User talk:Wknight94/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Question

Why is my gf's talk page protected? RC-0722 20:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm scared to ask. Who's your gf? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well she's not really my gf, more like just f, if you know what I mean. Anyway, her name's Allie Dimeco. You know, she plays rosalina on the nbb. RC-0722 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I should've known. Before you say anything else, please know that I love blocking people who insist on saying disturbing lies about 15-year-old girls like Allie Di Meco. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm not here to spread "disturbing lies" about Allie. I just want to know why her talk page is protected. RC-0722 20:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web host...

...for your school projects. Personally I don't even care if it's a copyvio or not. You totally admit that the only reason it's here is to host your school project and that's not acceptable. Find empty disk space somewhere else please. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand that Wikipedia is not a web host and the fact that I got burned doesn't matter to you or Wikipedia. However the core of my complaint hasn't been addressed. Someone's personal motivation for posting an article should be irrevelent. The question is why was my user subpage deleted when it was a worthy topic and I had requested time to work on it so that it would meet Wikipedia's standards/criteria? I do not see any valid justification for your deletion of an unfinished user subpage.

I am admittedly a new user. Is there a time limit somewhere that I missed that specifies how long a person has to go from user subpage to a posted public article. I would assume that it would be more than a couple of evenings if it is a relevent topic and the person is making progress.

17:31, 29 October 2007 Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Thornton32/How laws are made" ‎ (CSD G12: Blatant Copyright infringement)

Thanks dude. You really screwed me over. First of all, you deleted my user sub-page, which when I checked the user page for what was acceptable to have on a user it page it says "You can use your user page to help you to use Wikipedia more effectively: to list "to do" information, works in progress, reminders, useful links, and so forth. It is also good for experimenting with markup (that is, as a personal sandbox). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page

Second, it was not a Blatant Copyright infringement. If you check the Security & Privacy Notice of the website I used as a reference, it states that, "The information on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified."

Third, I was posting the article as a school project. From the information that I could find on the About Wikipedia page, my content seemed to be acceptable use. While I can understand the main contribution page being deleted as "unencyclopedic content". I believe that the process of how a bill becomes a law to absolutely be encyclopedic content, but I am assuming that it was deemed not up to Wikipedia's standards, which, given that I am a high school student and the amount of time that I had to work on it, is acceptable. I started working on my article on Thursday, had it been deleted sooner, I would have just found something else to do, but my page was deleted late Sunday night when my project was due the next morning.

So even after I explained the circumstances in the talk page of my user page and asked that you at least wait until this evening to delete it. What did you do? Blew away anyway. Thanks for the courtesy to a new user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thornton32 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Allie Dimeco

I don't think rumors about a minor are illegal. And besides, i have a legitimate source, I just chose not to post it.

IPs evading block, WP:CANVASS, sock of indef blocked user

I see you correctly interpreted the situation here with regards to 66.81.157.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which you blocked with the note: Abusing multiple accounts: Admitted sock of banned user. -- however you missed two more sock IPs of indef blocked sock Makoshack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They are:

1. 66.81.157.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 66.53.222.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Thanks for your time. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC).

• You may also wish to consult Gscshoyru (talk · contribs), who I believe reported the first IP sock evading blocks, and check User:Gscshoyru's various informative comments in the edit history, whilst cleaning up after this IP sock. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC).
  • S/he is obviously changing IPs at will and across a very large range so there is no point in blocking. I semi-protected the relevant pages instead. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

West Tenn Diamond Jaxx and West Tenn Diamond Jaxx drop

Evidently I don't know what I'm doing. Would you mind deleting those two pages so I can move the Diamond Jaxx page to where it belongs? Thank you! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I got everything. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I hadn't realized (or had forgotten) that a "move" leaves a redirect. I can understand why they do that, to prevent vandals from renaming to something obscure which no one can find. Thank you for fixing. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Liebman socks - 10/20/07

Here we go again... [1] --Ebyabe 16:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for giving me the proper information regarding reporting vandalism. I am sure I will be following your advice in the near future. Best Regards!NancyHeise 14:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for blocking the user who vandalized my talk page. But when I first saw the actual vandalism, there was one thought that came into my head, as to why they would vandalize my page, who they are. A couple months ago, during a dispute between me and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs), he made a statement (which he claims wasn't directed at me, but he was reverting an edit I made) saying "removing nazi propaganda". Because the vandalism was the user putting a large swastika on my talk page, and since that was the symbol of the Nazi party, do you think there might be some sort of connection? Ksy92003(talk) 18:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Read Godwin's law - Nazi nonsense is a common theme in Internet disputes and vandalism, etc. So much for forgetting about Chrisjnelson, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hehe yeah I guess. I guess it's just that because of these conflicts, when something like this happens, Chris is the first one I would suspect, and I thought it might've been more than just coincidence that it the vandalism was a Nazi reference. Ksy92003(talk) 18:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You're letting Nelson ruin your time here and I really wish I knew what to say to stop you from doing that. I should do you a favor and start blocking you every time you say anything to or about him - but of course I can't. I can picture you getting frustrated when your eventual RFA goes sour and Nelson getting banned because he can't control what he says to you - and there's two great editors down the drain simply because they can't go to their own corners of the sandbox. It's quite depressing. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's also because the vandalism was BW's first edit, and I was wondering "Why me? Why did he have to vandalize my talk page?" Instinctively, I thought that since Chris was blocked that it would be him because he's the only one who I've had conflicts with that I haven't resolved yet. I didn't really think it was him, but I'm the kind of person who always tries to figure out who does what. If I don't know the person, and have never encountered them before, I get curious. That's all. I don't want to spend too much time on this. Ksy92003(talk) 19:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What about this? A confessed rampant sock vandal and troll? I notice about 10% of the edits on your talk page and even I know there are lots of better candidates than Nelson for being a childish swastika vandal. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, guess I kinda forgot about that. Again, it was first instinct that I thought of Chris specifically because of the Nazi connection. I'm willing to let this go now; it doesn't really concern me that much at all. Ksy92003(talk) 19:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey

could you protect Enzyme kinetics as well? It got hit really badly in the last hour. Kwsn(Ni!) 17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry. It's the main page article. It will subside when it's off the front page. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for reverting vandalism on Larrys Creek on October 19. I appreciate your help keeping the article presentable while it was Today's Featured Article very much, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure! —Wknight94 (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful

LMFAO! -- But|seriously|folks  20:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't resist. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I saw your note on my user talk page of September 27th. By now you may have forgotten about it. So sorry. I didn't mean to offend you. In fact, looking at the original message, I didn't list your name on purpose because it wasn't directed at you. Sorry, again.

Please accept these easter egg early, you're still on the list for Easter 2008.Mrs.EasterBunny 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Liebman?

This one looks like another Liebman, except it almost looks like an actual citation. [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation or not, he's been banned. He can apply for reinstatement like everyone else. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And here's his followup: [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like another one, but I'll leave that to your judgment: [4] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

socks

you asked me why i was using socks, well i haven't been. my internet is disconnected at home so now im using a school computer. i wasn't even planning to use this account again but the school i.p. was blocked so its not me. Bloddyfriday 13:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

immediate action requested

That's not good. I can't have my account being used for malicious purposes. ban me, i'd rather not contribute then have a nest of vandals being made. thats not how i want to be remembered,Goodbye. Bloddyfriday 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

125.209.115.137

Were you aware this guys was publishing private phone numbers? Even though it's an IP, do you think something longer than 31 hours is warranted? Rlevse 14:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked for evidence that it was a dedicated IP but didn't see any. There are even constructive edits in the last few days. For all I know, it was just some stupid kid sitting at a public library computer. If they return at the same IP, then the big blocks will be more appropriate IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just asking.Rlevse 14:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to start something...

...just a little clarification. Again, I'm not going to do this anymore, but I would still like to have a little bit of clarification on this. I understand where there would be a problem in editing {{Miami Dolphins roster}}, but is there a specific problem with editing the links on that template? I'm not going to edit them anymore; I just want to know if there's a specific issue with that for my knowledge. Ksy92003(talk) 00:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the one question you should ask yourself for the next few weeks or months or whatever: "Is my next action going to piss off Chrisjnelson and insodoing make me look like a parolee-baiting scumbag?" If the answer to that question is "yes" then kindly find something better to do. A good example of WP:POINTy things to avoid would be asking people to edit Miami Dolphins things for you because you're "topic banned". Just go about your life as though Chrisjnelson never existed. If you're making changes you think Chrisjnelson would disagree with - or that anyone else would disagree with - try to get consensus for the changes at a neutral venue. A project discussion area or WP:RFC or wherever. Just as though Chrisjnelson never existed. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would never resort to WP:MEAT in asking people to make edits for me so I don't provoke Chris. I would never do anything if I knew that it was going to violate any rule. I'll try to work on this over the next couple months. It's three months away from the date that I would like to have an RfA, so that should be enough time for me to get out of these bad habits which have caused problems for me, Chris, Durova, and you. To show that I'm going to make every attempt possible, from now on, I please ask you to give me a short block if ever I should go in the opposite direction. Ksy92003(talk) 01:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You should be able to block yourself. You had better be able to because another entry or two in your block log will mostly kill any chance at adminship here. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought so too. I don't think that I should be an admin if I can't stop this, speaking honestly here. The only time I've been blocked was when I didn't know about a specific rule, and I was blocked immediately after the only warning for what I was doing, without me violating that rule after being told it was violating it, so that explains the only things in my block log. But I honestly don't think I should be an admin, let alone have a successful RfA, if I can't stop.

Alright, I'll stop wasting your time here. I'll get back to my editing later this evening on baseball- or hockey-related articles. Ksy92003(talk) 02:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sissy Kiss

Hi! One article was deleted about Sissy Kiss. I'm a newbie but I did read all the rules and guidelines before submitting it. I was wondering if there was something I should do with it for it not to be deleted?

One note said it was not notable, but I thought it was notable because they help bring innocent minorities together who don't have many other places to support each other and have done a very good job, getting over 31 million hits in their first full year, while making a lot of features to keep them having fun and able to make friends while they are there. I gave references to all these things in the article. This minority usually has a hard time coming out because of how some people can treat others with very different likes than them and Sissy Kiss is doing a lot to help them. I don't see how that could not be notable especially when sites like somethingawful.com are considered notable.

Another said it was blatant advertising but the are not selling anything. The site is completely free to its normal visitors. The only ask for money to their advertisers.

I even got permission from the owners and they went through they trouble of putting GFDL licenses under those quotes.

Thank you, StarLight 18:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you need to take a good read through WP:N. Then ask yourself if you can find objective 3rd-party sources to verify the site's notability. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay thank you. So if I get third party reliable sources showing notability it may be included?

StarLight 22:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a key part of meeting WP:N and the other core policies of Wikipedia so it's a very good step. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Paul Reubens

Good work on fighting vandalism. Bearian 18:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. For that article, I'm trying to fight vandalism and a bunch of banned user socks. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got a reply at...

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Requests for registration. The Transhumanist    20:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Y did u lock Allie DiMeco?

If you are gonna lock it, pls proofread the current version (or the version u locked the page 2). There are grammar & syntax errors. I'd fix them but u've locked the page. Thx.

I didn't lock Allie DiMeco. I locked Talk:Allie DiMeco. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DH

It's not so much being "in favor" of the DH as "opposed to" pitchers who swing the bat like my grandmother... or like Bob Buhl, whose hitless season I suffered through as a teen (among other things being suffered through as a Cubs fan). I like offense, and there is nothing interesting about seeing the pitcher come up and strike out. A pitcher who can hit, though, is a joy to behold... because they are so rare. There are a lot more Bob Buhls out there than Babe Ruths or even Kerry Woods. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Then they should learn how to hit!  :) Even as a kid I preferred watching Dwight Gooden and John Tudor duke it out for a 2-1 game than watch Dave Winfield, Don Mattingly, and the Yanks slug out 14 runs and lose. The 15-14 games were cute but a 2-1 nailbiter was real baseball - esp. if Gooden knocked a couple singles and scored one of the runs as he did from time to time. (In his unstoppable year of '85, he hit .226 with 9 RBI to go along with his 24-4 record and 1.53 ERA. "Cocaine is a hell of a drug!") —Wknight94 (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they should. But they don't. The old theory was that having the pitcher hit was part of the NL strategy, expecially in late innings. But with pitchers only allowed to go to 100 pitches, that's much less important now. The one time I went to an opening day was in 1971, at Wrigley Field, about 40 degrees, and with the possibility of walk-up ticket purchases, which is another way times have changed. Jenkins and Gibson (both of whom could hit, though not that day) dueled for 10 innings and Billy Williams homered off Gibson for the winner.. in less than 2 hours, yet. [5] That doesn't happen too often nowadays. 100 pitches and you're gone. Oh, and Joe Torre homered in that game, for the Cardinals. That was indeed a long time ago. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Tonight's game was obviously a lot more interesting than last night's. 13-12 is fun. 2-1 is good. 13-1 is get-it-over-with-already. I went to a Twins game once where the Twins beat the Indians 23-2. [6] I left in the last of the 7th, when it was already getting boring at 13-2. If I had know the Twins would score 10 more runs, maybe I would have stuck around... Nah. Notice one David Ortiz in the lineup for the Twins. On December 16th of that year, the Twins released him. The Red Sox picked him up on January 22. In the "Brock-for-Broglio" deal, at least the Cubs got Broglio. For Ortiz, barring some kind of monetary compensation that I don't know about, the Twins got nada and the Red Sox got a future MVP. The Red Sox should send the Twins a Christmas card every year, thanking them for their wonderful gift. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

After Matsuzaka's first at-bat tonight, he looked like the typical rusty-gate batter that so many pitchers are. But then he got that big 2-RBI hit in the Big Inning tonight. "DH? We don't need no stinking DH!" We wouldn't, if they could hit better than Casey Wise. The real issue is that the NL is the oddball. They should either all adopt the DH, or all dump it. There's no practical difference between the leagues now, except for the DH. It's as if the NFL were to play with a twelfth man, but only in the AFC. They should either make it uniform, or drop it. And teach pitchers how to hit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And I consider the DH to be the oddball. One of the things I love about baseball is that it's essentially the same game as it was in 1880. A big exception to that now is the DH. It just seems greedy. Why not go a step further and allow each team to pick another position they want to substitute with a DH2. Then it would be offense galore! No more .220 hitting catchers and second basemen. Or they could go all out and allow each team to pick an offensive team and a defensive team. Then it would be the NFL!  :) One of the biggest detractors to me is the lack of strategy. NL managers have to be very skilled with double switches and whether to allow a hot pitcher to hit with the bases loaded and a one-run lead in the 7th inning. Davey Johnson made a career out of making late-inning moves and managing around catastrophe like when he had to use a pitcher in left field because his team was decimated by injury and ejections. You don't see that type of strategy in the AL anymore. Whoever has the most big hitters (e.g., Ortiz, Ramirez, Lowell) wins in the A.L. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be an oddball, but things do change over time. There was a time when substitutions were not allowed except in case of injury. And while the DH may be the oddball philosophically, it's here to stay (it's also prevalent in the minors and elsewhere), and MLB at some point needs to decide if this schizophrenic approach is viable in the long run. The ESPN Sports Reporters were just opining that, in general, the AL is simply better than the NL, and it sure seems that way. The lack of DH forced its own strategy, by necessity. Either way, the presence or lack of the DH hasn't seemed to matter for this Series so far, but we'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The DH does not have to be the pitcher. In fact, if I were managing the 1960s Cardinals and the DH was there, I would have Gibson bat and use the DH for Dal Maxvill, the worst excuse for a hitter that I can recall for a regular position player. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, going back to my original premise, from my perspective as a fan, the strategic intrigue about whether to pinch-hit for the pitcher or not, is outweighed by the boredom of seeing a pitcher come to bat and strike out. I recall on one or maybe even two different occasions where Preston Gomez had to lift pitchers who were throwing no-hitters, because of the anemic hitting of his teams. There's nothing satisfying about that to a fan. The DH obviates that situation, and I think that's fine. But that's just my view of things. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I only blame one person in those situations - the pitcher who never learned to hit. In those situations, Dontrelle Willis and Walter Johnson and Don Drysdale get to stay in to finish their great game while Sandy Koufax and Al Leiter and Randy Johnson do not. Willis, Big Train and Drysdale hit as well as a lot of catchers so why shouldn't Koufax, Leiter and Big Unit have to do the same? One-dimensional players should have a disadvantage, not a crutch. Baseball is not a hitting exhibition (okay, I've been at Wikipedia too long). The AL doesn't make pitchers hit so they can focus on pitching - well why not go another step and let someone else field for them too? Then they can really focus on pitching! I did not actually realize that a team could use their DH for a non-pitcher. Any examples of that happening? That would be good to include in the DH article here. And yes, I remember perusing through a Sporting News MLB record book and seeing Dal Maxvill's name a lot. And always on the wrong end! —Wknight94 (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jack Pfiester pitching to (apparently) Fielder Jones in Game 3 of the 1906 World Series.

I was wrong about the DH being usable for other positions. How I got that idea I can't say. Either I was remembering it wrong or the rule changed over time. (Couldn't be the former, could it?) Rule 6.10 specifically references the pitcher. Pinch-hitters can be used for the DH and they become the new DH. However, if the DH enters the game in the field, then the DH is done and the pitcher must bat. Also, if they start the game without the DH, then the pitcher must bat throughout the game. Looking back at the 1973-1974 time period, the AL had also asked for the DR (designated runner), which is also called the "courtesy runner" and is (or was) used in some non-professional leagues, but that request was rejected. The idea there would be to protect the pitcher from having to run the basepaths and wear himself out as ironic "punishment" for having gotten a base hit. This stuff kind of reminds me of the issue of having to throw 4 pitches to intentionally walk someone, another archaic aspect of the game. The situation of a wild throw almost never occurs. Its main purpose would be to let the next reliever throw a few more warmups. You're right about the game being much the same (except for the power aspect) as it was 100 years ago. Check out this photo and the lengthy explanation I wrote about it once I found out the game situation. It's not just a photo, it's like a time capsule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

More

It's him. One of his first acts under one of those names was to "correct" Anson's career hits total... to 3012. Sound familiar? Untangling all those edits could be a challenge. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Prices

Get a load of this. [7] This guy thinks I know from baseball cards. I should send him to User:Tecmobowl. Oh, wait... Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am Wknight94 on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/Wknight94. Thanks. --—Wknight94 (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Admin

I am. :) I'm too bullheaded for such a position, and I've grinned at what people in an RfA would dig up about me in my contributions. I'm more of a mainspace contributor. Wikipedia is a hobby for me, and I don't desire the responsibilities that would be entailed by possessing the tools. The day I added that "do not want to be an admin" userbox, I felt a great burden lift off my shoulders, as I could have a looser tongue. I feel that my place on Wikipedia is just contributing to film articles and set a precedent for future films (free of trivia, actual production sections, zero goofs, concise plot summaries... an editor can dream). May I ask, though, what struck you to ask me about the position? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting; I wasn't aware of the leniency in admin work. Even so, I'm not sure if my record would stand so well. Perhaps I'll reconsider down the road... right now, I'm satisfied with what I am able to contribute. I appreciate your words, though. Happy editing! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:KnowBallz

I'm a bit confused by your block of KnowBallz. You indicated he was a vandalism-only account, but he only added a single edit about Harry R. Allcock of Pennsylvania State University. I'm not sure about his name, because I suggested the person who reported it ask him, but the edit wasn't vandalism. Leebo ^T/C 19:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what? Look at that name - Harry R. Allcock ---- hairy are all cock. That has to be a bad joke from a guy whose username is KnowBallz ---- no balls. But now I see your reference. I guess I'll unblock but that cannot possibly be serious. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's probably heard the joke before, but it's not an uncommon surname. Leebo ^T/C 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know that - but Harry R. Allcock?! That must have been the most tortured kid in the history of grade school kids. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My dad once bowled with a guy named Harry Pecker. The guy even got it embroidered on his bowling jacket. Leebo ^T/C 19:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

LMAO! Well, don't add a reference to him in any articles or someone will likely block you too! I truly am still shocked by this and I will be very happy if that account shows its true colors to be a jackass kid. But watch, he'll add a reference to a Jack Ass and I'll re-block and it will turn out Jack Ass is some theoretical physicist I never heard of. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but I want him to become a positive contributor; it's the first step in helping him bring Harry R. Allcock to featured status! I can imagine the response that would get on the Main Page. :) Leebo ^T/C 20:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that gives me the shakes. All admins would have to take the day off from school/work. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you never know what strange things will surface, or what memories they will trigger. I had forgotten all about a 1980 Masterpiece Theater entry called To Serve Them All My Days [8] which was about a British boarding school. The villain of the piece was named Alcock, and the students referred to him as "The Noble Mr. Alcock". "Noble" was their coded way of saying "no-ball". I doubt that whoever came up with that username had seen that show, but you never know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on my RfA

In my RfA, I noticed that you said "Nelson finally broke the cycle on the dispute, not Ksy." Chris broke the cycle on the dispute because you told me not to talk to him. You said "don't try to patch things up with him" on my talk page. Otherwise, I was going to talk to him about this as soon as his block expired, but you told me not to. I was going to discuss this with him after his block expired, but you told me not to try to make peace with him. So how else could I try to end the dispute if you tell me not to? How am I supposed to end the dispute if you don’t let me? Ksy92003(talk) 19:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I told you that because you showed no signs of being able to end the dispute. For four months, you've let Nelson dictate everything about the interaction between you and him. If he gets pissy, you get pissy, if he's nice, you're nice, etc. Very un-admin-like. Don't try to make me a scapegoat for your terrible decision to accept an admin nomination three months before you even wanted to. Just another example of you getting pulled around like a marionette. I was trying to give you advice to get you prepared for a run at adminship in January and I wasn't sure you'd be ready even then. Forget now... Terrible idea. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't calling you a scapegoat. I was just saying that I don't think it's fair for you to blame me for not ending a dispute when you pretty much threatened me to not try. It would be like me asking you to not do something, and then me getting mad at you when you don't do it. It makes no sense why you should place blame on me for obeying you. Ksy92003(talk) 06:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If I may add my dos centavos here, I think the only way to "end" the dispute with that user Nelson is by not talking to him. You want closure, but you're unlikely to get it, so the best move is to stop communicating with him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to. When I made an attempt to end the conflict, Wknight reacted negatively about that before Chris even did, and that was when he told me not to talk to him. After that, Chris came to me and asked me about the disputes that we had, which I was going to talk to him after his block expired had Wknight not told me to not try at all. We resolved the conflict after that discussion on my talk page, and then in the RfA Wknight comes and says "Nelson ended the dispute, not Ksy" which seems really hypocritical to me, given that I was told not to try. I don't think that something bad should be said about me not resolving the conflicts from the very person who told me not to try to resolve the conflict. That makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Ksy92003(talk) 20:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe by your not talking to him, that allowed Nelson to extend the olive branch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sour grapes, sour grapes. You've shown little ability to kill conflict, instead choosing to bait Nelson and escalating the conflict for lo so many months. You set yourself up for Nelson to have the last laugh by stopping the conflict himself - and he got you. Your best move is to recognize how you set yourself up this whole time and learn from it, not to begin another conflict here. I was willing to spend some time trying to get you pumped up for an RFA in a few months but you got greedy. Now you're on your own. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

I don't know exactly how it happened. I don't know what Chris' motives were for opening the discussion other than to discuss it. I don't know if he was trying to make peace with me or what. But the comment in which Wknight said not to talk to him was less than a day before Chris commented me. I'm just confused as to why Wknight had to make it seem like I wasn't trying to resolve the conflict, and why he had to place all the blame on me for not resolving the conflict after he told me not to. It's confusing. Surely you understand my point of view on this, Bugs. I'm not saying that you have to agree with me, just that you understand where I'm coming from. Ksy92003(talk) 20:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris stopped the conflict himself by coming to me because you pretty much threatened me not to try myself. When I made my most recent attempt to resolve the conflict with Chris, you got mad at me because I was trying. If it's wrong to try to resolve a conflict with somebody else, then I'm guilty of that. I'm not arguing the origin of the conflict, nor am I denying that I started it (I really don't know), but it's really unfair to be blamed for trying.

How did I set Chris up? Because I was trying to fix it myself and you got mad at me? I'm sorry for trying. Ksy92003(talk) 20:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you tried to resolve the conflict yourself ---- with a cookie. Thanks for making my point. If you're still resorting to such vapid sappy means to resolve conflicts at the time of your next RFA, I'll likely be opposing again. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So then I guess I'm guilty for not trying to resolve the conflict in a way that pleases you? I don't know anymore. The cookie is meant to spread WikiLove by giving it to somebody you get along with really well or someone you have intense conflicts with, which is what it says in the template. That's why I gave it to him. Ksy92003(talk) 21:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone deserves any more credit than the other for resolving our conflict. I'm sure Ksy has tried to resolve conflicts with me many times in the past weeks and months, but it takes two people to compromise so neither of us should get any more credit than the other.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was planning on saying something similar yesterday, but I had forgotten about it when I logged on after returning home following the Kings/Oilers game last night. In sport, you need both offense and defense to have a good game. No matter how good Tom Brady is, the team is gonna lose if they don't have good defense. It takes two to tango. Two people can't come to a compromise if one of them isn't willing to talk. It's a joint effort. Chris is right. Not only should nobody deserve more credit than the other, but nobody should get any credit at all. I mean the fact that there was a conflict in the first place is bad enough. Ksy92003(talk) 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Adminship

Thanks for the message about me considering becoming an admin. I have considered it several times but have always been a bit nervous about self-nomming, having contributed to RFAs myself I have seen how poor nominations go and was reluctant for that to happen to myself! However the tools could be useful in blocking persistent vandals myself and making some small contribution to preventing backlogs arising in deletions (AFD, prod and speedy). So the short answer is that yes I would be interested. Davewild 18:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have the answered the questions and accepted the nomination (thanks for the generous nomination), if you feel I have not missed anything then I hope it is ready for added to the main RFA page. Davewild 20:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorted that, had put a link to Category:Category needed but forgot to put : in before the category to stop the RFA from just being categorised! Davewild 21:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just after nine o'clock here (we just shifted the clocks due to Daylight saving time last night), so will be up for a couple of hours yet so should be ok to be posted now. Davewild 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Katy May cosmetics...

...who Irishguy just reverted, [9] is likely yet another sockpuppet of User:Ron liebman. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Liebman sock

Subtlety is not exactly his middle name: [10] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format

Hi Wknight94, you may possibly recall these edits, where you moved the aviation accident list guideline. It is now up for MfD, and one of the issues is a proposed move. I think your original rationale is still valid, but you may want to voice your own opinion there. Thanks, Crum375 21:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Leibman Sock...

Thought I'd bring this to your attention...This user (User:Winning basket) appears to be making the same edits ([11], [12]) as the Ron Leibman sock puppets that you recently blocked such as User:Arelis Arias & User:Baseball Maestros... Bjewiki (Talk) 00:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It was him all right. Welcome to the world of Ron liebman socks. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's ironic that that New York kid would be such a Socks fan. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

He's back [13], [14] as Grover powell. Also, in the future would you rather me just post these to WP:ANI, or do you just want to continue handeling him? Bjewiki (Talk) 18:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend letting me know since others may need a full rundown of the history. But if I'm not around, you can always go to WP:ANI or even WP:AIV for the obvious "bezzler" stupidity. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This time it's Messersmith see [15] & [16] Bjewiki (Talk) 16:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the same wording that Liebman typically uses... "What's going on?" "What's wrong?" that kind of thing, when he knows very well what's going on. He's a jerk. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no personal attacks! Just kidding, you're right. He's blocked as well as the fake Georgewilliamherbert account. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

To borrow the words of the immortal Dick Young to the immortal Jim Bouton, "I hope he didn't take it personally." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on King's Daughters by user 132.211.195.143

I had to ask your help on this about seven weeks ago when this user regularly trolled the discussion page with ethnically insulting remarks. You put up a warning that you'd block the entire range if they continued trolling. After laying off for seven weeks, they're at it again.

His original troll was:

These "women" were prostitutes; so much for the fwench "pure wool" garbage; nothing pure here. When your ancestors were prostitutes, as is the case of the fwench Canadians, it is curious how the decedants describe themselves as pure!

Just to be sure there was no misunderstanding in the matter, I included a report from two of the three main reference works on les filles du roi that tells of one girl (one out of approximately 800) who was charged in Canada with prostitution (not a French prostitute, but a woman who was accused of falling into that life after arrival), and his comment is now:

If there is at least one prostitute among these fine young ladies then we are no longer speaking of "Rumors and urban legends." The article claims only one was "charged"; that hardly aquits these pure-woolly "women."

He also put in an NPOV marker and asked for a fact citation on the one story; it comes from two of the three books, and this is much too small an article for me to have to make individual citations when I list the three books as references.

You gave this person the trolling warning before, and he is violating it again. I believe his IP range should be blocked.

-- Couillaud 15:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And now, YoSoyGuapo, who started the fight with me, Baseball Bugs, and others on the Josh Gibson page, is trolling the King's Daughters article as well. His only reason to do so is to hassle me, because I've disagreed again with his edits to the Gibson article. He added incorrect information on that article (including dates and teams, as well as his insistence on using unverifiable numbers and removing other edits without reason), and then followed me to the King's Daughters article just to argue about French Prostitutes again.

He googled "Kings Daughters" and found an article online about Namibian prostitutes of today who call themselves "King's Daughters" and argues that it should be considered as support for the other troll's argument.

After he put in several new edits into the Gibson article (including a new infobox), I made further edits to it, putting in the official numbers for BA, Hits, and HR, while correcting data like the teams and dates Gibson played. He went back to the article today and removed all edits I had made without giving reason. We had a painfully-wrought consensus about the Gibson article, which included putting in the officially recognized numbers and noting the anecdotal information as in dispute. He has decided to start the argument over as if it was never had.

YoSoyGuapo is trolling the King's Daughters article for no reason but to irritate me, and only because of the Gibson article. He is editing the Gibson article against the consensus that he originally sought.

I want to file a complaint about this user for his remarks on the King's Daughters. If you would threaten to block an anonymous user for making the original trolls, then I need to know what I can do about this editor with the history that he already has. His pattern the last time this happened was to follow me around and read my edits, so he'll probably read and respond to this soon, and try to preempt it with his own complaint. Last time he tried to act the injured party himself. There must be a procedure to complain about an editor like this, especially considering his prior behavior. Please let me know what procedure I need to follow to deal with this issue. -- Couillaud 04:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could put him and Ron Liebman in the same jar, and see which one survives. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

BaseballBugs, what does that have to do with anything?

I have already filed a complaint against Couillard [17].

With the Gibson Article I did two thigns in order to make a compromise. (1) I created a new infobox so that it shows his professional records. Not just his negro league records. (2) I created a new section that shows his statistics and new information in a separate catagory. [18] . There was never a consensus reached. The talk page simply died out. All you have to do is read it!

At no point did I suppor the "alleged" trolls commentary. I only stated that he could easily use google to find references. Which is where the article about the King's Daughters in Namibea. If a complaint is brought I always like to be able to respond to it. As such I did. YoSoyGuapo 04:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, I hate to be a grammar nazi, but I really wish this guy could spell. He can't even get my handle correct, which BTW, is the surname of one of my French Canadian ancestors who was a Daughter of the King, and whom he now likes to draw irrelevant comparisons to modern-day prostitutes. Thank you so much.

I cannot find his "complaint" (it redirects to an unrelated article), but I finally got tired of his remarks that had nothing to do with the article and its content itself, and removed them as vandalism; now he wants to complain about my netiquette. Sometimes satire and parody are just left in the dust. WKnight94, I'd like to know where I can go to read his complaint and respond. I'd like to see this guy blocked for his actions.

As for his "infobox", he specifically named it "Negro League Career", but has apparently instituted his own rules governing it, that it should be all games played, whether against Negro League, winter league, or rank amateur, and whether verifiable or not. He asked all to "fix and update", but reverted my edits, all of which were done in good faith.

--Couillaud

Even if all his facts were correct, YoSoyGuano writes as if he just start learning English last week. The Gibson article, thanks to his "improvements", is really trashy looking now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The original troll has returned

I just got back in tonight and have to get some sleep, but I noticed that the original troll who started this, 132.211.195.* (the last octet keeps changing) has returned, this time with personal attacks. You threatened to block him a bit more than a month ago, and I would like to ask that boon of you now. He has made no worthwhile edits, and his comments have been disruptive. Can we get him blocked, once and for all?

Once we've done that, may we blank the troll comments as well?

-- Couillaud 03:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Continued vandalism of Talk:King's Daughters by User:YoSoyGuapo

WKnight94, I am requesting that you clear and freeze the discussion page of King's Daughters ASAP, as no one is actually talking about the article, only making arguments about what who said about whom. The first troll kept making insulting remarks about the King's Daughters, had them removed as vandalism, kept putting them back, had them removed as vandalism, put them back again with further arguments in his summaries, and you finally made a warning. Right after that, YoSoyGuapo put in a comment that he found these comments amusing, then put in a remark that there "seems" to have been an edit war; I've described his latest trolls. Until our issue is resolved, I'm asking this page be frozen to such edits. -- Couillaud 05:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of my own talk page by User:YoSoyGuapo

I hate to do this, I mean I really hate to do this, but this guy just seems to have no end. I cleared off my talk page earlier today, and YoSoyGuapo put up the following message on it:

"Please stop reverting a talk page. You cannot do it because you feel like it. You can get blocked for it. This is you final warning. YoSoyGuapo 05:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)"

If it was a joke, it lacked any semblance of humor. Considering his messages to me so far this day, it's an insult. If it's not a joke, then he's making Liebman seem cordial and reserved. I'm ready to give up on Wikipedia if this is considered "normal" behavior, and if he is allowed to continue.

--Couillaud 05:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I guessed that you had already shut off your computer by the time this started heating up, and that you would wake to a nasty surprise in the morning; for that I apologize, with the caveat that I didn't start it. Please believe that it was not my intention, but YSG (whose handle would more fittingly be "GoogleMan") kept escalating things. Yes, it's gone too far; I believe I've acted in good faith, and he simply is just trying to hassle me and waste my time, as he has others in the past. I don't have the time to waste on such things, and if he's proven that he refuses to work and play well with others, he should be dealt with. I will NOT waste my time with him, and if he represents what is permissible on Wikipedia, I'll just quietly retire from it and leave it to him. == Couillaud 13:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I filed a compalint against him per your recommendation, and gave detail about his previous actions in both his IDs (remember he started doing this as an IP address while his current user name was blocked, and was already engaging in an edit war while requesting his block be lifted.

I honestly do not have a lot of time to waste with this. I've not been as active on Wikipedia the last few months as before, and this is cutting into a lot of my time. I'm encouraged by your news about Jimbo Wales, but if this drags on, I will just go the Baseball Reference Bullpen to edit my baseball articles.

Thanks again.

-- Couillaud 16:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been told many times that there is no rule against blanking your own talk page. It can be considered impolite, but it depends on the situation. But there is no rule against it as such. And it is perfectly reasonable to remove uncivil or otherwise useless comments from your talk page (as Wknight94 is free to do with my comments right here, for example). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I might have misunderstood. Reverting an article's talk page is only appropriate to clear vandalism, incivility and totally off-topic stuff. I haven't read that talk page, so it might qualify or it might not. My money wouldn't be on YoSoyGuano, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The talk page that was reverted was the King's Daughter talk page not Couillard's talk page. YoSoyGuapo 19:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

This one seems to be vandalism-only: [19] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This one only made 1 edit, but I think you'd be justified in zapping him: [20] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your help on the help page about my question about transcluding user, not user page, to a template. I did figure it out but before I could mention it on the help page, you answered it. Thanks! I did self teach myself how to make a complex template which I used in an article later. Archtransit 15:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK - when to push?

Hi. I wanted to help keep DYK up to date. What is the deciding factor for when to push the next update into production? Right now the sign is red but you left an empty hook placeholder. Were you going to put another one out there? Or should I push whatever is there now? Sorry, just getting a feel for the environment there. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Wknight94. Yes, I'm looking for more DYKs to add to DYKNU. I do check dates, and authorship, etc., and I try to diversify in topic and "geographical distribution" (not all US, ...), so it takes time. If you are anxious, please feel free to move qualifying items over from the list of suggestions. It's better to have more selectors, anyway. Not everyone will find the same things interesting. BTW, I don't think there's any rush to update DYK every 6.00000 hours. --PFHLai 20:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know how hard-and-fast the six hour rule was. Good to know. And for the next go-round (when I have more time), maybe I'll try my hand at selecting a few. Thanks for the input. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think DYK is usually refreshed after every 6 to 8 hours. The 6-hour rule, IIRC, was to ensure a minimum time of exposure on MainPage. Please be encouraged to fill up DYKNU whenever you like. Cheers! --PFHLai 20:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thiers Issard

Hi, I noticed that the DYK acknowledgement tag for the Thiers Issard article went to the wrong talk page, since I am the main author of this article to date and I self nominated it. Dr.K. 16:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)(Comment modified Dr.K. 16:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Congratulations!

Congratulations! Your image Image:AlbanyCapitolFFromEast.JPG was the random picture of the day for November 1, 2007. It looked like this:

Random picture of the day

The New York State Capitol

Image credit: Wknight94 (talk · contribs)

. Again, Congratulations! - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! I'm not entirely sure what that means but thank you anyway! —Wknight94 (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If it was random, who are you thanking? :-P ►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Uhhhh, I don't know. Good point. It sounds like a good thing - and at least someone is looking at pictures I upload... —Wknight94 (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Adminship?

Hello, thanks for your message here. Thanks for your words of encouragement :) I've thought about adminship a few times in the past, but decided against it because I never really needed access to the admin powers (there's lots to do without needing them). At the moment it's not practical for me to apply anyway: I've just started a new job, which is good for me but not good for the amount of time I can spend on Wikipedia. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

not my fault

sorry my friend went on a spree when he found my password, u probably know him as jpacman315, dont worry i changed my password. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdude6281991 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

not my fault

sorry my friend went on a spree when he found my password, u probably know him as jpacman315, dont worry i changed my password. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdude6281991 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

my last response

I was typing my message when you must have been posting your response. Either that or it was because someone had posted to me a message while I was typing. Whatever was the reason, my post didn't go through when I finished and instead I got a new edit page. So I tried going back and copy and paste into the new edit window and it got blocked. But what I was trying to say was that the user's post was more personal than the typical random insult. He said something with "sorry you didn't reach candyland" which I find personally offensive since I have diabetes. Of course there is no way for him to have know that but an apology would have been appreciated. Hardlyreared2 01:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Josh Gibson InfoBox

I placed in a new info box that on the Josh Gibson article [21] and will remove opinion on the article. YoSoyGuapo 02:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

About which I must note that I made (at YoSoyGuapo's invitation) an effort to fix and update the infobox, and he reverted my edits (taking 19 of his own edits in the process) without explanation, before heading over to add an irrelevant subsection on Namibian prostitution to the article on French Canadian pioneer women titled "King's Daughters". I'm very concerned about this editor's opinion about what constitutes "opinion" that he plans to remove.-- Couillaud 04:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was following Wiki policy of WP:BOLD[22] Thus the new info box that removed the erroroneous MLB career (Gibson never played in the MLB). I also created a new section for a compromise of his career statitics with old and accepted information as well as a section for new information. YoSoyGuapo 05:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good time to list all of Babe Ruth's homers also, which will put the Bambino over 1,000. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

you should, go for it.. YoSoyGuapo 05:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. That would be as silly as counting Gibson's unverified and unverifiable exhbition game stats in Gibson's career totals. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a fair assessment

I have only been on one article that Couillaud happened to be on. I saw his contribution history and saw an interesting article, but going to one other article I don't think would qualify as stalking. Trying to understand why you would say that I am stalking. [23] YoSoyGuapo 19:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

YoSoyGuapo thinks it is okay to troll ONLY one article, but the facts are as follows: He had NEVER edited the Daughters of the King article until after he and I had clashed on the Josh Gibson article; he knew nothing of the subject (upon which I am pretty well-versed), and still knows very little (most editors at least have at least a passing familiarity with a subject before they edit or even comment); his comment was to the effect that the previous discussion (a trolling, ethnically motivated tirade that had been repeatedly deleted by multiple editors) was "interesting", despite the fact that WKnight94 had issued a warning against that very troll; he did this ONLY after arguing with me on the Gibson article, and ONLY immediately after I had edited the Daughters of the King article; he was informed on his talk page that he had been cheering on racist remarks in his comments, although he claims to know nothing of this discussion; he stayed away from the article after that UNTIL we clashed again on the Josh Gibson article, and then came back with more of the same; his comments this time were again to cheer on the same earlier troll, and his comments were even more asinine, trying to link an obscure story about 21st-century Namibian prostitutes to the article; he continued to edit the article itself, inserting badly written and badly spelled (and irrelevant) information about the same obscure story; and he did this for the second time immediately and ONLY after having clashed with me again on the Josh Gibson article. In addition, he issued a "final warning" to me on my talk page, having followed me there.

You don't have to be a multiple repeat offender to be a stalker. He is trying to define that term himself to his best advantage. Add to this the fact that he has already been blocked indefinitely for prior disruptive behavior, and you've got yourself a troll. Through all of this, he has shown no understanding that any of this is uncivil behavior, and has never offered the least apology, even with an excuse of "misunderstanding".

YoSoyGuapo needs to be put on an extremely short leash, if not given an outright ban. -- Couillaud 20:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I admitted that I saw your contributions and saw an interesting article King's Daughter and I commented on it. Sorry, I found it to be interesting. I even added references to the article. Now if you'd like to talk about stalking you can look here. [24] YoSoyGuapo 20:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is a very fair assessment

YoSoyGuapo now will have the floor after this, as I have to leave for a good part of the evening and tomorrow (I'm a survivor of a murder victim ({ http://www.stasia.org }), and will be touring a maximum security prison Saturday). I just want to make a few last points. If there is any further discussion on ANI, this may be relevant.

If you go back to the history of the discussion page, you'll note that his actual comment was that the "Talk page history is actually pretty interesting." He then linked to the history of the talk page, to make sure that the earlier inappropriate comments would still be visible. Nice try, but he is not being truthful about the actual incident; as the Ole Perfessor would say, "you could look it up." I did, and he keeps changing his story. He will continue to do so, so his history and patterns must be checked when he gives a new explanation.

As to his adding references, he did, though one of them was already linked in the article, and he only did that after some heated argument over his trolling. His offer of two links (which he of course googled, and were not formatted well, as per his usual editing style) was just an attempt to backtrack on the first troll he committed.

As for his accusation that I'm stalking him, I believe I did say early on that this was his pattern, to act like the innocent injured party, and here he goes. Two other things are obvious here: he does not understand what "stalking" really amounts to, and he still can't spell either my name or the country "Namibia". -- Couillaud 21:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I also looked it up, and YoSoyGuapo was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and personal attacks. Sounds like Baseball Bugs might have been right to compare him to Liebman, except that he talked his way back in, albeit with the promise to mend his ways, a promise he does not seem intent on honoring.

BTW, that is to my recollection the first time he's used the word "sorry", though it did not amount to any sort of apology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Couillaud (talk • contribs)

Shenanigans?

You mean, do I think it's Liebman? It doesn't seem like it offhand. In any case, it seems to be a bunch of quotes, some attributed and some not, intended to make these guys look bad. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Note

I should let you know that I'll be on here only sporadically during the next 3 weeks or so. Not a wikibreak as such, just having to attend to other matters for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Chat

Wknight94, Thank you for alerting me to the situation. I have been very busy and that is why I did not respond right away. You are right, I did give User:YoSoyGuapo on the condition that he acted in civil manner. I have looked into this outrageous situation as you have recommended in my talk page. I have commented on the situation. If a satisfactory decision is not reached between the parties involved, then I will not object to whatever disciplinary actions taken in accordance to Wikipedia policiesTony the Marine 06:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Roitr

Thank you for dealing with Roitr! Please take a look at Israel Defense Forces ranks which has been vandalized by anonymous socks of User:Roitr; some images have been deleted and re-uploaded and I do not have enough expertise in the subject to correct any possible mistakes. --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 17:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to leave a note here. I rolled back the Israel Defense Forces ranks edit and semi-protected it for two weeks. This time, the images themselves were added at Commons where I am not an admin. I left a note there and blocks and deletions are underway. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Re. Melsaran on the ArbCom case

You mentioned in your edit summary that there this editor commited abuse so egregious it had to be oversighted. I can find no statements to that effect on AN/I. The ArbCom's announcement cited privacy concerns as a reason for not releasing evidence, not severity of abuse. Have you seen the evidence? Is there anything you can point me to? When I asked the committee they said there was no point in excising Melsaran's proposals because his reason for being blocked had nothing to do with the ArbCom case. I have no problem with the idea that his opinions should be discounted in that he's not a legitimate user at this point. ArbCom knows this, but it doesn't hurt to mention it for everyone else. But I think it may be a distraction to say that the issue was abuse, particularly if we're not really sure. Cheers, Wikidemo 13:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit (two edits) by arbitrator FloNight gives the best explanation (the full discussion is now archived at here). As she says, the edits were oversighted, meaning they can no longer be found in any history, even by administrators. By definition, if you have to find someone with oversight permissions to erase history, that is abuse of the most egregious kind. As for whether the "abuse" tag is appropriate to mention in the ArbCom case, I don't have a strong opinion either way - but the sockpuppetry was clearly abusive. Actually, the bigger reason - and this has not been cleared up to my knowledge - was that the abuse led ArbCom to believe that Melsaran himself was a sock of some other banned user. If that's the case, then per the WP:BAN of the original user, all of Melsaran's edits are subject to being rolled back or ignored entirely. Then, leaving his content in the ArbCom case is per WP:SENSE in that it would be more disruptive to roll back everything he had presented than to just leave it and keep in mind who presented it. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in those two links to suggest that the account's edits were "abusive." Abusive suggests disruption, acts like severe trolling or insulting people. There is some speculation, but in fact no discussion of what the account actually did. The issue seems to be sockpuppeting, and the reason cited for not releasing the details is supposedly privacy and possibly lack of absolute certainty over identity. Wikidemo 19:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A previously-banned user evading their ban with socks is abusive sockpuppetry. Additionally, the socks themselves were doing something to require WP:OVERSIGHT. According to that page, that means they were releasing someone's personal information, or potentially libellous information, etc. That's even more abusive! The WP:AN thread mentions several socks - one of them has a name in its block log. This ANI archive gives some details about the name in that block log. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Yes, User:PxMa/rfacloser.js :) Ρх₥α 15:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Redskins coach template

Hmm. You'd think that if the template is on a coach's page, that someone would have also put the category there too. But then of course that's assuming every coach on that template has the template on his page. Either way, I think the chance that there's no cat/template on a coach's page is too slim. Pats1 ^T/C 11:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK confusion?

Hello. There may have been a swap or something at DYK:

• You gave me a DYK notice for Thiers Issard but it isn't mine ;-) It belongs to author and nominator User:Tasoskessaris (I had only provided an alt hook for it). I could move the DYK section from my talk page to Tasoskessaris's talk, but I guess it's preferable that I let you award it to him "officially".
• On the other hand, I wasn't notified that Talk:Hearst Papyrus, on which I did half the expansion (along with User:Cremepuff222), got a DYK. Maybe some swap or mixup in the next-update lists?

— Komusou ^talk @ 19:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• For Hearst Papyrus, you would need to ask User:Lar (the admin who left a DYK notice for User:Cremepuff222. For Thiers Issard, that has already been rectified above at #Thiers Issard. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar, Burntsauce, etc.

The claimed resignation of the both of them (and presumably any and all sockpuppets) in the face of likely expulsion, reminds of "When the going gets tough, the tough get going." I restored that one humble item of the 300 deleted items that those two had slashed. I expect it's up to other editors to restore the other 299 as they see fit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The above was not intended as a "minor" edit. It's called clicking too many things at once. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And now he's on external forums bad-mouthing everyone. Amazing how people can't rise above that cliché reaction when this happens. It's amazing that he would put himself through three RFAs and this much work only to throw it all away over such trivial matters. And I have no respect for admins who are unable to even act like adults. The perception is that the whole place is being run and patrolled by angry teenagers and we need admins who are able to dispel that. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I see Alkivar is desysopped and Burntsauce banned. Justice wins one. :) [25] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There were a couple of photos removed and deleted from Palatine uvula that one admin (I can't recall which one) said could be restored if the case went that way. I restored text but illustrations remain deleted (listed here [26]) Would you be able to do this trivial task? Thank you. (That's the one page that Alkivar, Burntsauce and I crossed swords on, of the 300-some that they affected. One little incident report following on that, and one RFA from that. Mighty oaks fall from little acorns planted.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I restored the two images and reset the deletion timers. That gives you seven days to rectify the deletion tags - both are orphaned, one needs proper fair use rationale, and the other has a custom deletion reason listed. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 02:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Lee Smith

It was nice working with you (over a year+) on that article, hehe. I'll leave my comments regarding the page move shortly. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Another NielsMayer sock puppet

This user, who has been blocked repeatedly (most recently by yourself) and violated WP:SOCK repeatedly, has popped up again, and is making personal attacks on other editors again. Check the entries in the last 24 hours for [27] to see if you don't agree. Thanks for any help you can offer. Dyanega 07:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Refresh my memory please. What was the disruptive behavior here? Who else has been blocked? We need to get some {{sockpuppet}} tags in place so the case can be tracked. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This fellow has been posting abusive rants and promoting his own website and fringe theories on the Morgellons article talk page for a long time now - the last of his sockpuppets to be blocked was one that you blocked - see [28] One of his many accounts slipped through because he wasn't posting from it regularly, but he used it to bombard the talk page again last night. Dyanega 17:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussions continuing

You may not be aware of further discussions here and here. As one of the administrators involved in the case and/or in its discussions, I think it would be useful if you could comment. Thank you in advance, Mondegreen 17:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

K.D. Troll

As you are already aware, we still have the same troll on King's Daughters, IP address 132.211.195.*. Apparently, a 48-hour block isn't enough for it. I can keep reverting it, but it'll be back every few days. The last one you reverted was its second attempt at that same edit. Its pattern is to post the same thing over and over again, and summarize that it's being unfairly censored. What actually started the war with YSG was that he got in and tried to encourage the original troll by picking up the argument.

I have found a few (emphasis on a few) legitimate edits from this IP address, and my guess is that someone out there occasionally gets on for such purposes, while the troll just happens to use the same computer (or at least array of computers). Is there a way to indefinitely block this range, or at least for a longer period than 48 hours? Anyone wanting to use it for legitimate edits could create their own username; it's obvious that this one is hiding in its anonymity.

Also, may we remove as inappropriate and irrelevant the "French Prostitutes" section of that discussion? It was started by this same troll, and YSG jumped in during that fight. There is legitimate discussion on the page (e.g. "Inline Sources"), but that part isn't relevant.

Having looked at it more carefully (and with my blood pressure considerably lower), I realize that YSG was not trying to vandalize my own talk page, but his timing was unfortunate, and I do believe he was trolling on the King's Daughters page. I viewed his editing my talk page as just another shot. I usually don't lose my cool that easily, but I have learned that I do have some buttons that can be pushed under the right (or in this case, wrong) circumstances.

-- Couillaud 21:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be better to let the IP talk to himself on the talk page and ignore it. If it starts nonsense on the article itself - which is considerably more important - then I can semi-protect it. How does that sound? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate to sound so ignorant, but what does "semi-protection" mean? As far as the troll talking to himself, that is usually what he does, as if anyone actually takes his trash talk seriously; but he's always "talking" about the article itself, something to the effect of demanding that we "admit" that all French women who came to Canada were prostitutes. His only direct edit to article was to stick an NPOV label, and his usual routine of putting it back when removed, rinse and repeat. -- Couillaud 04:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROT. In short, if a page (article, talk page, image, etc.) is semi-protected, then only logged-in users who have had accounts for several days will be able to edit the page. Your friend here - who never logs in - would not be able to edit it. If the only thing the person wants to do is leave a stupid note on the talk page, the easiest thing would be to let him. Everyone knows the note is ridiculous. At least he's not trying to mess with the article itself. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for semi-protecting my userpage and user talk page. NHRHS2010 talk 01:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was in the process of writing you a note... Yes, protection seems preferable in this case since the IP range pestering you is quite large. (You reported 4.130.0.0/24 but it was actually 4.130.0.0/16 or, according to WHOIS, 4.0.0.0/8 which is millions of addresses). If the harassment continues after this or you see other pages hit by the same range, try WP:RFPP. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good

It sounds good, although I'd feel better if my talk page was semi-protected anyway. I am looking into changing my username. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please give some input here? I'm trying to usurp a username to avoid this guy. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Arguing with a beaureaucrat is not going to help your cause. Besides, the person that is harassing you can see what you are changing your name to so what's the point? I'd recommend trying to contact them off-wiki but now you've probably pissed them off anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No see this person constantly insults myself and my fiancee and my relationship status and job. And he's obviously not smart enough to see I'm changing my name. Could you do me a huge favour and semi-protect my talk for good, if I get the name change to TNA? Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see enough disruption to warrant protection. But you're welcome to try WP:RFPP for a second opinion. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up... I think I better just call it a night and get some rest! :-) Hiberniantears 03:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Dane Cook

Just threw my two cents in on the issue. I agree with you. -Mike Payne (T • C) 18:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Opinion requested

Hiya, I was wondering if you could help with a consensus determination? I'm involved in a dispute at the moment, where one side says that there's a consensus, and the other side says that there isn't (sound familiar? Heh.) Anyway, I'd like to get the opinion of a completely uninvolved admin, and thought of you. There's definitely no one that could say that that you were pre-disposed to rule in my favor on something, and I'd genuinely like a third-party opinion on the situation. Are you interested? (It's okay to say no, or just ignore this message). Thanks, Elonka 00:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can take a look. Whereabouts? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) Link is here. Argument for consensus first (including links to where discussion has been ongoing), followed by argument saying that there is not yet consensus. It's a little on the complex side... If you'd like a quickref on the historical context, I've thrown together a few paragraphs at User:Elonka/Mongol quickref. Then again, that quickref is my own view of the situation, which some might argue is biased. So, up to you on whether or not you want to go into it cold, your choice! Looking forward to your thoughts... --Elonka 02:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started looking through some of the Dailliez discussion. I haven't yet perused the entire talk page or the mediation (there are a lot of words in both) but a question pops into my head - would it be possible and acceptable to add a note (possibly even a parenthetical one) about how "historian Dailliez claims an alliance but the claims are yet to be substantiated"? He gets a mention but the tangential nature of the mention gives it appropriate weight per WP:UNDUE. Just a thought which I figure has already been covered. I will look more tomorrow morning. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, per the discussions that I linked, I don't believe that we should say anything at all from Dailliez, when he's the only person to say it, and he hasn't even provided any sources for where the information came from. His book came out in 1972; if it hasn't been substantiated by now, I don't think it's ever going to be.  :) Also, there are other claims from Dailliez's book that have been very thoroughly debunked. For example, Dailliez claimed that Jacques de Molay was a general in the Mongol army, and led a charge to takeover Jerusalem in 1299/1300. But no, Jacques de Molay was never a general in the Mongol army. And no, the Mongols never launched an attack on Jerusalem in 1299/1300. See User:Elonka/Mongol quickref. Jerusalem wasn't even seen as an area of militarily strategic importance around then, and the whole place was pretty much in ruins from previous parts of the Crusades. If you look at Talk:Laurent Dailliez, you can see that Acer11 says very clearly: "When Dailliez is alone to assert something, he's probably wrong." There may be other things that Dailliez says which are right, and if he's backed up by other historians, or he's saying something non-controversial, then I'm okay on using Dailliez as a source. But the claim that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty? Nope, that's just plain wrong. No Europeans signed a treaty with the Mongols. The closest that anyone came to formal cooperation with the Mongols, was the tiny Principality of Antioch, which submitted to Mongol overlordship in 1259, and was then wiped off the map by the Egyptians in 1268. And Antioch was clearly a "submission", not a treaty. See User:Elonka/Mongol historians#Antioch --Elonka 20:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that his book was 35 years old. Good point. On the other hand, I also found Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/PHG and Elonka where quite a few people have weighed in on this dispute in general. I'm concerned that those people have apparently not joined the discussion at the talk page. In general, the whole dispute has gone on for months and hit five or six pages so it doesn't seem like the consensus can be judged based on the one talk page section that you've referenced. Something's not right here... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

True enough, this discussion has been going on for months, and is probably on a dozen pages on Wikipedia right now. However, I'm not asking you to make a determination on the whole thing (which I agree would be a lot of reading). The ANI thread actually has nothing to do with the Dailliez claim. I chose Dailliez as a specific issue, because it's a nice self-contained dispute (only on three pages at the moment), which has (IMHO) a clear consensus. So I thought I'd ask an uninvolved individual to offer an opinion on whether or not they agree that there's a consensus on that one specific point: whether or not Dailliez can be used as a source for the highly controversial claim that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with the Mongols. I'm not even asking you to make a determination on whether or not Jacques de Molay did or not, I'm just asking you to make a determination on whether or not there's a consensus. :) However, if you (or anyone else) would like to dig in and offer actual opinions on the history, I would welcome it. You are correct that ANI has not proven helpful for other aspects of this dispute. Most people throw up their hands, say "Too complicated!" or "Content dispute!" or "Block 'em all!" or "I don't know what's going on, but that user was mean to me once, so they're obviously wrong this time too," and they don't offer any useful advice beyond that. It's a problem on Wikipedia in dispute resolution, that sometimes when complex issues come up, outside parties don't want to actually read and figure out what's going on, they just want to make a snap decision and then run off to the next dispute. If you do want to dig in to the entire thing, I would welcome further opinions. Feel free to use my pages at User:Elonka/Mongol quickref and User:Elonka/Mongol historians for source materials. But my original reason for contacting you, was not so you could come up to speed on Crusades history... I simply wanted to get a noninvolved opinion on whether or not a consensus exists on the one Dailliez issue, based on the links provided at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Concerns about Dailliez (wrapup). If you feel that the issue is too large though, and you'd rather not get involved, I understand. --Elonka 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Venusboat

Look at his edit history, I'm sure you won't like it. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw at WP:ANI but he'd already been indefblocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The Telegraph

I made the move you made once, but I was unsure of whether or not it was correct and ended up moving it back. Thanks for helping me figure that out. It was quite the challenge sifting through all of those different telegraph articles. Illinois2011 | Talk 08:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. And actually, if anyone wants to change a page's primary meaning to be a (pre-existing) disambiguation page, they need admin assistance anyway since a page deletion is required. See WP:MDP. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Tame?

Are you seriously suggesting this form of harassment is tame? I think it's more than enough to justify talk page semi protection. Addhoc 14:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, that's not tame at all, I did get a chuckle out of it, but so far this dude's done the following:

1. Made an impostor myspace. Mine is www.myspace.com/quotetheraven666, whereas his is www.myspace.com/quotetheravenluvsyou.
2. Created [email protected]
3. Insulted my fiancee on my old blog, asking me if I "Fed her pure lard" and calling her fat and insulting me for being engaged.
4. Sent me very homosexual sounding emails, insulting me and then ending with "See you in bed ;)"

Not tame at all. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Responded to Addhoc on his page (someone please decide where you want to focus this). Responding to Tyler Warren, the off-Wikipedia campaign is indeed unforunate but it's just that - off-Wikipedia. Many of us get multiple instances of vandalism per day here and we don't even read it. We just revert and ignore (read WP:DENY). Semi-protecting a talk page for long periods of time when all you get is one vandalism edit every two weeks would be very irresponsible of us per WP:PROT. It would mean that no anonymous users could contact you at all. Semi-protecting other user pages may be more palatable but only if there's a clear pattern of extreme abuse. I haven't seen one so far. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, he's only attacked me here twice, and I know he's waiting to do it again. I've already reported the phony myspace, reported the email and now im *trying* to do something here, to no avail. Oh well. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 20:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your support during the 6 months since I switched user IDs. I never officially asked for a "mentor", but you've served that role and I appreciate it. The evil side still comes out from time to time, but in general I think I've become a better wikipedia editor in the last 6 months. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note but you're doing just fine with or without me! I've learned plenty from you as well so the sentiment is quite mutual! —Wknight94 (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firestar's Quest

I think you should have waited for more votes. I mean 3-2 is hardly enough to close the discussion ^DAVID _CAT 23:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The only two keeps were socks and IPs and contributed nothing to the discussion. AFD is not a vote. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

JohnnyAB

I'll keep an eye out on the Recent Changes for anybody with JohnnyAB in their name. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You can if you want but it doesn't bother me. WP:DENY. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatev

Then I'll remove the link -.- You know what, I'm not hard to figure, I was leaving a note for the B-crats. In fact, you're hard to figure. Do me a BIIIIGGGG favour and go fight some vandals! Quit buggerin' around with me. -poke poke- =D Vampire Warrior 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

^{(Just saw how HUGE my sig is)} Would you like some idiot running about, vandalising under my old name? No. Would I like to be blamed for it if it happened? No. Remember, there are no stupid people, only stupid questions. Vampire Warrior 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I echo Vampire Warrior's sentiments - please stop bothering me and kindly block some vandals. Thanks, Addhoc 23:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Liebman socks - 11/9/07

He's at it again, on the Talk:Sex organ page. See the history here. *sigh* --Ebyabe 00:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

He needs a new user ID. Like some variation on "TMI". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

74.193.141.238

The user is a sockpuppet of an indef blocked account. No matter what he says or what he removes, "blocked means blocked". Either way, we don't remove things just because they aren't happening anymore. When one of the major airlines came out of bankruptcy, did we remove that from the page? No. So why here?

But again, it is all moot, since the user is a sockpuppet of an already indef blocked account, earning the anon, a nice block itself. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. And when your side of the battle is trying to add unsourced negative material, you're unlikely to win very often. Thank you for adding a source (which should have been done to begin with). —Wknight94 (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually have no "horse" in any Baton Rouge stations articles. The reason I watch them is because the Cjerel8844 (which was the using that IP you just block...thanks) was vandalising many of the station pages in that area, hence my watching them. My "area of expertise" is VA, WV, MD, PA, and DC, but I keep an eye on other areas as necessary, like Baton Rouge. It took me a couple to find a source, really not that hard, something the anon could have done just as easy. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks re vandal

Thanks for revert/block on my talk page. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ergh, same person is back, now posting in Chinese: Diupg8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't even know how I got on their bad side! Is there anything I can do to stop this harassment? Does it count as an abusive sockpuppet now? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That account is blocked as well. Your talk page is now semi-protected for a few days. Let me (and/or WP:RFPP) know if it resumes. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Access" regex

The way you had it, the "$2" would have had to be "$3".--BillFlis 19:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Sorry, but due to my ignorance, I'm rather confused. Periodically I "talk" to "Melsaran", but I see that username has been "blocked indefinitely", for reasons I don't comprehend. Can you enlighten me please? If so, thank you in anticipation, Pdfpdf 12:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The short story is that he was blocked for sockpuppetry (he created several abusive socks and was also strongly suspected of being a sock of a banned user - which banned user I have not heard). Some number of the sock edits were so controversial that they were oversighted so no one can see them. The long story is at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive106#Block of Melsaran
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive107#Melsaran's sockpuppets

—Wknight94 (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmmm. Yes, it is a long story. Thanks for the summary and the pointers to the detail. Most appreciated. Pdfpdf 15:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Message

Lead(II) nitrate has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Gene Burns is a fan of pee wee herman!

Why is this article getting deleted for? It's very legit, and has been mentioned live on his program several times that he is interprets Pee Wee Herman as an allegory to the life of simplicity. The deletion of this should be considered vandalism and will be reported. I have sources that document this fact. . .

Yes but no one cares. You want to list every single person that is a fan of Pee Wee Herman? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down. Bearian 22:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankspam

Thank you...

...for your participation, criticism, and support in my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final count of 90/1/1. I appreciate all of your kind words, criticism, and suggestions. I extend a special thanks to Acalamari for his nomination, and Dihydrogen Monoxide and Husond for their coaching and nominations. If you need help in any administrative matters, please contact me.

Thank you again and, best regards,
Neranei
This RfA thanks inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.

Louis Sockalexis

One IP user keeps insisting he shouldn't be in a category called "List of..." because the man is not a list. I wonder if you could shed some light. [29] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Actually I agree with the IP. Look at the rest of the entries in that category. They're all lists of people, not people themselves. Categories are odd here but typically a category that starts with "Lists of" contains all articles whose titles start with "List of". This one is an oddball because it contains "<team> roster" but roster and list are basically the same thing. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you think he's right, he must be on to something. I already answered him, but I won't do anything else with it. This kind of thing is why I generally avoid categories like the plague - as I should have here also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, categories are odd. Categories of lists are even more odd. You don't see them too often. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Usedshow

Thanks for taking care of that. As to the image, I didn't realize that the general speedy delete criteria applied to images as well as mainspace pages, or I would have listed it as a speedy candidate in the first place. So thanks for enlightening me! Regards, - Eron^Talk 14:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The G_ speedy criteria apply to everything. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

Thanks for protection. I have a good clue who did it. Speckledorph of the RuneScape Wikia. I was speaking with him on MSN and he mentioned going offline to try an "msn sock", so I think he loaded up www.proxy.org and fired up a proxy to vandalize with... Vampire Warrior 03:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Any idea which proxy site he used? I'll shut it down permanently. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I do know you just go to here and choose one of 4000 proxies off the list. Most of them are blocked and labelled as open proxies. I checked. Turns out, he says it wasn't him. I know it was someone from the RuneScape Wikia. I have a good idea as to whom..... Vampire Warrior 03:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat familiar with that site. I sometimes hunt for open proxies there so I can permanently block them here. Let me know if you find a connection here and I'll do what I can. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Back on Wikibreak I go. Vampire Warrior 03:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The person who just went on wikibreak just made another death threat on his talk page. The Hybrid T/C 04:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, he's being a goof. Let's let him go. Last word doesn't win. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Do see [30] for his previous block log prior to renaming. This is nothing new for this user; he has a history of being blocked for this type of thing. The Hybrid T/C 04:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen, yes. Between that, his current nonsense, and his lack of encyclopedia writing, he'll be looking at an indefblock if he doesn't go on the Wikibreak starting now and/or if he continues nonsense when he returns. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just what he's been blocked for. I didn't realize until just a little while ago who this was. This person has been stalking me for a while now; I thought that he had stopped, but now that I've realized who this is, I need this stopped. The Hybrid T/C 04:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, is this more serious than I thought? Diffs please. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing; I'll be back in a few. The Hybrid T/C 04:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's almost midnight where I am so I may follow up more tomorrow. You could probably get quick action at WP:ANI. Many would have blocked already so you may get your wish without diffs. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I'm not in a hurry; I just want some action taken. I'm having a bit of trouble tracking down his actions beyond the first day (the diffs for those can be found at User:The Hybrid/Sandbox), I need to get up early in the morning, and a friend of mine just signed onto AIM, and expects 100% attention, so I'll finish up tomorrow as well. Cheers :) The Hybrid T/C 05:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

One of my adoptees just got blocked as a sockpuppet of Molag Bal, so I'm not really in the mood to be on Wikipedia very often any more. As a result, I don't think this stalking is going to get to me anymore. No sense devoting the time and energy to find diffs over something that doesn't matter anymore. Thanks anyway, The Hybrid T/C 21:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Thanks for clearing. Much appreciated. No-one here for an hour and its been hard to try and stop the vandals. Gets frustrating not having the tools sometimes. I have missed a lot of others chasing the same few who could have been stopped earlier. Hammer1980·^talk 12:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to add my thanks, but also point out that, perhaps despite your possible intent, this didn't actually do anything, perhaps HBC AIV helperbot3 was acting on your old ban? Thanks again!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. That page is (has become) a place only to report people who have not been blocked but should be. In your case, the IP was still in a blocked state so the bot detected that and removed the report. If you really want to extend the block, you'd have to ask an admin elsewhere - either the blocking admin or admins in general at WP:ANI. In this particular case, I wouldn't bother. Children often get blocked and decide to vent on their own talk page. It's usually best to ignore them unless they're abusing the {{unblock}} template. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I did really want to extend the block, but as long as you, the blocking admin, don't feel threatened, I'll follow your advice and ignore this user, who did have the presence of mind to revert after three minutes. Thanks again!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Long user talk page

This user talk page is becoming long again. Some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please archive this page again. You may want to start doing that automatically with MiszaBot III. Thanks again!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The 32kb limit is a thing of the ancient past. Now all of our featured articles are twice that (today's is more than triple that). But I agree the time is coming for another one here. Probably later today. And I don't trust the archive bots, esp. since I prefer my archives to be as large as they can reasonably be. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"reasonably" is in the bandwidth and pocketbook of the downloader, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You can keep your user talk page down to only 48 hours and have as large as "maxarchivesize = 250K" if you want per User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo#Example_2_-_incremental_archives, although 7 days would probably work best for your volume, and you seem to prefer archives of about 100K. And Misza13 appears much more responsive than Werdna was. Of course, it's your user space, you can archive it as you see fit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!

For deleting that. That was the first time someone has done that (made an attack page under my username). Should it be making me feel oddly happy for some reason? Because it is :) -- Gscshoyru (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Wow, I had never considered looking for a Wknight94 but there it is! It's been deleted four times already and I didn't even notice. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thus the value of choosing a username that's already the name of an article. 0:) Baseball Bugs --->>> Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

66.234.45.94

On the 15th, you blocked this IP for 2 days. It's been unblocked for less than 6 hours and has already vandalized Survivor Series multiple times again. TJ Spyke 21:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone else beat me to it. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ishrat-ul-Ibad Khan

Sigh... looks like he's back. Pity. Time to semi the article again, or should we wait and see if he's persistent, first? Gscshoyru (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Already done. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with attacking sockpuppets

Hi Wknight94, you blocked an abusive sockpuppet vandalising my user page a little while ago (User talk:Fkpg8). Well, he/she's back with many more accounts. Could you help me with Special:Contributions/Huiliu, Special:Contributions/Dindado please? Thanks in anticipation! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Both blocked and both your pages semi-protected for a week. Is there some story behind this? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Talk:China (at least, I think that's where this is coming from - the vandal socks don't make it clear). User:JackyAustine and his army of sockpuppets have been trying to push a particular POV on China for about a year. He is being opposed by everyone else, but I recently found myself as the "leader" of the defending team, if you will. That was when the sockpuppet attacks on my user pages started. I've filed for a checkuser: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peter zhou (Peter zhou is the most recent confirmed sockpuppet of User:JackyAustine).

Not only has he been vandalising my user page and talk page, he's even filed a sockpuppetry case against me (which has been closed and filing user has been blocked), by dredging up some unrelated user from the last time he tried to push his POV on China.

Sigh. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost forgot: Thanks very much for taking care of these two socks! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)