User talk:Wknight94/Archive 17

Please note that I will likely respond to new messages here.

Archives

Archive 1 | October 19, 2005-January 13, 2006 Archive 2 | January 14, 2006-April 2, 2006 Archive 3 | April 3, 2006-July 22, 2006 Archive 4 | July 23, 2006-September 23, 2006 Archive 5 | September 24, 2006-November 19, 2006 Archive 6 | November 20, 2006-January 20, 2007 Archive 7 | January 21, 2007-March 26, 2007 Archive 8 | March 27, 2007-May 22, 2007 Archive 9 | May 22, 2007-August 3, 2007 Archive 10 | August 4, 2007-September 22, 2007 Archive 11 | September 22, 2007-October 20, 2007 Archive 12 | October 20, 2007-November 17, 2007

An editor you blocked has returned

You blocked User:Mark75322222 permanently. But today he has returned as User:Mark753222222 (a "not so very" original new name :D ) Just thought you'd like to know. 156.34.224.2 (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishkid blocked this one. I tagged them all as socks of Mark753 (talk · contribs). In a quick search, I didn't find any earlier similar accounts. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My editor review

I just answered your questions. Thanks for asking them Happy Thanksgiving! _(Sasha) 22:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA nomination formally accepted and questions answered

Hi Wknight94. Sorry about the very long wait, but real life suddenly got very busy and I had to wait until I had some time to sit down and compose some answers to the questions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bkell. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do. Thanks again for the nomination. —Bkell (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:BlueVelvet86

Hi. I was recently looking into why Themes in Blade Runner was nominated for deletion earlier this year, which I found bizarre, considering that the parent article is too large, and the split article happens to be one of the most notable (and sourced) examples in the history of science fiction and film. Imagine my surprise when I found out that the nominator, User:BlueVelvet86 was accused of sock puppetry on his user page. Intending to learn more, I clicked on the talk page, only to discover that it had been deleted by you on 00:37, 25 September 2007 with the edit summary, "WP:CSD#G6 (temporary user page)". Forgiving my ignorance, can you explain why it was deleted? From what I can tell by the reason, the talk page history was merged somewhere else, is that correct? If so, where? Thanks for your help. —Viriditas | Talk 08:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's standard practice to delete the talk pages of indefinitely blocked accounts. I checked and there's not too much interesting in the deleted talk page: a welcome message, a warning about civility, then a block. The more telling page is Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Angel2001 where a checkuser confirms that the account is a sock used to evade a block/ban. —Wknight94 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That shows you how little I know, although things do have a tendency to change very fast around here. I'm curious, what is the rationale behind deleting talk pages of indef. blocked accounts, and when did that begin? This is the first I've ever heard of it. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 08:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the original rationale but I imagine it had something to do with there not being much reason for keeping the talk pages of dead accounts. Same goes for the user pages except in sockpuppetry cases. There's even a category to hold such pages, Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, with a little verbiage at the top. —Wknight94 (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense from an administrative perspective since you can view deleted pages, but bring yourself down to the level of an editor for just a moment. I've often found useful information about past conflicts and article disputes on talk pages, regardless of the status of the user. —Viriditas | Talk 08:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess that just doesn't come up too often. (This is the first time I've heard someone balk at the practice). If you really needed to see a deleted page, you could always make a request at WP:AN. —Wknight94 (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The last time I made a request for a deleted page was a year ago. I'm still waiting for the restored version. Anyhoo, this isn't a big deal, but in my experience, most talk pages are useful and should not be deleted if the discussion crosses a certain size threshold, let's say 50 kilobytes. Preserving these talk pages also helps editors understand past conflicts on article talk pages, since they can follow the discussion back to the user talk page in many instances. It's also important when looking for sock puppets, as it is often the case that pattern matching occurs in the user space. And if the editor is using an AOL, dynamic, or new IP altogether, checkuser isn't going to find them; it's the average editor doing the grunt work, looking through past discussions. I don't know who came up with the idea to delete user talk pages, but it's a bad idea. —Viriditas | Talk 09:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have found a partial answer to my question simply by looking through the contribs of BlueVelvet86. The nomination of Themes in Blade Runner at 14:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC) appears to have been a retaliatory AfD for a (eventually successful) nomination of Themes in Blue Velvet made by User:Masaruemoto on 01:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC) You may be saying to yourself, "Yeah, and so what?" Well, I found this retaliation highly reminiscent of a stunt that User:Eyrian pulled on AfD a while ago. I don't know if Eyrian still has his admin bit or not, but he was accused of or found to have been using sock puppets to nominate and delete large numbers of "In popular culture" articles on AfD. —Viriditas | Talk 09:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian. You may want to add your findings to the evidence page and/or request an ArbCom checkuser on the talk page. Eyrian appears to have voluntarily left the project anyway but his/her admin status is certainly in jeopardy. —Wknight94 (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 09:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Chicken Soup Game

I've started editing the Joe Montana article and I noticed you deleted an article that was created. I would like you to consider "undeleting" the Chicken soup game article. It is a very notable event in College football history and cannot understand why it was removed. Thanks 24.128.23.117 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It was removed because it was created by a banned user (see WP:CSD#G5 and WP:BAN). Anyone is free to re-create it independently. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I see the content from it? Just because a person was banned - I can't see why good content would be removed. 24.128.23.117 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:BAN. There's no point in banning people if they can just come back with a new ID and continue as though they were not banned. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay - well i'm going to request that it is reviewed. I don't know about banning and such, just that if its a good article, it should stay. 24.128.23.117 (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fuzzy as to why you don't just re-create it. Would you like the external links that were used as references? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd recreate it if I were particularly skilled - but deleting a good article just because you don't like the user (or whatever happened) doesn't make any sense. If the work is good - then maybe it can be improved upon..but doesn't need to be deleted. In any event An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chicken Soup Game. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 24.128.23.117 (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Quality of the article and my opinion of the author had nothing to do with anything (in fact, I wasn't particularly pleased that the banned user was banned in the first place). Any article created by a sock of a banned user - after the ban has become official - has to be deleted on sight, or else the entire banning system is useless. Since you so quickly knew where to list a deletion review, I am doubtful that you are really so unskilled as to not be able to re-create a new - and maybe even better - article about this subject. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

AWB typo file

I've reverted your addition of "incorrect" to the typo file - there's something wrong with the parsing which is causing the spellcheck to hang, and I freely admit not knowing enough about regexes to fix it. — iridescent 17:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh? I haven't tried it yet. I'll take a look. Sorry for the bother. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Restore Brett Favre list of achievements

Could you restore the List of career achievements by Brett Favre page. See the discussion on the the Brett Favre Talk page. Larkworb (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted an older version. You'll need to ask Secret (talk · contribs) who deleted and WP:SALTed the latest version. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Here's a vandalism-only account who has ignored warnings to cut it out. [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

His article about Matt von Albade is, of course, a fake. I'm not sure how to mark an article for "speedy deletion". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Bravo. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. In this case, you could use {{db-vandalism}} or just {{db}} with an explanation. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hollerbird

In reviewing Hollerbird (talk · contribs)'s deleted contributions, it looks like she's pushing her own band, but I don't know that I'd call it vandalism. Someone might need to explain our content policies to her, but a block seems harsh, unless I'm missing something. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the Sonya esman article had to be deleted six times which seems pretty excessive. Several of those deletions cited WP:CSD#G3 - pure vandalism - so I'll admit that I was following the trend. I've restored the rest of the user's talk page which was full of warnings, etc. (and was truncated to just my block message for some unknown reason). I also received an unpleasant all-caps e-mail which finished with "JERK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Given all that, if you still think an unblock is warranted, feel free. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC/Doruva

Taken from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Durova:

Wouldn't these sentiments be better expressed on the RFC and RFArb pages? Sniping at each other isn't apt to do much good at this point. RxS (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize. These sections were an excuse for Ned to go thrashing about and I should have recognized that earlier. My bad. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, I might have gotten off topic, but my original intention was to discuss why we sometimes feel that blocking is so offendable. It certainly was not there so I could go "thrashing about". The second subsection was a failed attempt at me to point out that those who are "supporting" Durova are not endorsing what happened, and to let others know that even if we don't appear mad, we still agree with the bulk of you about many things in this situation. -- Ned Scott 23:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Block IP address?

I had a minor run-in with an IP address over some issue about a talk page project tag. I asked on the project talk page for a "ruling", and got this unexpected response. I'd like your take on this. [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, look. Someone found an open proxy I'll have to permablock. 208.109.237.60 (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's blocked now. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. But I don't get what's going on with the remark after mine and before yours. Is it the same guy? Or is it a test conducted by you? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes that was me. I used the site that GreenReaper specified and I became 208.109.237.60. That's the wonderful world of open proxies. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Curious

Why did you move all the Days of our Lives family pages off of Days of our Lives to stand alone with the phrase "unnecessary dab"? There was a reason they said Days of our Lives because other soaps have the same family names in some cases, like Roberts and Brady. An explanation would be nice. Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If that is so, then why is there no disambiguation page for them? All I saw was that Roberts family was redirecting to Roberts family (Days of our Lives). No mention of a title clash anywhere. Let's discuss this rather than just reverting my moves as you have done. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I only reverted/moved back, didn't exactly use the revert, two and you did many. The pages are part of the soap project and the soap's name was decided to be part of the title by the project. It keeps it congruent with the other pages that are part of the soap projects. And you still haven't answered the question of "unnecessary dab" ~ what does that mean? IrishLass (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

An entire ArbCom proceeding was caused by similar project-level decisions supposedly being made. Please point me to where there was consensus for naming articles your way. "Unnecessary dab" means that you're trying to include a parenthetical disambiguating tag, i.e. (Days of our Lives), even when no disambiguation is needed because no similarly named articles exist. See WP:D for more information on disambiguation. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I just do what I'm told, I don't know where the discussion took place. The projects were just trying to be uniform. The pages looked better with (Days of our Lives) and made more sense. I'll get someone to make an infobox for the pages rather than get lectured or argue. The parenthesis had nothing to do with "a parenthetical disambiguating tag" it was just a notation of what show they were from. IrishLass (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. Exactly what was decided not to do for that ArbCom case a year ago. I'm not going to list the reasons that your reasoning is faulty - you can look at the endless archives of discussion at WT:TV-NC. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning works for me. Soaps are separate from TV. The project is separate, the tags are separate, the infoboxes are separate. I just do as the project participants agree. Like I said, the pages had a title for a reason, can I please move them back now? Or just change the titles and leave out the parenthesis?IrishLass (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

But your reasoning goes against the very-longstanding content guideline at WP:D. If you can show me where project participants have agreed to bypass WP:D, let me know. Otherwise, I'm going to move a few other titles to get them in line with WP:D and you can try a WP:RM to move them back. I'll leave the two you reverted since they're common names - maybe I'll try WP:RM for those. But you can't convince me that there's a groundswell of articles that could be called "Kiriakis family". —Wknight94 (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Liebman?

That strangely-named user you blocked is a funny one. Meanwhile, I suspect this IP [3] is another Liebman, given the usual non-citation citation (a general reference with no way to look it up) and I'm reverting it, as it really adds no new information anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one. [4] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking. FYI, yesterday's entry [5], called "Occhiogrosso", I'm guessing is ersatz Italian for "big nose". This, from a guy who complains about Jewish stereotyping. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh. Who knows what goes on in his head. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We already know too much as it is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of 212.85.20.99

I'm at the school where this IP originates and we've been blocked by you for a week. Let me say, first of all, that I'm one of the WP-savvy students here, and I completely understand the IP block and how it was justified - we do deserve it, and I believe that a bit of time off will help while we're dealing with the situation internally (educating students).

I have a question for you, or if there's somebody you know who could answer it better - is there anything school administration can do, except for just subscribing to the RSS feed of our talk page or disciplining students to prevent Wikipedia vandalism, rather than dealing with it after the fact?

Thanks, Alexlmuller 18:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Daveyboy16

You're being paged. Kwsn (Ni!) 19:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Dear Wknight94, Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. You were one of the fist admins with whom I had contact back when. I appreciate your support very much. I am both heartened and humbled by the confidence you and others have shown. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence and perceptiveness. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Liebman socks - 11/30/07

A couple more that are likely ones [6] [7]. Looks like he's learning to capitalize the last names. :) -Ebyabe 01:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh look [8]. One created just to complain about all the evil people reverting the sock edits. :( -Ebyabe 21:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Sorry about that. I took out more than I should have. --Anthon01 14:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I figured. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Vampire Warrior

I see you marked as sock, any specific reason? When I talked to a CU for reporting him to the police, he didn't mention socks. — Coren ^(talk) 22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked around Google and Immortal Kaine appears to be the ID he uses at other sites. When I did a search for that ID, the user page here came up and, sure enough, it's Tyler Warren. Checkuser wouldn't find that, I believe, because the account hasn't edited in a while. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Kaine mutant, he. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oooops

Sorry about the noticeboard. I was moving something I wrote to a more appropriate noticeboard and messed up. Thanks for fixing it.--Cberlet 19:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Large high-traffic pages like that get messed up on occasion. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Liebman socks - 12/3/07

Probable ones, at least. I leave for you to judge, sir. [9] [10] -Ebyabe 23:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. Changes reverted, but Wknight94 will need to wield his light-sabr. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Show Your Dance

G'day Wknight94, No all I could see on creation of article was question marks. No I don't have the ability on this computer to see Chinese characters. Nor do I want to on English Wikipedia. My point was that it was/is an article on English Wikipedia. I could only see question marks so I tagged it with a speedy delete = nonsense. The article has since had the translation done and the English is in parenthesis after the (in my case) question marks. Even if I had seen Chinese characters when I first patrolled the page. I still would have marked it for deletion. By virtue of it still being nonsense to English speaking people. But I'm happy for the article to stay now that it has been translated. The version I tagged was not. Sting_au Talk 05:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 6 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Jones (Archbishop), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 10:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Liebman 12/06/07

Here's another one. [11] The facts he presents are correct. However, we can't allow banned users to get away with editing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I re-added some info in the Daguerrotype article, minus Liebman's POV-pushing angle on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What?! Banned user proxying?! Now you're banned! —Wknight94 (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Banned on the Run. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How did you like the latest username? It's getting downright creepy. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Eek. And double eek. There can no longer be any doubt that the guy is a major loon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one, I believe. And to quote Zaphod after meeting the Man in the Shack, "Oh, that clears it up; he's a weirdo." :) -Ebyabe (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And I hate to think he's a D&D fan, but the only reference I can find to that term is in Nodwick. Go figure... -Ebyabe (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A spammer in the works

Shameless spamming, so far just limited to a couple of articles. [12][13] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I left a warning. If it recurs, we'll escalate and eventually block. (I don't typically block spammers as fast as vandals since it's more often an understanding). —Wknight94 (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the Hill Street one 4 times, and he seems to have gotten the hint, or else is on a tea break. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A vandal which you blocked for 3 mo. has returned

FYI - User:67.165.246.163 who you blocked on September 9 for 3 months has returned... 3 months to the day... to begin his same repeated blcking of sourced content from the Jimmy Page article. This user has a lengthy history of these same sort of attacks on the article presumably as a fanboy who doesn't like reading negative aspects about one of his heroes. The user has been warned numerous times and invited to join in more constructive discussion but has ignored all previous warnings and invitations in order to carry out their personal agenda. Any assistance would be great. Thanks and have a nice day. 156.34.208.51 (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert, block ignore, Tug McGraw vandal

Great advice that will be taken. I feel like I've been fighting an uphill battle, so thanks for your help and support. Keep taking those great baseball photos, Googie man (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Donald Young (baseball player)

A trivial matter, perhaps - Is it appropriate to have a disambiguation link in that article? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back! Actually I don't usually like those tags in articles that already have disambiguation tags in their title - like WP:NAMB explains. The hatlink tags makes sense in The Simpsons and Tree and Tom Jones, but not in Thomas Jones (Archbishop) or Richard Stone (politician) or Gary Evans (serial killer). The difference is that the latter three are not the default target for anything, so readers wouldn't normally end up there unless they'd already been to a disambiguation page. There's no point in directing such readers to a list of people (or things) that happen to share the same name. (I will say that I don't feel strongly enough about this to fight anyone or even remove the hat links - not worth the effort). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I get it. Danke! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Freddy Rodriguez (baseball) article is an example of another need for a hatlink. If someone is looking for info on Freddy Rodriguez, they'll type "Freddy Rodriguez" in the search and end up at Freddy Rodriguez the actor. From that article, there was no link to your baseball page or a disambiguation page so your page would have been difficult to find. In this case, Freddy Rodriguez is a primary search target so it may need hatlinks to secondary search targets. I added a hatlink to the top of Freddy Rodriguez (and Fred Rodriguez just in case). —Wknight94 (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

Thanks for all your help. Cirt (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

With the one edit? My pleasure. If I can't find the time to write the great featured articles you folks write, I want to at least help keep them clean. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?

Hi Wknight94. I don't agree that 74% is a consensus, although I understand Wikipedia rules may give discretion to a bureaucrat to tilt a decision one way or the other. I can tell you Opposion to Elonka was generally highly motivated, and as far as I know, justified. What is a "circus" indeed is to have to deal with Elonka when her opinion differs from yours. Actually for the last 3 days of the RfA, Oppose votes equalled Support votes iun number: the reality is that Oppose got more and more steam as the discussion drew on. Regards. PHG (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

24.176.206.146

24.176.206.146 went right back to vandalizing after your block lifted.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fall

I have put Fall (disambiguation) up for a requested move to Fall. Talk:Fall (disambiguation)#Requested move Simply south (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Query on block

Hello. When 216.11.32.33 (talk · contribs) was reported [14] to AIV, I declined [15] to block because the last two warnings (13:00, 13:05) were made after the IP stopped editing (12:58). This is only my eighth day as an admin, so I may have easily missed something, but has this IP been sufficiently warned to merit a block? Thanks for your help, Kralizec! (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, when the only activity from an IP is to insert a misspelling of diarrhea over and over, I don't have a problem with anyone blocking it as long as it's within a reasonable time. This was 10-20 minutes, right? Diarrhea diarrhea people are less likely to be affected by warnings. If you didn't want to block and the person went away, then you probably accomplished the same thing, i.e. preventing any vandalism from that source. Incidentally, if you spend any time at WP:AIV, you'll find block conflicts quite often. If I'd seen that you declined to block, I would not have blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I follow you now. Thank you for taking the time to explain it! --Kralizec! (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc

I've started a discussion about unblocking Callmebc, per a discussion I've had via email with him. There's a thread here which you, as an involved admin, might want some input in. --Haemo (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jacques Dallaire

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jacques Dallaire, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Dallaire. Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon Boy

Either Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or Leyasu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); trust me, I was a party to their arbritration request. Will ^(talk) 17:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Then it'd be Daddy Kindsoul then. Will ^(talk) 17:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

re range blocks comment at my talkpage

I have replied at ANI, but would confirm I would be happy for another admin (you?) to change things. If it is easier for me to use my contrib history to get and undo the range in question please let me know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

RFPP

Please re-review this, and correct me if I am wrong. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Others have discussed it. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright

Well, there are two issues here:

1. Can someone upload an image without saying where they got the image from; and
2. Is an "old" image in a "new" book, free to use as public domain.

On issue #1, my understanding is that when someone uploads an image, they're supposed to say where they got it from. PHG's history shows that he's been uploading a lot of images, and he's putting the 14th century "Rashid al-Din" manuscript as the source. However, I have Jackson's book, and what PHG obviously did was scan in a cropped version of the cover of the book (cropping it just below the title and above the author's name), but he didn't state that he got it from the book. I'd seen a few other images show up from PHG that looked suspicious, but this latest one is really blatant. PHG is obviously working his way through modern books, scanning in images from them, and then not posting his sources for the images.

On issue #2, this gets really complex, since the laws change depending on where the book was published. In some countries it's okay. In others it's not. According to Commons Public Domain guidelines,[16] UK books are "not okay" for this kind of thing. And Jackson's book was definitely published in the UK.

PHG has evidently been challenged about these sources at his Commons talkpage, but he appears to just be ignoring the questions, and he seems to have been adding the Rashid al-Din source to many of his recent uploads, to make them look sourced.

Further, this "questionable" source problem is classic PHG, all through the English Wikipedia (and is one of the reasons that I'm fighting him so hard). He has a knack for making his additions look well-sourced, but when you actually dig in and do fact-checking, PHG is clearly misrepresenting, and at times flat out fabricating information. I've caught him adding sources that had nothing to do with the page that he's working on. He also has used sources from hobbyist websites, marketing copy, typos in history books, and the title of a painting, to try and make a case that a battle had actually occurred (when in reality there was no such battle). I recall one bizarre conversation where he quoted a Latin text at me and said that it proved his case, but I went and had the Latin translated and it said nothing of the kind. It wasn't just a "translation/interpretation" issue, it was just completely about a different topic. He's been doing this in many venues, where when he gets challenged, he quotes some source from an obscure book (especially a book in another language), and then his challengers often back down since they don't have access to the source, or can't read that language. But I speak multiple languages and have access to some great libraries, and I assure you that PHG is not acting in good faith. But the more he is challenged, the more he escalates and makes more and more ridiculous claims. Check the talkpage at the Franco-Mongol alliance article, where he's arguing with Adam Bishop and John k about the whereabouts of Bohemond during the Sack of Baghdad.

In short, what PHG is doing, is extraordinarily damaging to Wikipedia. But it's been hard getting enough people to actually check the sources and see the problem. And the really scary thing, is that at the same time as I'm challenging him for adding false information, other editors have been giving him barnstars for his "excellent scholarship," simply because he's so good at making things look well-researched, even when they're not.  :/ He really has to be stopped. :( --Elonka 20:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Range blocks

I suggest you add User:Cyde/List of requests for unblock to your watchlist and handle some of the requests. I believe you will find at least one quarter of unblock requests are due to range blocks, which happen probably more frequently than you've realized. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In my earlier ANI posts, I was discounting many of those done by Ryulong with the reasoning that they are Tor node ranges, etc. Blocking or not blocking those is a question for the open proxy experts. Rather, the ANI discussion was involving a simple pest of a vandal. Cutting off huge swaths of Singapore because of one vandal is ill-advised except in small doses. The week done by LessHeard is fine (I refined the range since his original attempt missed the target completely) but the month done earlier by Jmlk17 seems excessive for a /16 range. I've had to undo /24 ranges after just hours because of collateral damage. A /16 is 256 times larger than a /24. I suppose if no one is complaining, then it's fine (although some may simply abandon Wikipedia rather than complain, esp. if there are language barriers). —Wknight94 (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

As said, I've seen many range blocks by many admins for vandalism, not proxies. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

This guy is a vandal-only account. Two of us have reverted him now. We'll see if he persists. [17] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jose cartagena

Look suspicious, but I can't say for sure. The edits appear to be spelling corrections and verifiable facts. I wonder what a checkuser would show? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Congressional delegation

Template:Congressional delegation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Markles 23:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I don't mean to get too involved here, but I can't help noticing. I've been RC patrolling today, and have seen you multiple times pop up in RC with work done on socks with User:Sasha Callahan/User:New England. I think that is very strange because they are both in WP:BOSOX and it never crossed my mind.   jj137 ^♠ 03:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of New England which I just wrote up, and User talk:Sasha Callahan. Apparently an account kept alive for some sad old vendetta. We'll keep an eye out for more WP:BOSOX accounts at WP:ER, a place both New England (talk · contribs) and Sasha Callahan (talk · contribs) had in common. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't look good at all.   jj137 ^♠ 03:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Liebman sock

Here's a newer one. He slipped one in there on the 6th, but by messing with Simmons he gave himself away. [18] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you had reverted him on the 6th, but he wasn't blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that edit on the 6th was a slightly new twist but I should have guessed... It's blocked now. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If a "bezzler" is a male reproductive organ (which I never heard before until Liebman came along), then presumably an "embezzler" screws the company he works for. Eek. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, very nice. *applause* —Wknight94 (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Maurizio Giuliano

An article that you have been involved in editing, Maurizio Giuliano, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurizio Giuliano. Thank you. Edcolins (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What photo was this?

Image:Davis.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Davis.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what photo you mean.

Phil Konstantin

See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 October 25#Image:Davis.jpg. You had uploaded a picture of someone named David Davis, but you uploaded over the top of someone else's photo. You should use a different image name than just Davis.jpg. I see two others have also uploaded images with the same name. Besides, there is no article for David Davis so it may not make sense for you to re-upload anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the David Davis (Supreme Court justice) I'm familiar with was instrumental in getting Lincoln elected. I hope someone didn't overlay his photo. ); Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Atkinson

This guy is either an idiot or a vandalism-only account. [19] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ya know I thought so too until I looked a little harder at this edit where he says, "Atkinson went on to pitch in the final game of the College World Series in 1952." I Googled and Googled and finally found this page. Search for "Atkinson" and you'll find that a Dick Atkinson of Missouri (near Kansas where Mantle was) is in a huge second-place tie for most runs allowed, set in 1952! I think the guy may be telling the truth! Of course, he's still violating all sorts of Wikipedia policies (and I don't have the time or patience to walk him through any of it) but I don't think we're dealing with a common vandal here. In fact, if it's really Atkinson himself making the edits, then he's probably in his early 70s! I thought about adding an entry at WP:COIN. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Guardian angel

Hi Wknight94. You said once that Elonka, upon becoming an Administrator, would never try to come after me, so I kind of consider you my guardian angel in this matter. Unsurprisingly, Elonka is trying to raise and inflate any issue she can find to threaten me with the worst. From my Talk Page: "Seriously, PHG, this is highly disruptive, you need to stop this tendentious behavior. When there is a clear consensus of other editors who want a certain course of action, you need to respect that. If you do not respect that, then you risk being blocked entirely from Wikipedia." (Elonka 19:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)), "Even if you were banned from Wikipedia today, it would take days, if not weeks of effort to cleanup all this "alliance" stuff that you've been pouring into multiple articles on Wikipedia. You have to stop." (Elonka 06:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)), and now the scanning of my Commons PD-Art uploads (for which she may have a few technical points, but as always I am ready to learn and correct if necessary). This sounds a lot like harassment to me. I would appreciate your vigilance in the matter. Regards. PHG (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What I meant by that was she would be very unwise to actually use the sysop tools against you personally. Admins are not supposed to use tools in matters where they are involved and she has been very involved with you for quite some time. You might want to mention your concerns at WP:ANI. If you do, keep in mind that the more concisely you state your concern, the more likely it is that someone will listen. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

The problem was caused by an edit conflict and I screwed up. I had added it to a group that failed to make it because of an edit conflict. Thanks for pointing it out. I'm ready to promote the next group, so I'll see that it makes it in the next group when I'm done. Sorry! Royalbroil 13:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

On 31 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Daniel Conahan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

I was able to fix the problem this update. We are currently far behind, so I let the group go a bit long. --Royalbroil 14:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks. I'll try to help make sure the groups go on time so we can drain the backlog quicker. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be very helpful. Christmas day DYK was interesting. I did all 4 updates (UTC) and they actually were more or less on time -- and I didn't have much time either. User:Gatoclass had the next update loaded each time, so all that I had to do was promote them. Most of the times I had just enough time to credit. It worked out perfectly with my celebration schedule. I gave Gatoclass a special one of a kind barnstar for doing such a great job loading up the Next Update so I could promote it. Royalbroil 14:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A Christmas Day-DYK updating barn star. Sounds quite unique - and well-deserved. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry

---

Hey dude , im that 71.xx guy you left a talk page dude. Dude, I'm so sorry right there. That was my friend. He was being a idoit dude. Okay. I'm sorry.Eldorado91 (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the target of the death threat that is owed an apology. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

wknight, that was my idoit friend. He was drunk, he was being an idoit and found was messing around on my pc okay. I was busy watching a movie , and I saw the message you gave me on the talk page. Okay. I told him to stop his bull ____ crap. Okay. So I'm sorry to bugs. I dont know bugs okay. . Okay, my friend is just drunk iodit. Okay. Thats his problem. I dont drink. Okay. I didnt do it. Okay. So I'm sorry for this big misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldorado91 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I just applogized to him okay. Dude, I just said it was my friend that did that okay. I didnt say that. I just threw my friend out of my house for that outburst.Eldorado91 (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)