Misplaced Pages

User talk:Wknight94/Archive 17: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Wknight94 Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:00, 8 December 2006 view sourceIrishJew (talk | contribs)946 edits →blocked user: Techmobowls← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:36, 30 April 2024 view source Jlwoodwa (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,162 edits +pp 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp|small=y}}
<div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 1ex; width: 242px; border: 1px solid #99B3FF; clear: right">
{{talkarchive}}
{{User wikipedia/Administrator}}
</div>
{| class="infobox" width="335px"
|-
! align="center" | ]<br />]
|-
|
#] | ], ]-], ]
#] | ], ]-], ]
#] | ], ]-], ]
#] | ], ]-], ]
#] | ], ]-], ]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->


== Babe Ruth page and BabeRuthCentral.com ==
== Destination Hotels & Resorts ==
Can you please help me figure out what needs to be wikified on the ] article? If you can point me in the right direction I’ll be more than happy to wirkify the ariticle. (])
:The last section is the only one that ''is'' wikified. All of the city names and such throughout the rest of the article can be wikified. —] (]) 16:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
One reason I didn’t wikify all the city names is because I didn’t think it was necessary to do so on any repeating city through out the article. Isn’t once enough? I wikified the city names on the property section which I thought would be enough considering most of the city are repeated else where.
] 17:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:Oh, I see. Generally, items that are wikified are done the first time they appear in an article. Articles are usually read from top to bottom. If I saw a city name near the top and said to myself, "now where is that city?", but it wasn't wikified there, I'd edit the page and wikify it - then it would be wikified in two places which is not generally good. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I edited the article to the best of my knowledge and made sure not to repeat any internal link twice.
] 17:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Hey There. I've tried a few times to add the Babe Ruth tribute site, BabeRuthCentral.com, to the Babe Ruth page multiple times but then disappears shortly thereafter. At first, I thought I was doing something wrong in my edit; however, recently, I discovered a warning on my talk page, which says that my attempt to include this website in the External Links is actually considered to be an act of Spam. I assure you, I'm not trying to improve my google ranking by putting our link on Misplaced Pages. BabeRuthCentral.com is actually probably the largest and accurate source of information on Babe Ruth on the web. How can I say this? I'm the webmaster and great grandson of Babe Ruth, and the majority of information, content and stories has come directly from my family. I appreciate that you're trying to ensure the integrity of the information regarding my great grandfather, but I would also appreciate it if you would reconsider having BabeRuthCentral, a site managed and endorsed by the family, on the external links page of wikipedia. Thank you BR32008 ] (]) 15:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)(talk) 15:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
== Jose Esquevar Sanchez ==
:This may be over my head then: you might want to ]. —] (]) 17:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::Looks like a spam site to me... and note that there is already a site that purports to be the official Ruth site. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:Baseball Bugs, you're correct, BabeRuth.com is considered the "official Ruth site" and we're not trying to negate or discredit that claim. I'm not saying BabeRuthCentral.com is the official site of Ruth, but I am saying without a doubt that it has more information and content on the Babe than any other site, including BabeRuth.com. I'm curious to get your feedback as to why you think that it's a SPAM site. If you look at the Interviews section of the site, you'd actually find legitimate interviews with significant sources including Babe's daughter, Julia Ruth Stevens, respected reporters and authors, as well as a former Japanese ambassador to the US, Honorable Ryozo Kato. Your feedback is appreciated. ] (]) 01:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::Any site that's not official or universally known, and is trying to sell stuff, I consider to be spam. That's my opinion, anyway. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 10:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


== If I left the project? ==
The article on Jose Esquevar Sanchez is neither inappropraite or a hoax. It is a true story of a real luchadore and if you would just give me time I will post my resources. I think that you should atleast give me a chance to create a detailed and informative page on Jose's short life. He is an athlete, plenty of athletes have pages. Why can't Jose have one? '''To consder it a hoax is proposterous.''' <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


I'm not sure what you were saying with "If you left the project." What does that mean? As I've stated before, I ain't all that Wiki Savvy.
== ] ==


Notable or not, vandalism is vandalism. ]'s Misplaced Pages entry has a warning on it about vandalism. He's certainly notable, and apparently, people aren't too concerned with vandalizing his entry.
Please go to ] for ] instead of creating it again. This was the second time you've recreated it. —] (]) 15:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


I think it is unfortunate ]'s entry was vandalized. And I do understand that the more notable the subject of the entry, the more likely it is to get caught.
I can guarantee this is NOT the second time i've recreated the EIP article, this was my first time. Anyway I can also guarantee I personally won't be trying to recreate it.
R Johnson


That said, the problem is ], not Steve Singleton.--] (]) 01:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
== ] ==


:I wasn't even aware of the ] until you told me about it. Yeah, that's f--ked up that someone would do such a thing.
Why are we salting ] when it keeps getting recreated by the same user? Just block him/her. —] (]) 02:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Interesting, I didn't think of that. I'll do that next time. (P.S. It may be time for you to archive your talk page) —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">] (])</span> 02:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
*(crosspost from ANI) Unless there is evidence of vandalism or other nastiness, I'm not in favor of blocking a user that posts a bit of self-promotion. I believe that if we don't "bite" this user but point xem to some indication of what ''is'' good content for an encyclopedia, we could turn this person into a good contributor instead of chasing xem off. (besides, if the user is truly bent on adding this article, this is far better stopped by protection than by a block which can be evaded through sockpuppetry). I urge you to overturn this block. (]) 08:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
**Thank you for doing that. I agree with everything you say about people who post disruptive nonsense, but I tend to hope that someone who just wants to write about xyrself isn't malicious (as opposed to e.g. people who add pictures of genitalia to random articles). I'll keep an eye out for this Rhcp; I hope I won't be disappointed in xem. Yours, (]) 14:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
***The problem is, if she's going to sockpuppeteer over it, then blocking those isn't actually going to help because she'll just make a new sockpuppet. Wouldn't salting then be a better solution? (]) 12:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
****Thanks. I had the page watchlisted but because of your swift and efficient reaction I hadn't noticed a change. Both pages are now locked. (]) 12:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


:I've done my best to preserve respectability for Misplaced Pages. I'd like to point out that I, myself, noticed an error in {{by|1979}} and ]. The Johnson error was made on December 10, 2006 by ]. The "I dunno where the F he got it" entry in {{by|1979}} was made by ] on September 4, 2007. In both cases, it took far longer than two hours before they were eventually found, and there is no question of either's notability.--] (]) 01:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
== Beckett Media Company ==
I'm pretty sure there was a long article about the compnay, but i can't seem to figure out what happened. Does this mean that the article never existed? Thought you could help me on that one. //] 17:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:There was a ] article that was created in late August and deleted on October 12 because it was a copyright violation from http://www.beckett.com/mediarelations/aboutbeckett.html. Does the text at that URL look familiar? I don't see a ] article by that exact name though. —] (]) 17:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::I don't believe the article was a straight copy, but then again, i don't remember. I just wanted to make sure i wasn't going crazy so thank you.
::I While you're floating around, I'm helping someone with their edits to ]. The person had created ] which I have moved, per ], to ]. After looking at his version, I don't think it is ideal. What is the best way for me to help this person learn about creating biographies? I have tried to point him to ]. He (i think it's a he) is an enthusiastic contributor and that's a good thing. // ] 17:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Well thanks for the tips. I have tried to balance the "take it slow" with the idea that a lot of the stuff on hear is in pretty bad shape. I know ] is a featured article right now, and i cannot see why. Thanks for the tip. // ] 18:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


==]==
== Operation Bolo ==
You just processed my speedy on that image. It might be a good idea to leave a reinforcing warning on the talk page of {{userlinks|Weirdo82}}. I left him a , and what I got back was a that makes it clear he has no understanding that uploading a copyrighted image, labeling it as self-created, and releasing it into the public domain is wrong. I left a second warning when I nominated the Avril Lavigne image, but it's always nice to let a problem editor know that he isn't just in a fight with one other editor.<br>] (]) 01:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:Later conversations show that he seems to have gotten the point. I'll keep an eye on him.] (]) 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


== baseball reference ==
i checked up my history on my article operation bolo and saw u looked at it
so i have to ask how did u like it] 21:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Hey there, can you maybe explain me why the "baseball ref bullpen page" would be unreliable? Thanks, ]]/] 21:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
== Please don't lose hope! ==
:It's a wiki. And a poorly-sourced one no less. Need I say more? —] (]) 22:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
::Well, I haven't seen a lot there, but the pages that I've seen were sourced. Does this mean you consider a sourced article in Misplaced Pages also unreliable? ]]/] 00:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes this does mean I would consider a sourced article in Misplaced Pages also unreliable. If I were writing a term paper, I would use Misplaced Pages as a tool for finding more reliable sources - and I would check each one before using them. There is at least one long-term vandal here (]) who runs almost unchecked through baseball-ref bullpen inserting inaccurate information. We at least have a few people who know his patterns here to revert on sight, but baseball-ref bullpen is not nearly as well-staffed. They've done all year. —] (]) 00:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Alright, makes sense, I will give it another check at some time. ]]/] 22:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


== How can a link be blacklisted? ==
People who want to see a change need to stick with it. What happens is a few of us are pushing at any given time, and then some of us give up, so there is never quite enough of us around to get it going. Please, don't give up, this is as close as we've ever gotten, and I think we're going to do it. --] 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


As you can see, keeps adding the same fansite to the ] article. I actually left them a warning, but they continued unabated. Rather than keep reverting, could the fansite be added to the Wiki blacklist? It'd be easier that way. The user is obviously a ]. Cheers! --] (]) 21:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
We're ahead 55% to 45% in the poll! --] 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:. If it continues, maybe I screwed it up! —] (]) 22:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
::Hurrah! Thanks. :) --] (]) 00:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


== image chaes.jpg == == Maybe another sock ==


This one could be Liebman: ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Where does it say that my image is not free? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


==Sockpuppetry== == Fact tags ==
Though I appreciate that the log is definitely one source of information, in most cases I think it's of limited usefulness. For example, when you sent me that message, I logged off, created this new account, and logged back on. Does it show up in any of your logs? It doesn't seem to show up in mine. --] 03:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
: (reply) Ask me off-wiki, I'll tell you. :) --] 05:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


This IP address has taken it upon himself to start removing stuff with fact tags on it. Is that appropriate? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 09:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
== User:195.225.189.7 ==
:He's already been challenged by many, and won't discuss it. I'll take it to ANI. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 09:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You've just blocked the above user for 24 hours. This looks reasonable since this is a shared IP. of the Warwickshire County Council. However, if you look at the last entry of this user : , you'll see that this wasn't just ordinary vandalism, but a grave accusation against a living person that could cause serious harm to Misplaced Pages. That entry occurred at 15.33 (my European time zone), while you blocked the IP at 15.34. So it is quite possible that you hadn't seen this edit. I've reverted it at 15.34, so that the possibility that anyone has read this is close to zero. In my opinion a much longer block is warranted, even if it is a shared IP. Even an OFFICE action could be warranted to erase the history of this edit in ]. You better take a second look. ] 15:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


== insound article == == MJ ==
i noticed you deemed my recently created article (titled "Insound") to be written to promote a company. i created the article because i noticed that a band's wikipedia article attempted to link to Insound's but the article did not exist. i searched wikipedia for "Insound" and found this to be the case on multiple band articles. having had experience ordering from insound and reading about it online, and being a fan of wikipedia, i felt i could make a good attempt at writing the first incarnation of its article. after receiving your message, i re-read wikipedia's criteria for notability for companies and corporations. while these criteria seem a bit odd, i did manage to find two or three places in the print media where Insound was the subject of the article. it seems strange that a company/web site can be wildly popular in internet culture, including continuous mentions on many respected and praised blogs and web-based news organizations (for example pitchforkmedia, stereogum and tiny mixtapes) and not be considered notable. this is especially strange considering wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and that the audience which reads this sort of blog is likely a sizable subset of wikipedia's audience. regardless, i would still argue that Insound is notable.


A new redlink goes straight to me with some off-the-wall complaint. Obvious trolling. I'll take him to AIV. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
i am slightly offended that my article was marked for speedy deletion which eliminates even the chance for discussion on this topic. i wrote it with the intention of sounding unbiased, and i would have been happy to hear advice as to how i could fix it if it did not sound neutral. ] 19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:Well, let's see if we can figure out what the hell he's talking about. —] (]) 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
==]==
::I haven't even ''thought'' about Michael Jackson in probably a year. Must be some old flame comment I put somewhere. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I answered there. Is your big old gun on your page for vandal whacking.--] ] 21:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, I'd just ignore it, personally. I don't see where you've edited ] and I went back months into your contribs. —] (]) 16:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
::::I find that kind of stuff mostly just funny - as long as it doesn't interfere with work. I posted the guy on AIV, and the admin issued a "don't do this again" warning to the guy, and that should be the end of it. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, that was my reaction too. I hoped the section blanking would be enough of a hint. —] (]) 16:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


== Assistance == == Delahanty / Lajoie 1902 ==


The ''Elias Book of Baseball Records'' 2008 edition (p. 372) recognizes Delahanty as the 1902 AL batting leader, not Lajoie. That fact is reflected in the WP article about year-by-year leaders, but not in the WP article about consecutive batting titles, which still shows Lajoie for 1902. Elias continues to list Cobb as the 1910 AL champion. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm having problems with ] and was wondering if you could have a look, especially at the talk page. It appears the author (alternating between user and anon IP, claiming to have no affiliation to the company) it using devisive tactics to make sure the article stays. I see you are an admin on duty, which is why I am asking. Thanks very much, if you have the time, that is. ] ]] 22:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:Looks like someone beat me to it. I was about to delete it per ]. —] (]) 22:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC) :According to sources I have checked, Elias is wrong, with respect to 1910. --] (]) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::Name one. Elias is the official statistician of MLB. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
So I noticed! Actually, they redirected it, but hey! ''Vive le difference!''. Thanks very much for your consideration anyway. Two (or three as it turned out) heads are better than <s>mine</s> I mean one. ] ]] 22:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Side note: The original edit ran up against the previous line - a typical Ron Liebman M.O. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Though Elias is considered by many to be the official statistician of baseball, his views are outdated and disregarded by most responsible baseball historians. Siwoff is nearly 88 years old and follows the Bowie Kuhn model of not wanting to change hits and at-bats - though he and Steve Hirdt have changed rbi's., and other things. Many SABR researchers are much more repected than Siwoff - whether you like it or not! --] (]) 17:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Last time I checked, ESB's records are official, and RL's are not. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 10:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


== WP:BRIT ==
Oh, and it's back again, by the way! Complete with G11 tag recreated. ] ]] 22:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi - this was a keep for somebody else to use. It is not used at ]. Regards, --] (]) 14:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
== You, sir, are what is good about Misplaced Pages ==
:{{tl|sofixit}}, don't blank it. —] (]) 14:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


::I dont understand '{{tl|sofixit}}' - what shall I do? You have redirected it back to BITASK, where is causes offense! What is the answer? --] (]) 14:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
:::Point it somewhere else then. Get consensus. The usual. —] (]) 14:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''You have Barnstars, so how about your first STARBAR?'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | The ''Bubba Hotep Starbar'' is awarded to those whose efforts are widely acknowledged, but deserve to be acknowledged again in a unique way. Here is '''yours''' for being an great Wikipedian/admin, willing to chip in at a moment's notice. Thanks for the help. ] ]] 23:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
|}


::::If the 'Redirects for deletion' people did their job it would simply be deleted and nobody's problem! If someone wanted it in the future all they had to do was make it again! Now I have to search for a new home that covers quite an awkward word. Thanks guys.--] (]) 14:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know whether you have lots of barnstars (do you?) but this is the award I give to people who have responded to a call for assistance (and sometimes guidance) in this WIKId, convoluted world of Misplaced Pages. Enjoy, and think nothing of it. :)


== Possible vandalism only account ==
== DW Article ==


:]. just did some pretty nasty vandalism here. ]''''' <sup>]</sup>'''''<sub>]</sub> 14:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you unprotected the ] article. You stated that there was no discussion. That is because discussing anything with ] is futile. He believes the article is the "David Westerfield is innocent" article. He includes bias and controversial statements that contain no secondary source. He wants Westerfield to sound innocent and that we should feel sorry for him. ] edits are in bad faith and he will continue to engage in the same behavior. You will notice that he doesn't care about any other article too. There will be another revert war between us. ]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] 04:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::He's gone. Thanks. —] (]) 18:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


== Editor requesting unblock, caught by the 72.76 rangeblock ==
:All right I will notify you then. I don't know what is wrong with my signature. I think I did something to it by accident in my preferences. I do not know how to fix it however. ]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] 04:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


Hello Wknight94. FYI, see ]. ] (]) 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
When you unprotected the David Westerfield article, you said there had been “zero talk activity”. In fact, there was plenty of “talk activity”, but it was on the Biographies ] and the Steel359] pages, not the Westerfield Talk page. I suggest you read those other two pages, you should find them most enlightening.] 04:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


== Roger Needham == == ] ==


When you get a chance, could you look at the last few edits to this article? There's been back and forth on his ethnicity, and I don't think the sources added are reliable. Don't really want to get into an edit war over this, doncha know. Thanks! :) --] (]) 02:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep — every time the page was unprotected, an IP-hopping vandal would step in adding a line saying "Horrid old man, I hope you died in pain" or a variation on that theme, both on the page and in the edit summary. We semiprotected the page, and he started using aged sockpuppets (see ]). I asked for a checkuser, and it seems he's on a shared IP. Every time we remove the protection, he comes back. So it seems we're stuck with full protection. As you figured, Centrx purged the page's history. The vandal is extraordinarily persistent. Not sure what else we can do. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Plus I'm wondering if there might be sockpuppetry involved. --] (]) 02:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Looks like you could direct them to the ] essay section. ] has a few IMDB mentions as well. —] (]) 13:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


== Thank you... ==
== Deletion of ] ==


You may want to consider protecting that article against re-creation: the one you deleted was attempt number 3. --]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 06:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC) ...for your help. :) I'm on the road with no access to e-mail. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
== Stub sorting proposals for June==
I might try attempt number 4. user_talk: pookie1996. 13:12 28 november 2006 UTC
Hi there! I hoped that someone would finally close the discussion; as I was party to it, I'm not supposed to close it. It's been sitting there for some time. Thanks for noticing anyway. ] <small>]</small> 19:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Is an admin required? Or just someone? You may be looking for {{tl|backlog}} - or, of course, ]. —] (]) 19:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


==Tubgirl notice==
== 195.194.74.26 ==
Hi Wknight94. You closed the Tubgirl RfD six days ago as keep.. It again is listed at RfD. See ]. ] (]) 04:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


== IronAngelAlice ==
I reported {{User|195.194.74.26}} at ] for continuing to vandalize after still another last warning earlier this week. Since I have found it so hard to get vandals blocked even when they meet all the criteria listed on the ] page, I went ahead and gave him another "last warning". You then to block this vandal with the comment "1 already warned. LIST MT". I have reverted my warning -- can you go ahead and block this person. They will be back again tomorrow, and the day after that and the day after that ad inifitium. It would be nice to get a break of at least a few days from cleaning up after them. --] 16:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


Have you seen ? I just want confirmation that the accusation of sockpuppetry has been disproven or retracted. Thanks, ] | ] 00:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:By the way, check out the evolution of this over the last 48 hours. This is what Misplaced Pages looks like when multiple vandals attack an article. Bots and recent change patrollers revert the most recent vandalism, but there's so much that they end up just reverting back to more vandalism. This stuff is profoundly discouraging for non-admin, rank-and-file editors, especially when it goes on unchecked.
:Not that I'm aware of. But it wasn't egregious enough to warrant an indefinite block. I don't suppose we make people carry that tag around forever, do we... —] (]) 00:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not arguing one way or another. I assume since you made the block you know the details of the case and I trust your judgment on the matter, I just wanted to know what it was. The user in question deleted the tags with a message saying that the charges were not true. If that is the case, of course s/he was right to get rid of the tags. ] | ] 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not arguing either - just asking (I know, hard to tell online! {{(:}}). I wouldn't say the charges were untrue but I guess they're allowed to remove the tag anyway. I don't figure it's meant as a ]. —] (]) 16:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


== RE:Blocked IP returned with another: ==
:I'm going back to cleaning up after their work. As promised above, I have removed the warning from 195.194.74.26. If you decide not to block him, can you reinstate that warning? That way at least there will be a record of another "last" warning for the next 7 days.


Thanks, I'll keep watching. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:Harlow Solid Italic">] ''(] ♦ ]) @ ''</span></span> 18:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks in advance for looking into this. --] 16:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


== Subscription site question ==
::When you step through the history of ], you'll see it was a coordinated attack by muliple editors to convert the article into a personal attack page directed at two, non-notable real people, one named Phillips (linked to the ] article) and one named Bonney (incorrectly linked to the ] article). --] 16:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


has been added as a reference to several TV show list articles by ]. Is that appropriate? I'm not sure myself, so I will defer to your greater wisdom. :) --] (]) 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
== Jim Clark ==
:It certainly doesn't look appropriate to me. They haven't even updated their copyright - it says 1993-2004! Doubtful at best. —] (]) 23:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


== A user you temporary blocked is back trolling ==
Have you read the recent history of the ] article? There isn't going to ''be'' any "talk activity". The whole problem with ] is that he refuses to discuss changes - just reverts back to the version he updated in June. It ''has'' to be at least semi-protected, so that he loses one of his sockpuppet accounts each time, if nothing else! -- ] 17:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed that you had temporary blocked ] for vandalism. It appears from his talk page that he is consistent in trolling. I have reverted some non-constructive edits he has made to a page and I just would like to bring it to your notice. If I shouldn't be putting this here please let me know (I'm new to editing). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Thanks for the rapid blocks on the ] socks. I do hope you manage to keep up with the level of his disruptive activity! I'm in agreement with Ian above that semi protection might be a better idea - at least it stops the ip socks that he has used many times in the past. ] 09:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


== ] copyvio? == == NRHPdis template redirect ==


Did you check to see if ] was really a copyvio before you removed it from ]? I was checking and wasn't convinced. It's good that you took it off just in case but I think maybe it should go back up. What do you think? —] (]) 02:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC) I don't think your closing the brief discussion on NRHPdis template was proper. It was too brief a discussion, with no participation by ] members and no notice to ]. I didn't see it until you closed it. I am not myself a big supporter of the use of a separate NRHPdis template, but there are others who did come up with it and support it, and I think the proposal was not handled properly. Just FYI. ] (]) 03:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
:See #9 of ]. The template was properly tagged and was ''overdue'' for closure with no one voting to keep, so I don't see what you could think is not "proper" about the closure. How did you notice it redirected but didn't notice it tagged for deletion? Your best venue is probably ] or appeal to the people who voted at ]. —] (]) 10:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::I created it, and got the deletion notice, but didn't really care one way or the other. It was hardly being used anyway. I mostly made it b/c there were other specific kinds of disambig templates (for boats, names, places, etc.). Have any of those been deleted? More curious than anything else. --] (]) 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
:::There have been a few at ]. I may have redirected another one but don't recall. —] (]) 01:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


== My talk page ==
:Yes, yes, I was in the process of doing that (I had to go get my A/C adapter, and I was distracted momentarily by some Black Friday browsing). I wasn't convinced either. -- ''']''' 02:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Was it Ronnie again? Trying to pretend he was BB, leaving the project? Honestly, I can't fathom what he thinks he's accomplishing with these silly sockpuppets. Anyhoo, thanks. :) --] (]) 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
:Yep. He really tricked you that time, didn't he. Like a four-year-old. —] (]) 01:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


== ] to ] ==
:By the way, not to have copyright paranoia, but does having copyrighted logos on the car pictured in ] invalidate its public domain designation added by the photo creator? -- ''']''' 02:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


Are you starting a thread there? I'm speechless. ]] 02:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
::] a lengthy response to the copyright question (which amounts to the image being OK). -- ''']''' 05:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:I'm swamped with a thing tonight but I definitely encourage it. —] (]) 03:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
::I've left a message with ]. He's lost rollback because of a different issue. What's up with him and ]? I saw your note about ]. Cheers, ]] 04:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, that was someone else that left the note. ]] 04:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


== Re:Don't forget to re-protect ==
The text was a slightly reorganized cut and paste of the listed website - which has a very clear copyright statement.--] 03:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:In doubt, I removed it. The lack of any references at all should have prevented it to make it to DYK in the first place. Besides, I was expecting the template to be refreshed anytime when I noticed it turning into a stub link. ] 03:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, I always check and re-protect when I do that, but I must have missed that one or been distracted. Thanks for the heads-up. <span style="color:DarkGray">...</span> ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
== New account ==
Thanks for the help. I'm somewhat lost. I did move my talk page and user info from my old account to the new one, but I would also like to delete Reynoldsrapture for good. Is this possible. I've seen tags I believe would do this, but should it be a user deletion tage, or an article deletion tag? ] 05:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


== 209.68.139.250 anon edits ==
: Whatever you think is best. Basically, I want my old account deleted or disapeared as much as possible. If no one new my old account ever existed, I'd be happy. ] 05:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
May I request that this address be blocked from anonymous editing indefinitely, as we have done for ] earlier? This is also a school district address, and would rather have students use registered accounts to make edits, instead of anonymously vandalizing pages. Thanks. --] (]) 22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


== Delete ==
:: Another question, now if someone sees my old name in a prior discussion, and they click on it, couldn't they in theory edit my old user page and add anything they wanted to it? ] 05:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi,
::Can you block my old account from being edited? I see now that anyone technically could edit the page if they so desired, so a permanent block would be the only solution. This would be similar to protecting an article from vandalism, right? ] 05:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


Is there anyway to have the Robert Wolf (UBS) completely deleted (included deletion and creation logs)? Let me know. Thanks! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::: Thanks for all your help. Good to have handy editors around like you. ] 04:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


== FYI == == Liebman sock ==
I am trying to figure out what research projects and articles to concentrate on prior to my retirement - if I decide to retire. If you have any useful suggestions, let me know. Sincerely, Baseball Bugs (Sept. 22, 2008) (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Hey, Ronnie, how about you get a lobotomy, for starters? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


Keeper76 has blocked the user on the grounds of impostoring. Feel free to add the "sock" logo on the user's page if you want. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. (]) 13:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:Already done. :-) ] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">&#448;</span> ] 21:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


== RE:Baseball content removing IP returns ==
==]==
At ], we are attempting to have a polite discussion about the wording of a poll -- a poll which multiple editors have requested be re-run, since the original version was very tangled. I understand that you do not agree that the poll should be re-run. However, this does not give you the right to accuse me (again) of disruption, nor to accuse me of violating WP:POINT.. Can you please explain just exactly which clause of WP:POINT you believe is being violated? Just to be clear, it is my opinion that your repeated statements against me are falling into the realm of a personal attack. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|With regards to your comments on ]:&#32;}}Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. <!-- Template:No personal attacks (npa2) --> --] 15:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


Argh, ok, thanks for letting me know. I really don't have the time or energy to deal with it today, but I'll see what I can do tomorrow.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:Harlow Solid Italic">] ''] @ ''</span></span> 03:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
:I didn't say anything against you at all. I said starting this poll would be a disruption - asking zillions of people to look at a poll question which has already been addressed by dozens of people. You need to read both ] and ]. Your accusing me of a personal attack when nothing was directed at you personally is itself a personal attack. —] (]) 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


== ] ==
==Anaheim Hills==
You are not discussing why you keep reverting it. I kindly ask you to revert it back, and discuss why you are doing this silly revert stuff like the rules state. I did explain myself, but you kept reverting it anyways without any information to back yourself up. What gives? Are you too special to explain yourself, but others need to, or what?] 16:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Can you unprotect this template, I wish to make a correction. Thanks. ] (]) 17:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
== A Personal Attack... ==


== Another Ron Liebman sock ==
I think you should see this .<font face="comic sans ms"><font color="purple"><i><b>]</b></i></font></font> <font color="purple">]</font> 21:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Here: ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
:Blocked, templated. Next? ] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">&#448;</span> ] 21:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

== Table of contents margin ==

Hi Wknight94. I have the pleasure to inform you that we have now added extra top margin to the table of contents (when on article pages). As you suggested over at ] two months ago. Sorry for the delay.

--] (]) 01:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

:Great! I thank you and Ed Fitzgerald below thanks you. :) —] (]) 00:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

::Always happy to make people happy. I am sorry it took such time. I noticed we had missed it when I checked old sections that perhaps should be archived at ].
::I realised I forgot to mention one thing: If you want to see the change immediately you might need to ], since the Misplaced Pages CSS files are cached in the browsers for up to 31 days. Thus it takes 31 days before all users see the change, but some will see it already today.
::--] (]) 01:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

=== Thank you... ===

...for running with the request for additional margin in the ToC, I had no idea it was in the works, and was surprised and please to hear that you had suggested the change and it was accepted and coded. Please accept my humble thanks. <b><i>]</i> <sup>] / ]</sup></b> 01:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:Fantastic! In all honesty, I wasn't aware that the issue had been readressed either. —] (]) 00:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

==Subpage==
If you want to create a subpage for a long thread, by all means, please do. You seem to be uninvolved. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

== New Fangusu sock? ==

I'm suspicious of the new user ]. The user's edits are all to articles targeted by Fangusu in the past (with a ''few'' that may be new, but in the same basic category and style), and the user's very first edit summary addresses me by name as was Fangusu's habit as of late, also insisting as Fangusu had that an article being a stub means it ought to be merged into another article. Many of the edits undo reversions I did of this Fangusu's unproductive and block-evading editing. I'd say I'm over 90% certain that this is Fangusu, but this user's characteristic poor grammar does not appear to be present. It's hypothetically possible that a ''different'' person who'd been silently watching decided to re-do Fangusu edits that s/he thought were useful, so I thought I'd ask for a second pair of eyes to have a look instead of immediately reporting it to ]. Would you mind taking a look when you get the opportunity? Thanks. --] <sup>(])</sup> 07:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:Yep, passes the ] test. Blocked, reverted, and watchlisted. —] (]) 11:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

== Block this url ==

Hello.

This is a bit hard to explain. I just came to wikipedia, and saw that someone had edited a lot of articals in an imature manner. This is a public computer, in a junior/senior school. There are some very imature people here. It might be in the best intrest of wikipedia to block this url/computer/whatever you do. Anyone who really wants to edit on wikipedia can create an account. I know that there are a few reasons (fairness/second chances/my reliability) not to do this, but it will only bring grief/annoyance. Anywho, I'll leave it up to you.

Sincerely;
Adam Gulyas <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Today's Liebman socks ==

We'll see if its a good day for Stockings. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:I should point out that he apparently took his name from that of the presumably legit user just above. The old boy must be running out of ideas. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And another one, on an admin's page: ] <sup>'']''</sup> 23:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

==NFLSecondaryColor==
What is the point of having ] and ]? When I added the colors to the infobox at ], the secondary colors do not show up.►''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:In that infobox, it looks like NFLSecondaryColor is for the text of the "Career history" bar. White text. Which were you trying to change? "National Football League debut"? That looks like AltSecondaryColor. —] (]) 16:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::Wow I'm an idiot.►''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 16:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

== October Baseball WP Newsletter ==

{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/newsletteroct08}}


== Administrator's Noticeboard ==

The reason I raised the issue of the vandalism bots on the Administrator's Noticeboard is because I wasn't sure if this was a behind the scenes programming problem an admin would have to address or a specific issue with the bots. Also, we'll need admins to help out on vandalism patrol until this is resolved. Until this is determined not to be an admin-related problem, I'd appreciate it if you didn't delete the thread from ANI. Thanks.--] (]) 15:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Programming problems are ''still'' not admin-related. Admins can block, protect, and a few other things - see ]. Nothing bot-related. Admins aren't even necessary for vandalism ''patrol'', just the eventual blocking per reports at ]. —] (]) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::Guess we have a difference of opinion. Since I'm an admin and feel it belongs there, and other admins joined in on how to address the issue, it would seem to have support to be there. Best,--] (]) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh my, you're an admin! I'm shocked. What are you thinking, bringing up bot problems at ], and then removing my comments? Sheesh. —] (]) 16:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for that mistaken deletion. I was working on another project when I saw your edit summary and I thought you'd deleted the ANI thread. My intent was to place the thread back on ANI, which obviously wasn't needed. As for bringing up bot problems there, it is an admin noticeboard and I wanted this issue brought to the attention of my fellow admins, figuring some of them would know what to do. It appears this was a correct assumption.--] (]) 16:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Check this out ==

These guys actually think I'm only 13 1/2 years old, just because my user page says that. Or maybe they're just funnin' me. I don't want to be an admin, though. I would not run if nominated, and if elected I would not serve. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Sheesh, where did all that come from? Did you tell them I'm only 6? —] (]) 11:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::I did not go bringing ''that'' up. However, I think they're confusing dog years with human years. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 11:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::They might just be satirizing admins. Far be it from me to ever do ''that''. 0:) ] <sup>'']''</sup> 11:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Pointer to discussion about TV episode redirects ==

Hi, Bill. It's been a while since the dispute about TV episode article naming, and I'm glad to see that you've been thriving on Misplaced Pages. I wanted to let you know that there's a new (much smaller, I hope!) discussion about whether to keep the redirects that have "unnecessary" disambiguation or not — one of the byproducts of an early compromise move in that debate. The new discussion is at ], with related discussions at ]. Hope to see you there. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Matejpostolka User Block ==

Could you please have a look at my unblock request?? User Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Matejpostolka
:Yes, it looks lovely. I'll pass. —] (]) 19:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Liebman ==

Our pin-headed friend visited my talk page again today. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Liebman 10-9-08 ==

Here's another one you can block, if you're in a blocking mood: ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== ] under GA review ==


Hi there, I see that you are a contributor to the article ]. This article has come under review for Good article reassessment as part of ] and a number of problems have been identified which are listed on the talk page. Please begin to address these points in the next seven days or the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the ] process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--] (]) 00:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

== Thanks! ==

Thanks for the backup on my talk page! That was funny. :) ] ] 03:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:My pleasure. —] (]) 03:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

== Tellus archivist check user ==

Hello there, your conclusion following 'checkuser' was '' (clerk) Abandoned account blocked but current one is not per lack of ] abuse. One account was switched for another)''. One of the associated meatpuppets ] is continuing his/her tantrum and has taken it here,
. Would you mind offering other than this assessment following your investigations? Thanks. ] (]) 17:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

== Notification ==

], just to let you know. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash; ]</b><sup><i>]</i></sup></span> 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


== Thanks == == Thanks ==


For catching my mistake. :) ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting all my articles recently :D not being sarcastic. ] 02:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:Heh heh, no problem. —] (]) 01:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:. Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Lessing Lake" (WP:CSD#R1 ---- content was: '#REDIRECT Lake Kari' (and the only contributor was 'Nareklm')) 02:22, ...,(and the only contributor was ') 22:26, 18 November 2006 Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Russians in Armenia" ..., you diddnt delete those if not Never mind. ] 02:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::Pretty much it was copyright since i dont know to many of the rules but now i do :) plus you should delete this to lol ]
:::Hahaha thanks, Im getting used to this for now i've been going smooth :-) ] 03:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


==Spiteful Semitransgenic==
== Hello again ==
Please see current spiteful dispute I am having with ] at ] and at the ] page. The issue is this: after a month of work I greatly improved the noise music page - providing wiki with an outstanding noise music page with extensive footnotes, some lacking only page # which I can provide in the near future (as previously explained a # of times), free of ] & ] that stood for weeks. ] then imposed a ] deadline on my providing those page #s and when I challenged that arbitrary deadline ] falsely accused me of sock-puppetry with the creator of the ] - an outstanding wiki page started by ] who has entered his resistance to Semitransgenic's dictates. (See talk page at ]) I strongly condemn Semitransgenic's tactics as he is doing it again at ] in spite.
More evidence of ] abuse: he has seen the results of the investigation into his charges of sock/meat puppetry against me here (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tellus_archivist) and knows (see his contrib page) me to be innocent of them -- yet he repeats them and has not apologized to me as he promised he would. As you can see, the result of his harassment was: "Clerk note: I've indefblocked Taxisfolder as an abandoned account but there is no overlap in activity or block evasion, so Valueyou is left alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


I ask here for a Consensus that disciplinary measures be taken against ] as he is a bully and self-declared nazi (see the top of my talk page – that is how he introduced himself to me). I may or may not be of the Jewish faith, but either way I find this kind of macho posturing repugnant. He also addressed me as “dude” later on in my talk page and as I am not of the male sex, I find that sort of address sexist. So, I am seeking a Consensus to out ] from the music section of wiki as clearly he has no love of music or the artists who make it. I don't see any constructive contributions by ] other posting ugly flag signs where talk on the discussion page would be better because these signs drive away users of wikipedia by making it look half-ass. I suggest that he be asked to go work on the ] page and leave the music section to those who love music. ] (]) 11:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey i re-made the article but i did not copy except for the quote i dont think were supposed to re-make quotes right?


:above user (et al.) is throwing a tantrum becasue they don't like regulations. Issue starts . Long history of problematic behaviour, account swapping over 2 year, see by clerk. User believes real world credentials overules policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Shushi_Massacre


::''Are you an expert in this field? I am offering primary source information. This is differnt than a POV. They are important as a group not because some book said they are, but by their productivity - with which I am aware.''
Also is there anywhere on our user profiles or contributions that say how many edit's we made etc statistics?


::''This is a fresh and emerging history and I would think that a PhD who has worked as an archivist at the ] could offer such a list without a book saying it is OK. ] (]) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)''
Thank you alot.] 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


:user is now engaging in as part of their protest. ] (]) 11:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:Hopefully this article will come through smoothly. ] 04:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::LOL, thats funny editits, haahahhaa i need 3 times the number i have now to make the top ten :P wikipedia is a new addiction other myspace.my iq is going down, ] 05:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


== ] == == Request for comment ==


Hello there, I mistakenly left a comment on an archive page , the situation has since if there is anything you would like to offer by way of advice, direct input, or other, that would be appreciated. Best. S. ] (]) 13:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
{{discussion at|User talk:Quarl}}
:''(moved from archive) Can you take a look at please and see what you think. My personal opinion is that the user is engaging, at the very least, in meat puppetry, more difficult to prove is the possibility that the same user is employing different accounts from differnent IP's, home, work, perhaps. An unresolved sock puppet case has been filed, if you would like to add a comment you can do it . Thanks. ] (]) 13:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)'' <small>—] (]) 13:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)</small>
::thanks! ] (]) 14:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't really want to enter into a protracted dispute over another editors inability to compose themselves or follow guidelines. This user is ]. That's quite obvious from the comments, history, behaviour. Perhaps this cannot be established using the sock puppet dispute procedure but I would like to leave that information on record, if it goes stale so be it, file it with the rest of the unresolved puppet issues, nothing lost. There is every chance a similar issue may resurface at some point in the future. That is my conclusion, and I don't have anything else to conribute to the dispute. If the editor in question wishes to open a case I will particpate. Thanks for your time on this and your feedback nonetheless. Best. S ] (]) 14:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
::::But what's your point? ] made a single edit in June 2006! Maybe she decided she didn't want to use her real-life name here - that's usually a good idea. —] (]) 14:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::It's not a point I'm trying to make at all, please understand that. There was some debacle at the time surrounding ] on the ] page hence the name change. I don't expect you to be aware of the nuances, but from the ones I have seen, I have formed an opinion of what is happening here, perhaps that is not useful, but please appreciate that I have actually done nothing ''wrong'', in terms of dealing with this user or addressing outstanding issues relating to policy, yet I have had to defend myself against the abuse and allegations leveled at me, yes that is how things works here, but I am not necessarily pleased to have run around the mill because someone cannot, and apparently will not, behave themselves. Perhaps you disagree with my approach, as I'm sure do others, but I'm simply trying to highlight a pattern of unacceptable behaviour by one user across a number of profiles. I really have nothing more to add. Cheers. ] (]) 14:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::In light of advice from other editors, I've made an offer to remove the puppetry allegation if the user agrees to give ] some consideration. Hopefully we can move this forward. Thanks. ] (]) 17:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::There's a saying somewhere here: focus on articles, not editors. Even if EricaNechvatal, Rydernechvatal, Oidkdufjggd, TwinkleJames, Taxisfolder and Valueyou are all the same, so what?
:::::::*] - July 2006
:::::::*] - May-July 2007
:::::::*] - May-June 1, 2008
:::::::*] - June 11-22, 2008
:::::::*] - July-August 8, 2008
:::::::*] - August 10-present, 2008
:::::::Looks like someone that created an account, did a few things, lost their password, and started over. There's nothing untoward going on from looking at that list. If there are problems within an article or two, focus on those; don't get hung up on ''who'' you are talking to. —] (]) 23:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::With no overlapping history, it's reasonable to assume that it's like what you describe, that they just simply adopted a new ID. It's been known to happen. 0:) This is a lot of ID changes, though. Barring any evidence of true sockpuppeteering (which doesn't look like it), and if it's in fact the same guy, it's possible he just gets tired of an ID and creates a new one. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 23:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::There are socks - and then there is ] ''abuse''. If someone is using six IDs to tip an argument in his favor or using another ID to get around a block, etc. None of these appear to be the case here. None of those IDs were blocked and, since none of the histories overlap, none of them have taken part in the same discussion. Four of them haven't edited in four months and I just-in-case-blocked a fifth one as an abandoned account because of the RFCU finding - so dwelling on them as a group is just distracting from the articles themselves. —] (]) 23:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::''Ja''. It's not sock abuse apparently, but more like when you lose a sock in the laundry and have to get a new one. :) ] <sup>'']''</sup> 00:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Ok points taken. The level of actual abuse across the range of users is not sufficient to warrant concern.I understand. Thanks for the input on this. I will focus exclusively on content in future. ] (]) 08:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


== KillAllSpammers checkuser ==
== ] ==


Oops, Wknight94, I may have misinterpreted the contents of your table in the KillAllSpammers checkuser. For one thing, I interpreted it as a bot -- sorry to anti-anthropomorphize you! If your IP ranges matched mine and I just misunderstood the syntax, I definitely apologize and in any case am grateful for your help. ] (]) 01:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
On the ] article, under the infobox at the top of the page under Largest City (New York City, NY) could you kindly add the Smallest City, which is ], since it is the smallest city in the ]. I cant do it for I have an IP # and IP's are blocked. I would appreciate it. ] 07:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:No problem. My notations were ] and I was hoping a checkuser would find the links useful. But I also don't want to give you cause for concern so I'll leave it to your discretion. —] (]) 01:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
::Ah, got it: CIDR. Twenty steps behind you but hope to close the gap someday :-). ] (]) 22:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


== ] request for signature ==
== BernieMac7734 ==


Hello Wknight94, I would like to file a ] for ] and as you commented on this individuals user page regarding their conduct perhaps you will offer your signature. I will be petitioning the other editors involved also. My statement will read as follows.
* cheers for blocking this foo'. keep up yr good work ] 20:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


:Despite a with ] leading to of multiple editors, ]'s immediate action, following the conclusion of this period of disruption, was to revert the disputed article to a condition that ] deemed acceptable, therefore leaving outstanding issues with ], ], ], unaddressed. The dispute esentially relates to disagreement about tagging and to ]'s request for citations. The origin of this dispute can be traced to . The user engaged in ] by copy pasting a personal attack across the talk pages of multiple articles user ] has edited. There is also evidence of ] accusing ] of anti-semitism, resulting in ] ]. This last allegation arose as a result of the statement made at 17:42 on the 10th of August. Irrespective of the nature of this hostile campaign ] attempted to arrive at a but ]'s repsonse was instead to engage in antagonistic reversion. Please advise. ] (]) 10:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
== ] ==


Thanks for your efforts. Best. ] (]) 11:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Wknight, I got a question regarding an image I recently uploaded ]. I just wanted to know if my licensing was right, and if it all legit? I tried checking over other baseball card images and it seems that I can do this, but I'm not totally sure since I got this image from Baseball Almanac. Thanks for looking into it. ''']]''' 22:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::Hmm...okay then. I do have a Lee Smith baseball card from 1997 (somewhere around there), but I don't have a scanner. I added the fair use rationale for the image, and hope everything goes well. Does anyone exactly decide upon the image's fate or something? ''']]''' 23:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Okay, thanks. Question: that Carlos Delgado image? Was that a MLB.com image? ''']]''' 00:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::Heh, you lucked out. About the time of my RfA, Meegs requested me to deleted 100+ images that I got from MLB.com. It was really annoying going to each article and removing the image and then deleting the image afterwards. By the way, it seems there are loads and loads of MLB.com images on baseball player pages. Want to discuss it on ] and ] so people will know for future reference? ''']]''' 00:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::Lol I tagged them as {{]}}. Anyway, see ]. ''']]''' 00:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


:All this brouhaha over some obscure music article. And somehow Wknight94 was chosen to help solve this little tempest. And then I get asked why I don't want to be an admin myself. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 11:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
== Reverting ==


::But wiki just wouldn't be the what it is if there wasn't brouhaha over some obscure article of one description or another!! ; ) ] (]) 11:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey how do i revert articles?


There is now a ] section on this dispute. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 12:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed alot of vandalism in the recent changes area im trying my hardest to mark the articles that are nonsense to be deleted but for the regular articles how do i revert? ] 22:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks man i needed that. ] 23:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::Just a tip for the last ten minutes i've been reverting spam and this guy is messing with alot of topics with his opinions. ] 23:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


: I agree this is tedious but very much to my point that ] acts like a bully. For me all that is in the past however (per his false sock-puppet charges against me). My request that he is now seeking retaliation for was intentionally tightly focused on the technical question at hand which ] has stepped in to find sensible middle ground and -- that I accept. (see ] talk page). If ], you, or others would care to hit the books and find the relevant page #s (I was working from my notebooks and am not currently in an English speaking country) that would be most useful to getting the page up to snuff. ] seems only to cry out for endless citations for every line of text and never provides any. Let's all pitch in to get the page impeccable. ] (]) 12:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
::http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:TheIceBox
::Currently it is still "peccable". ] <sup>'']''</sup> 13:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Got it, thanks. ''peccable''? ] (]) 15:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
::::As opposed to "not" peccable, or impeccable. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 02:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


== ] ==
::she just messaged me to...


Hi,
:::Thanks ill report more as i edit and revert spam (if there are any) :) ] 23:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::This person just blanked the tomato page and i reverted it looks suspicious... http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=72.153.193.76 ] 00:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, Hopefully i can get most people banned who are trouble makers and the ones who make stupid and immature posts continuously, well the spammers yep. ] 02:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Yeah I've been cleaning out the recent changes and new pages so much today i reached 1059 edits, I've been adding stubs, WikiProjects, I reverted spam, im working to improve articles and eliminate non-sense material :-) ] 02:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


you deleted this article; however, ] states: "Banned user. Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, with '''no substantial edits by others'''." I hope you noticed my substantial edits, and I don't see why this should be deleted.
== Lee Smith ==


I'd like to hear your opinion.
I'll give it a look see later tonight. Thanks for the message. // ] 00:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


--] <small>(])</small> 17:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
== Stablepedia ==
:I can restore it if you like. Just keep in mind that it was likely created by Grawp, the worst page-move vandal we have here. Let me know. —] (]) 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, I'd like you to restore it; I've checked the sources, I see no reason why this article would be of any more concern for page move vandalism than any other. Especially since we now know who created it. We can both watch it. --] <small>(])</small> 18:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Done. —] (]) 18:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


== Pennsylvania political scandals ==
Well, to be honest, it started as my own little project (which happened to have documentation in cased others wanted to get involved). I guess if it gets such massive involvement that it should be in the project space... Until then, let's play it by ear and see what direction we should take. ]] 02:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
: There are no notability criteria (well, nothing added on to Misplaced Pages's criteria to having articles exist in the first place). As for reviewing, I created this as the virtually processless sister of ]/]. I know I review my articles when I add them in; hopefully I can review other people's articles. As long as the article is likely to stick around on Misplaced Pages, and is well-sourced and done well, go ahead and add it. ]] 03:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:: I say "reviewed" as in "I hope someone who's adding the article in took the time to make sure this article is accurate and acceptable." You can do the reviewing yourself, or, if you can't do that, you can post it in the Requests for Assistance and Second Opinions section. ]] 03:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Do you have any objection to my recreation of ]? ] (]) 22:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
==]==
:You're not a sock of ], are you? {{;)}} Seriously though, I noticed a few people complaining about ''people'' being called political scandals so you may want to watch out for that. Otherwise, have at it. —] (]) 01:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Odd Wiki-mechanics question here. I personally have no preference as to whether the article is called Tucson or Tucson, Arizona, but I'm a little nonplussed that it seems to have disappeared from my watchlist. The ] does appear, and the watch/unwatch tab on the article says unwatch, indicating that it is still being watched. Yet despite the numerous edits made to the article tonight (some of them by me), it's not showing up on today's date. Do I need to do anything, or will it show up again after its first post-move edit? Please advise. Thanks. ] | ] | ] 05:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, making an edit restored it to the watchlist. Thanks! ] | ] | ] 05:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


== Shushi == == Joe Torre ==


Joseph Paul Torre. I wonder if he was named for Joseph Paul DiMaggio? I didn't find anything about it on an initial search in Google. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 02:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey someone marked it as POV i think but i used another template i want to take sometime to revise it. ] 05:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:Seems doubtful. I'll bet thousands of New York Italians were named Joseph Paul something. We've got ]. —] (]) 03:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, and both are commonly-used names of Catholic saints, but how many of those Joseph Pauls were born in New York City when Joe D was in his prime? Although Torre was born in ''Brooklyn'', I think, which ''might'' not be considered prime Yankees territory. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


== Complice, too long ==
]


The article about ] the song is nearly the length of the band article. I was not think that was good. But i agree it was a bit stupid by me. ] (]) 09:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for re-adding it i just noticed it doesn't affect the page only the talk page i just want to revise everything so it doesn't offend anyone or that POV thingy.] 05:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::Hahaha, but there was another massacre called shusha some people might get confused with the words not to sure so theres more flaming for meh. Hopefully they won't take it personally they can write articles about armenians to so theres no heart feelings lol. (ASALA etc) ] 05:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


== Inappropriate Usernames ==
== Captioning for deletable images ==
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you provide a link to an example of what you mean? I haven't added any delete tags to any of Chowbok's images, however I have added an RfU tag or two, and also tags specifying that the uploader provide a source. Neither of these templates said anything about adding a second tag <nowiki>{{speedy-image-c}}</nowiki> although I could be mistaken. ] 15:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:Hmm, the caption says says "Also consider adding <nowiki>{{speedy-image-c|]}}</nowiki> to the image captions." I guess I took that to mean it was optional? Anyway, I'll add them now. ] 16:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::Oh, you already did it. Nevermind. :-) Thanks for letting me know. ] 16:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:::If you're talking about that album cover, I didn't realize ] was an administrator. Sorry. ] 16:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi. I saw you blocking a user with an inappropriate username (]). Surely the username ] should be blocked as well. I only ask as no one has responded to my post at ]. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"> ] ] <sub>'']''</sub></span> 22:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
== ] ==
:Sounds good to me. Done. —] (]) 22:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for preventing speedy deletion. I hope that importance is now asserted strongly (not weakly!). Still working on the article. Thanks again. ] 17:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


== residence park ==
== ] and more ==


why did you remove the the article Residence Park? And my edit to the page is no longer on my list of contributions? I was working to find some definite sources for the information on the page because the article needed them. Can you please restore the page? The area is definitely notable, and definitely has several historic sites as part of it. The area itself is also under review for historic designation. --] (]) 02:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, I took some time to look at the Lee Smith article. I summarized my thoughts ]. I've marked the page on my watch list so if you want to respond I would love feedback. Additionally, a number of the Baseball bios are in bad shape. I've started working on a handful of the "most important" people i can think of and would love to get some more help. These include (but are not limited to): ], ], ], ] and ]. So much work needs to be done to those pages. I've taken some time to improve ], and i think it is a relatively decent article currently. However, it could really use some more meat. My current objective is the ] and i am working on that on a page in my own user space. If you have any other people that you think would help on some of these articles, that would be excellent. // ] 21:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


== hey, you must have deleted the wrong page: ] ==
== ] ==


Hey, you've deleted a valid article, about an NRHP-listed property. There may or may not have been any edits by some banned user, including some text that appeared to have been copied. But the page is legitimate. There was some copyright vio situation there, but I believe i cleaned that up fully adequately yesterday or the day before. And i am not a banned user.
Was speedy-tagged because the article talks about how great he is and how important he is to Tamil literature and yet , of which only . When "-wikipedia" is added to the search, this number drops to , of which are truly distinct from one another. His ''Pinakalinmukaingal'' gets when "-wikipedia" is added to the search, and that includes all hits, not just the reasonably distinct-looking ones. Even this was lifted straight from our ] article, as you can see . "PINANKALIN MUGANGAL" not in quotes got : four hits, all of them for Misplaced Pages and three clone articles. The same is true of ''Samayalairaikkalayankal'' and ''Theener Idaivellai'', as you can see and .


Would you please restore it. ] (]) 16:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and according to http://www.katha.org/kathaawards.html, Katha Awards aren't given by the President of India, they're chosen as follows:
:Actually, the entire article was begun by a banned user, {{user|StanFielderstien}}, and it looks like much of what he wrote was still present when I deleted. I can send you a copy if you'd like but it would be best if you completely rewrote it. Otherwise, this guy will continue to haunt this page forever, as he does in numerous other NRHP-related articles. He's created over 200 accounts for that purpose. —] (]) 17:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


::Yes, please send me a copy, preferably the last version that I edited. I had converted all the copied text into a proper quote with a proper footnote reference, and i don't want to reconstruct all that. The article is a legit topic, it is an NRHP that is a red-link again now on the list of NRHPs in that county and on disambiguation page ], both of which i have been working on recently. I do want to create an article there, though I may use less of a quote than was in the last version. I have wikipedia email enabled, there's an email link at my User page. Thanks, ] (]) 00:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
<blockquote> Katha requests an eminent writer, scholar or critic in each of the regional languages to choose what she/he feels are the three best stories published in that language, in the previous year.
Our Nominating Editors sift through numerous journals and magazines that promote short fiction. Many of them consult their friends or other Friends of Katha in the literary world to help them make their nominations. The nominated stories are translated and from these are chosen the Prize Stories.
Each author receives the KATHA AWARD FOR CREATIVE FICTION which includes a citation, Rs 2000, and publication (in translation) in that year's Katha Prize Stories volume.
The editor of the regional language journal that first published the award winning story receives the KATHA JOURNAL AWARD.
The translators are handpicked from the list of nearly 3000 names we have at Katha. Each of them gets the KATHA AWARD FOR TRANSLATION which includes a citation, Rs 2000, and the chance to translate a prize story.
</blockquote>


== Appeal (Justice for Defenz_07) ==
] (President of India in 1993) has an M.A. in English literature according to his severely undercited article but he sounds as if he had better things to do than to take time out to be a Katha Awards judge.


Hi, I was the one you blocked for 2 days for creating sockpuppets to achieve "POV" edits to ]. To me, the edits do not propagandize the church, sicne the criticism section and the cases are still there. I simply believe that ] is only harassing me since of what he said that "she need to brainwas me about my belief to the said church". The so called "POV" edits done bby Defenz_07 are adding , which I have proven but she deos not just believe in the references I added. Please, think about the blocking of ]. I'll stop editing the church article for a while but I will still watch it.
I have the ] article because it's almost 100% lifted from somewhere that no one has been able to track down and the stated reason, "24 distinct Google hits, excluding this article and its numerous clones." Also, gets me 8 hits from Misplaced Pages, its clones and some blurbage from three sites that are selling the book. One site even tells you that that's just what the publisher says (that it won the "Best Novel Award" from the Tamil Nadu Government). I am beginning to doubt that the Government of Tamil Nadu actually bothers with such things, because of the results of 2/3 Chayathirai (the Misplaced Pages article and a website that sells the book) and 1/3 clear reference to the Best Novel Award said to be given by the ].


Hoping for your kind consideration,
Those are just the lies I've caught so far sitting on my ass.


] (]) 12:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to have ] open on December 1, GMT because of this joker. Please don't let this article remain until the end of time.


== Schoolblock template ==
Is there a way to get that tag back on because of what I just told you?


Just wanted to let you know that I reverted your change to {{tl|schoolblock}}. Since this template is not transcluded, all 5835 instances of its use had their signature component broken by this change. While I appreciate the boldness of your change, next time you might wish to discuss your proposed changes first at ]. --] (]) 13:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
== Sorry to bug you ==
:Why isn't it transcluded? All the rest of them are, no? —] (]) 13:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::Perhaps if it were part of the uw-series of template messages it would be substituted. That, and the instructions on the template itself say "do not subst this template as contact details may change in the future." --] (]) 16:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::The problem appears to be its dual use as a header and as a block message - but I don't care enough to pursue it. —] (]) 16:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Yeah, that has pretty much been my disposition about it too. While it is annoying to have to remember to follow two different formats (one for the uw-series and a different one for schoolblock/anonblock), I have never been annoyed ''enough'' to actually fix it. --] (]) 18:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


== Thanks for quick block ==
I hate to bother you, but since you seem to be one of the more interested people on baseball biographies, would you mind checking in on ]. There is a very active user who has been making a number of edits. I personally don't agree, but feel that a third party should probably look into it. I believe there are structure issues, content issues, refreence issues and more. Additionally, a number of quotations have been inserted. I have no problem with quotations to an extent, but i believe a) they should be used when they are encyclopedic b) really add value to the article. The {{tl|wikiquote}} tag should make it easy for someone interested in compiling a compendium of quotes. // ] 01:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Thank for quick block User jakesafag. Much appreciated. ] (]) 18:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
== Mediation request ==
:My pleasure. —] (]) 19:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


::And while we are doling out praise, thanks for putting the block on the egregiously named ] (egad, how sad). Thanks! ] (]) 03:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
{{RFM-Request|Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (television)|Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)}} —] <small>(] • ])</small> 03:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:::My pleasure. —] (]) 03:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
: I was going by a quick look through the names and diffs at the "Summary of Discussion" section. If you think others should be added, feel free. --] 04:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:: So feel free to add him, as I'm sure it was not Josiah Rowe's intention to deliberately exclude someone who was a legitimate participant. Josiah is human, after all. --] 05:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::: Yes, I am! I didn't mean to exclude any major participants — my original list of 15 members was an attempt to list only those who had made substantial comments in the recent discussions. Chuq hadn't edited ] since November 15, which is why I missed him. I've now added him to the list and notified him. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


== "Housekeeping" ==
Will, I think that we should all stop editing ] — continuing the edit war over how to describe Radiant's involvement will decrease the request's chances of acceptance. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


I noticed that you deleted the talk page of a vandal, ], as G6 (Noncontroversial maintainance). I was just wondering why you did that; in my experience, admins have usually kept the talk pages with indef block templates.
:I agree. I esp. don't think Radiant's name should be removed when ''he'' put it there. The chaos there can't possibly be how that's supposed to work, is it?! —] (]) 18:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


Anyway, cheers, ]''''' <sup>]</sup>'''''<sub>]</sub> 01:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
::That's more or less my perspective as well. I agree that Radiant's name should be left there, but I'm concerned that reverting Elonka's changes will further diminish the chances of the RfM being accepted. If we can get all participants to agree to mediation and get the case accepted, we can work out our differences in the mediation process. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:That tag just puts them in ]. That category just becomes a maintenance headache and the pages are supposed to be deleted eventually anyway (hence the "Temporary"). I still use it in cases where someone may not be 100% clear why they were blocked, but this guy knows damn well why. —] (]) 02:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


::Thanks for explaining! ]''''' <sup>]</sup>'''''<sub>]</sub> 02:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Sounds good. But if Radiant's name is removed again, I think the page should be protected. It's been removed twice - once after ''he'' added it. —] (]) 18:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


== Another Mystery Man Suspect ==
::::I think that if the participants have to resort to page protection on the RfM, there's a good chance that the mediation isn't going to work. I've asked Elonka to stop editing the page, and I've asked several MedCom members to take a look at the RfM to see if it can be salvaged. Let's hope for the best. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


:::::It's such a God awful mess now that it should probably just be re-started - with only one person editing the damn thing. Absurd. —] (]) 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Thank you for your hard work on this. If you have time, please check out the edits in the last day or so from 24.22.216.221. Cheers, ] (]) 10:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:I can see your concern but it looks like a slightly different agenda. —] (]) 11:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
::OK. Thanks for looking. ] (]) 14:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


== Olivespread ==
::::::Are we allowed to do that? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
FYI re the above Checkuser case: . I agree we have to presume innocence, but I'll still confess that privately I find it hard to reconcile the statistical likelihoods involved with such a presumption. Still, sometimes life is stranger than fiction, and no doubt time will tell if that was the case here. :-) Thanks for looking into the matter. Cheers, ]'']'' 21:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed. Better safe than sorry. It's better to let someone elude sock detection than to leave someone blocked unjustly. —] (]) 21:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


== Sockpuppet formatting ==
:::::::No clue. But apparently there are too many people involved to let anyone do anything. I say you should get in there, get it the way you want and tell everyone (including me) to stay the hell out. At least until a mediator shows up. —] (]) 19:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my poorly formatted sockpuppet case filing. ] (]) 23:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:I added evidence for the Oakwillow account. You say the evidence isn't strong enough but I don't know what better evidence I can provide than 199 adding comments to Delpi234's posts or Apteva signing 199's posts. I don't understand why the evidence I've provided would be good enough for a checkuser but not good enough for you to take action? Obviously a checkuser is what I'm looking for so I'll post over there. Thanks for your assessment. ] (]) 02:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
::At RFCU, you just need to provide enough evidence to perform the checkuser. I have been clerking there lately and found that the requirements to perform a checkuser are less stringent than for me to do a block. From my vantage, it could just as well be coincidental, whereas a checkuser can diagnose a problem with much more certainty, and could even discover that you've found the tip of a much larger iceberg. From your Oakwillow link, some have theorized a tie to {{user|Sadi Carnot}} who is just coming off a year-long ban. That would be an important find. —] (]) 02:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I see... Thanks for your help and advice... ] (]) 03:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Same here: thank you for fixing my sockpuppet case filing. Sorry for the inconvenience. ] (]) 11:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
:Not a problem. That's why RFCU has clerks. —] (]) 11:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

::I noticed the checkuser case on Apteva is listed as completed. So what happened? ] (]) 17:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't know. You may want to ask at ] or ]. Hard to tell if everyone has declined to take action, or if it just slipped under the radar. You might want to ask whoever moved it to completed. —] (]) 18:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

==Proxy policy==
Thanks Wknight, and I'm aware of that distinction. However, the difs also show them contending that there is no legitimate reason to proxy, and that privacy rights are more than outweighed by Misplaced Pages's needs. If they suggested that the solution was to use a closed proxy (and to inform the arbitration committee?) I'm not aware. Additionally, however, the proxy apparently was not limited to one account, as SlimVirgin's comments state that both accounts were found to edit from the same one. ] (]) 19:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

== Possible Leibman socks? ==

, --] (]) 23:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
:I guess I'd have to say no. They don't fit the pattern closely enough. Not belligerent enough! —] (]) 01:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
::Ya sure? 'Cause shortly after dropping you this note, he "vandalized" my talk page. I suspected the second one more than the first. Though "Wspock50" vs "Wknight94" sorta fits his odd naming pattern. Oh well... :) --] (]) 02:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Someone copycatting Liebman? Would there be a lower life-form than that? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 02:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I'll say this - if those are him, then he has changed his ] a bit. —] (]) 02:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::It does seem he's going kooky on the ] page recently, though. The birthdate stuff, again. *sigh* --] (]) 02:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Yes, the question of Whitey Ford's birth year was one of Liebman's early contentions. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 02:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Wspock50 and Allen Beyda are arguing against each other though so they can't ''both'' be Liebman. I'm looking at Allen Beyda and {{user|Biographical Research}}. They don't smell right... —] (]) 02:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah, you're right, I blocked those two. Wspock50 is fine though. The edits there were going back-and-forth so much, that even I reverted to agree with Liebman once! Maybe I'm a sock!! —] (]) 03:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

== User:Melody Perkins ==

Someone anonymously reverted your sockpuppet notice at ]. ] (]) 06:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

== Thanks ==


Thanks for adding the protection for the ] page. I don't think Melody/Walter was going to give up so easily so you seem to have nipped any further arguments in the bud. ] (]) 11:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I'm just concerned that if ''I'' go in there and start reverting changes, it'll just escalate the matter further. I bollixed this up, didn't I? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:My pleasure. —] (]) 11:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


== Request to process image deletion nominations ==
:::::::::I don't know how picky they're going to be. —] (]) 19:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi Wknight. I nominated two images for deletion but they were left out when the daily page was processed. I don't think they're controversial - the user who uploaded them hasn't contested the fact he mistakenly tagged them as his own when they'd come from unknown sources. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look.
::::::::::] and ] suggest that they're fairly picky. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


*]
== Re: reversion of Geni ==
*]


Thanks. ] (]) 21:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Good question... looks like a legit edit. I have multiple windows open, so I may have reverted the wrong page. ](]) 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:Done. —] (]) 22:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks, buddy. ] (]) 18:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


== Thanks Once Again ==
Look, you are going to report me, so it doesn't matter anyway.


Thanks for protecting my Userpage, I was actually hoping Melody/Walter would just give up, but now it seems as though resorting to personal attacks is one way to get revenge after losing a dispute.<br />Thanks once again.<br />Grateful ] (]) 14:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Administrators are bored kids that have nothing else to do in life except be extreme ass-holes that have absolutly nothing to do with the real world. They play all day "editing" and "warning" like like people that do not have a social life. Admins live hard and borning lives and do not have nearly enough "relations" with females. You were wrong to warn...at least now you can warn for the right reasons.
] 18:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC) :My pleasure. —] (]) 14:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


== Virginia State Route 267 ==
== {{user|209.234.136.67}} ==


I don't see where the user is banned. Can you point to that? ] (]) 12:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Why did you not block this guy? — ] 18:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


== RE: Locking == == Simultaneous movement ==


Yo, Wknight, I understand you are only following ] in reverting {{user|Simultaneous movement}}'s edits, but the ones I have looked at check out as improvements to the articles. Could you hold off on the blanket reversions until the content is checked please? Although I'm sure you have the best of intentions, admins removing good content from articles in order to fulfill a social end seems to me to fit the definition of "]". Respectfully, ] 12:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Please do not lock it. I would prefer an outsider to do it. Locking it would look bad in the face of mediation. -<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>]<sup></span>]]</sup>&nbsp;<em style="font-size:10px;">20:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)</em>
:I'll make a deal - if you 1.) find a better way to say things than throwing ] at me and 2.) let me know how/when you plan on checking that account's contribs, esp. when he is tied to {{user|Absidy}} which leads to ]... then I'll stop mass-reverting/deleting. I take hoax articles very seriously and think such things could bring about the downfall of this entire project, esp. if done quietly enough. I've already deleted several of his articles which no one else had ever touched - each a possible ticking time bomb waiting for a big news organization to find and claim as proof of Misplaced Pages's systemic problems. The only way to show people like that the door once and for all is to undo all of their hard work ASAP. But I'll give you a chance to find anything useful in his contributions before I continue. —] (]) 13:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::I do honestly believe the indiscriminate application of G5 is disruptive, and meant no personal slander on yourself. Articles of worth created by the individual in question which I have worked on recently include ] and ]. I have checked and verified that and reversion of yours removed well-sourced accurate information from articles. If it's no to much trouble, would you consider userfying the articles you deleted to me at ]? I have a good deal of experience with article restorations and rescues. I was not aware of the hoax issue, which obviously casts the matter in a different light; could you elaborate? I would characterise most of the contributions of this user that I have come across as accurate/sourced but used in a pov fashion (]ing and the like). Thanks for your reply, ] 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::To be honest, with all these contributions being correct, I am wondering why he is banned in the first place? Maybe that's the issue that needs to be raised? I know a few of the articles I deleted listed blogs as sources, etc. My guess is that your characterization is a large part of the ban - creation of articles that are ''kinda'' accurate but are really part of an agenda. I (in place) so go ahead and take a look. Just please keep in mind that the only way I've ever driven a banned user off the project is to undo the work they have done. If we're not going to do that, then we shouldn't bother banning anyone. —] (]) 14:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Thanks for restoring those; most look like worthy topics (I will probably ] ] though). Yeah, a lot of the articles are borderline-notable with borderline sources. Sometimes things got heated when deletionists took umbrage at the articles, and the fallout of ] got one of the socks (justifiably) blocked for quite pointed personal attacks against female editors. I take your point about the effective means for driving away banned users, but my philosophy is that the content is what matters. Blocking does not seem to be effective as If it were up to me, I would probably restrict the person to one account, then monitor their edits in line with policy. In any case, thanks for your responses and sorry if I came off unnecessarily strong in my initial message. If you're interested in following the issue, you might want to watchlist ] and ]. Regards, ] 15:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


== Inappropriate editing... == == Liebman sock 10-25-08 ==


Here's a pair of updates from today (from a single sock) where he thinks he knows No Guru's first name: ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Wknight94, I was recently scrolling down recent changes and caught sight of this ]. Apparently NandT and some friends of his are using their edits merely for socializing which violates ]. Could you take a look at it please? Thank you.] <font color="purple">]</font> 02:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


==]==
==Open proxy checking==
Can you please tell me where the best place to place this would be then if you feel it should be deleted from the list of "users for admin attention"? Thanks ] (]) 03:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:] is the best place. Someone will get to it eventually. Be patient... —] (]) 03:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


== Liebman 10-27-08 ==
Hi. I wanted to help out at ]. Is it sufficient to run ] to prove that an IP is an open proxy? If you get output like I showed at ], is that proof positive? — ] (]) 16:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:In general, is there any documentation on how folks can help with this project? — ] (]) 04:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::Oh. I forgot to get back to you on this one. 61.90.228.106 isn't an open proxy as far I can tell. Port 80 is actually running Microsoft IIS (<tt>nmap -A</tt> told me this) and when you try to set it as your own proxy server (Firefox's is nice for this), I get "HTTP request refused or failed (400)". And no, there's no general documentation on this, though there definitely should. I'm not actually part of the WikiProject, so you should ask them to write one up. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">] ]</span></small> 05:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Here's another Liebman sock to be blocked when you have time: ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
==re: Sherwin Revestir==
:Thank you for taking care of this. I see you fully protected that one archive. I was about to ask for semi-protection instead, but that one's getting big enough anyway, so I'll start a new one. And if he attacks it, I'll ask for semi-protection. What a nuisance - kind of like a mosquito in your car when you're driving in heavy traffic. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 00:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


== Checkuser ==
Hello, sorry about my bother. Considering about the deletion of the article on Sherwin Revestir, what is the minimum Google search hit points in order for me to retain it. Thanks. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


Hi, do you think a checkuser is possible in this case - I think ] has multiple accounts. See what he . He was blocked. Then a while later came back as ], see edit. Then I think he is also ] the blocking admin, ]. He might have many more account, I just wanted to ask if a CU is possible, or will it be declined as I'm not aware of the CU rules much. Thanks ] (]) 13:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
== The DataCore page ==
:That sounds like a very good candidate for checkuser. Be sure to mention the legal threat too - would make them more willing to lay down a heavy block. —] (]) 17:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
::Ok, thanks for the help. Case submitted but it didn't appear on the main page? ] ] (]) 18:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
:::It's all ready now. —] (]) 19:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


==Dmoz.org link==
Thanks for moving and not deleting the article. After I get more content on it, how would I go about getting it reinstated?
I removed the link to http://www.dmoz.org at ] as it appears to be nothing more than a business directory. You restored the link and reinserted the link on other counties of New York. Am I missing something? ] (]) 12:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
] 15:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
:It was removed by a sock of a banned user and reverted per ]. If the edit was actually appropriate, feel free. —] (]) 12:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


== 2008 World Series ==
==References and television episode articles==
To my knowledge, no, it would not be proper to add {{tl|unref}} to the many thousands of television episode articles around Misplaced Pages, since by their very nature, the episode effectively ''is'' a reference. I think this has been discussed at the talk page of ], you might want to check there and toss in a question if it's a concern, or maybe at ]. --] 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Well, at least you can say your Mets lost out to "the best". Or maybe NOT. That was one of more sloppily played Series I can recall, and not very well umpired either, but that's another story. But the level of play in the Series kind of shows what happens when the supposedly "hot" teams get in, as opposed to the supposedly "best" teams: the Cubs and Angels. It would have been interesting to see this week's Series games played in Wrigley, with possibly some snow accumulating on the mostly-bare-by-now ivy. Maybe next year. Or century. Or millennium. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 04:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
==User:User:Jghfutikdpe3==
:Personally, I think the common thread is endurance. It's the only thing that seems to link the Mets suddenly falling apart in mid-September (two years in a row) with the Cubs and Angels collapsing in mid-October with the Rays going from record-setting offense one week, to being dominated and embarrassed by ''Joe Blanton'' the next. You'd think such a young team would be able to outlast a 63-year-old Jamie Moyer but apparently not. The Phillies pitching staff just wasn't ''that'' good so it's the only explanation I can come up with. —] (]) 11:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This user is a sockpuppet of blocked user ], identical user page and interest in Mulatto, ] 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::Before game 7 of the ALCS, Cal Ripken predicted that the Red Sox had expnded all their energy making their comeback and that the Rays would win, which they did. I was thinking that maybe the Rays likewise expended all their energy to get to the Series. They were running on empty. Which is what you're saying also. They just basically stopped hitting. It's kind of nice to see old Cub Jamie Moyer get his first Series ring at the age of almost 46. Otherwise, the result was not what I wanted. I was at least hoping for a 7-game Series. Well, now that it's over, everyone is undefeated again. :) ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Funny, it still seems like the Mets are quite well defeated. Maybe by next March, the thought of 0 in the loss column will drown out the 1 in the GB column from this year. —] (]) 16:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
::::The Mets only won 1 more game this past season than in 2007. I wonder how they would have done if not for the presence of ex-Twin Johan Santana. Which reminds me that I'm seeing a few too many successful ex-Twins nowadays. :\ ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, he didn't do too shabby, eh? Led the majors in ERA or something like that? Now if only the bullpen wouldn't blow half his leads, he'd be on the short list for a Cy Young! I win all ex-favorite team discussions with one name: ]. Kazmir for ] has to be one of the worst trades ever, certainly in Mets history. Zambrano spending most of his time in various random minor league team buses in the middle of Iowa or Kansas or wherever, while Kazmir plays in the first of what may be several World Series alongside other ex-Mets like ] and ]. I'm livin' the dream with all the leftover chokers. —] (]) 18:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Ouch. That deal sounds like a good candidate for ]. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Another good article I've never seen. And Kazmir's already in it. —] (]) 01:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Indeed he is. I had overlooked it. I must have been too busy arguing for David-Ortiz-for-zilch. They argued that wasn't a trade. That means I need to write a special section - players who were released and went to stardom elsewhere. That could be one of my Hot Stove League projects. :) ] <sup>'']''</sup> 01:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm reminded of another Roykoism, which maybe ought to be in the article if I can find the citation. In one of his "Cubs quiz" columns in the late 1960s, Royko commented that since the trade, Brock had stolen all the bases in the world, and Broglio had stolen away into the night. I recall that trade and thought it was not a good one, but what did I know? Well, little did I know how much worse it would be than anyone imagined. These things happen sometimes. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 01:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


== Belllingham Mariners ==
==] ==
I see you blocked this account, indef; you might consider another account, ], as well, since they seem to be a tag team. ] | ] 17:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


What about it ISN'T accurate?
==]==
You sent me a message saying that you were going to delete ] but you didn't specify which information you were not in agreeance with or how come there couldn't be information posted to wikipedia by a user. Not all information, and or events link to the public webpage, study, or research database. I am not understanding. ] | ] 18:22, 2 December 2006 <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


Just wondering, it's a proven fact they were the Mariners, Griffey Jr. hit his first pro HR with them. The records on that page are factual and accurate. I didn't make the page but everything said on there is fact, if it's wrong. Keep it up and let people fix it. Thing is....It's not....I know the Wiki rules and sourcing and such but....
== Babe Ruth and WP:WPBBP ==


How is someone writing in a newspaper different than someone at Baseball Reference.com better than the other? I see mistakes in books about baseball history and newspapers all the time from so called "experts". This article though it might not be by a sports writer is expertly written read it...Pick out any fact written and you'll see it's not wrong.
I thought you could look at the discussion on the Ruth ] and offer some food for thought. Also, are you not on the list at ]? I didn't see you there and thought you might want to toss your name up. Seeing as you are an admin, i know you've got a lot of duties, but felt it was worth pointing out to you. // ] 05:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


If it's not up, who's going to write it? Most minor league teams have
== Patsy Cline ==


"This was a team based in Hooterville, USA"
Totally linkspam. I reverted it. ] 06:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


as the whole article...Because unless it's written by an actual sportswriter of that team it's considered "unsourced" due to the lack of achives on Single A short season baseball....I know I'm wasting my breath.. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Troll and WP Vanity Malefactor==
:I'll copy this to ] and answer there. —] (]) 14:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


== It is to laugh ==
I decided I don't have the time or the desire to be drawn into a nasty melodrama, but this editor needs to be banned in my view. ] 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Of course it's not a sock, b/c he says it isn't. *lol*
== Unprotecting RfM page ==
:"Cactus League", eh? Let's see... what does Liebman have in common with the type of pain you might get from a cactus needle? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
::You mean it's not some sort of baseball reference? Anyway, good on the blocking, WK. :) --] (]) 23:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


== Marthafiles ==
{{user|^demon}} requested that the ] be unprotected, but whatever admin he asked hasn't gotten around to it. Since even Elonka has asked for the page to be unprotected, I don't think it would be controversial if you did it just to get things moving along. <span style="color: #F06A0F">&ndash;</span><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small> 03:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Man, you are fast! I saw the sock's first edit four minutes after it occurred, and you had reverted, tagged and blocked before I finished looking to see if it was the same edit. ] (]) 16:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
== How many admins? ==
:Yep, I've got lots of sock targets in my watchlist. —] (]) 17:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


== ] for Indef Block ==
Hey, Will. I was about to drop a note at ], in response to Elonka's comment that "An admin's assistance is requested." I was going to note that at least five admins have already agreed that there ''is'' a consensus about WP:TV-NC, but I suddenly realized that I could only think of four: me, you, Radiant! and Steve Block. Who am I forgetting? (I'd like to be sure that all five have actually expressed the belief that a consensus has been formed, rather than merely supporting the guideline.) —] <small>(] • ])</small> 07:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Hello Wknight94,
:{{user|Chuq}} makes five, though his involvement was a while ago. IIRC, his position was to keep the guideline as is but create redirects to facilitate linking. <span style="color: #F06A0F">&ndash;</span><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small> 08:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


This is, once again, about the subject of ].
::Right! I forgot Chuq was an admin. Thanks, Anthony. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 08:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


I don't think this even merits another checkuser because the situation is quite plain. ] has been using ] as a sock, and the latter's talk page is replete with warnings of all types (all seemingly unheeded). It seems that he forgot to log in and accidentally used it instead of his ] account to edit the ] article.
==Eddie Klint==
You asked why the {{tl|prod}} tag was replaced - the tag was removed by the author, yet no evidence of notability wa provided. - ]<sup><span style="color:#FF0000">(]/])</span></sup> 10:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for the clarification. - ]<sup><span style="color:#FF0000">(]/])</span></sup> 11:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


This is the line that gave him away:
== The latest shenanigans ==


''''. (edit summary)
Yeah, it's frustrating and exhausting. I just hope that since the RfM page is now unprotected, we can get on with this and bring it to a sensible conclusion. Thatcher131 is certainly right that this issue hasn't been worth the energy expended on it. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


''''. (please scroll down to red letters)
:]Thanks for the defence on Elonka's talk page. I appreciate it. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Another slip, a edit also gave him away. ] is the creator of that article.
== Block of ] ==


This user is becoming a big nuisance.
Thanks. --] 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Many thanks,
== Page move notices ==


– ] (]) 13:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm putting them on now...I hope you don't mind me replacing yours so they're all consistent. --] 21:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, it may be that the computer he is using is a shared computer at his school, etc. People vandalizing from that IP may be different than the people making constructive edits from that IP. Only a checkuser would be able to definitively link Dar book to the vandals that are coming from the same IP. —] (]) 15:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
:OK, I'll let you finish up. I'll just double check them all. --] 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::]! The person who did that edit was indeed him. If that is a shared IP then it won't be right to block it, but I believe that blocking his main account is in order, though he can still edit using that IP. – ] (]) 17:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks for helping out with the notifications. I checked them and they seemed OK. I also put one at the episode list and when I got to the main show page, there was already a complaint about the notification not being there. Let me know if you think of anywhere else to notify. --] 21:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:::But you neglected to mention the rest of Sam Korn's response, i.e. that other users share the same IP. What is your basis for indefblocking? Never mind that he sometimes forgets to login - I do the same from time to time - what should I put as the reason for indefblocking? Vandalism? Copyright violations? Personal attacks? Something else? —] (]) 17:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
::::It is not a shared IP. It belongs to a particular user of globenet.com.ph, an office worker.


:::::inetnum: 222.127.192.0 - 222.127.255.255
== Per your comment on my note on Mediation cabal ==
:::::netname: GLBB_IP_BLOCK
:::::country: PH
:::::descr: NETWORK ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS
:::::descr: Makati
:::::descr: Philippines
:::::admin-c: AA400-AP
:::::tech-c: JV60-AP
:::::status: ASSIGNED NON-PORTABLE
:::::changed: jmv81144@globenet.com.ph 20080121
:::::mnt-by: MAINT-MGR-AP
:::::source: APNIC


:::::person: Allan Abarquez
Per your , I have core policy, ], on my side with . If you'd prefer some other admin handle that particular aspect, feel free to bring it up at ] or ]. Elonka can do the same. If either occurs, I'll gladly leave the issue alone as long as someone is addressing it. At some point, if she doesn't rectify this, I plan to bring it up at one of those places anyway since I know that me personally editing her pages would cause World War III. But her use of original research is a crystal clear violation of core Misplaced Pages policy. It's not my fault that this ongoing discussion has shone a bright light on her activity and alerted me to this and other policy and etiquette issues. As an admin, it would be a gross dereliction for me to let those go unattended. I've let pass various personal attacks and allegations of stalking, sockpuppetry, and whatever else I've forgotten - none of which have been accompanied by evidence or examples of violated policies - and I'd appreciate if you not pile on even further with public mischaracterizations of vindictiveness. You should also be fair and give an example of comments directed at you since I don't recall that ever happening. Thanks. —] (]) 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::nic-hdl: AA400-AP
:::::e-mail: aaa81020@globenet.com.ph
:::::address: 12/F Valero Telepark
:::::address: Valero St.,
:::::address: Makati City
:::::phone: +63-2-797-8332
:::::fax-no: +63-2-797-7177
:::::country: PH
:::::changed: jonjon@globenet.com.ph 20041206
:::::mnt-by: MAINT-MGR-AP
:::::source: APNIC


::::The user has a confirmed COI over the articles of contention, being a member of the religious group in question (he used the words ''our leader'' as an address to ] in one of his edits), but he would neither lie-low nor listen to anyone else's suggestions with regards to his anomalous editing. He keeps on injecting propaganda materials that are unsupported by reliable third-party published sources (all his sources are either personal blogs, talk groups, or websites of the organization itself), and he uses every trick in the book, including the use of a sock, to keep on reinstating those edits. This happens every single day. – ] (]) 18:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
:Frankly, I refuse to get down in the mud on this; I've seen what happens to people who do. The issue I'm raising has nothing to do with core policy or "crystal clear" right or wrong, and I'm not taking any form of stance on Elonka's family tree etc. I am, however, taking a strong stance on your behavior. Especially as an admin, you should be bending over backwards to not get involved in ''any'' Elonka-related side issue, given the harshness and general incivility that characterizes the dispute with her on WP:NC-TV. Whether you choose to recognize it or not, it comes off as vindictive and petty. I have nothing further to say to you on this matter. -- ] 19:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::globenet.com.ph appears to be a regular ] - like Verizon or Roadrunner, etc. How do you know he is an office worker? Sounds like you need to bring this through the ] process, or ]. There is simply not enough activity for me to take the drastic action of indefinitely blocking someone. Sorry. —] (]) 20:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


:::::Sorry for dropping in, but what you said to me did scare me, a lot. I want to make a ] with this COI editor who seeming does hate the ]. He even said to me, ''cultic-brainwashing is hard to fight and sometimes even requires the assistance of a professional therapist''. Also, thank you for not indef blocking me, I am also trying to forget what ] did to me. I am focusing on editing non-related articles but she is even dragging this conflict to my native language Misplaced Pages, where I just recently established an account. I don't want to make enemies in WP, but I don't know how to end this conflict. For me she is a COI editor because she even accused ] as a swindler; not believing in the THIRD-PARTY source of Soriano's award and lastly accusing the MCGI a cult. I have the same opinion of ] and ], which I promise you that these 2 users are not my socks. Their just inactive that's why I feel alone in trying to place what I believe is right. I can be a good editor if my opinions will be accepted or rejected with kindness, without accusing my belief as a ''cult'' and related stuff. Which was supposedly going to stop me, instead it made me more angry. How can apply for a truce if she keeps trying to tell my bad past to other Wiki Editors such as ], the user who always reminded me things about my uploaded images. Hoping for peace. ] ] 09:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
::I see where you're going with that, but there are certain things on Misplaced Pages that we should never ignore, regardless of the situation. Core policies are one of those things. It's that important. -- ] 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


:::::I didn't do the vandalism done by ]. Although I did use it in editing a few times. It is a shared IP across the block. That's why ] considered me a nuisance. ] ] 09:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
==Re: Welcome==
::::::No, no, no. ] that you did that particular edit. It may be a shared IP but it has already been confirmed that you did that particular edit. Stop lying to everybody, you are already busted. – ] (]) 15:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


== RFCU ==
Thank you very much for the warm welcome! I am pleased to be part of the Misplaced Pages community and looking forward to contribute as much as I can to this website. However, I have a question. I am very interested in the U.S. Congress and I have seen many pages of current U.S. Senators who have "served with: _____ ". It looks really bad and was wondering, how I can create a template, like the on that has "Political Offices" ] 02:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Hey, just wanted to stop by and commend you for all your hard work and effort over at ]. For quite a while there I was doing the majority of it myself and if I ever took a few days off the page went into disarray, but now with all of your great help I am no longer worried about that happening. Anyways, I just wanted to give you some recognition for your good work! Cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 04:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
==Negima!?==
:Thanks! Much appreciated. Hope you get a few nights off. :) —] (]) 05:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


== 59.183.0.0/18 ==
Recently, I've seen an unsourced paragraph in the ending of the overview, as is protected.


I have unblocked this IP range. . It is a part of the ISP ] Triband. Several productive editors from Mumbai will be outed by this block. Cheers! ] ] 14:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The following part of the entry:
:It's a pretty big range. However, I thought the block would not do much harm, since it's anon. only, account creation blocked. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 04:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


== New title for ] ==
However despite the new look from the old series and manga this series has been getting a lot more flak from critics and fans alike than when the 1st series aired. Many complaints stem from the fact that most of the characters have been redesigned to look different than from the old anime series and the manga. Most of which center around Nodoka and her new hairdo that essentially looks almost totally different than from the manga and 1st anime. there has also been complaints about her so called "Cosplay Card" that gives her a pair of reading glasses. Also for the reason that Asuna no longer has her signature heterochromia (2 different colored eyes). Many people also are complaining about it because it has nothing to do with the original Manga story line what-so-ever. Many Professional critics have complained that despite that it's a retelling of the story, the story-line itself seems to be totally incoherent and just plain not well thought out. There have even been calls for it's cancellation altogether. And there are rumors that Akamatsu may just pull his license out of the series, effectively canceling the show.
*I have set up a poll to vote on the new name of the article. Please go to ]. ] (]) 06:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


== A New Mystery Man Editor ==
The following section was unsourced, and has no proven facts. I ask upon you to delete it. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


I've got nothing to go on but my ], but check out this and see if you don't think it's worth looking into whether this is the work of The Mystery Man/Ari Publican/William Tennant. Thanks. Best, ] (]) 17:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
:A lot of unsourced POV was added into the Negima!? page, and that is why the edit war was going on. I was trying to remove the POV contents while at the same time trying my best to communicate with the user who was adding his own comments into all of the three pages he is trying to edit. The current protected version of Negima!? contains a lot of sentences like ''this angered a lot of fans'', ''many see these characters as useless''. Which are all POV statements made by the user Animedude, without sources, even after I have repeatedly asked for them. If possible, can you please edit the page to reflect a more NPOV version of that page? Thank you. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:Yeah, I'd think an RFCU might be in order. I see a couple others that smell a bit like sleeper socks so I'd recommend asking for a sleeper scan as well. —] (]) 17:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
::Slow down please. I know less than I seem to know. RFCU I recognize, although I've never filed one. I know what sleep socks are but have never heard of a sleeper scan. Do I include the request for on in my RFCU? Help! ] (]) 17:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Wait I HAVE filed an RFCU. I'll use that as a template. Never mind. Thanks. ] (]) 17:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. ] (]) 20:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
:My pleasure. —] (]) 21:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


== Cat Template ==
==Request for Mediation==
Why did you protect the cat template? What was being done to it that it needed to be protected for? I have a good edit, but I can't edit with the stupid protect in place! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{| class="messagebox" style="width:80%"
:You'll have to be more specific. Which template has a stupid protect? And what are you trying to change? —] (]) 23:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
|-
|]
|
|A ] to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, ].
::::::::''For the Mediation Committee,'' <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span>


== Liebman socks 11-7-08 ==
<small><center>This message delivered by ], an automated bot account operated by the ] to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please ].</center></small>
|}
<div align="right">''This message delivered: 04:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)''.</div>


He's back to one of the pages where his OR started , assuming it's him and not a coincidence. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 00:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


==blocked user== == Huh? ==
Hi there, probably not my business but I'm wondering (at the risk of getting myself put on some suspicious persons list...) why was the user ] blocked? I'll condede that he can be difficult/downright stupid when people disagree with him, but is that blockworthy behavior? Maybe it is, I don't know WP policy well enough, but if it's just an issue of vandalism/trolling I don't really think he qualifies as either. Thanks for hte clarification! ] 09:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Who was that Trent McCotter dude that a left a not on my talk page? --] (]) 04:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
::Hi. First of all, thanks for your reply. I actually was loking at User:Techmobowls and just his edits, which didn't seem seem like vandalism, however I did not realise that he was impersonating another user, that puts a whole different spin on things. As for my NPA violation, I suppose you're right, though I didn't mean it as a personal attack. More like: "I understand how he could have rubbed some poeple the wrong way but does that really merit blocking?" Anyway, thanks for your reply. ] 21:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:A {{user|Ron liebman}} sock that we missed. He's obsessed with Baseball Bugs. —] (]) 14:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
::He won't rest until he's driven me from wikipedia. Hence he's not getting much rest. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


And here's another redlink Liebman sock I just reverted. He's not just obsessed with me, he's also obsessed with Whitey Ford: ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Found it because I too am a sockpuppet. Kidding! I just found it by pure chance on the Hank Aaron talk page. I found ] Too weird to not look into, so I checked out Techmobowls's user contribs. which seemed weird but didn't explain the block. ] 01:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked. See section below. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


== Sockpuppets ==
== deletion of International Relief and Development ==


can you block the users ], ], ], ], they are clearly all the same person, and he/she called us both fools.--] 16:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello- noticed you deleted a page i created for an organization: International relief and development. Just wanted to know why. Thanks. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 21:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:The first three were already blocked. I just turned that last one in to ], and we'll see whether they zap him before Wknight94 does. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
::They zapped him. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
:::They blocked him just after he vandalized Whitey for the third time. Three strikes! Yerrrr out! ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
::::And the Whitey Ford page got protected. So what's Ron going to hit next? Place yer bets, ladiesandgentlemen, place yer bets! :) --] (]) 19:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:36, 30 April 2024

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wknight94. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Babe Ruth page and BabeRuthCentral.com

Hey There. I've tried a few times to add the Babe Ruth tribute site, BabeRuthCentral.com, to the Babe Ruth page multiple times but then disappears shortly thereafter. At first, I thought I was doing something wrong in my edit; however, recently, I discovered a warning on my talk page, which says that my attempt to include this website in the External Links is actually considered to be an act of Spam. I assure you, I'm not trying to improve my google ranking by putting our link on Misplaced Pages. BabeRuthCentral.com is actually probably the largest and accurate source of information on Babe Ruth on the web. How can I say this? I'm the webmaster and great grandson of Babe Ruth, and the majority of information, content and stories has come directly from my family. I appreciate that you're trying to ensure the integrity of the information regarding my great grandfather, but I would also appreciate it if you would reconsider having BabeRuthCentral, a site managed and endorsed by the family, on the external links page of wikipedia. Thank you BR32008 Br32008 (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)(talk) 15:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This may be over my head then: you might want to contact the office. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a spam site to me... and note that there is already a site that purports to be the official Ruth site. Baseball Bugs 18:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, you're correct, BabeRuth.com is considered the "official Ruth site" and we're not trying to negate or discredit that claim. I'm not saying BabeRuthCentral.com is the official site of Ruth, but I am saying without a doubt that it has more information and content on the Babe than any other site, including BabeRuth.com. I'm curious to get your feedback as to why you think that it's a SPAM site. If you look at the Interviews section of the site, you'd actually find legitimate interviews with significant sources including Babe's daughter, Julia Ruth Stevens, respected reporters and authors, as well as a former Japanese ambassador to the US, Honorable Ryozo Kato. Your feedback is appreciated. Br32008 (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Any site that's not official or universally known, and is trying to sell stuff, I consider to be spam. That's my opinion, anyway. Baseball Bugs 10:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If I left the project?

I'm not sure what you were saying with "If you left the project." What does that mean? As I've stated before, I ain't all that Wiki Savvy.

Notable or not, vandalism is vandalism. Adolph Hitler's Misplaced Pages entry has a warning on it about vandalism. He's certainly notable, and apparently, people aren't too concerned with vandalizing his entry.

I think it is unfortunate Steve Singleton's entry was vandalized. And I do understand that the more notable the subject of the entry, the more likely it is to get caught.

That said, the problem is User:Jerry, not Steve Singleton.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware of the Seigenthaler incident until you told me about it. Yeah, that's f--ked up that someone would do such a thing.
I've done my best to preserve respectability for Misplaced Pages. I'd like to point out that I, myself, noticed an error in 1979 and Davey Johnson. The Johnson error was made on December 10, 2006 by User:Cubwiki. The "I dunno where the F he got it" entry in 1979 was made by User:TeganX7 on September 4, 2007. In both cases, it took far longer than two hours before they were eventually found, and there is no question of either's notability.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Avril Lavigne

You just processed my speedy on that image. It might be a good idea to leave a reinforcing warning on the talk page of Weirdo82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I left him a warning, and what I got back was a diatribe that makes it clear he has no understanding that uploading a copyrighted image, labeling it as self-created, and releasing it into the public domain is wrong. I left a second warning when I nominated the Avril Lavigne image, but it's always nice to let a problem editor know that he isn't just in a fight with one other editor.
Kww (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Later conversations show that he seems to have gotten the point. I'll keep an eye on him.Kww (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

baseball reference

Hey there, can you maybe explain me why the "baseball ref bullpen page" would be unreliable? Thanks, Amanda/C 21:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a wiki. And a poorly-sourced one no less. Need I say more? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I haven't seen a lot there, but the pages that I've seen were sourced. Does this mean you consider a sourced article in Misplaced Pages also unreliable? Amanda/C 00:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes this does mean I would consider a sourced article in Misplaced Pages also unreliable. If I were writing a term paper, I would use Misplaced Pages as a tool for finding more reliable sources - and I would check each one before using them. There is at least one long-term vandal here (User:Ron liebman) who runs almost unchecked through baseball-ref bullpen inserting inaccurate information. We at least have a few people who know his patterns here to revert on sight, but baseball-ref bullpen is not nearly as well-staffed. They've done 16 blocks all year. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, makes sense, I will give it another check at some time. Amanda/C 22:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How can a link be blacklisted?

As you can see, this user keeps adding the same fansite to the JC Chasez article. I actually left them a warning, but they continued unabated. Rather than keep reverting, could the fansite be added to the Wiki blacklist? It'd be easier that way. The user is obviously a single purpose account. Cheers! --Ebyabe (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. If it continues, maybe I screwed it up! —Wknight94 (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hurrah! Thanks. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe another sock

This one could be Liebman: Baseball Bugs 18:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags

This IP address has taken it upon himself to start removing stuff with fact tags on it. Is that appropriate? Baseball Bugs 09:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He's already been challenged by many, and won't discuss it. I'll take it to ANI. Baseball Bugs 09:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

MJ

A new redlink goes straight to me with some off-the-wall complaint. Obvious trolling. I'll take him to AIV. Baseball Bugs 16:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see if we can figure out what the hell he's talking about. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I haven't even thought about Michael Jackson in probably a year. Must be some old flame comment I put somewhere. Baseball Bugs 16:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'd just ignore it, personally. I don't see where you've edited Michael Jackson and I went back months into your contribs. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I find that kind of stuff mostly just funny - as long as it doesn't interfere with work. I posted the guy on AIV, and the admin issued a "don't do this again" warning to the guy, and that should be the end of it. Baseball Bugs 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my reaction too. I hoped the section blanking would be enough of a hint. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Delahanty / Lajoie 1902

The Elias Book of Baseball Records 2008 edition (p. 372) recognizes Delahanty as the 1902 AL batting leader, not Lajoie. That fact is reflected in the WP article about year-by-year leaders, but not in the WP article about consecutive batting titles, which still shows Lajoie for 1902. Elias continues to list Cobb as the 1910 AL champion. Baseball Bugs 22:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

According to sources I have checked, Elias is wrong, with respect to 1910. --Harry fialkin (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Name one. Elias is the official statistician of MLB. Baseball Bugs 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Side note: The original edit ran up against the previous line - a typical Ron Liebman M.O. Baseball Bugs 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Though Elias is considered by many to be the official statistician of baseball, his views are outdated and disregarded by most responsible baseball historians. Siwoff is nearly 88 years old and follows the Bowie Kuhn model of not wanting to change hits and at-bats - though he and Steve Hirdt have changed rbi's., and other things. Many SABR researchers are much more repected than Siwoff - whether you like it or not! --Harry fialkin (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Last time I checked, ESB's records are official, and RL's are not. Baseball Bugs 10:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRIT

Hi - this was a keep for somebody else to use. It is not used at WP:BITASK. Regards, --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}, don't blank it. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I dont understand '{{sofixit}}' - what shall I do? You have redirected it back to BITASK, where is causes offense! What is the answer? --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Point it somewhere else then. Get consensus. The usual. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
If the 'Redirects for deletion' people did their job it would simply be deleted and nobody's problem! If someone wanted it in the future all they had to do was make it again! Now I have to search for a new home that covers quite an awkward word. Thanks guys.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible vandalism only account

User:Me$$senger 33. just did some pretty nasty vandalism here. Shapiros10 My work 14:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
He's gone. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor requesting unblock, caught by the 72.76 rangeblock

Hello Wknight94. FYI, see User talk:72.76.27.198. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

David Chokachi

When you get a chance, could you look at the last few edits to this article? There's been back and forth on his ethnicity, and I don't think the sources added are reliable. Don't really want to get into an edit war over this, doncha know. Thanks! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Plus I'm wondering if there might be sockpuppetry involved. --Ebyabe (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks like you could direct them to the Misplaced Pages:Reliable source examples#Use of electronic or online sources essay section. Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable source examples has a few IMDB mentions as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your help. :) I'm on the road with no access to e-mail. Baseball Bugs 05:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Stub sorting proposals for June

Hi there! I hoped that someone would finally close the discussion; as I was party to it, I'm not supposed to close it. It's been sitting there for some time. Thanks for noticing anyway. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is an admin required? Or just someone? You may be looking for {{backlog}} - or, of course, WP:DR. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tubgirl notice

Hi Wknight94. You closed the Tubgirl RfD six days ago as keep.. It again is listed at RfD. See Tubgirl → Shock site. Suntag (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IronAngelAlice

Have you seen this? I just want confirmation that the accusation of sockpuppetry has been disproven or retracted. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. But it wasn't egregious enough to warrant an indefinite block. I don't suppose we make people carry that tag around forever, do we... —Wknight94 (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not arguing one way or another. I assume since you made the block you know the details of the case and I trust your judgment on the matter, I just wanted to know what it was. The user in question deleted the tags with a message saying that the charges were not true. If that is the case, of course s/he was right to get rid of the tags. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing either - just asking (I know, hard to tell online! ). I wouldn't say the charges were untrue but I guess they're allowed to remove the tag anyway. I don't figure it's meant as a scarlet letter. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Blocked IP returned with another:

Thanks, I'll keep watching. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Subscription site question

This site has been added as a reference to several TV show list articles by this user. Is that appropriate? I'm not sure myself, so I will defer to your greater wisdom. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't look appropriate to me. They haven't even updated their copyright - it says 1993-2004! Doubtful at best. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A user you temporary blocked is back trolling

Hi, I noticed that you had temporary blocked this user for vandalism. It appears from his talk page that he is consistent in trolling. I have reverted some non-constructive edits he has made to a page and I just would like to bring it to your notice. If I shouldn't be putting this here please let me know (I'm new to editing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Star Hardkore (talk • contribs) 11:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

NRHPdis template redirect

I don't think your closing the brief discussion on NRHPdis template was proper. It was too brief a discussion, with no participation by wp:NRHP members and no notice to wp:NRHP. I didn't see it until you closed it. I am not myself a big supporter of the use of a separate NRHPdis template, but there are others who did come up with it and support it, and I think the proposal was not handled properly. Just FYI. doncram (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See #9 of Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Administrator instructions. The template was properly tagged and was overdue for closure with no one voting to keep, so I don't see what you could think is not "proper" about the closure. How did you notice it redirected but didn't notice it tagged for deletion? Your best venue is probably WP:DRV or appeal to the people who voted at WP:TFD. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I created it, and got the deletion notice, but didn't really care one way or the other. It was hardly being used anyway. I mostly made it b/c there were other specific kinds of disambig templates (for boats, names, places, etc.). Have any of those been deleted? More curious than anything else. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There have been a few at WP:TFD. I may have redirected another one but don't recall. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

Was it Ronnie again? Trying to pretend he was BB, leaving the project? Honestly, I can't fathom what he thinks he's accomplishing with these silly sockpuppets. Anyhoo, thanks. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. He really tricked you that time, didn't he. Like a four-year-old. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scott Slutzker to WP:AN/I

Are you starting a thread there? I'm speechless. Dlohcierekim 02:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm swamped with a thing tonight but I definitely encourage it. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I've left a message with User talk:Jonathan. He's lost rollback because of a different issue. What's up with him and user:Superflewis? I saw your note about Personality Psychology. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that was someone else that left the note. Dlohcierekim 04:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Don't forget to re-protect

Sorry, I always check and re-protect when I do that, but I must have missed that one or been distracted. Thanks for the heads-up. ... discospinster talk 18:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

209.68.139.250 anon edits

May I request that this address be blocked from anonymous editing indefinitely, as we have done for 209.68.139.150 earlier? This is also a school district address, and would rather have students use registered accounts to make edits, instead of anonymously vandalizing pages. Thanks. --Leuqarte (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete

Hi,

Is there anyway to have the Robert Wolf (UBS) completely deleted (included deletion and creation logs)? Let me know. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.191.175.232 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Liebman sock

I am trying to figure out what research projects and articles to concentrate on prior to my retirement - if I decide to retire. If you have any useful suggestions, let me know. Sincerely, Baseball Bugs (Sept. 22, 2008) (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Boogies (talk • contribs)

Hey, Ronnie, how about you get a lobotomy, for starters? Baseball Bugs 21:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Keeper76 has blocked the user on the grounds of impostoring. Feel free to add the "sock" logo on the user's page if you want. Baseball Bugs 21:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Already done. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 21:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Baseball content removing IP returns

Argh, ok, thanks for letting me know. I really don't have the time or energy to deal with it today, but I'll see what I can do tomorrow. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Catholicism

Hi, Can you unprotect this template, I wish to make a correction. Thanks. 86.24.126.222 (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Another Ron Liebman sock

Here: Baseball Bugs 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, templated. Next? Keeper ǀ 76 21:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Table of contents margin

Hi Wknight94. I have the pleasure to inform you that we have now added extra top margin to the table of contents (when on article pages). As you suggested over at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Table of contents margin two months ago. Sorry for the delay.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! I thank you and Ed Fitzgerald below thanks you.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Always happy to make people happy. I am sorry it took such time. I noticed we had missed it when I checked old sections that perhaps should be archived at MediaWiki talk:Common.css.
I realised I forgot to mention one thing: If you want to see the change immediately you might need to bypass your browser cache, since the Misplaced Pages CSS files are cached in the browsers for up to 31 days. Thus it takes 31 days before all users see the change, but some will see it already today.
--David Göthberg (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for running with the request for additional margin in the ToC, I had no idea it was in the works, and was surprised and please to hear that you had suggested the change and it was accepted and coded. Please accept my humble thanks. Ed Fitzgerald 01:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! In all honesty, I wasn't aware that the issue had been readressed either. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Subpage

If you want to create a subpage for a long thread, by all means, please do. You seem to be uninvolved. Jehochman 20:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

New Fangusu sock?

I'm suspicious of the new user User:DaisyBunny. The user's edits are all to articles targeted by Fangusu in the past (with a few that may be new, but in the same basic category and style), and the user's very first edit summary addresses me by name as was Fangusu's habit as of late, also insisting as Fangusu had that an article being a stub means it ought to be merged into another article. Many of the edits undo reversions I did of this Fangusu's unproductive and block-evading editing. I'd say I'm over 90% certain that this is Fangusu, but this user's characteristic poor grammar does not appear to be present. It's hypothetically possible that a different person who'd been silently watching decided to re-do Fangusu edits that s/he thought were useful, so I thought I'd ask for a second pair of eyes to have a look instead of immediately reporting it to WP:AIV. Would you mind taking a look when you get the opportunity? Thanks. --Icarus 07:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, passes the WP:DUCK test. Blocked, reverted, and watchlisted. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Block this url

Hello.

This is a bit hard to explain. I just came to wikipedia, and saw that someone had edited a lot of articals in an imature manner. This is a public computer, in a junior/senior school. There are some very imature people here. It might be in the best intrest of wikipedia to block this url/computer/whatever you do. Anyone who really wants to edit on wikipedia can create an account. I know that there are a few reasons (fairness/second chances/my reliability) not to do this, but it will only bring grief/annoyance. Anywho, I'll leave it up to you.

Sincerely; Adam Gulyas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.216.194.137 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Today's Liebman socks

We'll see if its a good day for Stockings. Baseball Bugs 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that he apparently took his name from that of the presumably legit user just above. The old boy must be running out of ideas. Baseball Bugs 22:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And another one, on an admin's page: Baseball Bugs 23:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

NFLSecondaryColor

What is the point of having Template:NFLSecondaryColor and Template:NFLSecondaryColorRaw? When I added the colors to the infobox at Ryan Grice-Mullen, the secondary colors do not show up.►Chris Nelson 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In that infobox, it looks like NFLSecondaryColor is for the text of the "Career history" bar. White text. Which were you trying to change? "National Football League debut"? That looks like AltSecondaryColor. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow I'm an idiot.►Chris Nelson 16:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

October Baseball WP Newsletter

The Baseball WikiProject Newsletter
Issue III – October 2008
"If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving a baby's life...
she'll save the baby without even considering how many men are on base!"
— Stephen King (The Dark Tower)
News and announcements
  • The Baseball Project promoted 13 lists to Featured status in August and 8 more in September. Amazing job!
  • A combined eleven articles were promoted to Good Article status in August and September.
Featured content
  • In September, WikiProject Baseball has had the following articles promoted to:
  • Featured Article status:

Nashville Sounds

  • Featured List status:

List of New York Mets Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Colorado Rockies Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Florida Marlins Opening Day starting pitchers, Nashville Sounds seasons, List of Tampa Bay Rays Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Boston Red Sox Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Arizona Diamondbacks Opening Day starting pitchers, New York Yankees seasons

  • Good Articles of August and September:

All the Way (Eddie Vedder song), Cy Young, Dan Brouthers, Harmon Killebrew, Rickey Henderson, Billy Pierce, Kinston Indians, Three Rivers Stadium, Bill Lange, Calgary Cannons, Hugh Daily, Homer at the Bat

This month's newsletter was designed and written by Wizardman, jj137, and Blackngold29. If you would like to contribute to future newsletters, please contact the Baseball WP outreach dept.

News from the diamond
  • The 2008 opening round playoff matchups with be:
    • Boston Red Sox vs. Los Angeles Angels
    • Milwaukee Brewers vs. Philadelphia Phillies
    • Los Angeles Dodgers vs. Chicago Cubs
    • Chicago White Sox vs. Tampa Bay Rays
  • Help to keep the articles of the postseason updated
From the Editors

We apologize for not sending out our August newsletter, we have tried to cover some events of the month in this issue.

The playoffs have started! The Dodgers and Phillies have won their respective Division Series and will face off in the NL Championship Series. Both series in the American League have yet to be finished. Show your support for your favorite teams by keeping up with their season pages!


Administrator's Noticeboard

The reason I raised the issue of the vandalism bots on the Administrator's Noticeboard is because I wasn't sure if this was a behind the scenes programming problem an admin would have to address or a specific issue with the bots. Also, we'll need admins to help out on vandalism patrol until this is resolved. Until this is determined not to be an admin-related problem, I'd appreciate it if you didn't delete the thread from ANI. Thanks.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Programming problems are still not admin-related. Admins can block, protect, and a few other things - see WP:ADMIN. Nothing bot-related. Admins aren't even necessary for vandalism patrol, just the eventual blocking per reports at WP:AIV. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Guess we have a difference of opinion. Since I'm an admin and feel it belongs there, and other admins joined in on how to address the issue, it would seem to have support to be there. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh my, you're an admin! I'm shocked. What are you thinking, bringing up bot problems at WP:AN, and then removing my comments? Sheesh. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for that mistaken deletion. I was working on another project when I saw your edit summary and I thought you'd deleted the ANI thread. My intent was to place the thread back on ANI, which obviously wasn't needed. As for bringing up bot problems there, it is an admin noticeboard and I wanted this issue brought to the attention of my fellow admins, figuring some of them would know what to do. It appears this was a correct assumption.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Check this out

These guys actually think I'm only 13 1/2 years old, just because my user page says that. Or maybe they're just funnin' me. I don't want to be an admin, though. I would not run if nominated, and if elected I would not serve. Baseball Bugs 06:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, where did all that come from? Did you tell them I'm only 6? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I did not go bringing that up. However, I think they're confusing dog years with human years. Baseball Bugs 11:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
They might just be satirizing admins. Far be it from me to ever do that. 0:) Baseball Bugs 11:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pointer to discussion about TV episode redirects

Hi, Bill. It's been a while since the dispute about TV episode article naming, and I'm glad to see that you've been thriving on Misplaced Pages. I wanted to let you know that there's a new (much smaller, I hope!) discussion about whether to keep the redirects that have "unnecessary" disambiguation or not — one of the byproducts of an early compromise move in that debate. The new discussion is at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (television)#Redirects, with related discussions at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 8. Hope to see you there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Matejpostolka User Block

Could you please have a look at my unblock request?? User Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Matejpostolka

Yes, it looks lovely. I'll pass. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Liebman

Our pin-headed friend visited my talk page again today. Baseball Bugs 20:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Liebman 10-9-08

Here's another one you can block, if you're in a blocking mood: Baseball Bugs 22:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim Foli under GA review

Hi there, I see that you are a contributor to the article Tim Foli. This article has come under review for Good article reassessment as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified which are listed on the talk page. Please begin to address these points in the next seven days or the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the backup on my talk page! That was funny. :) Burner0718 03:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Tellus archivist check user

Hello there, your conclusion following 'checkuser' was (clerk) Abandoned account blocked but current one is not per lack of WP:SOCK abuse. One account was switched for another). One of the associated meatpuppets Valueyou is continuing his/her tantrum and has taken it here, . Would you mind offering other than this assessment following your investigations? Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Replied, just to let you know. — neuro 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For catching my mistake. :) MBisanz 01:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh, no problem. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Spiteful Semitransgenic

Please see current spiteful dispute I am having with Semitransgenic at Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine and at the Noise music page. The issue is this: after a month of work I greatly improved the noise music page - providing wiki with an outstanding noise music page with extensive footnotes, some lacking only page # which I can provide in the near future (as previously explained a # of times), free of WP:OR & WP:SYN that stood for weeks. Semitransgenic then imposed a WP:OR deadline on my providing those page #s and when I challenged that arbitrary deadline Semitransgenic falsely accused me of sock-puppetry with the creator of the Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine - an outstanding wiki page started by Tellus archivist who has entered his resistance to Semitransgenic's dictates. (See talk page at Noise music) I strongly condemn Semitransgenic's tactics as he is doing it again at Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine in spite.

More evidence of Semitransgenic abuse: he has seen the results of the investigation into his charges of sock/meat puppetry against me here (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tellus_archivist) and knows (see his contrib page) me to be innocent of them -- yet he repeats them and has not apologized to me as he promised he would. As you can see, the result of his harassment was: "Clerk note: I've indefblocked Taxisfolder as an abandoned account but there is no overlap in activity or block evasion, so Valueyou is left alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I ask here for a Consensus that disciplinary measures be taken against Semitransgenic as he is a bully and self-declared nazi (see the top of my talk page – that is how he introduced himself to me). I may or may not be of the Jewish faith, but either way I find this kind of macho posturing repugnant. He also addressed me as “dude” later on in my talk page and as I am not of the male sex, I find that sort of address sexist. So, I am seeking a Consensus to out Semitransgenic from the music section of wiki as clearly he has no love of music or the artists who make it. I don't see any constructive contributions by Semitransgenic other posting ugly flag signs where talk on the discussion page would be better because these signs drive away users of wikipedia by making it look half-ass. I suggest that he be asked to go work on the Nazism page and leave the music section to those who love music. Valueyou (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

above user (et al.) is throwing a tantrum becasue they don't like regulations. Issue starts here. Long history of problematic behaviour, account swapping over 2 year, see comment by clerk. User believes real world credentials overules policy.
Are you an expert in this field? I am offering primary source information. This is differnt than a POV. They are important as a group not because some book said they are, but by their productivity - with which I am aware.
This is a fresh and emerging history and I would think that a PhD who has worked as an archivist at the Dia Art Foundation could offer such a list without a book saying it is OK. Valueyou (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
user is now engaging in flaming campaign as part of their protest. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, I mistakenly left a comment on an archive page here, the situation has since escalated if there is anything you would like to offer by way of advice, direct input, or other, that would be appreciated. Best. S. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(moved from archive) Can you take a look at this please and see what you think. My personal opinion is that the user is engaging, at the very least, in meat puppetry, more difficult to prove is the possibility that the same user is employing different accounts from differnent IP's, home, work, perhaps. An unresolved sock puppet case has been filed, if you would like to add a comment you can do it here. Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC) —Wknight94 (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thanks! Semitransgenic (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't really want to enter into a protracted dispute over another editors inability to compose themselves or follow guidelines. This user is EricaNechvatal. That's quite obvious from the comments, history, behaviour. Perhaps this cannot be established using the sock puppet dispute procedure but I would like to leave that information on record, if it goes stale so be it, file it with the rest of the unresolved puppet issues, nothing lost. There is every chance a similar issue may resurface at some point in the future. That is my conclusion, and I don't have anything else to conribute to the dispute. If the editor in question wishes to open a case I will particpate. Thanks for your time on this and your feedback nonetheless. Best. S Semitransgenic (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
But what's your point? User:EricaNechvatal made a single edit in June 2006! Maybe she decided she didn't want to use her real-life name here - that's usually a good idea. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not a point I'm trying to make at all, please understand that. There was some debacle at the time surrounding WP:COI on the Joseph Nechvatal page hence the name change. I don't expect you to be aware of the nuances, but from the ones I have seen, I have formed an opinion of what is happening here, perhaps that is not useful, but please appreciate that I have actually done nothing wrong, in terms of dealing with this user or addressing outstanding issues relating to policy, yet I have had to defend myself against the abuse and allegations leveled at me, yes that is how things works here, but I am not necessarily pleased to have run around the mill because someone cannot, and apparently will not, behave themselves. Perhaps you disagree with my approach, as I'm sure do others, but I'm simply trying to highlight a pattern of unacceptable behaviour by one user across a number of profiles. I really have nothing more to add. Cheers. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
In light of advice from other editors, I've made an offer to remove the puppetry allegation if the user agrees to give WP:OR some consideration. Hopefully we can move this forward. Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a saying somewhere here: focus on articles, not editors. Even if EricaNechvatal, Rydernechvatal, Oidkdufjggd, TwinkleJames, Taxisfolder and Valueyou are all the same, so what?
Looks like someone that created an account, did a few things, lost their password, and started over. There's nothing untoward going on from looking at that list. If there are problems within an article or two, focus on those; don't get hung up on who you are talking to. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
With no overlapping history, it's reasonable to assume that it's like what you describe, that they just simply adopted a new ID. It's been known to happen. 0:) This is a lot of ID changes, though. Barring any evidence of true sockpuppeteering (which doesn't look like it), and if it's in fact the same guy, it's possible he just gets tired of an ID and creates a new one. Baseball Bugs 23:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
There are socks - and then there is WP:SOCK abuse. If someone is using six IDs to tip an argument in his favor or using another ID to get around a block, etc. None of these appear to be the case here. None of those IDs were blocked and, since none of the histories overlap, none of them have taken part in the same discussion. Four of them haven't edited in four months and I just-in-case-blocked a fifth one as an abandoned account because of the RFCU finding - so dwelling on them as a group is just distracting from the articles themselves. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Ja. It's not sock abuse apparently, but more like when you lose a sock in the laundry and have to get a new one. :) Baseball Bugs 00:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok points taken. The level of actual abuse across the range of users is not sufficient to warrant concern.I understand. Thanks for the input on this. I will focus exclusively on content in future. Semitransgenic (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

KillAllSpammers checkuser

Oops, Wknight94, I may have misinterpreted the contents of your table in the KillAllSpammers checkuser. For one thing, I interpreted it as a bot -- sorry to anti-anthropomorphize you! If your IP ranges matched mine and I just misunderstood the syntax, I definitely apologize and in any case am grateful for your help. Thirdbeach (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. My notations were CIDR and I was hoping a checkuser would find the links useful. But I also don't want to give you cause for concern so I'll leave it to your discretion. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, got it: CIDR. Twenty steps behind you but hope to close the gap someday :-). 63.229.62.199 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFC/USER request for signature

Hello Wknight94, I would like to file a WP:RFC/USER for Valueyou and as you commented on this individuals user page regarding their conduct perhaps you will offer your signature. I will be petitioning the other editors involved also. My statement will read as follows.

Despite a protracted dispute with Valueyou leading to intervention of multiple editors, Valueyou's immediate action, following the conclusion of this period of disruption, was to revert the disputed article to a condition that Valueyou deemed acceptable, therefore leaving outstanding issues with WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:SYN, unaddressed. The dispute esentially relates to disagreement about tagging and to Semitransgenic's request for citations. The origin of this dispute can be traced to here. The user engaged in WP:CANVASS by copy pasting a personal attack across the talk pages of multiple articles user Semitransgenic has edited. There is also evidence of Valueyou accusing Semitransgenic of anti-semitism, resulting in Valueyou attempting to canvass ברוקולי. This last allegation arose as a result of the statement made here at 17:42 on the 10th of August. Irrespective of the nature of this hostile campaign Semitransgenic attempted to arrive at a truce but Valueyou's repsonse was instead to engage in antagonistic reversion. Please advise. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. Best. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

All this brouhaha over some obscure music article. And somehow Wknight94 was chosen to help solve this little tempest. And then I get asked why I don't want to be an admin myself. Baseball Bugs 11:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
But wiki just wouldn't be the what it is if there wasn't brouhaha over some obscure article of one description or another!! ; ) Semitransgenic (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There is now a WP:ANI section on this dispute. Baseball Bugs 12:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is tedious but very much to my point that Semitransgenic acts like a bully. For me all that is in the past however (per his false sock-puppet charges against me). My request that he is now seeking retaliation for was intentionally tightly focused on the technical question at hand which User:Verbal has stepped in to find sensible middle ground and -- that I accept. (see Noise music talk page). If Semitransgenic, you, or others would care to hit the books and find the relevant page #s (I was working from my notebooks and am not currently in an English speaking country) that would be most useful to getting the page up to snuff. Semitransgenic seems only to cry out for endless citations for every line of text and never provides any. Let's all pitch in to get the page impeccable. Valueyou (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Currently it is still "peccable". Baseball Bugs 13:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. peccable? Semitransgenic (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
As opposed to "not" peccable, or impeccable. Baseball Bugs 02:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Suzuki frame

Hi,

you deleted this article; however, WP:CSD#G5 states: "Banned user. Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, with no substantial edits by others." I hope you noticed my substantial edits, and I don't see why this should be deleted.

I'd like to hear your opinion.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I can restore it if you like. Just keep in mind that it was likely created by Grawp, the worst page-move vandal we have here. Let me know. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'd like you to restore it; I've checked the sources, I see no reason why this article would be of any more concern for page move vandalism than any other. Especially since we now know who created it. We can both watch it. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Pennsylvania political scandals

Do you have any objection to my recreation of Category:Pennsylvania political scandals? Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You're not a sock of User:The Mystery Man, are you? Seriously though, I noticed a few people complaining about people being called political scandals so you may want to watch out for that. Otherwise, have at it. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe Torre

Joseph Paul Torre. I wonder if he was named for Joseph Paul DiMaggio? I didn't find anything about it on an initial search in Google. Baseball Bugs 02:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems doubtful. I'll bet thousands of New York Italians were named Joseph Paul something. We've got 10 Joseph Pauls here alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and both are commonly-used names of Catholic saints, but how many of those Joseph Pauls were born in New York City when Joe D was in his prime? Although Torre was born in Brooklyn, I think, which might not be considered prime Yankees territory. Baseball Bugs 03:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Complice, too long

The article about Complice the song is nearly the length of the band article. I was not think that was good. But i agree it was a bit stupid by me. AlwaysOnion (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Usernames

Hi. I saw you blocking a user with an inappropriate username (Godzilla's Testicles). Surely the username God of dicks galore should be blocked as well. I only ask as no one has responded to my post at Misplaced Pages:UAA. Ollie Fury Contribs 22:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

residence park

why did you remove the the article Residence Park? And my edit to the page is no longer on my list of contributions? I was working to find some definite sources for the information on the page because the article needed them. Can you please restore the page? The area is definitely notable, and definitely has several historic sites as part of it. The area itself is also under review for historic designation. --Liampaar (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

hey, you must have deleted the wrong page: First Presbyterian Church and Lewis Pintard House

Hey, you've deleted a valid article, about an NRHP-listed property. There may or may not have been any edits by some banned user, including some text that appeared to have been copied. But the page is legitimate. There was some copyright vio situation there, but I believe i cleaned that up fully adequately yesterday or the day before. And i am not a banned user.

Would you please restore it. doncram (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the entire article was begun by a banned user, StanFielderstien (talk · contribs), and it looks like much of what he wrote was still present when I deleted. I can send you a copy if you'd like but it would be best if you completely rewrote it. Otherwise, this guy will continue to haunt this page forever, as he does in numerous other NRHP-related articles. He's created over 200 accounts for that purpose. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please send me a copy, preferably the last version that I edited. I had converted all the copied text into a proper quote with a proper footnote reference, and i don't want to reconstruct all that. The article is a legit topic, it is an NRHP that is a red-link again now on the list of NRHPs in that county and on disambiguation page First Presbyterian Church, both of which i have been working on recently. I do want to create an article there, though I may use less of a quote than was in the last version. I have wikipedia email enabled, there's an email link at my User page. Thanks, doncram (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Appeal (Justice for Defenz_07)

Hi, I was the one you blocked for 2 days for creating sockpuppets to achieve "POV" edits to Members Church of God International. To me, the edits do not propagandize the church, sicne the criticism section and the cases are still there. I simply believe that Shannon Rose is only harassing me since of what he said that "she need to brainwas me about my belief to the said church". The so called "POV" edits done bby Defenz_07 are adding references, true statements which I have proven but she deos not just believe in the references I added. Please, think about the blocking of Defenz_07. I'll stop editing the church article for a while but I will still watch it.

Hoping for your kind consideration,

Dar book (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Schoolblock template

Just wanted to let you know that I reverted your change to {{schoolblock}}. Since this template is not transcluded, all 5835 instances of its use had their signature component broken by this change. While I appreciate the boldness of your change, next time you might wish to discuss your proposed changes first at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject user warnings. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't it transcluded? All the rest of them are, no? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps if it were part of the uw-series of template messages it would be substituted. That, and the instructions on the template itself say "do not subst this template as contact details may change in the future." --Kralizec! (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem appears to be its dual use as a header and as a block message - but I don't care enough to pursue it. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that has pretty much been my disposition about it too. While it is annoying to have to remember to follow two different formats (one for the uw-series and a different one for schoolblock/anonblock), I have never been annoyed enough to actually fix it. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for quick block

Thank for quick block User jakesafag. Much appreciated. Waterden (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
And while we are doling out praise, thanks for putting the block on the egregiously named Jigaboo killer (egad, how sad). Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Housekeeping"

I noticed that you deleted the talk page of a vandal, User talk:AZT2008, as G6 (Noncontroversial maintainance). I was just wondering why you did that; in my experience, admins have usually kept the talk pages with indef block templates.

Anyway, cheers, NuclearWarfare My work 01:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That tag just puts them in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. That category just becomes a maintenance headache and the pages are supposed to be deleted eventually anyway (hence the "Temporary"). I still use it in cases where someone may not be 100% clear why they were blocked, but this guy knows damn well why. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining! NuclearWarfare My work 02:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Another Mystery Man Suspect

Thank you for your hard work on this. If you have time, please check out the edits in the last day or so from 24.22.216.221. Cheers, David in DC (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see your concern but it looks like a slightly different agenda. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for looking. David in DC (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Olivespread

FYI re the above Checkuser case: . I agree we have to presume innocence, but I'll still confess that privately I find it hard to reconcile the statistical likelihoods involved with such a presumption. Still, sometimes life is stranger than fiction, and no doubt time will tell if that was the case here. :-) Thanks for looking into the matter. Cheers, Jayen466 21:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Better safe than sorry. It's better to let someone elude sock detection than to leave someone blocked unjustly. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet formatting

Thanks for fixing my poorly formatted sockpuppet case filing. Mrshaba (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I added evidence for the Oakwillow account. You say the evidence isn't strong enough but I don't know what better evidence I can provide than 199 adding comments to Delpi234's posts or Apteva signing 199's posts. I don't understand why the evidence I've provided would be good enough for a checkuser but not good enough for you to take action? Obviously a checkuser is what I'm looking for so I'll post over there. Thanks for your assessment. Mrshaba (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
At RFCU, you just need to provide enough evidence to perform the checkuser. I have been clerking there lately and found that the requirements to perform a checkuser are less stringent than for me to do a block. From my vantage, it could just as well be coincidental, whereas a checkuser can diagnose a problem with much more certainty, and could even discover that you've found the tip of a much larger iceberg. From your Oakwillow link, some have theorized a tie to Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs) who is just coming off a year-long ban. That would be an important find. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I see... Thanks for your help and advice... Mrshaba (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Same here: thank you for fixing my sockpuppet case filing. Sorry for the inconvenience. Erigu (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. That's why RFCU has clerks. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the checkuser case on Apteva is listed as completed. So what happened? Mrshaba (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. You may want to ask at WT:RFCU or WP:ANI. Hard to tell if everyone has declined to take action, or if it just slipped under the radar. You might want to ask whoever moved it to completed. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Proxy policy

Thanks Wknight, and I'm aware of that distinction. However, the difs also show them contending that there is no legitimate reason to proxy, and that privacy rights are more than outweighed by Misplaced Pages's needs. If they suggested that the solution was to use a closed proxy (and to inform the arbitration committee?) I'm not aware. Additionally, however, the proxy apparently was not limited to one account, as SlimVirgin's comments state that both accounts were found to edit from the same one. Mackan79 (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible Leibman socks?

Wspock50, Allen Beyda --Ebyabe (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'd have to say no. They don't fit the pattern closely enough. Not belligerent enough! —Wknight94 (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Ya sure? 'Cause shortly after dropping you this note, he "vandalized" my talk page. I suspected the second one more than the first. Though "Wspock50" vs "Wknight94" sorta fits his odd naming pattern. Oh well... :) --Ebyabe (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone copycatting Liebman? Would there be a lower life-form than that? Baseball Bugs 02:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll say this - if those are him, then he has changed his modus operandi a bit. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It does seem he's going kooky on the Whitey Ford page recently, though. The birthdate stuff, again. *sigh* --Ebyabe (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the question of Whitey Ford's birth year was one of Liebman's early contentions. Baseball Bugs 02:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Wspock50 and Allen Beyda are arguing against each other though so they can't both be Liebman. I'm looking at Allen Beyda and Biographical Research (talk · contribs). They don't smell right... —Wknight94 (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, I blocked those two. Wspock50 is fine though. The edits there were going back-and-forth so much, that even I reverted to agree with Liebman once! Maybe I'm a sock!! —Wknight94 (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Melody Perkins

Someone anonymously reverted your sockpuppet notice at User:Melody Perkins. Wronkiew (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding the protection for the Talk:Jenny Agutter page. I don't think Melody/Walter was going to give up so easily so you seem to have nipped any further arguments in the bud. Tavy08 (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Request to process image deletion nominations

Hi Wknight. I nominated two images for deletion but they were left out when the daily page was processed. I don't think they're controversial - the user who uploaded them hasn't contested the fact he mistakenly tagged them as his own when they'd come from unknown sources. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look.

Thanks. John Smith's (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, buddy. John Smith's (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Once Again

Thanks for protecting my Userpage, I was actually hoping Melody/Walter would just give up, but now it seems as though resorting to personal attacks is one way to get revenge after losing a dispute.
Thanks once again.
Grateful Tavy08 (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Virginia State Route 267

I don't see where the user is banned. Can you point to that? Tedickey (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Simultaneous movement

Yo, Wknight, I understand you are only following WP:BAN in reverting Simultaneous movement (talk · contribs)'s edits, but the ones I have looked at check out as improvements to the articles. Could you hold off on the blanket reversions until the content is checked please? Although I'm sure you have the best of intentions, admins removing good content from articles in order to fulfill a social end seems to me to fit the definition of "disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point". Respectfully, the skomorokh 12:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a deal - if you 1.) find a better way to say things than throwing WP:POINT at me and 2.) let me know how/when you plan on checking that account's contribs, esp. when he is tied to Absidy (talk · contribs) which leads to Obuibo Mbstpo: banned for malicious hoax articles... then I'll stop mass-reverting/deleting. I take hoax articles very seriously and think such things could bring about the downfall of this entire project, esp. if done quietly enough. I've already deleted several of his articles which no one else had ever touched - each a possible ticking time bomb waiting for a big news organization to find and claim as proof of Misplaced Pages's systemic problems. The only way to show people like that the door once and for all is to undo all of their hard work ASAP. But I'll give you a chance to find anything useful in his contributions before I continue. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I do honestly believe the indiscriminate application of G5 is disruptive, and meant no personal slander on yourself. Articles of worth created by the individual in question which I have worked on recently include Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism and New Libertarian Manifesto. I have checked and verified that this and this reversion of yours removed well-sourced accurate information from articles. If it's no to much trouble, would you consider userfying the articles you deleted to me at User:Skomorokh/Simultaneous? I have a good deal of experience with article restorations and rescues. I was not aware of the hoax issue, which obviously casts the matter in a different light; could you elaborate? I would characterise most of the contributions of this user that I have come across as accurate/sourced but used in a pov fashion (WP:COATRACKing and the like). Thanks for your reply, the skomorokh 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, with all these contributions being correct, I am wondering why he is banned in the first place? Maybe that's the issue that needs to be raised? I know a few of the articles I deleted listed blogs as sources, etc. My guess is that your characterization is a large part of the ban - creation of articles that are kinda accurate but are really part of an agenda. I undeleted the articles (in place) so go ahead and take a look. Just please keep in mind that the only way I've ever driven a banned user off the project is to undo the work they have done. If we're not going to do that, then we shouldn't bother banning anyone. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring those; most look like worthy topics (I will probably prod Charles Aldrich (Libertarian) though). Yeah, a lot of the articles are borderline-notable with borderline sources. Sometimes things got heated when deletionists took umbrage at the articles, and the fallout of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Neg (seduction) got one of the socks (justifiably) blocked for quite pointed personal attacks against female editors. I take your point about the effective means for driving away banned users, but my philosophy is that the content is what matters. Blocking does not seem to be effective as If it were up to me, I would probably restrict the person to one account, then monitor their edits in line with policy. In any case, thanks for your responses and sorry if I came off unnecessarily strong in my initial message. If you're interested in following the issue, you might want to watchlist User talk:Sarcasticidealist and Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarsaparilla. Regards, the skomorokh 15:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Liebman sock 10-25-08

Here's a pair of updates from today (from a single sock) where he thinks he knows No Guru's first name: Baseball Bugs 21:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Wishuponsarah

Can you please tell me where the best place to place this would be then if you feel it should be deleted from the list of "users for admin attention"? Thanks Jwri7474 (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the best place. Someone will get to it eventually. Be patient... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Liebman 10-27-08

Here's another Liebman sock to be blocked when you have time: Baseball Bugs 22:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this. I see you fully protected that one archive. I was about to ask for semi-protection instead, but that one's getting big enough anyway, so I'll start a new one. And if he attacks it, I'll ask for semi-protection. What a nuisance - kind of like a mosquito in your car when you're driving in heavy traffic. Baseball Bugs 00:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi, do you think a checkuser is possible in this case - I think this user has multiple accounts. See what he says. He was blocked. Then a while later came back as User:Stoptional, see this edit. Then I think he is also User:Ell-ninio11 attacking the blocking admin, User:zzuuzz. He might have many more account, I just wanted to ask if a CU is possible, or will it be declined as I'm not aware of the CU rules much. Thanks - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good candidate for checkuser. Be sure to mention the legal threat too - would make them more willing to lay down a heavy block. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the help. Case submitted but it didn't appear on the main page? Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nydamic123 - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It's all ready now. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dmoz.org link

I removed the link to http://www.dmoz.org at Nassau County, New York as it appears to be nothing more than a business directory. You restored the link here and reinserted the link on other counties of New York. Am I missing something? Alansohn (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It was removed by a sock of a banned user and reverted per WP:BAN. If the edit was actually appropriate, feel free. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 World Series

Well, at least you can say your Mets lost out to "the best". Or maybe NOT. That was one of more sloppily played Series I can recall, and not very well umpired either, but that's another story. But the level of play in the Series kind of shows what happens when the supposedly "hot" teams get in, as opposed to the supposedly "best" teams: the Cubs and Angels. It would have been interesting to see this week's Series games played in Wrigley, with possibly some snow accumulating on the mostly-bare-by-now ivy. Maybe next year. Or century. Or millennium. Baseball Bugs 04:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the common thread is endurance. It's the only thing that seems to link the Mets suddenly falling apart in mid-September (two years in a row) with the Cubs and Angels collapsing in mid-October with the Rays going from record-setting offense one week, to being dominated and embarrassed by Joe Blanton the next. You'd think such a young team would be able to outlast a 63-year-old Jamie Moyer but apparently not. The Phillies pitching staff just wasn't that good so it's the only explanation I can come up with. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Before game 7 of the ALCS, Cal Ripken predicted that the Red Sox had expnded all their energy making their comeback and that the Rays would win, which they did. I was thinking that maybe the Rays likewise expended all their energy to get to the Series. They were running on empty. Which is what you're saying also. They just basically stopped hitting. It's kind of nice to see old Cub Jamie Moyer get his first Series ring at the age of almost 46. Otherwise, the result was not what I wanted. I was at least hoping for a 7-game Series. Well, now that it's over, everyone is undefeated again. :) Baseball Bugs 16:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Funny, it still seems like the Mets are quite well defeated. Maybe by next March, the thought of 0 in the loss column will drown out the 1 in the GB column from this year. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The Mets only won 1 more game this past season than in 2007. I wonder how they would have done if not for the presence of ex-Twin Johan Santana. Which reminds me that I'm seeing a few too many successful ex-Twins nowadays. :\ Baseball Bugs 16:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, he didn't do too shabby, eh? Led the majors in ERA or something like that? Now if only the bullpen wouldn't blow half his leads, he'd be on the short list for a Cy Young! I win all ex-favorite team discussions with one name: Scott Kazmir. Kazmir for Victor Zambrano has to be one of the worst trades ever, certainly in Mets history. Zambrano spending most of his time in various random minor league team buses in the middle of Iowa or Kansas or wherever, while Kazmir plays in the first of what may be several World Series alongside other ex-Mets like Dan Wheeler and Cliff Floyd. I'm livin' the dream with all the leftover chokers. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Ouch. That deal sounds like a good candidate for Brock for Broglio. Baseball Bugs 20:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Another good article I've never seen. And Kazmir's already in it. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed he is. I had overlooked it. I must have been too busy arguing for David-Ortiz-for-zilch. They argued that wasn't a trade. That means I need to write a special section - players who were released and went to stardom elsewhere. That could be one of my Hot Stove League projects. :) Baseball Bugs 01:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm reminded of another Roykoism, which maybe ought to be in the article if I can find the citation. In one of his "Cubs quiz" columns in the late 1960s, Royko commented that since the trade, Brock had stolen all the bases in the world, and Broglio had stolen away into the night. I recall that trade and thought it was not a good one, but what did I know? Well, little did I know how much worse it would be than anyone imagined. These things happen sometimes. Baseball Bugs 01:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Belllingham Mariners

What about it ISN'T accurate?

Just wondering, it's a proven fact they were the Mariners, Griffey Jr. hit his first pro HR with them. The records on that page are factual and accurate. I didn't make the page but everything said on there is fact, if it's wrong. Keep it up and let people fix it. Thing is....It's not....I know the Wiki rules and sourcing and such but....

How is someone writing in a newspaper different than someone at Baseball Reference.com better than the other? I see mistakes in books about baseball history and newspapers all the time from so called "experts". This article though it might not be by a sports writer is expertly written read it...Pick out any fact written and you'll see it's not wrong.

If it's not up, who's going to write it? Most minor league teams have

"This was a team based in Hooterville, USA"

as the whole article...Because unless it's written by an actual sportswriter of that team it's considered "unsourced" due to the lack of achives on Single A short season baseball....I know I'm wasting my breath.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll copy this to Talk:Bellingham Dodgers and answer there. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It is to laugh

Of course it's not a sock, b/c he says it isn't. *lol*

"Cactus League", eh? Let's see... what does Liebman have in common with the type of pain you might get from a cactus needle? Baseball Bugs 20:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
You mean it's not some sort of baseball reference? Anyway, good on the blocking, WK. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Marthafiles

Man, you are fast! I saw the sock's first edit four minutes after it occurred, and you had reverted, tagged and blocked before I finished looking to see if it was the same edit. Jd2718 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I've got lots of sock targets in my watchlist. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Dar book for Indef Block

Hello Wknight94,

This is, once again, about the subject of this checkuser.

I don't think this even merits another checkuser because the situation is quite plain. Dar book has been using 222.127.223.70 as a sock, and the latter's talk page is replete with warnings of all types (all seemingly unheeded). It seems that he forgot to log in and accidentally used it instead of his Dar book account to edit the Eli Soriano article.

This is the line that gave him away:

why would a person buy a website just to lie?. (edit summary)

why would a person buy a website just to lie?. (please scroll down to red letters)

Another slip, a Marikina Science High School edit also gave him away. Dar book is the creator of that article.

This user is becoming a big nuisance.

Many thanks,

– Shannon Rose (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it may be that the computer he is using is a shared computer at his school, etc. People vandalizing from that IP may be different than the people making constructive edits from that IP. Only a checkuser would be able to definitively link Dar book to the vandals that are coming from the same IP. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed by checkuser! The person who did that edit was indeed him. If that is a shared IP then it won't be right to block it, but I believe that blocking his main account is in order, though he can still edit using that IP. – Shannon Rose (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
But you neglected to mention the rest of Sam Korn's response, i.e. that other users share the same IP. What is your basis for indefblocking? Never mind that he sometimes forgets to login - I do the same from time to time - what should I put as the reason for indefblocking? Vandalism? Copyright violations? Personal attacks? Something else? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
It is not a shared IP. It belongs to a particular user of globenet.com.ph, an office worker.
inetnum: 222.127.192.0 - 222.127.255.255
netname: GLBB_IP_BLOCK
country: PH
descr: NETWORK ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS
descr: Makati
descr: Philippines
admin-c: AA400-AP
tech-c: JV60-AP
status: ASSIGNED NON-PORTABLE
changed: jmv81144@globenet.com.ph 20080121
mnt-by: MAINT-MGR-AP
source: APNIC
person: Allan Abarquez
nic-hdl: AA400-AP
e-mail: aaa81020@globenet.com.ph
address: 12/F Valero Telepark
address: Valero St.,
address: Makati City
phone: +63-2-797-8332
fax-no: +63-2-797-7177
country: PH
changed: jonjon@globenet.com.ph 20041206
mnt-by: MAINT-MGR-AP
source: APNIC
The user has a confirmed COI over the articles of contention, being a member of the religious group in question (he used the words our leader as an address to Eli Soriano in one of his edits), but he would neither lie-low nor listen to anyone else's suggestions with regards to his anomalous editing. He keeps on injecting propaganda materials that are unsupported by reliable third-party published sources (all his sources are either personal blogs, talk groups, or websites of the organization itself), and he uses every trick in the book, including the use of a sock, to keep on reinstating those edits. This happens every single day. – Shannon Rose (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
globenet.com.ph appears to be a regular ISP - like Verizon or Roadrunner, etc. How do you know he is an office worker? Sounds like you need to bring this through the WP:DR process, or WP:ANI. There is simply not enough activity for me to take the drastic action of indefinitely blocking someone. Sorry. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for dropping in, but what you said to me here did scare me, a lot. I want to make a Truce with this COI editor who seeming does hate the Members Church of God International. He even said to me, cultic-brainwashing is hard to fight and sometimes even requires the assistance of a professional therapist. Also, thank you for not indef blocking me, I am also trying to forget what she did to me. I am focusing on editing non-related articles but she is even dragging this conflict to my native language Misplaced Pages, where I just recently established an account. I don't want to make enemies in WP, but I don't know how to end this conflict. For me she is a COI editor because she even accused Eli Soriano as a swindler; not believing in the THIRD-PARTY source of Soriano's award and lastly accusing the MCGI a cult. I have the same opinion of Wikiuserphil and Journeyist, which I promise you that these 2 users are not my socks. Their just inactive that's why I feel alone in trying to place what I believe is right. I can be a good editor if my opinions will be accepted or rejected with kindness, without accusing my belief as a cult and related stuff. Which was supposedly going to stop me, instead it made me more angry. How can apply for a truce if she keeps trying to tell my bad past to other Wiki Editors such as Polly, the user who always reminded me things about my uploaded images. Hoping for peace. Dar book (Complains?) 09:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't do the vandalism done by 222.127.223.70. Although I did use it in editing a few times. It is a shared IP across the block. That's why she considered me a nuisance. Dar book (Complains?) 09:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
No, no, no. CheckUser already confirmed that you did that particular edit. It may be a shared IP but it has already been confirmed that you did that particular edit. Stop lying to everybody, you are already busted. – Shannon Rose (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

RFCU

Hey, just wanted to stop by and commend you for all your hard work and effort over at WP:RFCU. For quite a while there I was doing the majority of it myself and if I ever took a few days off the page went into disarray, but now with all of your great help I am no longer worried about that happening. Anyways, I just wanted to give you some recognition for your good work! Cheers, Tiptoety 04:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. Hope you get a few nights off. :) —Wknight94 (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

59.183.0.0/18

I have unblocked this IP range. log. It is a part of the ISP MTNL Triband. Several productive editors from Mumbai will be outed by this block. Cheers! =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty big range. However, I thought the block would not do much harm, since it's anon. only, account creation blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

New title for 2008 attack at Beijing Drum Tower during Olympics

A New Mystery Man Editor

I've got nothing to go on but my crap detector, but check out this recent history and see if you don't think it's worth looking into whether this is the work of The Mystery Man/Ari Publican/William Tennant. Thanks. Best, David in DC (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd think an RFCU might be in order. I see a couple others that smell a bit like sleeper socks so I'd recommend asking for a sleeper scan as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Slow down please. I know less than I seem to know. RFCU I recognize, although I've never filed one. I know what sleep socks are but have never heard of a sleeper scan. Do I include the request for on in my RFCU? Help! David in DC (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Wait I HAVE filed an RFCU. I'll use that as a template. Never mind. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Cat Template

Why did you protect the cat template? What was being done to it that it needed to be protected for? I have a good edit, but I can't edit with the stupid protect in place! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.129.4 (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. Which template has a stupid protect? And what are you trying to change? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Liebman socks 11-7-08

He's back to one of the pages where his OR started , assuming it's him and not a coincidence. Baseball Bugs 00:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Who was that Trent McCotter dude that a left a not on my talk page? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A Ron liebman (talk · contribs) sock that we missed. He's obsessed with Baseball Bugs. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
He won't rest until he's driven me from wikipedia. Hence he's not getting much rest. Baseball Bugs 16:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And here's another redlink Liebman sock I just reverted. He's not just obsessed with me, he's also obsessed with Whitey Ford: Baseball Bugs 16:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. See section below. Baseball Bugs 16:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

can you block the users User:Allen Beyda, Biographical Research, Michael Daniel (Black Mike), Gloria Abreu Ris, they are clearly all the same person, and he/she called us both fools.--Yankees10 16:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The first three were already blocked. I just turned that last one in to WP:AIV, and we'll see whether they zap him before Wknight94 does. Baseball Bugs 16:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
They zapped him. Baseball Bugs 16:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
They blocked him just after he vandalized Whitey for the third time. Three strikes! Yerrrr out! Baseball Bugs 17:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
And the Whitey Ford page got protected. So what's Ron going to hit next? Place yer bets, ladiesandgentlemen, place yer bets! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)