Crusader 23:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Wknight, thanks for blocking 69.22.211.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); the situation was getting out of hand, with me deperately reverting to keep up with the steady stream of spam! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with vandals?

I already asked an admin, but I think he's offline. This guy [1] apparently exists for the purpose of vandalism and disruption. And the Big Mac is the least of it. Wahkeenah 04:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry for the disruption. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Wahkeenah 05:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another user whose entire "contributions" are vandalism. [2] Just not as active as the one from yesterday. Wahkeenah 11:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Santin beat me there. Keep 'em comin'! I block throwaway accounts on sight. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Those two guys had been "under the radar" somehow, especially the latter. As I run across them, I'll send them your way, for proper disposal. :) Wahkeenah 12:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got another one for you: [3] Wahkeenah 02:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll go through its contributions and see if anything needs reverting. Here's a poser: If someone were to go to the Patent article and posts "patent nonsense", would that be a redundancy? :) Wahkeenah 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and that other user are way ahead of me. :) Wahkeenah 03:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one, whose purpose is either vandalism or weirdness, or both. [4] Wahkeenah 00:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an odd one but looks a bit too benign to deal with. Let me know if s/he acts up though. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, it's kind of borderline. We'll see if it escalates. Wahkeenah 00:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more candidates: [5] and [6]. Wahkeenah 11:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Wahkeenah 12:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one: [7] Wahkeenah 16:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another. He got my page, even, and typically nobody bothers vandalizing my boring page: [8] Wahkeenah 17:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another admin, Gwernol (talk · contribs), issued a final warning and he hasn't done anything since. I don't want to step on Gwernol's toes by blocking him anyway. Let me know if he vandalizes anything else soon and I'll block him. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10-4. Wahkeenah 17:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a minor candidate, with a few seemingly legitimate (though poorly done) attempts at editing, with the rest being vulgarity-laced nonsense. He has been on for about 2 weeks. [9] Wahkeenah 10:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough for me. Even the "legitimate" edits have been reverted with edit summaries labelling them as nonsense. He's gone. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one with a different twist, inventing obituaries for still-living persons. [10] Wahkeenah 12:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he's already been warned, so maybe a "wait and see" situation. Wahkeenah 12:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I've seen that behavior before - might be a sock. I'll zap that one pretty quick if it continues. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, here's the very definition of a single-purpose user. [11] Wahkeenah 12:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked an hour ago. Such blatant attack accounts are often killed within a few minutes. I've had a few of those including two that vandalized my user page just yesterday. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They served their "purpose", I suppose. Meanwhile, I hardly ever get vandalized. I'm hurt. :( Wahkeenah 13:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not missing much. If they could at least be mildly amusing, it would help - but usually it's just boring. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone was looking over my shoulder. You may wield your trusty electronic sword, Sir Knight. [12] Wahkeenah 15:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey congratulations! Of course it doesn't count as much if it's just your talk page. ;) —Wknight94 (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one with a rather singular theme: [13] Wahkeenah 03:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danke. :) Wahkeenah 03:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a minor candidate. So far he's only messed with one article. [14] Wahkeenah 02:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough for me. It's obviously not someone trying to learn their way around. It's a throwaway account. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one's only apparent purpose is to badmouth Rosie O'Donnell. Not that she doesn't deserve it from time to time, especially on this issue. But this is a one-note user. If he keeps at it, I might ask you to intervene, at least to post a warning. It's not my place to ask you to delete an editor just because I don't agree with his viewpoint. [15] Wahkeenah 20:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC) This one's sole purpose appears to be vandalism. [16] Wahkeenah 03:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two listed immediately above appear to have come and gone. Wahkeenah 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I warned one since s/he had made a couple seemingly good-faith edits. Like you said, they both seem inactive now. Sleeper accounts for future attacks probably. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sehr gut. If they awaken and attack articles I'm still watching, I'll let you know (if you don't see it first). Wahkeenah 17:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a new one whose sole purpose seems to be to screw around with things. [17] Wahkeenah 15:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks about right. It's gone. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bueno. Wahkeenah 16:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one. He made some innocuous entries in late January, and now it looks like he's declaring himself or a friend to be God. [18] Wahkeenah 16:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. You'd think if he were God, he'd know to capitalize his own last name. He was warned by someone else - I'll give him one more chance. BTW, those January edits were in January 2006, not 2007 - not that it matters, just FYI... —Wknight94 (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. That's a serious "sleeper" account, eh? Wahkeenah 16:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one whose purpose is to push a political viewpoint through little editorial remarks. [19] Wahkeenah 19:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a sporadic editor, whose few edits are revertable, either for general reasons, or because he's one of these characters who feels the need to substitute "pwn" for "own". [20] Wahkeenah 09:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a kid but the rest of the edits are good faith. I left a warning. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this editor's entries are just plain weird, including his insistence on putting his signature into the article. [21] Wahkeenah 09:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is an odd one but most of the edits appear to be good faith (one looks like pure vandalism though). Let me know if he continues after your note to him. He edits rarely anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's focus, so far, has been to screw up the Gettysburg Address page. I'll post a comment on his talk page. [22] Wahkeenah 06:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new. It appears to have been a hit-and-run. Wahkeenah 14:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a guy with a rather singular purpose, to advertise his own product. Some folks are shameless. He might be a one-shot, though. [23] Wahkeenah 14:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one's sole purpose is repeated mucking around with the Declaration of Independence page. [24] Wahkeenah 14:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one with the sole purpose of vandalism. He was warned yesterday and has continued his activities just now. [25] Wahkeenah 12:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one who has continued to "sodomize" pages despite being warned. [26] Wahkeenah 01:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kicked that one's butt. ;) —Wknight94 (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos. As James Bond (Timothy Dalton) said, "He got the boot." (You had to be there). Wahkeenah 02:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anon vandal

another vandal 216.83.96.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --HIZKIAH (User  Talk) 17:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll field throwaway accounts personally (like above) but IPs should go to WP:AIV. They're more of a judgement call. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: HOF pic

Glad to do it. By the way, do you have any other photos from the museum part of the Hall that we can use? The article emphasizes the Hall of Fame members and elections component -- which I suppose makes sense -- and not that much about the actual museum. Seems like a photo from one of the exhibits would be useful for the article. Slic e NYC (Talk) 23:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Jerry Maguire

Hey, wkinght94, I don't know how much you know about this , but would you like to help edit a page about Rod Tidwell, from Jerry Maguire?--Mets4117 23:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck happened to that page? It doesn't even make sense. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you tslking sbout

Never mind, I misunderstood what the article was about. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help with it, clean it up. --Mets4117 21:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, the subject matter doesn't interest me too much, sorry. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, anyway.

OMG

omg! You are so cool! I love you!!!

Your just so awesome! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rambo forever (talk • contribs).

Bad Faith Username

Hello Wknight94, I found a bad faith username that has not been blocked yet: User:I think homosexuality is perfectly acceptable Bush go die. The first contribution did not indicate good intentions either.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Nevermind, Jeffrey O. Gustafson got to it.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cruise Photo War

Hello Wknight94. I agree with you re the Tom Cruise photo. Unfortunately, the photo issue is still unresolved and I think you will continually see this type photo vandalism on the TC article. I feel that the people (often they are vandals) who want to replace a good photo and put in their own favorite photo, should get some consensus before trying to make an arbitrary change to the article. Arbitrary changes usually aren't accepted. Some kind of reminder to this effect wouldn't hurt, don't you think? Que-Can 18:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If good faith picture changes are really occurring that frequently then a comment is fine (nicely-worded of course - we don't want to WP:BITE new folks who aren't aware of copyright and fair use issues). The warning should especially include that the current picture is free so any replacement would also have to be free. On the other hand, if you're saying that there are recurring bad faith picture changes - i.e, vandalism - then no warning comment is going to deter them. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Thanks. It is tiresome to see someone's "favorite" photo popping up again and again, despite the facts that these weird photos are only going to be deleted by someone with a bit more common sense. You're right, there is little chance that friendly reminders will deter the vandals. Que-Can

It's a common problem when the only free images available aren't great quality. (Actually the Cruise photo isn't too bad so I'm not sure why it's under attack). More bad news is that Tom Cruise has been sprotected for months now. It's really about time to unprotect it... —Wknight94 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandal

I reported a vandal, but you removed it. On the vandal's talk page is a warning that they may be blocked without warning. You removed it contrary to rhe warning, saying "1 not blocked. Looks very shared with a lot of good faith edits. " I guarantee that the amount of time lost by good editors fighting vandalism far outweighs the good edits by shared IP addresses. Bubba73 (talk), 05:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't generalize. Focus on the case at hand: 170.20.96.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). One person sat down at the shared computer and wanted to try out Wikipedia so they typed "ss" and hit save. And that was it. No profanity or pictures of genitalia. Prior to that, most people at that computer do constructive edits. What's the point of blocking all of them - and possibly turning away future good editors with an ugly block notice - because one guy didn't know where the sandbox was and made one single edit? (And that was the last edit BTW.)

Frankly I don't buy into this idea of so much time being wasted on vandal fighting. When people want to do vandal fighting, they do it. I have been recently because my creativity level has been low. When I stop, someone else magically appears to pick up the slack. Some people love it and do nothing but. Try reading m:GAY for a less serious view. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The good editors can get a user account. (2) I have about 150 pages on my watchlist. Sometimes it is down to 120, and it has been as high as about 250. I try to check every edit to those pages that is by an editor I don't know, especially ones by IP addresses. Most of the vandalism to the pages on my watch list is not caught by people on general vandalism patrol. I spend at least 10% of my time (and perhaps 20%) on WP checking those pages, reverting vandalism, leaving messages for the vandal (most reverters don't do that), and sometimes AIN. Most of the time is in checking every edit. Bubba73 (talk), 14:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - look at that users talk page for a long list of warnings. Four in December, including a "last warning". How many last warnings does a user get? Bubba73 (talk), 14:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a red herring. What do last warnings in December have to do with a single small instance of gibberish vandalism in January? Did you want the IP blocked forever at that point to prevent the one edit? As it was, the IP was blocked for a whole damn week in January for almost no reason (If I had more ambition right now, I'd ask the blocker why).

I'm not going to debate the overall whether-anonymous-people-should-be-allowed-to-edit issue. If you have articles you'd like watched more closely, let me know and I'll gladly add them to my watchlist. In the specific instance which prompted this, the risk-reward analysis fell clearly in favor of not blocking. Not even a short block. I may have done a few-hour block on January 14 just to stop the single-character edits at Kevin Smith but that would have just been to get the person to walk away from that public computer so someone else could sit down and make constructive edits three hours later. Blocking is supposed to have a purpose and revenge isn't one of them. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you just blocked someone who vandalized one of the pages on my watchlist, continental drift. Thanks! (Interestingly, you reverted to the last version by me, which itself was a rvv. On that one page alone, I've made six RVVs in the last few months, and I have over 100 articles on my watchlist.) Another thing about vandals that wastes a lot of good editor's time that I forgot to mention earlier, is that when you find a vandal, you need to check all of their previous edits. It taks a lot of time away from good editors. Bubba73 (talk), 19:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And maybe one issue is the scale of vandalism. You're talking about six reverts in the last few months, I've filled my watchlist with pages that get vandalized several times per day - sometimes several times per hour. If we semiprotected every page that had six reverts every few months, it wouldn't be a wiki anymore. Anyway, let me know what else is on your watchlist that gets vandalized more than you'd like and I'll add them to mine. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those six reversions are just ones done by me on that one page in the last few months. Others have reverted that page too, as well as other pages that the same vandals edited. Keep that one on your watchlist. All of this vandalism and bad editing is what makes Wikipedia the laughing stock it is. Bubba73 (talk), 20:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one that has been getting vandalized a lot: Moon landing. Bubba73 (talk), 18:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberpunk page

For some, unknown reason I have been blocked from the Cyberpunk page. This confuses me, since not only have I never vandalised on here, I've never even edited that page before.

Bug of History Viewer

I'm sorry for bothering you. I was talking about Wikipedia:Requests for investigation of which a history view shows a buggy display including your editings. I only changed the {{vandal|Tokyo Watcher}} section, and the system displays correct differences between my edit and any revisions except the last one of mine, so I hope you would see no vandalism occured. Thanks. --Excavator 17:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

userpage rvv

you are welcome. West Brom 4ever 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musty Flahive

hey, that was not nonsense it has started a large slang term of the Musty Flahive in Colorado and California and thousands of highschool students now know of it so i thought i would tell more what it is when they are left out of a disscusion because they dont know what it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathboi (talk • contribs).

My revert at Hitler

Hi, no I'm not sure. I sometimes, but really not often, hit rollback too fast. Generally, if it a lot of changes are made by an anon or a newly-registered user, I'm more suspicious. What I saw was that the article had been changed to say that Hitler died "aged 51". Now, I'm not an expert on Hitler, or in mathematics, but if he was born in 1889, and died in 1945, I don't think he can have been fifty-one! Scrolling down the page, I saw that a lot of changes had been made. I didn't have time or expertise to check them all. The "aged 51" was enough for me. Actually, if I hadn't received your message, I would probably have automatically rolled back this as well, because he was changing the dates of birth and death, and I knew him to have already made false changes about Hitler's age. However, I googled for Bell, and discovered that his changes were correct there, at least. If you feel you should revert me, go ahead, but please don't have seomeone born in 1889 dying in 1945 aged 51. Thanks for your message. Musical L inguist 23:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert

You're really a dick, who "protects articles from vandalism"?

Tyler Kyte

Hello, I just want to notify you that in this article there exist a user who is repeatedly putting in an image of Tyler Kyte without a proper copyright. The user is Kevin87. He's been told it has no copyright, but he doesn't care. He's got no respect for the rules. Fighting for Justice 04:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert

Bravo! schyler 04:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for protecting the Reality 2.0 website. I didn't know how to do it and I have been fixing it for the last 20 min! Much respk Rrten00 04:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Let me know if you want to make a legitimate edit. It might have to stay protected for a while unfortunately. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Talk:Reality:

You recently protected[27] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 05:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert?

I noticed that you had protected a page using the word “Colbert” in your edit summary. What does that mean? Does it have some specific meaning in the Wikipedia? Is that a known vandal? ●DanMS 05:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? On Stephen Colbert's national comedy talk show, he offered $5 to the first person who changed the Reality article to say "Reality is a commodity". Check the edit history for that article around 11:40pm (New York time) and you'll see the firestorm that resulted. I was one of about 5-10 admins who saw it and locked down every related page they could find. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

161.112.232.17

"Undid revision 104562692 by 161.112.232.17 (talk) part of vandalism spree so this is probably false) . It was. - 81.171.167.254 12:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not at all surprising given the dozen or so edits prior to that. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the Halifax article gave them away [28]. There were a couple of them at it. - 81.171.167.254 12:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:8mmband.jpg

Thanks for the revert there. But why didn't you just delete it outright? - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 04:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't ordinarily get involved in replaceable fair use images. Ugly issue. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yagmur81

Hi! I saw a request on the mailing list by this user, who was blocked after making 2 edits, never warned. I'm not sure if it's long-term socks or something, but why did you block him so quickly? ST47Talk 13:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want me to wait for him and 74.109.197.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to blank that page three or four times? There's no point. He can create a new account. Feel free to unblock him but I wouldn't expect anything useful from it. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your reply. ST47Talk 11:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

... for this. Just a question - do you have my talk page watchlisted? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't. Same IP vandalized my user and talk page a few seconds earlier. Just tracking the contribs. Would you like me to add your pages to my watchlist? It's my main resource in vandal fighting. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston

Hi! In the past, you've noted support on my talk page for naming U.S. cities consistently with other countries (only disambiguate when necessary). See Talk:Boston, Massachusetts. --Serge 22:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unfortunate that this can't be pushed through, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotect

Hey there- I noticed that someone had put a semiprotect tag on tree, and you subsequently removed it. I wonder what the policy is on semiprotecting a page? I couldn't find it, though granted, I'm pretty lousy at finding stuff sometimes. That page is pretty often vandalized, for some reason, but does it not really pass the threshold? Just curious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trees4est (talk • contribs).

Just putting a protected tag on a page doesn't actually protect it. To get a page properly protected by an administrator, you'd have to go to WP:RFPP. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Reverts

Yea, thanx for letting me know about that. I just recently figured out the "undo" part, I had a big duh moment there when I realized the correct way to do it. Anyways, thanx for tellin me. AlaGuy 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draconian Blocks

You recently blocked Kyle Puckett indefinitely, and it seems draconian, as the user has 5 edits and no previous blocks. mrholybrain 's talk 15:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it's just a throwaway account. S/he will create another and be back soon. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by 168.170.202.20

Thank you for your recent actions against 168.170.202.20(Talk). -Coolmark18 17:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two users?

Do you have any way of telling whether two users are the same? Gravitor[29] and Carfiend [30] were both very contentious on the Apollo hoax page last summer; both disappeared around mid-September; and both re-appeared recently. Things that make you go "Hmmm..." Wahkeenah 02:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking for WP:RFCU. Very few users have checkuser privileges and I'm not one of them. But it sounds like you have enough evidence to give RFCU a try. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Should I mention on the Apollo hoax page that they've been submitted for comment, or should I let them figure it out for themselves? Wahkeenah 03:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figure you should mention whatever supports your case. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting it on the Apollo hoax page first, as a courtesy. Thank you for your help. :) Wahkeenah 03:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. I misunderstood your question, sorry. Sure, it couldn't hurt to post a message there. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the posting. [31] I don't know if I did it right. I don't like playing this "nanny" game and thus I haven't done this before. Wahkeenah 03:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been there too many times either. There are RFCU clerks that will help format things and keep things sane. If anything, they may refuse the case saying it's too obvious to do a checkuser. I'd be looking for other accounts fitting the same pattern. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hi, This is Granpire Viking Man, I don't know if you remember me.We had a discussion about TaeKwonTimmy's user page. I was wondering if you could adopt, or wikidopt me. I need a wikipian to answer my questions, and to ask advice.--Granpire Viking Man 01:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always happy to answer questions. What advice are you looking for? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't think of anything right away, but I was talking about Wikidoption. There is an official name, but I can't find it right away. I'll try to find it in a few minutes.--Granpire Viking Man 01:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here: WP:ADOPT --Granpire Viking Man 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well?--Granpire Viking Man 16:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the revert, also, if you have some time, would you mind giving me a critique, review is in my sig. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 03:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thanks for the revert on circus. I really appreciate it.Ms408 06:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey stop blocking around!

yeah, i'm that guy you just blocked for the edits to tokyo. look, if you saw your enemies messing around with your hometown's page and putting their flag onto it, what would you do? i was just being justicial. and i don't know how this works, but what i saw was Shanghai was left vandalized for more than 20 minutes. but when i did something to Tokyo, it was edited back within in seconds. so what was that? discrimination? since you're such a good admin i just thought you should know that. plus, i did nothing wrong to Pluto, use your eyes next time you do your job.

When I see that you're such a blatant vandal, I assume everything you do is vandalism. Please don't waste people's time with ridiculous excuses like vandalism in retaliation. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if i wasted your time that's not what i wanted. when i saw tokyo being edited back, what i could think of was the people who did the vandalizing to Shanghai were trying to protect their own town.

will you let me know who i should report to the next time something like that happens, so i can have that son of a bitch banned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.15.34.252 (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Read WP:VANDAL. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important

how do I internet?

Request for Participation in Universal Animation AfD Debate

Need more participation to reach consensus in Universal Animation (AfD). Since you contributed to the article one the New England Anime Society, your comments would be valuable. Echocharlie 15:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blazing Saddles, etc.

We've got a seemingly-paranoid IP address making a generic accusation of "sockpuppetry" and "collusion" regarding the editing of film articles, of all things. [32] If he resumes pushing his viewpoint on this, I'm not sure what to do. Wahkeenah 17:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what in the world is that all about? S/he is making a federal case about the use of film-related trivia? I predict a new entry at WP:LAME soon. One suggestion I'll make is to make sure all of those facts are sourced well. It's more difficult to insist on the inclusion of unsourced facts. Other than that, we may have to sprotect the article since it's a floating IP. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things seem to be a little calmer this evening. We'll see. One thing, in my observations over the last couple of years on this site, vandals don't tend to stick around very long, as they get bored. But there are always new ones cropping up. Kind of like Bill Cosby's story about the lumps in the cream-of-wheat. Wahkeenah 02:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal history

I see that you told 208.39.161.193 that he was temporarily blocked. I just reverted more vandalism by him on flapper. Perhaps a more permanent block is necessary for that IP address. Grika Ⓣ 19:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was more than two weeks ago. It's hard to know if it's the same person. Vandalism seems to come from that address in short waves so it's probably not worth blocking for a long period (unlike a school address where every little kid that sits at the machine pours in vandalism until they're blocked). —Wknight94 (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French Wine

Hi there! I reverted your well intentioned correction to French_wine. This is a rare case where the spelling really is Independant -- Kind regards Steve.Moulding 02:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oops, sorry. I've caught a few situations like that while mass-spell fixing but that one snuck by. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod removed

Please see my rationale at Talk:Better Luck Yesterday (2006 movie) Jerry lavoie 02:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd vandal

This guy [33] is putting his name in the articles. I'm not sure if it's purposeful vandalism or just ignorance. His user page says he's 12. That could be true, one way or another. Wahkeenah 03:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. Your note to him/her is good for now. Hopefully s/he will refrain. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Griffin

Please look at this page and see if the new editor who's making sweeping changes to it has anything to do with the banned user you were telling me about. Grand master ka 11:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at this now as well, and the edits are very different. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not Spotteddogsdotorg. Spotteddogs's goal is to get articles deleted. Edits look more like this, this, and this. Roy Leep has been nom. for deletion and speedy deletion many many times. The last edit above actually succeeded in temporary deletion. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinenjim (talk · contribs)

I have unblocked this editor because I see at least one positive (attempted, at least) edit in his contribs. Additionally, I see few warnings to justify an indef block. If you feel strongly about this and wish to discuss it further, I am available to do so. Thanks,Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded here. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Can you tell me if there's anything wrong here? [34] the image is a screen shot from the screamers film, they seem to match can you spot anything and tell me please, thanks. Artaxiad 09:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:FU, especialy item #8. This is supposed to be a free encyclopedia and fair use images are not free. The general principle of the fair use policy is that fair use images can be used when no free alternatives are available to demonstrate what you're trying to demonstrate - but otherwise are discouraged. On the other side, #8 says not to use them as pure decoration which, to most folks here, implicitly includes "don't use two when you could use one". When I first pulled up the SOAD article, it was using five when it could use one. Your image is not adding any information to that article - it's only being used for decoration. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the main picture is having problems, so im going to keep it for back up or something, or leave it I dont know. Artaxiad 02:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DW again

Hi Wknight94. I tried to archive the talk section of the David Westerfield article. And I really messed up, created a bunch of pages that need to be deleted too. Can you please look into it and maybe help me out. I don't want to do anymore damage. Fighting for Justice 12:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please intervene again on the David Westerfield article. You once referred to FfJ as “the king of personal attacks”. He seems determined to retain his crown, as can be seen from his latest descriptions of me: “troll” (he’s used that several times) and “child-murderer fan”. I am a TRUTH fan. Some of his comments are just plain childish, such as “impressive you can use the caps lock button on your keyboard. ME TOO. <----- see??? ” and “ooooh all capital letters like you use” (that was because I put ONE word, “truth”, in capitals). More seriously, he has repeatedly removed a small addition to the article which was approved by a third party (Girdag) a month ago. Interestingly, FfJ’s response at the time to Girdag’s suggestions was “I think that is an excellent proposal”. But he has now done an about-turn.196.15.168.40 12:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend going to WP:ANI with this issue. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Jays pictures

Great job getting some pictures up! Can you get some for the less notable guys, specifically minor leaguers and such who are not likely to make it onto the final roster? (Jo Matumoto, Casey Janssen, Ricky Romero, Davis Romero, Ismail Ramirez, etc.)

You've done both Blue Jays fans and Wikipedians a great service. If you can fulfill my request, even better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KirinX (talk • contribs) 18:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Glad you like them! I'll be 100% honest, I only went to Blue Jays camp because it was the closest non-Yankee camp to my house. The players I took pictures of were just the ones I could get good shots of - until my camera ran out of memory. The only person I recognized was Frank Thomas - and I didn't even get a good shot of him. I've spent a good chunk of yesterday and today just trying to figure out who is in the pictures I took! If you want, I can post a copy of every raw picture I took and you can help figure out who they are. Maybe I got some of the players you mentioned and I didn't even know it. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I can do that. Actually scrap that, I'd be happy to do that. -- KirinX 20:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any decision? I noticed you added a pic to Aaron Hill. -- KirinX 07:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can figure out who the mystery people are. Do you think the ones I've identified so far are accurate? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, so far you are correct. If in any doubt, throw it into your sandbox or something and I can verify them before you place them! -- KirinX 15:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I thought about my 3RR

Sometimes even on RC Patrol, you have to wonder what you are getting into! Morenooso 22:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I thought you mentioned that you would get this article protection. It is still taking vandal hits California Gold Rush. Thanks, Morenooso 21:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that same IP range again. I reblocked - but longer this time. We'll see if that fixes it for a while. It's best to avoid protection if possible... Let me know if it starts up again though. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

I re-opened the discussion on the move of Trentino-South Tyrol and South Tyrol. If you want to say your opinion, you're welcome. --Checco 07:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Carter

You have reverted to a version of this article several times with an obscene bit of grafiti in it: I just thought I would let you know so that next time you choose another version --BozMo talk 22:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like several others did the same. I've indefinitely blocked the account that originally introduced that. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anaheim Hills, Ericsaindon2, etc.

Thanks for blocking yet another sock of Eric's. I probably shouldn't engage him, but it's just so frustrating to read his obvious, and persistent false logic. Maybe he'll get it one day... or maybe he'll just give up. AniMate 00:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal. Just remember that any time you spend dealing with him is basically wasted - just like the time he spends pushing his agenda is basically wasted. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I saw your mini-discussion with "Metsfan." Do you think the place holder image is a good idea? I never really discussed it so I figure running it by a prominent editor in wiki.Met-ville, such as yourself, couldn't hurt. Thoughts? SERSeanCrane 04:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't honestly followed recent developments involving fair use images of living people. Has the placeholder been discussed somewhere? Regardless, it's not a good idea for a brand new editor to make mass edits as s/he was doing without any discussion or even edit summaries. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it has. I actually got it from another page so I can't be totally sure. SERSeanCrane 04:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Geni (talk · contribs) about the subject. S/he seems to be involved with the placeholder convention. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

Hi, Wikinight. I'm really sorry to bother you ask this question. As I enjoy reverting all vandalisms on many articles, I saw many wikipedian use TWINKLE to revert into last version. In my opinion, Twinklekuff is very similar to Popups. Reason I asked you question about Twinkle is that I haven't seen new tools for reverting vandalism. I usually use Javascript to enjoy reverting all vandals. Have you ever used Twinkle before when you revert vandalism on many articles? Anyways, Could you please explain a bit about Twinkle? Please reply in my talk page. your response would be appreciated. Daniel5127 | Talk 04:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't used it. One of the sysop tools I use is a Rollback button at the top of every diff and history page. Sorry I can't tell you much about TWINKLE. I've seen it referenced quite a bit myself - I may have to investigate. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image placeholders

Have you found out anything more on these? I think they deface the articles and would like to join the discussion about them. Tvoz | talk 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good pun. SERSeanCrane 05:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Wikipedia:Finding_images_tutorial#Ask_other_Wikipedians. Toward the end of that section it mentions 3 examples of image place holders. I think this implies that such things are OK to use. SERSeanCrane 05:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mostly the position has been it's a good idea get and do it. Some discusion here Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#No_free_image_available.Geni 13:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've posted a comment/question there. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are totally unnecessary, first off they are huge and look like a dead link on the page, second there is no point of having them, it doesn't take brain surgery to add a picture on a players page. LetsGoMets11 14:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think LetsGoMets11 may be a sock of User:Em0909153. SERSeanCrane 15:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am being accused of being a sock because I don't agree with what this guy is doing, so basically any one who doesn't agree with you is automatically being accused of being a sock, and actually have some proof I am this guy before you go around doing so. LetsGoMets11 15:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your not the sock I accused you of being, I apologize. I personally don't know how to check such things, hence I brought it up to wknight94; he's an administrator. SERSeanCrane 15:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't prove such things either. You can bring evidence to WP:RFCU and they will find out more concretely. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK- let's not get off on a tangent - thanks, wknight94, for raising the question in the appropriate place - I think it's ok as an option, but if a page's editors don't want it, I think the reverting should stop. Tvoz | talk 22:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put together a pge at Wikipedia:Fromowner documentation.Geni 12:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's how to do it, not whether it is "required". Wknight - what do you make of the non-response over at Fair Use? Tvoz | talk 21:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard anything saying it's required. I guess it will become more clear when little edit wars break out in various spots. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move requests at South Tyrol and Trentino-South Tyrol

Hello Wknight, I remember you were familiar with this debate. Also, I'd like to get some more native English speakers to weight in, so this doesn't turn into an Italian vs. German speakers vote. If anything, I'd hope as an Admin you can help keep a watch on these surveys so things are done right this time. regards, Taalo 02:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Jays 1.jpg

I can tell that the leftmost is Kevin Barker and the next guy over is Jason Smith. I am having great difficulty identifying the third. -- KirinX 05:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLoco

I added a vandalism report to WP:AIV, and you removed it saying "User-reported - 1 not blocked (not simple vandalism - try WP:ANI). LIST MT"

While I looked there, it had a nice little message at the top saying "To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see WP:AIV" And this definitely looked like persistent vandalism. Should that comment on WP:ANI be updated then? McKay 21:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to correct me but the edits you were referring to appeared to be done in good faith. Maybe I missed something. What was vandalistic about the edits? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan fix

Sorry. I thought that was included in the religious beliefs section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.96.105.74 (talk • contribs).

Ah, I see. Not a problem. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trentino-South Tyrol and South Tyrol

Still hoping you as an Admin and native English speaker can provide some input, references, opinions, etc. to the ongoing polls at these pages. regards, Taalo 00:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that is not a situation I want to get involved with. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say that I blame you. Anyway, if you want to share any advice off the page on how to find a solution, that would be appreciated. Or, just pass on it all together -- fine as well. Thanks for the message. Taalo 01:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Hello Wknight94, I'd like you to perform a move for me, since you performed a similar one at ICRC some time ago.

I recently created User:Draeco/Fed, a page that I would like to have moved into the main namespace, thus creating an article for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. This article move/creation would in actuality be a part of the ongoing effort to split the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement article, a need that was identified when the Movement article was nominated for FA status here. A separate ICRC article has already been created in a similar manner, as you know. Of course there will be a big overhaul of the Movement article once this second (and final) split is done.

I RM-ed a week ago and placed notices on related pages. The move discussion is at User talk:Draeco/Fed. Nobody has commented at all, and the only dissenter to the last move (Uwe) seems to be fine with the move this time. Since there's already a Federation article (just a redirect), could you wave your admin wand and move the page for me? Thanks. - Draeco 18:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone beat me to it. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spring training pics

Can I assume from the wonderful pictures you have taken that you are enjoying some spring training baseball ? If so, I am deeply envious. -- No Guru 03:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh, sure am! I'm most excited for this weekend though because I finally get to see the Mets!

They rarely come as close to me as Lakeland but I guess this is the year. Then they'll be in St. Pete on March 31 so I have tickets for that game as well. The best pics one can get are from the public workouts but those are done unfortunately. That's where all the nice Blue Jays pictures came from. If I could figure out how to adjust the lighting on my camera, I'd be all set but I'm obviously no pro. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those pictures add a lot to the articles. Thanks for adding them. Enjoy the games ! -- No Guru 18:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Wknight94 has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page State Military characters of the Fullmetal Alchemist manga, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ^_^

Thanks for reverting the edits made by 124.191.227.102 on the Labour Day page, as well as for leaving him a warning about the vandalism he left on the The Wiggles page. You saved me some time. ^_^ Thanks! Hardcore gamer 48 07:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I wasting my time?

Thanks for not banning me. hah. I shouldn't be letting myself get into an edit war with this little guy, but it is just darn arrogant for someone to call other editor's work vandalism because it happens to be against their POV. The folk from de.wikipedia are getting a bit too gung-ho in my opinion. Actually, I think I'll just let the poor fellow have his way if it puts more meaning into his life. :} Taalo 07:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC) ps. Come on, look at all this fun you are missing on Trentino-South Tyrol (yeah, right).[reply]

Rfa thanks

Hey, just popping round to say a big thanks for supporting my Rfa which finally past yesterday, I'm honoured to serve the community, any problems,you know where to fine me! Cheers again Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast

Hello,

On March 10, you deleted a number of images displayed in a gallery at List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast which had been tagged as WP:CSD#I7, Invalid fair-use claim.

The images were moved to List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast per an AFD discussion about the individual bus terminals listed in the article. As you can see, there was a consensus to merge the articles and images only if the images could be preserved in List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast. I request that you undelete the images so that we could follow one or another course of action in accordance with the consensus reached at the AFD discussion, namely:

If the fair-use rationale applies (or can be modified to fit) to List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast, then leave the images there as a gallery.
If the fair-use rationale does not apply (and cannot be modified to fit) to List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast, then revert all of the individual bus terminal articles to their original state (they are all currently redirects).

If you are willing to restore the images, I defer to your greater expertise as to which option is more viable.

I want to note that I do not have a vested interest in this matter: I am not the uploader of the images, nor have I contributed to the article(s) involved, nor have I made significant contributions to articles relating to transportation or Moscow. My involvement in this matter is limited to participating in the above-mentioned AFD discussion and starting a TFD discussion to userfy/delete a template for the bus terminals. I am simply bringing the matter to your attention because I was prompted about the deletion of the articles on my talk page by one of the participants in the AFD discussion, User:Dojarca, and because the deletion of the images essentially (even though not deliberately) circumvents the consensus present at the AFD debate.

For your convenience (to investigate the issue or restore the images), I have listed the names of the images and their upload and deletion logs below:

Thank you, Black Falcon 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the images above had been tagged as replaceable fair use images and I was definitely in agreement. Correct me if I'm wrong but they are all stationary existing public buildings. What is stopping someone in the Wikipedia community from taking free pictures of them? In #8 of WP:FU#Counterexamples, even promotional pictures of living people do not generally qualify under our fair use policy because they are alive and someone should be able to get free pictures of them. If that's the case for hard-to-find celebrities, it should certainly be the case for easy-to-find bus terminals.

As for the AFD you mention, it doesn't appear that images were much of a factor in the final decision. Quarl (talk · contribs) may differ on that opinion though - I'd be interested to hear his/her take. Only two other people mentioned the images during that AFD and one of them also said they should be deleted.

I'd be willing to hear other opinions on the matter but, for now, I think the images should stay deleted. Surely someone in the ever-growing Wikipedia community could take a drive to the various terminals and get free pictures - and better ones at that. That they're in Moscow should not be a deterrant IMHO. It appears there are over 150,000 articles on the Russian Wikipedia. Surely more than one of them were written by someone in Moscow who would be willing to take some pictures. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not right saying the buildings are in Moscow. They all in different cities, hundreeds kilometers apart. I think it is problematic to find users living in all those cities. I fail to see how the presence of these images could make damage to Wikipedia since the copyright holder is the non-profit state-owned organization. Anyway I see clear violation of the will of the community which voted for keeping the stubs.--Dojarca 17:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making damage isn't the issue. The issue is that the policy here makes clear what qualifies as fair use and these pictures don't qualify. As far as the stub articles and their merging, I have no opinion. I am not the admin who closed that AFD. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to clarify, you're saying that the images would have been deleted regardless of whether they were located in the "List of bus terminals" article or the individual "bus terminals" articles tehmselves? -- Black Falcon 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have, yes. To me, they were a clear violation of #1 of the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. In my opinion, the only building images that would qualify as fair use would be ones of buildings which no longer exist (or are substantially different now that when the picture was taken) or ones that would be perilous to get, such as buildings in Baghdad or Mogadishu. Even in the latter case, we already have several free building images from both cities. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see your point. Thank you for the clarification. Cheers, Black Falcon 05:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking edits on talk page

Hi Wknight94, when you have a chance, could you comment on [35] (Editing talk pages). I've left a recommendation on the talk of Trentino-South Tyrol, but I'm guessing the User PhJ responds better to Admin advice. Taalo 16:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is he removing comments? Or just consolidating them into one place? I did notice where he's using the word "vandalism" in his edit summaries where there is clearly no vandalism - that may get a mention from me in itself. And I see I'm not the only one worn out by that ridiculous dispute. I smell an arbitration coming before long. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My family is from Trentino originally, and I'M getting tired of it. I can't understand why people can't just aggregate the words the two sides want included (no matter how it may be perceived sloppy), and be done with it. Anyhow, I guess I see these: [36] [37]. Probably overly-harsh talk, but I don't see any vile personal attacks. I do dislike how User PhJ uses the word vandalism all the time, that is really unfair. Taalo 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation must have been attempted in this dispute at some point, right? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Lar was going to help, but it hasn't happened yet. I'd still hope he can help with the whole T-AA/ST region at some point, but at least on a couple pages we moved forward. If that was a good idea or not, I don't know. It has been almost two years since the one user moved the page though. Taalo 16:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User PhJ at it again

The fellow needs a bit of talking to. First it was the left-and-right accusations of vandalism. I was fine to ignore his previous blanking, as you suggested on the talk page, but this is going too far. He is making it is his purpose to go through now and censure even sentences from people's post. [38][39]. Part of it may even be a lack of knowledge in English, but that is not an excuse. Taalo 16:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is at it again on the talk page of Bolzano. LOL. He reported me again to the notice boards, like he did with his vandalism. Isn't this abuse in itself crying wolf every day? o_O Taalo 19:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Livingstone image on London

Hi, can I ask why you recently deleted the Ken Livingstone image on London please? He is after all Mayor of London and the first person to hold that role since medieval times and has been twice re-elected. So he is pretty notable. Thanks. MarkThomas 17:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability wasn't the issue. The image was tagged as a replaceable fair use image by Ed g2s (talk · contribs) which means it violates #1 of the WP:FUC policy. I agreed and deleted it. A free picture of Mayor Livingstone should be available somewhere. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 Revert violation

The Charlotte, North Carolina article has been reverted 5 or 6 times by an IP address who insists on pushing certain external links. Not sure if I should take this to you or if there's a more appropriate place to take 3RR violations. Wahkeenah 01:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, he's been blocked, temporarily. Obviously, blocking an entire IP address affects everyone else on it -- yet another reason why IP addresses shouldn't be allowed to edit. Wahkeenah 01:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spammers in the works

The sole purpose of these two users (probably actually the same guy) appears to be to promote a specific company. [40][41]. Wahkeenah 16:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see several dozen external links to that site: [42]. Are you familiar with the subject matter? Are those all just unreliable spam? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are self-promotions. I'll look into it further. Wahkeenah 21:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to see if it's just IPs adding the external links or if more established editors also use the site as a source. I'm clueless about theatre so I wouldn't know which sources are reputable... —Wknight94 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says something that most of his edits were immediately reverted by other users who presumably recognized it as advertising. However, we should maybe see if he does anything else, and I should look into it a bit. Wahkeenah 00:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a "not found" error on the page. If it were working, it has the earmarks of a ticket-selling website. I'll just have to see what else happens. Wahkeenah 00:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corn

I am redirecting corn to maize. after doing a bunch of disambig clean up it is clear the 98% of the links to corn are for Maize, not sweetcorn or anything else. Jeepday 13:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. This has gone back and forth a few times but I don't see that you're defying any previous consensus so I'm fine with it. If someone complains, I'll probably move it back and insist on a WP:RM. The only other issue is that you did a cut-and-paste move which is bad since it scatters article history. I've re-done the move keeping the history intact. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Corn" is the primary cereal grain for any given country. The British might be at least bemused if they go to "corn" expecting to find "wheat" or "rye" or "barley" and instead end up at "maize". Wahkeenah 16:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll keep an eye on all the relevant talk pages and see if anyone puts up a fuss. If so, it's off to WP:RM. (Wahkeenah, if you want to officially oppose, let me know and I'll reverse the move now.) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to you. I haven't actually read it yet. :) Wahkeenah 17:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've got a proper disambiguation page, I think it's OK. The confusion would be primarily in Europe. I think maize is actually called "corn" in India, which is funny since maize is properly called "Indian corn". Wahkeenah 17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, I finished cleaning up the double redirects, and unless we need to go to WP:RM should be all done, thanks again. Jeepday 02:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Hi, Ive just reverted some vandalism by User talk:12.182.83.140 on Steven Spielberg. You stated on there that if the user vandalised again he would be blocked. Just to let you know about the new vandalism. LordHarris 18:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was over a month ago - and the vandalism stopped after I gave that warning. It's quite possibly not the same person which is why we don't usually make warnings carry over that long. Lately, there's only been about one edit per day so blocking for 24 hours would be pointless. Let me know if the vandalism rate picks up there though. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries on WP:AIV

The bad edit summaries on AIV have been oversighted. Just thought I'd let you know. --Deskana (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

motion to close mediation

hello there,

there was a mediation offer quite a while ago concerning the issue of Trentino-South Tyrol. I am happy to announce that the issue has been discussed, voted upon and settled. However the mediation offer still needs to be officially closed. Please take a minute to visit the page Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Trentino-South Tyrol and put your signature at the bottom if you agree with the decision, thank you. sincerely Gryffindor 20:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very important note. This mediation offer concerned the greater overall naming convention to use in this region, not just the name of the region itself. We came up with a very good compromise for the regional name itself. I for one am still looking forward for Lar to help us out. Taalo 21:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warren G. Harding vandalism

Regarding the ongoing vadalism on the Warren G. Harding page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding), I noticed that you had reverted to a prior page by 'Schauft'. It would appear that 'Schauft' is doing some vandalism, himself. As shown in the history, I reverted to an earlier user and made some other cleanups. Dick107 18:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Schauft has been blocked indefinitely. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. With the recent flurry of editing/vandalism on that page, I was wondering if access to the article should be blocked but that is outside my decision area. Dick107 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism on Warren G. Harding doesn't quite meet my threshold but it's close. You could probably find an admin who would protect it though. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition removal

Regarding the addition of Whiff to the Feces and Flatulence pages, I sense that I've violated a rule of some kind. I was simply trying to add an external link to a legitimate product that has been on the market for more than a year and constitutes providing complete information about these subjects (no more commercial than the Poop Report, I think). My apologies if this edit was not a proper one.

Steveschuster 02:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Daisuke Matsuzaka 18.jpg

Image:Jon_Lester.jpg

MLB allow Wikipedia =>

This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit.

The copyright for it is most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question; you must provide evidence of such ownership. Lack of such evidence is grounds for deletion.

It is believed that the use of some images of promotional material to illustrate:

the person(s), product, event, or subject in question;
where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it;
on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation;

qualifies as fair use under Copyright law of the United States. Any other usage of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Publicity photos.

Additionally, the copyright holder may have granted permission for use in works such as Wikipedia. However, if they have, this permission likely does not fall under a free license.

Warning sign

Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. If this is not the case for this image, a rationale must be provided proving that the image provides information beyond simple identification or showing that this image is difficult to replace by a free-licensed equivalent. Commercial third-party reusers of this image should consider whether their use is in violation of the subject's publicity rights.

Fair use true

To the uploader:

Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
For example non-free use rationales, see Wikipedia:Use rationale examples.
This tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media.
Additionally, if the copyright holder has granted permission, please provide further details as to the terms.
Template:Non-free use rationale may be helpful for stating the rationale.

To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.

This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit.

The copyright for it is most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question; you must provide evidence of such ownership. Lack of such evidence is grounds for deletion.

It is believed that the use of some images of promotional material to illustrate:

the person(s), product, event, or subject in question;
where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it;
on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation;

qualifies as fair use under Copyright law of the United States. Any other usage of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Publicity photos.

Additionally, the copyright holder may have granted permission for use in works such as Wikipedia. However, if they have, this permission likely does not fall under a free license.

Warning sign

Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. If this is not the case for this image, a rationale must be provided proving that the image provides information beyond simple identification or showing that this image is difficult to replace by a free-licensed equivalent. Commercial third-party reusers of this image should consider whether their use is in violation of the subject's publicity rights.

Fair use true

To the uploader:

Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
For example non-free use rationales, see Wikipedia:Use rationale examples.
This tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media.
Additionally, if the copyright holder has granted permission, please provide further details as to the terms.
Template:Non-free use rationale may be helpful for stating the rationale.

To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.

Image:Jon_Lester.jpg also from MLB.com. this picture allowed, why other not be allowed? --NYY 11:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Please block 70.162.89.128 from editing in Wikipedia. He has once again vandalized the Kobe Bryant page. --Arnold Go 08:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked already. I will block harder next time because it doesn't appear to be a shared IP - so let me know if he continues in a couple days after his block expires. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok. thanks--Arnold Go 11:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L'Île-Rousse

You have corrected a typo that I made on the L'Île-Rousse article. Actually, both dependent and dependant are acceptable in this sense in British English, though my own preference is for the former which you have now given me. Emeraude 14:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would always use dependent in the sense required in the article (adjective) and dependant for a person (noun) who depends on someone, but according to the Chambers Everyday Paperback Dictionary I have on the desk both are acceptable in both senses with preferences stated:

-n. dependant (also -ent) one who depends on, or is sustained by, another . -adj. dependent (also -ant), depending, relying on, contingent: subordinate.

(But now I look at it, they both seem wrong!) Looking in Wiktionary, it seems that dependant in the US is only recognised as a misspelling. Definitive reference will be in the Oxford English Dictionary, but that's only available online by subscription. Emeraude 15:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism guidance

I see that you're out here today patrolling for vandalism. I've just recently installed Vandal Fighter and have done a fair number of vandalism reverts. Since you seem to have a good deal of experience in this area, do you generally start out with low level warnings for each vandal and then progress through the other levels? Or do you take into consideration the extent and offensiveness of the vandalism and try to make the warning level fit the crime? What about cases where the same person vandalizes multiple pages at around the same time? Do you put a warning for each case on their talk page so that admins know how many times they've vandalized a page? Or do you "group" the offenses together in a single warning? Thanks in advance for any guidance. Sanfranman59 21:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For logged-in accounts, I usually block quickly, especially when every edit is obvious vandalism. For anonymous accounts, more care needs to be taken. Many vandal edits are the only edits from an IP so I don't bother warning a one-time vandal. After a second or third vandal edit within a short time, I'll leave a {{test}} if the edit is fairly benign like "hi" or "aaaaaaaa" or some other genuine test - or I'll leave {{test2}} if the people are obviously up to no good. If it continues, depending on how rapid the IP is vandalizing, I'll either go to {{test3}} or jump to {{test4}} after that - whatever I think will end the vandalism most quickly. If there are more than five or six vandal edits within the last 10 minutes and more than one warning on the IP's talk page, it seems like most admins will block. Yes, you should try to "group" the warnings but, if the person clearly isn't going to stop from warnings, it's time for WP:AIV. The final goal is to stop the vandalism. There's really no perfect recipe for accomplishing that, esp. with so many admins using so many different standards. Just don't be offended if an admin refuses to block. Feel free to ask me or another admin if you want more specifics. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick feedback and happy patrolling! --Sanfranman59 02:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Range Block?

Hello Wknight94. Recently there has been a persistent sockpuppeteer about known as User:Turok 1. Some of the edit histories of the pages his socks had edited had some IPs appearing in them that were most likely his. I blocked around three of the IPs if you look at my block log. This guy seems like he is utilizing a dynamic IP and that a range block may be of some use. I'm completely clueless in regards to range blocking and I hope you don't mind me asking for your assistance. Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't think a range block is going to help you in this case. A range block is in order only if the beginning of the IPs are similar. Look at the edits to California Gold Rush from March 14 for an example. All of the IPs began with 167.128.58.xxx so I did a range block from 167.128.58.0 through 167.128.58.255. That only covered 256 IP addresses and did the trick well. In your case, the IPs begin 70.xxx.xxx.xxx, 72.xxx.xxx.xxx, and 74.xxx.xxx.xxx. A range block covering all those would hit millions of IP addresses (literally I think). What you may have there is a case of open proxies - but I've never gotten a clear explanation of how to handle those. You might want to semi-protect or protect the vandalized articles instead. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. As you can see I'm clueless. I'll take your advice and protect the articles.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I happen to be in the computer software business so I'm relatively familiar with IP addresses and the like. You can read over Classless Inter-Domain Routing to see how IP ranges are denoted. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can changes be discussed?

Hi. I'm Rowan. Could I ask why you reverted my addition to the article "disease", please?. I thought I added some good science. Would you like me to discuss changes with the community first? Could the science be kept but the style be changed?

Thanks. Rowan.

What I was trying to type in my last edit summary (but I hit the return key prematurely) was where else have you seen "Has this article wetted your apeptite for science?" Your enthusiasm is appreciated but maybe you want to slow down a bit. Read over WP:MOS and its subpages. You'll see things like the fact that section headings aren't supposed to be in bold face. Also read over WP:V which says that you need to cite sources for facts that you add. Let me know if you have any specific questions. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I will make the changes suggested and edit the article again. I will be interested to see what you think. Adding to Wikipedia is new to me. Another thing. I was thinking of adding the "Learn More" subsection to more science articles. What do you/ the community think? By the way, I'm impressed with how well monitored articles are on Wikipedia.

Thanks. Rowan.

Honestly, I doubt a "Learn More" section would catch on here. Many articles have a "See also" section with links to related articles and an "External links" section to external educational resources. You might want to ask around at WP:WPSci though. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for more down south pics

Lee County and all. Folks have been busy all over the last few weeks, that's for sure. How not, with the amazing weather we've been having? Continued gracias for the pics, and the other stuff y'all do. :)

Oh, on a sidenote, have you considered getting a bot to archive for you? I liked doing it myself, but I finally realized, "Why do it manually, when you can save time having it done automatically?" I tried User:MiszaBot III, and it's worked fine. Just an FYI. :) --Ebyabe 13:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! As far as bot archiving, I just don't like how often it archives. I prefer to have just a few huge archives instead of dozens of little tiny archives like the bots seem to do. I think I'm too much of a control freak for that! :) But yes, I'm a little overdue, sorry. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not nonsense

Walruses eat Filet-O-Fish Sandwiches. IT"S TRUE! I kNOW A WALRUS THAT DOES. STOP DELETING THIS.

That's amazing. I've never had a walrus in my circle of friends, nor even as a casual acquaintance. Wahkeenah 17:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gee, and people wonder why I'm against anonymous editing. *heavy sigh* --Ebyabe 18:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fully agree. Now all we have to do is convince Mr. Wales. However, I would allow that a walrus would eat a Filet-O-Fish, though I doubt he would order it on drive-through. I recall as a kid going to the zoo, and throwing marshmallows to the polar bears. Marshmallows are not normally part of the polar bear's diet, as they do not grow in the arctic regions as a general rule, yet the bears happily scarfed them up in captivity. And all in all, a fishwich is probably nutritionally better for a captured animal than a bag of marshmallows would be. Wahkeenah 18:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do what I do: cross your fingers and hope that some of the anon's become either productive editors or at least humorous vandals. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's worth a shot. Meanwhile, I'm still marveling at that guy who's on a first-name basis with Wally. Wahkeenah 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]