Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:25, 10 April 2007

This user is an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify)

Archives
Archive 1 | October 19, 2005-January 13, 2006 Archive 2 | January 14, 2006-April 2, 2006 Archive 3 | April 3, 2006-July 22, 2006 Archive 4 | July 23, 2006-September 23, 2006 Archive 5 | September 24, 2006-November 19, 2006 Archive 6 | November 20, 2006-January 20, 2007 Archive 7 | January 21, 2007-March 26, 2007

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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. 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. 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)

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 - Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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. —dgies_c 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 Misplaced Pages.

Can you help?

I see that you are a part of Category:Misplaced Pages 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

OK, we've got a dilemma here. We've got this user who, under both his own name 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)

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)

Request for cleaning up slandering material

I am asking you to edit out the personal attacks and slanders inserted by Kevin Mantey (Gregory9/HarmonyThree/and other sockpuppets like 130.126.15.57 and 130.126.15.142) on page http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ati3414. He is using wiki in order to conduct a personal grudge stemming from being caught playing sockpuppets on a bet and from trying to con his own students into this fraudulent bet. 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. 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. Thank you.

WHAT YOU DOING? PRIVACY=BANNED USER INSTANTNOOD!

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, 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)

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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball/2007 MLB team articles#Disputes. Kingjeff 04:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._congressional_elections_in_2006:_Robo_Calls