User talk:Wknight94/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Why was Alley Kat Brewing Company deleted?

It says in the deletion log that it was marked for deletion and then expired, but I can't find the original justification/discussion for deletion. Onishenko 15:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why was Tiger show deleted?

Its a real show and quite notorious, not just in Thailand, but also in many other places. In fact, it's listed in the urban dictionary.Xiphosurus 06:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why was the photo for Stel Pavlou deleted?

It's authorized for use on Wikipedia. I wrote to Pavlou on Myspace (where he uses the pic) and he said he was happy for it to be used. This the the third time this picture has been inexplicably been deleted. He is just too ugly?

Why was PNMsoft deleted

Hi Wknight94. You have deleted the page PNMsoft (reason (WP:CSD#A7)) PNMsoft is an article about a real company and does assert the importance or significance of its subject. It is not controversial nor an advertisment. Could you please undelete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.152.2.211 (talk • contribs).

Someone marked that article for speedy deletion and I agreed and deleted it. See WP:CSD#A7 and WP:N for more information. This is the second time the article has been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PNMsoft) so I am not going to restore it. You can submit a request at WP:DR. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you but thank you for your answer. An editor has asked for a deletion review of PNMsoft. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 90.152.2.211 19:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Question to deletion

Hello Wknight94. You have deleted the link i contributed to the "incest" article. I'm new to wikipedia. So did I do anything wrong? Thanks for taking your time. Melinda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Melinda73 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Read WP:EL. We prefer to have "well researched" information brought into Wikipedia itself as opposed to bringing in just a link to the information. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer. I understand that Wikipedia prefers accumulating information within its own articles. The article I linked to deals with the questions about the incest criminal law. I thought that information might be too specialized to be included into the main "incest" article, but it still might be interesting "further reading". I'm sorry about the "well researched" description. That was probably very subjective indeed. So please feel free to change it appropriately. --Melinda73 17:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit war question

Since I have no idea how to reach you otherwise, I'm leaving a public message for you.

There have been a large number of edits made to the Tammy Duckworth article by two users, both of whom seem to be Republican partisans who are upset by what they see as POV entries in the article. They have made some constructive changes, but I feel that many are being made just because they don't like them. I have tried to argue the case (see Talk:Tammy Duckworth under "Robocalling"), but one user in particular is resorting to simply parsing words to try to twist the argument. I feel he/she is simply trolling now, and I plan to revert/revise some of the edits of the last couple of days, but expect it will turn into an edit war quickly.

I am trying to put in as accurate information as is available, and one point on the Robo calling that the other user will not accept is that I can produce a long list of races in which the RNC used the robocalls in a manner against FCC rules. They were not cited for such (the Dems, having taken Congress, have decided to put some sharper teeth into the rules for the next cycle), but I quoted the FCC rule with which the RNC was clearly not in compliance. The only evidence on the other side is one letter from a GOP attorney basically stating that the Democrats have done the same thing, but in the five months since the election, there hasn't been a single instance cited of this abuse from the Democrats. I feel it is fair to list the robocalling without considering it POV, and that it does fall under the header of dirty tricks.

Best I can tell, Dual Freq has not edited the Duckworth article before March 23, but has made one minor and two major edits. The minor one is removing some links, but the other two are directly related to (IMO) adding a new POV to some areas. Things that might shed the RNC or her opponent in a bad light (the Robocalling affair, and video links to RNC negative ads) have been removed, while basically irrelevant information (comparison percentage of contributors from in-district) is added.

I'm more disturbed by the comments on the talk page, which I feel are snide and sophistic. I've had several debates with people over articles, most notably the Treaty of Tripoli (which can really get dicey when you're dealing with an issue of Church/State separation), but this one is getting a bit hostile, and I'm finding my own temper rising every time the other user misquotes my intent and tries to redirect the discussion.

Am I following Wiki protocol here? Is there something that can be done to head off an edit war? Is there a better way to deal with a user with whom I disagree? Am I in the wrong here?

BTW, I'VE seen a Walrus eat a Big Mac. Just because they can is no reason to let them do so, however. -- Couillaud 02:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

An edit war on a political bio page? What fun. I'm just about to drift off to sleep but from a quick glance at the talk page and recent edits to the article, I don't see anything too terrible. I've seen (and partaken in) discussions far nastier than that. As for the lengthy list of video links, I'm curious what you think they add to the article. Isn't every campaign fraught with numerous pro and con advertisements? What do you figure makes this one any different? Did something out of the ordinary occur in this campaign? (No I'm not familiar with the subject matter at all). If so, is there some neutral reporting of such extraordinary circumstances?
I'll likely take a closer look at things tomorrow. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've mostly contributed to baseball articles or edited out vandalism from various other articles, so I really don't know what levels that anger can hit here. There have been some debates on the talk page of Treaty of Tripoli (about the only controversial page I've edited), but the discussion there at least acknowledges others' viewpoints.

My problem here was that I had offered a list[1] of the robocalls, with a list of sources and information about the followup legislation now pending in the Senate. For the record, every abusive robocall was from the RNC, so I think it was a noteworthy story. Dual Freq's answer was to ignore the evidence, and say it was all simply my opinion. When I quoted an FCC regulation verbatim, D.F. accused me of "original research"; I provided a link to the language, but if I'd gotten it from my public library, I think he'd have challenged that.

I was challenged when I referred to robocalls as dirty tricks, which is odd since the robocall entry says that they can be a form of dirty trick in a political campaign. While I grant that another Wiki article might be wrong, no one has "corrected" it yet.

About the videos, I looked at the video links and left only one up. I was expecting the Michael Fox ad to be among them, which I think should be considered important enough to keep, but it has since been removed (maybe there's on on Claire McCaskill's bio page). It was just the smug attitude and the refusal to actually engage in real discussion and debate by F.D. that made it difficult to resist reverting every edit he did. I didn't do that, but I admit the videos should have gone.

F.D. just accused me this morning of having personally banned him from editing the article. I have no power to do so, and my contact with you was simply to try to find some way to avoid the edit war. The Duckworth article has been the object of vandalism more than once, during and since the election, and the obvious political bias that F.D. has expressed (I'd classify him as "Angry Republican") in his comments made me exceptionally wary.

Couillaud 22:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


I find it very offensive that you deleted my page. I was only trying to speak out about unfair wikipedia can be. I have only just made pages on wikipedia today. This made me so sad.

Vandal - 209.31.114.106

After being warned following your user page vandalization, the little imp continue on its merry way, as evidenced here. I reverted the first couple, but methinks it needs blockage? Yep, and he vandalized your userpage again. --Ebyabe 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, KirinX got it. :) --Ebyabe 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it looks like I beat you to the reverts themselves, but the vandal in question was reported to AIV by me and was subsequently blocked. -- KirinX 18:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh my, look at all the excitement I missed. Thanks all! Actually I read somewhere that it's not kosher for admins to block people who vandalize their user page but I usually block them anyway... Thanks again. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit...

...that the term "wikipedifile" is at least tinged with some cleverness, as contrasted to 99% of the vandalism out there. Wahkeenah 23:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela

I just now noticed that you re-blanked the talk page for Nelson Mandela. May I ask why? --HubHikari 00:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Misclick. Happens to everyone. --HubHikari 00:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, woops. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal ban on IP vandal 67.81.78.252

Damn! You are so fast I submitted the entry and the ip was dealt with...Dunno about a backlog, you are working on a front log!!! Thanks for kicking the ip into touch though. Very good to see you working like that. You deserve a barnstar but i dont know how to give one. Regards and cheers. Thor Malmjursson 01:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Admin Attention on Vandalism

Thank you. MojoTas 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. When an IP is obviously not deterred by a block, I often double it. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

Here is one whose sole purpose is messing with things, including with the admin Gwernol after Gwernol warned him. I'm not sure of the protocol, i.e. whether Gwernol himself should zap this guy, or if another admin should do it. [1] Wahkeenah 17:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, Gwernol went ahead and did it himself. Zap! However, that username sounds familiar. I think a previous "potato head" was blocked previously. Could be the same spud. Wahkeenah 18:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That's what I mentioned a few days back - some people think it's a conflict of interest when an admin blocks someone who is vandalizing the admin's own pages. I don't see a problem with it. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I missed that comment. But I agree with it. Especially given admins' greater potential to be targeted. Wahkeenah 20:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Maybe I only thought it and didn't type it. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I might have missed it. I have a unique method of speed-reading: Just read every other paragraph. :) Wahkeenah 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This one's primary purpose is messing with things. His user ID is apparently self-descriptive. He was warned at least once but has continued to vandalize. [2] Wahkeenah 11:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. There is at least one sockpuppet ring that focuses on wrestling - this account was probably related. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a user that was blocked once and is at it again. A vandal, totally. [3] Wahkeenah 03:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

All gone. That's why admins should always block logged-in users indefinitely. Otherwise you end up with a case like this guy where he just comes back and picks up where he left off. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The odd thing is, that user started out in a seemingly "normal" mode and then went off the deep end... which makes me wonder if someone else got hold of the account. So it goes. Wahkeenah 03:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, no excuse. If the account's been compromised, it needs to go. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's one whose only purpose appears to be vandalism, including at least one posted after he was warned. [4] Wahkeenah 07:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The author of this article could be a troublemaker: [5] Wahkeenah 17:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This user's sole purpose appears to be to post some nonsense about Hideki Matsui which, even if true (unlikely), is uncited. [6] Wahkeenah 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I might be overreacting, as he found an alleged source. So that reduces it to a (dis)content dispute. :\ Wahkeenah 17:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This one appears to be vandalizing a number of articles in quick succession. [7] Wahkeenah 02:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Another admin blocked him. However, he was originally editing from 207.144.59.134, and now has returned to that IP address and continues to harass. I have also reported that fact to the admin that blocked his user ID. Wahkeenah 06:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
And this new user, by an amazing coincidence, instantly zoomed in the issues surrounding those of the guy(s) mentioned just above. [8] Wahkeenah 17:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I turned him over to the admin who blocked him, and another admin who refused the unblock. What a waste of everyone's time, eh? Wahkeenah 17:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This situation now appears to be taken care of, after the involvement of at least 3 admins. Wahkeenah 23:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: genelogy page

That wasn't my page. I was actually the editor who tagged the article for speedy deletion. janejellyroll 02:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey it was mine, thanks for the suggestion, I'm sure that they will help. If there is a way to send me the information I typed it would be most appreciated. In the meanwhile I'm surfing those sites you recommended! Chedit 02:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ajai R. Singh - AFD Registered

Thank you for your action on this article, Wknight94. This is just a courtesy note to let you know that the article has now beem listed for Afd - You may find the relevant discussion here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajai R. Singh. Thanks. Thor Malmjursson 02:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul Shockley

Why did you delete Paul Shockley? I only JUST got word of its notability dispute on my talk page and had no chance to contest the deletion (or add notability to it). Where is the original article so that I may add notability to it? Sheesh... -Eep² 06:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wiire

Why was my article on The Wiire deleted? I was about to expand it a lot, and then I went to the URL and it had been deleted! I was hoping to make it a better article. Why did you do that? I don't work for The Wiire, so I'm not advertising it, and people might want to know more about The Wiire without scouring the site and its podcasts for information. I had no time to see why it was contested, and if you need proof of significance, take into account the amazing Wii sales so far, as well as all of the high-profile people who have been guests on their podcasts. If it was due to categorization, that's Wikipedia's fault. The help pages aren't clear enough about how to categorize a page. Wii Owner 3.14 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone tagged the article for speedy deletion based on the fact that it did not assert any notability (see WP:CSD#A7). I agreed and deleted it. It was the third time the article had been deleted so it should not come as much of a surprise. Basically, the article gave no evidence that anyone has ever heard of the web site or that anyone has ever reported any verifiable information (see WP:V). —Wknight94 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well you could have given me a little more time to react. I have very little spare time, so I haven't even been on Wikipedia since Wednesday. And I must say, people HAVE heard of it. They were at E3 (rip, sob) and they had Chris Kohler on the podcast a few weeks ago. PLEASE, if there is any way I can get the article wikicode I wrote, let me expand it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wii Owner 3.14 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
Thank you. I saw the page in my user stuff today. I will work hard to get it up to sratch before I repost it in its place. Wii Owner 3.14 22:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

James Mott

I have no special interest in "James Mott" and was perfectly content to leave it as marked for deletion until I found some things. I began to edit this nearly abandoned article and when I finished for the evening I was alerted that it had just been deleted. There, however, was a "check box" offering to "recreate" which I checked and continued. There still may not be sufficient content for a stub and if it is deleted anyway I have no objection. If it still exist I may continue to add references, etc. Daytrivia 02:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, that article is much better. Nice job. Previously, the article just said that he was an abolitionist - just like thousands of other people. It still may be deleted but it should not be a speedy candidate. (BTW, I restored the history since your nice improvements). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Daytrivia 03:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Patrik Ringborg

Hi!

Please don't delete my article on the conductor Patrik Ringborg. The webmaster at www.ringb.org gave me permission to use parts of the text, which I also have in a concert programme as printed media. I have asked them to clearly state that the CV is in public domain.

Sune Ugerud 08:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please check
http://www.ringb.org/cvengl.html
for the permssion to use the text.
Sune Ugerud 09:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Milbank Tweed

Courtesy notice: I have undeleted and improved the article. This is a major U.S. law firm and is obviously notable. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 15:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Roger that. Hopefully you see how "Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP is a law firm headquartered in New York City" asserts no notability whatsoever. (By the way, good to see you are still around! ) —Wknight94 (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh no problem at all with your deletion. I would have done the exact same thing. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 15:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Stead's Law

As I said to NeoFreak, I am not gonna bitch about it being removed. It probably belonged as a footnote somewhere else, but as far as what it is/was... if you were not there you have no place making that kind of a comment as you did in the deletion log. I was there, so were many others. The FAQ cited on that page should have been SOME indication that it was not just some BS. I strongly resent your implication that I just made it up. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 07:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This query gets only ten hits so clearly it is something made up in school one day. (Without verification in the article I do not even need to do that query but, in this case, the query supports my assertion). The same query for the actually-notable Godwin's Law gets nearly ¼ million hits. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for +sprot on my user page. Hopefully they will get bored. —dgiestc 16:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Let me know if they return and I will be glad to re-sprot. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Page deletions

How do we get the text of pages that have been deleted, and how do we find out why? I spent a lot of time on my page on artist Diana G. Lee, there was nothing inappropriate with the page.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monicapl (talk • contribs) 16:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

That page was deleted as a copyright violation. We do not allow direct copies from other web sites and it appeared that Diana G. Lee was a copy of http://www.dianalee.com/DianaLeeArtist.php without any indication of permission. I've re-checked just now and verified that the text is a nearly-exact copy of that page. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response! What is the proper way to indicate that I had permission to use the information from the artists site? I am sorry, I am fairly new to posting information on Wikipedia.

Can you help?

I see that you are a part of Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. However, I am wondering if this applies to deleted CATEGORIES. I am trying to get a copy of the (wrongfully) deleted Category:Jewish American businesspeople -- can you help? --Wassermann 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, the list of articles in a deleted category can only be retrieved by looking through the contributions of whoever removed each article from that category. Oftentimes, that is a robot account. In this case, however, I don't see where this category ever existed. Do you have the name exactly correct? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry -- it was Category:Jewish-American businesspeople. It certainly existed -- it had at least 100-150 names, and the category was deleted (technically 'merged') through a 'consensus' of only 3-4 votes. It was a triple intersection category, and thus when it was deleted most of those individuals lost their Americanness, their Jewish heritage, along with their status as businesspeople. I mapped it all out before a couple of months ago (see User:Karimarie's TP HERE) when I tried to get the category restored. The loss of such massive amounts of data was indeed a shame; thus I seek to restore it or at least gain the former list of names in the category so that I can work with those names again. --Wassermann 02:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I see it now. Take a look at this list of contributions. Those are where a robot account removed that category from each of the articles in it. Hopefully that helps. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
EXCELLENT! Thank you so much for your help kind sir! --Wassermann 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

please remove

Alluc. is a typo. It was intended as Alluc. Please review the deletion of Alluc Iyenweyel 16:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Edits to Nefarian

I don't see why you reverted my edits. I provided strategy for the boss fight and expanded on the lore surrounding Deathwing and the Black Dragonflight. I had improved the article greatly, and I am informing you that I will revert the article back to my version unless you respond to this message on my talk page and we can come to an agreement. Dingalingapingsmong=vocal spazz 04:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ron liebman and User:Irene liebman

OK, we've got a dilemma here. We've got this user who, under both his own name [9] and apparently under various IP addresses, keeps foisting personal research on various items, such as the Christy Mathewson page, ignoring anything anyone tells him. Wahkeenah 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I just posted a comment directly on his talk page instead of just on the Mathewson talk page, and I see he's in a minor argument with someone else on a similar theme... pushing his own opinion about what constitutes a "streak" vs. what MLB has to say about it. I reverted a bunch of changes he had made to MLB records in which he claimed that "streaks" such as Ted Williams batting average records, should not be considered to have been broken because they had been in military service -- an understandable opinion, but it has no place in wikipedia's articles on records. Wahkeenah 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can see the problem. If he would actually cite a visible source instead of saying "I read this in some library somewhere", it could be acceptable. Meanwhile, his insistence on messing with streaks, based on his personal opinion that they should count, also spells trouble... and raises questions about the validity of his birthdate research also. Wahkeenah 17:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on this. I have to wonder, though, whether the various IP addresses now doing the updating are actually that same user, or if it's copycat(s). Wahkeenah 04:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The only way to be sure is a WP:RFCU but it seems awfully coincidental. They are sockpuppets or, at the very least, meatpuppets. Regardless, if it comes down to blocks, I plan on blocking (or asking someone else to block) all of the IPs involved.
I noticed that the same thing is happening at Baseball-Reference.com's Bullpen wiki except that Mr. Liebman is talking more: http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/User_talk:Ron_liebman. I've asked an administrator there for more information. Liebman claims to have written a book and he also appears on a list of board members for Retrosheet. Even if his date of birth claims appear to be true, I would strongly disagree with overriding MLB.com, etc. I've used United States Census records to do research just as Liebman claims to have done and I wouldn't say they have any higher level of accuracy. As for birth certificates, those were routinely forged in various ways. My grandmother was from Alabama and, after she died, my mother found four birth certificates for her saying she was born anywhere from 1923 to 1928. To this day, we don't know if she was 14 when she had her first child! Research based on those primary sources would deserve nothing more than a footnote in the articles IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right, if he would footnote and with more solid info than "a document I found somewhere" (and minus snippy comments about "serious researchers") then it could be worth noting. I've run into a few other random birthdate squabbles by folks who want to foist personal research on wikipedia. Barry Manilow is one example. There were others I've forgotten. The most recent I've happened to run across is Charlton Heston. Wahkeenah 13:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's gotten to the point where I'm inclined to revert any of this user's changes, not just dates, based on the pattern of "original research". Complicating matters is that he is very free with editing from several different IP addresses and his wife's(?) ID as well as his user ID. Wahkeenah 12:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's basically what I'm doing. I found a similar one, 68.227.63.231 (talk · contribs). I don't know if you saw the message I left for him but it's pretty clear what he's doing. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I saw it. You've got his approach figured out. I also added back a complaint that someone had posted about his changes to the Elisabeth Hasselbeck article, which he had deleted without comment. If I'm overstepping my bounds by doing so, let me know and I'll delete it again. But it's part of his continued "screw you" attitude and pattern. Wahkeenah 13:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am currently in a minor revert war with some IP addresses about the birthday issue, for Fred Haney, Whitey Ford, Billy Hamilton (baseball player), Tony Kubek. s-protect would help with those items, if you think that's appropriate. p.s. I am watching all the pages Liebman changed under his ID. Wahkeenah 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I put down a couple week-long blocks. Let me know if I need a few more. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He's now back as his wife or sister or mother or alter-ego or whatever: [10] Wahkeenah 15:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Whaddya think about semi-protecting at least some of the pages the liebmanites are changing. It would at least reduce the anonymous IP stuff. Then he/she/it would have to waste time creating sockpuppets to continue his/her/their vandalims. Or not. Simply a random idea. It helped for Knight. --Ebyabe 16:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I'm curious to see how far he will go. He claims that he is writing a book and I believe he is doing a lot of this research - and some of it is probably even true. He either is or was affiliated with Retrosheet (his name appears on a few pages on their site). The problem is that he is trying to get his research passed off as gospel truth as opposed to just another POV. I want to see how much of a fool he will make of himself by creating sockpuppets like a common troll would. I'm also keeping people apprised of the situation as you can see from my user page at Baseballref's bullpen (my messages are here). If he's not careful, he's going to really discredit himself in the real world. But yes, we can semi-protect those pages if he's really going to resort to such desperate troll behavior. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a certain amusement value to see the depth of the hole he'll wind up digging for himself. He's writing a book, you say? Gosh, if he spent less time here and more on the book, ya think it might have gotten to the printers, instead of still being a work in progress? Hey, I'm just sayin'. ;) -Ebyabe 16:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
What's ironic is that if he had waited until after his book was published and then used it as a source, it probably would have stuck! —Wknight94 (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
That's one of the inherent flaws in wikipedia, which I've heard that Stephen Colbert or some such has made fun of it for that reason. Meanwhile, I actually engaged Liebman in something resembling dialogue on his talk page, but it's evident he doesn't care what any of us have to say, so I'm through talking to him unless he answers our questions with some evidence. Wahkeenah 16:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Liebman pulled a clever one this time, leaving Chief Bender as 1884 and then inserting, without explanation, that SABR cited him as the best player born in 1883. He left out the lengthy discussion in the BRJ for that year about how it's uncertain which year Bender was actually born in. This guy lectures us about what "serious researchers" do. What a serious researcher would actually do is what SABR did, present all the evidence and acknowledge that there is uncertainty, rather than saying "This is what it is" based on predetermined notions of which records are "right". Wahkeenah 16:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The user has now pulled me into a revert war about Al Simmons. I'm done with it for the day, lest I violate the 3-revert rule. Wahkeenah 18:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A new red-link User:Isidore wax‎ is now playing the same game with streaks that Liebman was. Wahkeenah 16:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Re Deletion of Eric Rosenfeld

Next time please do not delete something while I am working on it... I got the following message when I went to save it:

User Wknight94 (talk) deleted this article after you started editing it, with a reason of:

Stevenmitchell 02:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)



George Gustines

Re my George Gustines article. Thank you! AndreasKQ 21:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete Bugei Juhappan?

I would like to request the undeletion of this very informativ article. --Newguyjapan 14:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newguyjapan (talk • contribs) 14:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Sockpuppet tagging

Hello Wknight94. When tagging a sockpuppet as blocked[11], please don't use an indefinitely blocked template like {{indefblockeduser}}. This places the page in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, whence it is manually removed by maintaining administrators. The sockpuppet templates themselves include notation for blocked users: {{sockpuppet|Example username|blocked}} (suspected) or {{blockedsock|Example username}} (confirmed). Thanks. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 02:36:56, 09 April 2007 (UTC)

Stephen M. Smith page

Hi Wknight94 - I noticed that you deleted the Stephen M. Smith page, presumably for notability (delete log), after Yakuman (talk · contribs) created it. That user has recreated it, and I thought you might want the history on this page. It appears to me that the the page was created as a post hoc justification by Yakuman of a minor edit on the Hurricane Smith disambiguation page. (See Talk:Hurricane Smith.) Yakuman said he's doing this to make a stand and support an anonymous IP editor 70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs) who is under scrutiny right now for a number of behavior issues (persecution, in Yakuman/70.23.*'s opinion). 70.23.* only made one edit on the disambig page that I know of: a revert of another random edit by another IP editor with whom 70.23.* is engaged in a multi-page edit war.

So, Stephen M. Smith seems like non-notable content added for WP:POINT to me; but it's not a good idea for me to try to make a full assessment of this page, because (full disclosure) I'm already in the middle of a mediation with Yakuman and 70.23.*, and also an Administrators Intervention on 70.23.*. So I would like to just have documented what's gone on with this page; make sure some objective third party who is not otherwise involved in ongoing disputes with Yakuman/70.23.* is on it; and then wash my hands off it and unwatchlist it. Sorry for any inconvenience. --lquilter 18:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable! User:Lquilter is still trolling for allies! On how many user pages has he now gone hunting for people to join him in group hates against those whom he wishes banned for having the temerity to refuse to submit to his political authority? The mind boggles. If the WP rules meant anything, he would have been banned months ago.

70.23.199.239 09:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Relaying a request

I've been asked to take a look at a dispute over a couple of baseball pages and templates, but I suggested that given my prior history with one of the participants, I might not be an ideal referee. Could you possibly have a look at it? It would be most appreciated. MisfitToys 21:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

List of National Basketball Association players with 60 or more points in a game

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article List of National Basketball Association players with 60 or more points in a game, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ksy92003 02:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on Game Log

I've replied to your request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/2007 MLB team articles#Disputes. Kingjeff 04:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection of Canada

I don't understand why "it's been 3 months" is sufficent reason to unprotect an article that is likely to recieve heavy anon vandalism. It's not as if a handful of guys have been carefully monitoring the article waiting for unprotection, and then when that time didn't come they vacated, as your reasoning would suggest. Nevertheless, I thought something had to be done at RFPP before un/protection of such a prominent article. -Phoenix 07:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That is sufficient reason because this is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. When an article is semiprotected, it is a turn-off to all new users. When one has been left in that state for three months, that means it has been forgotten. We generally try to leave pages semiprotected for a week or less. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

odd afd

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:いちだ ぱねど, not really sure what's going on there but figured since you protected the user page you might want to talk a look at this thing. Thanks. --W.marsh 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I protected it as part of an AIV report about a little mini-war at that user page. As far as the sock notice on the page, I would have to defer to Redvers (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) who blocked いちだ ぱねど (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry. I'm not sure why this new user wants to delete the user page so bad but it seems pointless to me. Personally I'd leave it there unless Redvers said otherwise but you can make that call. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My sandboxes ;)

User NSLE = User Chacor ;) – Chacor 11:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh, I did not realize that. Sorry. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem. :) – Chacor 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion query

Would it be possible to reinstate the SgurrEnergy page as we do have references of notability to add that comply with the Wikipedia guidelines for companies. I'm sorry we didn't add the hang on comment straight away as we were still in the process of creating the page. H200 14:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I restored the page. The speedy delete tag is still on it. If you don't think you can improve it soon, you might want to move it to your user area (like User:H200/Sgurrenergy) so it doesn't get deleted by someone else. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! H200 15:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Kostas Exarhakis

You removed a {{db-bio}} (rm speedy. Member of relatively notable band . . . ) I had placed during random article searching. Neither of the bands the article says he is a member of are even linked to articles. Could you please edit the article so that it is clear why he is notable. Simply adding a phrase in front of the notable band to make it clear what is significant is all I mean.--BirgitteSB 12:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That was based on the link to Firewind. Let me know if you think I'm missing something. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
From reading Kostas Exarhakis I understood that he was session musician on their album and not actually a member of that band. However Firewind lists him as a member under a different name. A closer reading of the first article shows it to be more ambiguous than I first thought "effectively as a session musician" (emphasis mine). I will leave it, thanks for the explanation.--BirgitteSB 14:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that I just wasn't comfortable with WP:CSD for this article - that doesn't mean you can't use WP:PROD or WP:AFD for more thorough analysis. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Senang Hati Foundation

hey there, that was fast and, I think, unwarranted. I started writing an article about a real non-profit organisation I've encountered and come back the next morning and poof, it's gone; no chance to add 'hangon'. I would appreciate it if you would restore the stub I created; I will expand on it's notability. Their center provides a home for more than twenty people who are disabled; the centre has provided wheelchairs to something like a hundred individuals. See their site: http://www.SenangHati.org/ --Senang Hati Jack Merridew 12:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it but from your description, it's likely to be re-deleted soon. You're free to get a second opinion though. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll work on it in a moment. --Senang Hati Jack Merridew 13:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've changed my username: User:Senang Hati → User:Jack Merridew. I have also expanded the artcle a bit. Would you consider removing the CSD tag at this point? If not, could you offer some suggestions? Terima Kasih. --Jack Merridew 06:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I decided to let another administrator take action on the page so another opinion would be factored in. I'm not sure why no one has done that. All I can say is be patient - someone will get to it eventually. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the CSD tag. Someone, however, has retagged it; I added hangon again and am hoping you would consider removing it again. I will also ask the person (User:Sr13) who just added it. --Jack Merridew 10:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the speedy-tag on the above has been removed; and an additional reference added, too! I'd like input on what I should do, if anything, about the wp:cio tag on it; it invites deletion! Terima kasih. --Jack Merridew 10:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please clean up the archive

I am asking you for the third time to edit out the personal attacks and slanders inserted by Gregory9/HarmonyThree/and other sockpuppets like 130.126.15.57 and 130.126.15.142 on page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ati3414. If you look at the combined "contributions" of KM's sockpuppets ((Gregory9/HarmonyThree/and other sockpuppets like 130.126.15.57 and 130.126.15.142) you will find no real contributions, just personal attacks against the person that exposed him. None of this stuff has anything to do with wiki. - Wiki should not be the platform for slander and personal attacks, please do not turn wiki into the playground of such characters. The current content of the page makes wiki legally liable for slander and privacy violation. Please revert to the page form that does not contain the slanders.Leave out the personal information and the slanders. You have the cleaned up version ready made. Please remove the slanders and the privacy violations, wiki is not a tabloid, do not sweep my request under the rug. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.72.195.238 (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

New England Patriots template

Can you please delete the following template?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:New_England_Patriots_seasons

It has been duplicated properly here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:New_England_Patriots

Pats1 23:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've properly moved the page. What you had done was a copy and paste move which is not a good idea here (for licensing reasons). —Wknight94 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I had just converted the Patriots seasons template into that one (only about 1/2 teams have it so far). Pats1 00:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


Dierdre Imus

Can you indulge me for a quick second - I assume you checked it, but in the event you idntwas there anything salvageable in the history of this one that was {{db-blank}}? I can't imagine we didn't have an article on her, but it wouldn't be the first shocker. Sorry to bug you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, sorry:
  • 15:44, April 13, 2007 . . Bongwarrior (Talk | contribs | block)
  • 15:41, April 13, 2007 . . Imusfan (Talk | contribs | block) (←Created page with 'top')
That's all there is. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
How very bizarre. Thanks for checking. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I picked a recent revision of Don Imus at random and there weren't even red links to his wife. I guess it never occurred to anyone before the recent events. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________


Michael Cortson

My Google search [12] resulted in an amazing 622 Ghits. I wasn't really seeing the substansive, third-party sources. I guess that will be settled for prod, then. hbdragon88 00:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sarcasm. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wesley Mallard

According to his NFL Player Page, the article title Wesley Mallard should be spelled Wesly, not Wesley. Pats1 01:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You should either merge the article yourself or add {{merge}} tags to the articles. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I've created a redirect, but the move function says the other article already exists (which it does). Pats1 17:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
In a case like this - where two articles referring to the same subject existed at the same time - you won't be able to do a move. You'll have to do a manual merge meaning take the content that is different from the wrongly named article and copy it over to the rightly named article. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Which I've done. The next thing I want to do is get this page to automatically redirect to the correct page. Now, in a similar situation, should I recommend this page and all the other old NFL depth chart pages for deletion, as they've all been replaced by templates? Pats1 18:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it looks like you've already got that page redirecting to the correct place. I think you're done - unless I'm misunderstanding something. As far as the category goes, if it's empty, you can put a {{db-catempty}} tag on it. For the page, you can put a {{prod}} tag on it (with "subst"). —Wknight94 (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right. It is redirecting correctly. For the depth chart pages, I think I'll just do redirects for all of those too, as all of the accurate information is on the templates that I'll be redirecting to. Thanks for your help. Pats1 18:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
One more thing. For the Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/New England Patriots subproject, I have two templates included on the page - [13] and [14]. The category category:National Football League roster templates only includes the actual templates themselves, not the pages they are linked on. This is ideal. However, the category category:NFL depth charts includes both the templates themselves and any pages those templates are included on (i.e. Patriots Subproject). Do you know how to change this? Pats1 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, that is fixed using the <noinclude></noinclude> tag. Anything you put inside those tags (such as a [[Category:Whatever]]) will not be included in the pages that include that template. You will often see that used for just the situation you are running into. I modified Template:San Diego Chargers depth chart to give you an example. There is a second step though... After you change the template, you will probably notice that the team page is still in the category. The fix for that is to simply open the team page and then save it - without making any changes. In summary:
  1. Edit the Template page and wrap its category in a <noinclude></noinclude> tag.
  2. Edit the team page, make no changes and just hit Save.
  3. Go back to the category and refresh (use Ctrl-F5 so your browser cache is flushed.
That should fix your problem. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually didn't have to even make the extra edit to the pages. Just a refresh worked. Thanks for all your help. Pats1 22:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Projects by type

Thank you for your contribution to the Project article in the past. This is now linked from Category:Projects by type. However, there is currently a Call for Deletion for this category. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. In particular, if you would like to save this category, please add a Keep entry with your "signature" using "~~~~". Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 01:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the potential vandalism warning for User:HoneyBeeBABY

You will see my and other Wikipedians' assistance for this new user,User:HoneyBeeBABY and yet this new user has primarily been posting "hi" "who are you" on user talkpages instead of editing articles. If you are able, please keep an eye on this user for potential vanalism. I see that you currently view this potential ban on this user as premature, however I am possing a reconsideration. It could prevent more non-productive work. I posted some more information on HoneyBeeBABY's talk page regarding civility, etiquette and vandalism. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Marycontrary 20:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern. By all means, if this continues or the comments start becoming unkind or harassing or the activity turns to main space article vandalism, let me know (or WP:AIV). So far the edits are too benign to warrant blocking or user page deletion in my opinion. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Benign, yes, thus far those edits in question are just that, when considering the damage that Wikipedia experiences on any given day. Perhaps our work is already done regarding this concern. If it continues, I will work to follow the Wikipedia protocol. Thanks for your help and great work Wknight94! Sincerely, Marycontrary 21:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
This is appears to be vandalism - User_talk:HoneyBeeBABY. I did try to educate them. Since you are familiar with this situation, may it be worthy of some sort of alert? Thank you again, sincerely Marycontrary 00:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I blocked that account and another related one. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

AWB Grand Master (Masonic)

You AWBed the links to Grandmaster (Masonic) not the correct Grand Master (Masonic). Lexicon (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Woops. Well that's easy enough to fix - I made one a redirect to the other. Thanks for letting me know my mistake. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivial question

I'm guessing you're a New York Mets and/or Yankees fan? (Probably NOT both, but ya never know). d:) Wahkeenah 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Just Mets. The only Yankees I remember were the bad old days of Mattingly, Henderson, Winfield, etc. Not good times. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I realize that's like asking an old Brooklyn Dodgers fan if he also rooted for the Yankees... or, baseball gods forbid, the "Jints". d:) Wahkeenah 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Is that why "Knight", as in Ray, or is it just a coincidence? Wahkeenah 22:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope, just a coincidence. Though I was certainly a bigger Ray Knight fan than most! —Wknight94 (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I recall watching that famous Game 6 in 1986. With two outs and nobody on, Carter got a base hit, and I had a premonition: "The Mets are going to win." The baseball gods loved the Mets in 1986. Wahkeenah 22:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, one of those "I remember where I was when..." moments. Remember, they came down to the final strike a couple times - the only time in history that's ever happened (I had written that in the World Series article but of course someone has taken it out since). —Wknight94 (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You only get so many miracles. The Red Sox had turned the ALCS around against the Angels by virtue of Dave Henderson's homer, which in my view is one of the all-time great clutch hits, ranking right up there with Bobby Thomson... but the Mets were the Team of Destiny. I'm not superstitious by nature, but it is baseball, and I do subscribe (somewhat) to the "Team of Destiny" theory. The Cubs seem to have used their last miracle in 1908. It's as if the baseball gods told Johnny Evers, OK, we'll give you this one for your rule-book pedantry, but you'll never win another. Wahkeenah 01:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've thought the same. But then 2004 and 2005 showed how fast "curses" can reverse. Those showed that it's just how things come together and a lot of luck plays in. Things came together well for the Mets last year until Pedro, El Duke, and Cliff Floyd all went down with season-enders. So, it wasn't meant to be. In 1986, they had the perfect blend of old guys and young. In 1985, the young guys were too young - in 1987, the old guys were too old. Now I'm just crossing my fingers that the old guys aren't too old for 2007. If so, I may be waiting until 2026 for things to come together again! —Wknight94 (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If following sports all these years has tought me anything, it's that losing is easy; winning is hard; and winning the championship requires a *lot* of pieces to fall into place at just the right time. I thought for sure the Mets would win more than one Series in the 80s, just as I thought the Braves would win more than one in the 90s. But the planets only aligned once for each of those teams. Even the mighty Yankees, who in their glorious past seemed to always find that intangible "something extra", seem to have run short of luck and have developed a reputation as "chokers". To borrow Paul Simon's phrase, "You can't be forever blessed." Wahkeenah
Feel free to delete this not-very-wikipedia-related thread at any time. :) Meanwhile, in recent weeks I've been adding a few tidbits here and there to certain articles, where it seems appropriate, about Babe Ruth's accomplishments. I've become convinced over time that there is no way to overstate Ruth's impact on the game, and I don't even like the Yankees. When I hear about how great Barry Bonds is, I just have to say, How many championship rings does he have? For all of his stats-building, the most important stat in sports is winning, and he was never able to lead his team to the Promised Land. Ruth did it several times. And of course Ruth was the antithesis to Bonds, personality-wise. I think of Bonds as being more like Cobb: a surly character, mostly out for himself (yes, I do think that of Cobb) who can only wonder what it's like to win it all. OK, I'm done for now. d:) Wahkeenah 02:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who to compare Bonds to. It wouldn't be either Ruth or Cobb though. Cobb was a warrior who would do anything to win - even to the point of things that would get him arrested today. That it didn't work out for him is due more to poor pitching and the lack of playoffs. Only two teams made the "postseason" instead of eight so the dominant A's, Red Sox, and later Yankees made Cobb's life miserable. After 1909, his teams won 85 games five times (and even 100 games once) in 154-game seasons - but they missed the postseason all five times. Bonds has no such excuse. I can't even compare players of today to the players of old. The steroids just add to my disgust. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

nefarian contd:

I expected people to expand and improve the article, not revert all my changes. I felt the article needed a complete rewrite, and I supplied it. For example, there were no boss strategies, no lists of random occurrences, even the lore section wasn't well put together. This article honestly would have been better if it were copied from the WoW game guide webpage or Wowwiki or thottbot. Dingalingapingsmong=vocal spazz 04:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Block (Indef) on User:Buttfacelicker

Hi Wknight94, I apologies most deeply for treading on your toes, but duringt he course of my RCP work, I notice that you had blocked User:Buttfacelicker on an indefinite basis. When I looked at his/her page though, I noticed nothing had been added to state the user was blocked. All I have done is added a template to the userpage, and one to the user's talk page, to tell other users that this user is indef blocked. If I have violated anything in doing this, please take whatever action you feel appropriate. Thank you for your time. Thor Malmjursson 17:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Talk with the 'flow

No, that's fine. I usually don't bother since everyone's block log is available for the world to see. Actually, those indefblockeduser templates are usually only temporary anyway - they will likely be deleted in the next couple weeks. (Although now I see you used something other than {{indefblockeduser}}). —Wknight94 (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Hamilton death date, etc.

I see that you were involved in trying to get the correct (or, sourced anyway) death date for Billy Hamilton (baseball player) to stay on his page. You can look at the edit history for my recent attempts to get the other party to provide a real citation, which they are unable to do. I'm not sure what the next step is to try to get this edit war to stop. If you could be of any help I would appreciate it. I also left this message at User talk:Wahkeenah, who was also involved in trying to stop the unsourced edits. Thanks, Mattingly23 17:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest IP (someone else blocked an earlier similar IP) as well as a few others. As I tried to get across to Mr. Liebman (with this edit), his method of research has become quite transparent and very much goes against Wikipedia's core principles. Personally, I'm okay with giving a little mention about a discrepancy (as I did with Mike Sharperson here) but that's about as far as I'll go. It's a simple fact of life that people make clerical errors - Social Security does, Baseball-reference.com does, obituaries do... That's why we simply give information that matches the most-often cited sources. Just because someone said that Casey Stengel's wife said that Casey Stengel said that he carried a fake birth certificate doesn't make any of it true. Stengel could have had his real birth certificate the whole time and just didn't know it. Or, more likely, the whole story could just be a figment of someone's imagination. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
He's working on another IP address today, 65.88.88.173. Wahkeenah 21:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
He/She is now on Irene liebman - Mattingly23 14:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Recon Optical

You recently deleted an article of mine on Recon Optical. The company is a active and important global defense contractor, similar to Kongsberg_Gruppen or BAE Systems. The article was informative and not an advertisement. Would you please restore this article? Krb106 21:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Restored and de-prodded. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks. Krb106 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Wknight94. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why Rave_in_Indonesia deleted!?

I can't see any reason why that article should be deleted. You're not even Indonesian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ichaduma (talk • contribs) 03:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Read WP:PROD. Someone else proposed the article for deletion and you had five days to disagree. You're more than four months late. If you'd like it restored, let me know. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Obscure stats

This presumably well-meaning user [15] is adding stats to various ballplayers, ranking them by some obscure (to me) statistical ranking called TPR (Total Player Rating), with no citations given. I thought I would run this by you before (or if) I start to revert them. Wahkeenah 05:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much opinion on this. I think that's from baseball-reference.com. If it's the one I'm thinking of, it seemed like a bogus stat when I read about it. At least s/he isn't trying to add it to every player who has ever played so that's a plus. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I sent the user a note telling him he needs to first explain what TPR is and then provide a citation and some evidence that it's notable. I don't think he has responded yet, but I haven't gotten very far in my watch list today. If I don't hear back in a few days and if someone else doesn't do it, I might revert and see if he objects. I could explain TPR myself, but I don't necessarily want to be championing an obscure stat. Wahkeenah 14:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If it does turn out to have some notability outside of baseball-ref.com, the stat could be a new article in itself and then links to it from the top few would make sense. But I doubt that's the case. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
He did not respond. The articles he was messing with are: Riggs Stephenson,Eddie Collins,Charlie Gehringer,Alex Rodriguez,Lou Gehrig,Harry Heilmann,Tris Speaker,Joe DiMaggio,Babe Ruth,Todd Helton,Ty Cobb,Ted Williams. Wahkeenah 14:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Peculiar list. I'll confess to never even hearing of Riggs Stephenson! It's a nice article though. Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) does nice work. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I know of Riggs Stephenson only because he's an old Cub (and now you know where my allegiances are, and I hope you and I are still friends). Another user has reverted the Lou Gehrig info, and thinks it would be OK to revert the others. If you agree, I'll do it. Wahkeenah 16:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, a Cubs fan, eh? You probably get more pity from that than anger, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
As George Will said, any team can have a bad century. Once the Cubs passed the Phillies record for futility, by failing to win the Series for the 98th consecutive year, I figured, why not go for the 100? And so far this year, certainly it's looking good for 99. Meanwhile, I recently finished reading a book about Mordecai Brown, which inspired me to flesh out the article a bit. That's where I'd go if I had a time machine... that, and to watch Babe Ruth play, even though I don't like the Yankees. d:) Wahkeenah 17:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, I'm the other user who's been talking to Wahkeenah about this and had already reverted Lou Gehrig (which is on my watchlist), without realizing the extent of User:Nowhozdisiz's additions. It appears to be a "synthesis of established facts" and thus WP:OR and likely to generate controversy if not well-cited. In Lou Gehrig, f'instance, he used this "TPR" synthesis to state, "He (Gehrig) ranks as the most efficient hitter in major League [sic] history..." JGHowes talk - 17:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed, especially when used in that context. Similar to the Ron Liebman situation (above), if one gently eased in mentions of something this obscure, it might seem acceptable. But when you throw it in overhand like this, it just seems awkward and out-of-place. If no one can find references to this stat outside of baseball-ref, I'd say just revert completely. Esp. if the person doesn't want to discuss. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll get started it on it sometime soon, and we'll see who gets to the finish line first. d:) Wahkeenah 17:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, it's done. Another user beat me to it on one of them. Also, the TPR guy is either a vandal or he's channeling Rosie O'Donnell, as before the stats stuff he had posted some rant in the George Bush article about Bushie being a terrorist, which had been quickly reverted. Wahkeenah 17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Prod tag removal

About this [16]. The previous removal was by the author of the article. Does this still make an AfD necessary? The Behnam 00:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does per WP:PROD#Conflicts. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Sigh... I guess it must be AfD'd then. What about IAR? The Behnam 01:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

External links to audio streams.

Hi

Thanks for unblocking my account.

I'd just like to get a bit of further clarification about inserting links to external audio since there doesn't seem to be a way of incorporating audio streams into Wikipedia itself. According to the page you pointed me to WP:EL it's OK to link to rich media as long as "explicit indication of the technology needed to access the content" is given.

Given that Wikipedia doesn't offer hosting of audio streams (unless I'm missing something), I'd like to re-insert those interviews as external links, following the cited format in WP:EL:



Could you let me know if you're happy with this, or how best to proceed, since I don't want to get blocked again.

Thanks,

1xtraonline (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2007 BST

Sorry

Sorry about the images on the MLB player articles. I was unaware that that was a violation. Greggreggreg 19:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why Was MARITZ Inc Deleted?

There was business company description listed here and it was deleted without conversation? What happened? Did you do that? Why? Please bring it back, it was useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnMM (talk • contribs).

It's back. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Much appreciated. Unnamed admin 01:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Holla there

Hey WK good to see you hang around here once in a while too, I just like to revert vandals when I don't want to do anything else, take care. Mattb112885 03:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

prod on Freemasonry in Russia

Yes, the prod was removed before - in February of 2006! No substantial edit in the 15 months since then doesn't mean a prod was unfounded. MSJapan 16:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Die Kassierer

I agree with your assessment of the article, however apparently disagree about its deletion. I'll nomniate the article for deletion shortly, unless you improve the references. Addhoc 16:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Air Force Amy

  • The Air Force Amy article has been nominated for deletion for a second time. I see in the past you voted to keep the article. Perhaps you might want to do the same again. -- TrojanMan

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage, I appreciate it! Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

{{username}}

This user—35711rbh—sent a letter to the Foundation, very curious as to why he was blocked. It looks like a zip code and initials to me, I wouldn't have done so... Anyway, I will unblock him. There is also the matter of an edit that was deleted, but since I can't determine what that is, I'm inclined to forget about it. Cary Bass demandez 18:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Neallan

Any comment on the unblock request? They're asking for a second chance. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

TENEX Computer Express article restored

I'm not sure why you deleted the article on TENEX Computer Express. I've recreated it. Please see the talk page for reasons. It was significant. Not to everybody of course, but what is? -- Suso 14:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lee Smith (baseball)

I did an extensive referencing job on the article, and I wanted to get your opinion if I went overboard on the excessive referencing. There are a lot of details that can easily be made up, and that's why I tried to back up much of the statistical information in the article. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard Mattingly Murder Case?

Why was this article deleted? I have paper copies of news articles documenting this story. You have a comment about a non-exitent link to something else. What might that be? Two Washington DC newspapers no longer exist, but Wikipedia has articles regarding them.Tom Cod 18:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Mets: ]1997-2004

i'm of the humble opinion that separate paragraphs should exist for 1997-2000 and another one for 2001-2005. 207.29.128.130 17:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)