Misplaced Pages

User talk:Wknight94/Archive 17

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wknight94 (talk | contribs) at 21:55, 12 February 2008 (→Zenwhat: Don't see the point but I'll bring it up at WP:ANI). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:55, 12 February 2008 by Wknight94 (talk | contribs) (→Zenwhat: Don't see the point but I'll bring it up at WP:ANI)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Please note that I will likely respond to new messages here.
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 | October 19, 2005-January 13, 2006
  2. Archive 2 | January 14, 2006-April 2, 2006
  3. Archive 3 | April 3, 2006-July 22, 2006
  4. Archive 4 | July 23, 2006-September 23, 2006
  5. Archive 5 | September 24, 2006-November 19, 2006
  6. Archive 6 | November 20, 2006-January 20, 2007
  7. Archive 7 | January 21, 2007-March 26, 2007
  8. Archive 8 | March 27, 2007-May 22, 2007
  9. Archive 9 | May 22, 2007-August 3, 2007
  10. Archive 10 | August 4, 2007-September 22, 2007
  11. Archive 11 | September 22, 2007-October 20, 2007
  12. Archive 12 | October 20, 2007-November 17, 2007
  13. Archive 13 | November 17, 2007-January 28, 2008

Question regarding a cold case

Hi. :) I will freely admit that I'm a little uncomfortable broaching this subject, because I have no idea whether there's already been tons of wikidrama about all this. I respect your work, and I really hope that I'm not stepping on your toes.

I've been approached about an old name block, Ggggggggggggggg12, with which you were involved that seemed to go rather awry, with a person who looks to have intended to be a serious contributor instead departing in frustration and anger when he couldn't quite figure out how to proceed. The name was a clear violation of username policy (it used to be explicit in the policy, though it seems it no longer is), but his offense seems to have been accidental, and there was an unintended double-whammy in that the legitimate article he was working on at the time was deleted for lack of context () while he was trying to figure out how to resume editing. (You may already know this, but I'm repeating the details anyway because I looked back at the end of July in your archives and didn't see any mention of it, so I don't want to assume. :))

Anyway, I was asked to help provide a friendly closure for this user by another editor, just as an extension of GF, and I haven't been able to come up with any good way to do that. It was last suggested at my user talk page that with your permission the user might be unblocked, with a note left at his user page instructing him how to request a new username as set out at {{Uw-ublock}}, in case he should return. Alternatively, since the username he requested has since been created and would need a bureaucrat to usurp (if they even would, it having been used as recently as October of 2007 and this user showing no sign of action), I was considering simply leaving him clear directions on how to request a change name at his talk page. I'd be grateful, if you have time and inclination, to hear your opinion on whether and what might be done to potentially improve the experience of this person, who seems accidentally to have fallen afoul of two processes/policies on Misplaced Pages on his first day. (Oh, p.s., I have watchlisted your page. :))--Moonriddengirl 04:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, this is quite old, isn't it? It seems highly unlikely that the user will return under that silly username but I will unblock it all the same. One would hope the user simply created a new username - one that wasn't as random - and is quietly editing with the new guise. I did have a long (too long actually) discussion about this or a similar username block and have mostly avoided WP:UAA since. Folks there can't seem to get their stories straight and I don't have the patience to wait for a standard to be ironed out. My rambling aside, I'll unblock the account and everyone is free to try to contact him/her in any way they see fit. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is quite old, very much a cold case. :) I don't know that the editor will ever return myself; like you I imagine that if he's going to do so he has already found a proper username and moved on. I'll leave him a note explaining how to change his username in the event that he does. I very much appreciate your helping me find a response to this. The editor who approached me about it is very good (and highly sympathetic), and when asked to help out with something I do like to try. --Moonriddengirl 13:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandals

Here's one, who's already been warned. Baseball Bugs 09:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Another vandalism-only account, who continued after being warned. Baseball Bugs 13:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Another vandalism-only account, continuing after being warned. Baseball Bugs 18:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you were referring to Davidthecharmruffin (talk · contribs)?  :) Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Forgot to paste it in. Danke. Baseball Bugs 18:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

SportsNuggets

Yes, I caught the drift of that conversation. He's like an idiot savant. Savvy in some ways and... well, you know. :) Baseball Bugs 14:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How long does a temporary editing ban last?

Yeah, how log? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.200.200 (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably less than a permanent. Baseball Bugs 02:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Page move -- Western New York and Pennsylvania Railroad

Could I have just fixed that with rollback, or is admin action required to fix it correctly? Coemgenus 18:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you could have reverted the move (see WP:MOVE#Moving over a redirect), although I don't think rollback works, specifically. You could have done a regular move in reverse of the vandalism. It still would have left a nonsense redirect - you would have had to tag that with {{db-vandalism}}. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:150.237.47.38

My bad - I saw the user had edited the same article that they'd just got a final warning for, and assumed it was continued vandalism. However, the edit in question was legitimate . I think the block may be questionable. Sorry about that. Tivedshambo (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Johan Santana

Minnesota teams continue their tradition of being farm teams for other teams with deeper pockets, or at least the willingness to dig into them. The Twins fans have enjoyed Santana for 8 years. Let's see if he has a few more good years in him. The deal is 6 years with an option for a 7th... otherwise known as the "Santana Clause". *<:) Baseball Bugs 15:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha! Well done. I haven't followed him too closely... what was the explanation for the off-year in 2007? Hopefully it's just that the Twins in general were no good. But more losses last season than in any two of his previous seasons could get me nervous! —Wknight94 (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The Twins' hitting fell off markedly, and the Twins did not play well for any sustained period. That doesn't account for everything with Santana, of course. I expect him to do well with the Mets. I'm not sure he's worth the money, but who is? However, the Mets are certainly taking a risk, as local commentators were saying -- With pitchers, maybe more than with hitters, they can lose their stuff almost overnight. But we'll see. Baseball Bugs 16:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, we all know what happened to the Mets in 2007. All they'd done since then was replace their steroid-rage catcher with a not-as-good catcher and lost several players to free agency, so they needed to do something or risk becoming a minor league team themselves! Pedro is old and possibly broken down, Glavine is gone, Maine was great in April and mediocre the rest of the year, and Oliver Perez is inconsistent at best. Pile on a trashy bullpen, a closer prone to dead-arm, and most of their power hopes resting on a couple of geriatrics (Alou and Delgado) and it's not a lot of fun to be a Mets fan lately. I'm getting those feelings I had leading up to 1993. If they pick up Vince Coleman and Bret Saberhagen, I'm not even watching! —Wknight94 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It's amazing how quickly a team's fortunes can fall. Which makes the perpetual contention of certain teams all the more amazing. How do the Yankees manage to stay in the race, year after year? It's not just luck or Yankee mystique. Is it? Baseball Bugs 20:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Joe Morgan

Nice work fighting the vandals and mudslingers on that page, I've fought some of them off before, but I have limited time to edit here and they insist on coming back. Keep it up! Trevor GH5 (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Further nonsense should probably be mentioned at WP:BLPN too. I'm noticing too many sports commentators and writers getting slammed by a small but vocal minority (Mike Lupica was another one I tended to for a while - and probably will again soon). —Wknight94 (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomenon.

You protected this indefinitely on Jan 18; there has been no discussion on the talk page since then--I suggest it's time to unprotect. DGG (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. It's evidently one of the key points of contention related to the pseudoscience wars (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist, etc.) so I'd keep a close eye on it if I were you. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fabian Bruskewitz

You have erroneously blocked me as a Sock Puppet after adding to the page for Fabian Bruskewitz. The information put on the page was from the April 14, 2002 Omaha World-Herald, a very public and reliable source. Now, in order to send this to you I have had to use another computer at work but in my entry to the page I signed on using my user-name: Robbutler as my legal name is Rob Butler. The information published does not violate BLP as it was neither controversial or condeming. If you have a problem with what I wrote give me a reason.

Rob Butler rob_m_butler@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Blofeld of SPECTRE / Redmarkviolinist

I've seen your comments, hopefully it's all sorted now. Noticed thus through "related changes" on my talk page. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I thought this conversation was over. We all have work to do and I would appreciate it if you would do the same elsewhere. Its not a big deal but to tag somebody's own account twice looked like clear tomfoolery and vandalism. It isn't a normal mistake that is made and not one that has ever happened to me. Do not make out as if I am the one making the error here. Any comments made were done rather in surprise rather than intending to be uncivil. Thankyou ♦ King of Baldness ♦ 16:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Bizarro World!

I hope I did not come accross as disruptive. I think the 'ridiculous personal attack edit as an example of making perfect sense' seemed fitting as to where the discussion was heading. I am not completely sure that the primary parties in the topic are concerned about bettering Wiki. 70.4.237.54 (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's raising Wikilawyering to a whole new (embarrassing) level. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Liebman?

This guy kind of has the Liebman M.O., but I'm not sure it's him. Baseball Bugs 01:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. Has he figured out the wiki-syntax used in that edit? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. But what I'm getting at is his placement of these nicknames (some of which are valid) and then parenthetically citing unnamed biographers. Which is the Liebman pattern, i.e. to give a vague "reference" but no specifics. Baseball Bugs 01:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I had a typo, but I meant that he successfully bolded the nicknames. Does he usually do that? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Liebman is usually punctuation-challenged. The only article this guy has touched so far is Gehrig. I think you reverted him at one point also. We'll see. Baseball Bugs 01:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Misc pages for Deletion

a tool has been privided for your use at the named page 70.4.248.49 (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR crossing

You've seen the RR crossing sign, such as Image:Highway-Rail_Grade_Crossing_Advance_Warning_sign.svg. How about this idea for a "3RR crossing" sign? Baseball Bugs 05:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Very nice. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I need to do better with the 3's. Off the subject, did you see my e-mail question? Baseball Bugs 13:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Either my screen is messed up, or the "circle" is egg-shaped. Baseball Bugs 19:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It was the screen. Baseball Bugs 00:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

!תודה

Thanks for the revert on my userspace! :) I'm going to go make sure that IP is blocked, I think. They came back again?! Cheers! Tuvok 09:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a couple range blocks to try to stop that. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

John Deere

With all the vandalism going on here, shouldn't this page be protected? RC-0722 /kills 18:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. RC-0722 /kills 18:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
John Deere... didn't he invent the hard disc? Baseball Bugs 18:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Funny. BTW, could you also protect The Wright Brothers they've been recieving a lot of vandalism too. Thanks! RC-0722 /kills 18:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, as a matter of fact I will (and did). What a mess. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me guess... from editors claiming the Wrights weren't the first to fly? Baseball Bugs 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No idea. All I know is I did a diff from a zillion edits ago and there were no changes - ergo all vandalism in between. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No, just some random nonsense. Thanks again! RC-0722 /kills 20:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For finding and reverting the vandalism to my talk page so quickly, TheMindsEye (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Was someone I was in the midst of blocking. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

IP block

Hey there Wknight94. The Ip (12.146.212.2) you just blocked has not edited anything since my "final warning". Maybe a bit fast? Or am I missing something? What were your thoughts on blocking? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Enough nonsense there, including a phone number posting, for me to assume nothing good was going to come from that IP in the next 31 hours. You can overrule if you want. Probably wouldn't make much difference. I guess it's odd that it was reported when it was. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird Al Yankovic

I would like to request protection for the Weird al yankovic article. RC-0722 /kills 05:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been a content dispute. RC-0722 /kills 05:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like WP:AN3 may be a good place for this. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. RC-0722 /kills 05:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
But won't they reject it if it's an IP? RC-0722 /kills 05:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
They shouldn't, no. (Unless you know something I don't). —Wknight94 (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Hawaii delegation to the 110th Congress

A tag has been placed on Template:Hawaii delegation to the 110th Congress requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Question

I'm still very new as a contributor and I am running into some interesting questions the deeper I delve into things here. You appear to be a very busy and oft-consulted administrator, from what I have seen. I have read a lot of your posts in various MLB-related threads and I respect your opinions and insight.

In the process of stub cleanup work, I ran across a MLB player article here about which I have some POV concerns. What is the proper and least offensive way to address these concerns? I started to put a POV tag in the article, but the notice that would appear at the top of the article (had I placed one there) would suggest that there is an ongoing dispute at the talk page, when in actuality there isn't one (yet, anyway). Furthermore, should I attempt to contact the user(s) responsible for the questionable text first, to allow the user(s) an opportunity to address my concerns before exposing those concerns to the community at large, or place the POV tag and let things take their course? Thanks. Jonneroo (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words. At this juncture, I'd recommend starting a new section at Talk:Édgar González (pitcher). If the article were ridiculously one-sided, you could proceed directly to placing a NPOV tag but, in this case, it might be wiser to discuss (as you figured). I'll weigh in there since you brought it up to me. I'm curious to hear there what your concerns are. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Kansas delegation to the 110th Congress

A tag has been placed on Template:Kansas delegation to the 110th Congress requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Kentucky delegation to the 110th Congress

A tag has been placed on Template:Kentucky delegation to the 110th Congress requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry, I've been going alphabetically, and thus, didn't notice the pattern. I've removed them all from my list. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

then why is the category still around--Rockies 17 04:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Attempted to at the User RfC

Does this help? — BQZip01 —  23:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Hello... thank you for the note, and for the offer of a nomination for adminship. As you've noted, I have been offered nominations in the past, but did not feel quite ready to accept at the time. However, I now feel more comfortable with accepting the responsibility. Would it be alright to think about it for a few days to be sure, and so that I can review the procedure? Thanks again. --Ckatzspy 07:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RTV

You may want to look at WP:RTV- there's (I think) a general consensus that claims of leaving the project should not be used as justification to delete user talk page. They serve as a useful record of past events. Friday (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, from Misplaced Pages talk:Right to vanish, the only person I see trumpeting that viewpoint is you. Why don't we leave the guy alone and delete his talk page if he wants it deleted. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Could be. I might see it differently if I believed he was actually going away. In most of these cases, the disruptive editor simply makes a new username and continues their disruption. We don't improve the project by helping these folks cover their tracks. But I suppose general arguments are better on the appropriate talk page. Friday (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well which is it? Is he a poor maligned editor who was improperly blocked? That's how WP:AN is sounding. Or is he someone practicing disruption? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
All I know is, when I tried to explain to him why edit warring was harmful, he wasn't listening. He continued to insist he was wronged, despite him continuing to push his version even while being reverted by multiple other editors. I did not see this as a good sign. Oh well- if another account shows up and continues, we can treat it as standard edit warring- we don't particularly need to care whether it's the same person or not. Friday (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam?

Is this guy a serial spammer, or is he just a PBS fan? Baseball Bugs 00:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This one is definitely a spammer. Baseball Bugs 04:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd to complain about internal links but they were clearly up to no good. The lying edit summaries about fixing grammar were a giveaway. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Userspace and Usernames pretending to be articles

If you can ever figure out User:2004 World U-17 Hockey Challenge, User:2007-08 Bozeman Icedogs season, User:Bozeman Icedogs Roster, User:1974-75 Quebec Nordiques season... please let me know! We have a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey if you have a chance, please reply there. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat

Why, if I may ask? User:Dorftrottel 19:44, February 12, 2008

Blocked means blocked. The person is allowed to use their talk page to request an unblock. Or maybe to participate in some light collaboration to help the encyclopedia (even that is probably questionable). But to continue the same weird trolling that got the person blocked in the first place? Absolutely not. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm. Ok, if that's what policy says. I for one would like to see someone extend a helping hand and e.g. engage him in sensible discussion about more appropriate places to let off steam and/or provide meta commentary or suggestions to improve things. User:Dorftrottel 20:46, February 12, 2008
I don't buy it. How is editing his own talk page trolling? Nobody has to read there, and we allow wide latitude in user space. This talk page protection just seems mean. I request that the talk page be unblocked. We're bocking him from editing, not trying to silence him. -GTBacchus 21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
But what is the point? All he was doing was using his talk page as a scratch pad for stuff that had nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, or with getting himself unblocked. I'll bring it up at WP:ANI. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)