User talk:Wknight94/Archive 17

Please let me know what it means that there was "no consensus" on the request to have "Northwestern" redirect to "Northwestern University." Do you need 100 percent agreement to make renamed pages? I think there was more enthusiasm for the change rather than the current disambig page. Please let me know, I'm a newer Wikipedian so am trying to learn about the Wiki policies. Thanks. Robms927 02:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I do not dispute the decision, I was just looking for the explanation which you willing provided. Thanks again. Robms927 21:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Good call on the requested move. I logged in this morning to withdraw the move request, and found that you had beaten me to it. There seems to be some confusion in the instructions at the top of WP:Requested moves. I read it as saying that if you are blocked from moving (because new user) then you must submit a request first, and then initiate a discussion on the pages Talk page. It seems now I misread it, and it would have been fine to discuss my move idea on the talk page first . I wonder if the language is unclear and whether we should persuade an admin (like you!) who knows good practice well to take a glance over it and tidy it up. Meanwhile, my 'new user' block has run its course so I can move undisputed pages at my leisure. Thanks for your assistance and have a good weekend. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you will appreciate how the sysop has deleted the GraalOnline article just saying he has counted the number of vote, hundred of discussion and arguments for nothing... Someone taking 10 minutes to delete an article. Also Daniel Bryant has not finished with this article, he now want to be sure the article will not be recreated and is asking for WP:SALT... Well i am done with wikipedia, i was planning to help the French wikipedia but seeing how wikipedia is managed i will put my free time on something else. See ya. Stephane. Graal unixmad 11:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is sad, really. The Graal article could have easily been sourced without the un-sourced critisism section that was continually put there out of anger. Unixmad posted various sources that could have been used, and I am sure everything else could have been sourced also, or just removed until it could be sourced. I would hope that the wiki would reconsider before not allowing a Graalonline article. --Moon Goddess 14:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The move was proposed by User:Vapour. So you should probably notify also that user. Thanks for the message anyways.--Klimov 08:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. The content at Athletics was moved to Athletics (track and field) after a lengthy discussion. I will add a request at Wikipedia:Bot Request for a bot to change appropriate existing links to Athletics to Athletics (track and field). -- Mwalcoff 01:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you believe 280,000 Google hits for Trunking + car? =) Ifnord 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Survive WP:AFD? Probably not now but if fleshed out a bit I think so. But, you have been a busy beaver. I can't imagine the sillyness you've seen, I had a good giggle at the guy desperate to have his Collopy article... Keep up the great work! Ifnord 03:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. =) I started to write the playing years article last Monday, but I couldn't get to it because I had an AP Bio assignment that I had to mail out by Friday (omg I typed 31 pages). But looks like you did a phenomenal job with the article and I must really thank you for this. If I had been the one who made the bulk of the article, I would have had so many numbers and stats involved that it would have been such a bore :-p.

Regarding the dates, I saw everyone did their references differently that I had, so I wanted to at least keep it universal so I added the 2006-08-19, but I didn't know I could do 2006-08-19. Thanks for telling me though! I'll keep that in mind.

--Nishkid64 17:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Judging from your part in the Graalonline dispute, and other things I have read,you will make a great, level headed admin (I know, I'm late). Darlene 10:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot my password on the other account, and did not put an email addy so I could get a new one, so I had to make a new account

I will check those links, thanks. Darlene 11:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wknight94: Do not copy 2006 Boston Massacre in to talk pages or you will be blocked.

It's only fitting that a Mets fan should protect a Yankee-related article. 71.250.145.62 20:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I would kindly ask you to reopen the RM proposal discussion, as quite a few active editors of Priština have not stated their position yet. This request is according to WP:Requested moves policy which states that, "The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged." I believe this to be the case here. -- int19h 13:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: my point was that you cannot really have consensus when there is no quorum. So far we have had 4 votes, 3 out of those which actually count (i.e. are non-neutral), and all votes but mine were from users who did not participate in discussion on Talk:Priština before (and my participation was cursory at best). On the other hand, no word was heard yet from active editors such as User:ChrisO, User:PANONIAN, User:Ilir pz, User:Tonycdp, User:Mig11, User:Phildav76, User:Hipi Zhdripi and User:HolyRomanEmperor, to name a few. Admittingly it's strange that noone took part in the vote, seeing how the article name was a rather heated discussion topic not long ago... Either way, I think it's just a tad too early to say that consensus among the editors is clear, with so few votes, none of them being from the editors themselves. -- int19h 14:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has been two weeks now, I think it is safe to assume that if anyone did not vote, they are not going to either. The consensus is pretty clear as well. I would not at all object to it being closed now - then we could proceed with editing the article itself to make it more consistent with regards to spelling decided upon. -- int19h 06:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving a page creates a redirect from the original location to the destination. Redirects should not point from article space to user space. I have deleted the redirect page. Regards,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

fuck off with the welcome —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry887766 (talk • contribs) .

why you create a fucking page in my user area delete it now —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry887766 (talk • contribs) .

ok i did not realise you did that. i thought you deleted it . i am sorry if i outraged u. if you have a paypal account i'll send some money to you as a sorry message—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry887766 (talk • contribs) .

why did you just put your vandal counter up? put it down since i wasnt trying to "vandalise" it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry887766 (talk • contribs) .

do you want me to send you some money because of my swearing? i can send it to ur paypal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry887766 (talk • contribs) .}l;.18:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)_

you have made a clear threat to me on my user page. I'm giving you a warning. threatning me is breaking a clear policy on wikipedia. consider this your first and only warning. Harry887766 18:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OK mate. can you be my friend on here then —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry887766 (talk • contribs) .

ok it is best i do not speak to you anymore but dont ban me please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry887766 (talk • contribs) .

Took seven minutes for me to create the page (MLB hitters with three home runs in one game), I hadn't even typed three names yet, and someone nominated it for deletion as useless trivia. I tried to route them to the golden sombrero discussion, but who knows whether anyone will pay attention. I'm not gonna bother typing 400+ players in here until we decide we actually want the list. Dakern74 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I copied the wikitext for the 4HR list as the starting point for my 3HR list. Guess I will have to go off and create another user page for now.

Speaking of which, I think you had critiqued my other new page on scorekeeping (User:Dakern74/Baseball_scorekeeping) as needing some citations. Most of it is personal experiences (mine and other scorekeepers I know or have talked to), but could be verified through the links at the bottom (or through the "how-to" in any team's program). But if there are specific "facts" or sections you think should have them, I've got no problem adding them. Just not sure exactly where. Thanks in advance if you have time. Dakern74 21:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Take your time. There's also a discussion on the original baseball scorekeeping page about moving it to a WikiBook anyway since it's more of a "how-to" article than a true encyclopedia entry. Don't know how (if) that changes the WP:V standard. It would leave room for more examples or pictures or different ways that different people might do the same thing. I just went with the "generally accepted" non-controversial stuff. Dakern74 22:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

03:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Yeah, thanks for that favor. My problem was that I created that page yesterday before I wrote the actual article, but when I came back to it I noticed that the publish date in the subtitle was wrong, and as far as I now (this is the first page I've written) I can't correct it through any "Edit" buttons, I had to have it deleted and remade. But anyways I finished that article and it's all up to read now...

-Dgfduck

Hi. Regarding your move request for several articles to have spaces between the first and middle initial, where are people supposed to give their opinions about each one? Also, the S.M. Krishna one seems to be going to itself (S.M. Krishna → S.M. Krishna). Check out the steps for requesting a page move. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions, etc. As you can see, I've been moving dozens of pages to match the naming conventions regarding articles for persons with the name "X. Y. Lastname." All the ones that I requested were obstructed moves for which there would have been no discussion anyway. I've neither the time nor energy to keep up on consensus-building moving a bunch of improperly-titled articles that would have been moved without any discussion had it not been for an accident editing history. In other words, since there is already a standard, I didn't feel like consensus was necessary. Thanks for the heads-up on the S.M. Krishnan one. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And yet a quick scan of this region of your talk page shows you've been catching a lot of flak for this approach lately and have even reverted yourself on one occasion. I also see some talk of WP:POINT violations and such. Hopefully some other admin will catch these when they come due because I'd be unlikely to move them without consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure If you make 1,000 edits, you'll make 1.) at least one mistake, and 2.) at least one person displeased with you. While I'm sure Duncan has his reasons, they've generally fallen on deaf ears, as no admin has contacted me, and there's apparently been no action on the administrator's noticeboard. If you don't want to move these pages, I've certainly no ill will toward you, but I'm saying that it's goofy to go through this process for something trivial and that should obviously be done. I'm busy trying to clean up some loose ends on Wikipedia, rather than discussing ad nauseum whether or not it's "S.M. Krishnan," when there is already a naming convention and a general standard applied. That kind of consensus-building is tiresome and stands in the way of people making useful edits to articles to increase information. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

At least a quick notice on the talk page would be a good civil gesture for people that may have the page on their watchlists - but I'll leave it at that. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough That seems like a gesture of good will that's completely appropriate. I'll put them up tomorrow, most likely. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for saving the Frankie Schneider article. He was a very notable driver. We had scheduled to write an article about him in WikiProject NASCAR, as he had a NEXTEL Cup win. He had an interesting career. I see you are from New York, so please expand his article if you know anything else about his career. Good Job! Royalbroil 13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, I'm an admin and was trolling around CAT:CSD. We find quite a few that are bad speedy deletion requests and this was one. Glad I could help!  :) I'm originally from New York but I'm no longer there — and I don't know anything about Frankie Schneider anyway so I won't be of much use improving the article. Sorry... —Wknight94 (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure there are quite a few of his fans on wikipedia. The article was quite poor before I cleaned it up. I can see where someone speedied it. I didn't keep much from the original article. You can respond here if so inclined. Cheers! Royalbroil 01:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because they show up in a Google search doesn't make them notable. I am using the Wikipedia:Notability (music) for my {{prod}} because the {{db-bio}} doesn't apply if they make a claim to a major label. Please let me know if you think I've handled this correctly. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 17:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Same with Ben Parker (British singer/songwriter). - CobaltBlueTony 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Alan William White Article Hi thanks for the welcome. Alan was my father. I have a question that perhaps you could help me out with... Why can I not find that article any longer? Did I break a protocol? Thank you, Brian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bleblanc (talk • contribs) . Alan William White Article Thanks for the information. He may or may not meet the notability criterea. My opinion is that he is a very good example of "Americana". A combination of pre WWII upbringing and post Kennedy America. His ideals and childhood experiences holding him back from embracing the change into a technical society. Perhaps I should have made this more clear in the article. Perhaps a different forum would be more appropriate. Your call, thanks, Brian

I am not too sure if this is how to respond to, or post, a message to you so please forgive me if I am unintentionally becoming the 7th person to pollute your site.

The reason the article is confusing is exactly why it is notable. Mathematicians and musicians do share domains of interest. However, musicians who have made $$ from music and achieved a level whereby they are in Rolling Stone Magazine and performing in front thousands at stadiums with Jerry Lee Lewis ... have never (to the best of my knowledge) ... also used knowledge gained in the aforementioned environment, applied it to the Music Information Retrieval and in the process created a novel methodology of music analysis to the extent that KDD, and MIR conferences are inviting him to talk and share a new way of using 1) Inverse fast fourier transforms, with MPEG-7 descriptors and 2)mega-databases to split sound. See the site

So yes, how does one catagorise the silliness of on-stage antics with the seriousness of splitting sound.

Oh yes: Splitting sound ??? ... you insert a CD of your choice into the machine and it 1) prints out exactly what each instrument was playing in music form and, burns a multiple CDs each bearing only what each instrument played. Innertron 16:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I hit save before I spell checked it and now I can't find it. This is MONDAY! Innertron 16:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comments to Talk:Rory Lewis. - CobaltBlueTony 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate the heads-up. I've gotten some headaches with these football clubs (do you apply the same standard as personal names?) With companies/people/etc. that insist on the official name being "X.Y. Lastname," then it makes sense to move it back or leave it as-is. As for the football clubs, this was a stupid move on my part: I only moved some of them before I had this crisis about whether or not they should obey the naming convention regarding people. Sigh. That was a stupid mistake of my own, and I'll move them back, for now... -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to be tongue in cheek, but I wouldn't be opposed to making B. J's Wholesale club. Back to the point: I found the move to be innocuous and tidy, so I did it. Some pages I did not move, such as W.T. Cosgrave because there were about six editors there opposing the move. I like to think that we're making progress in standardization for initialed names slowly but surely. With that said, I have absolutely no problem if you want to move Allmendinger back to where it was. I'm not sensitive about the admin stuff I do, or the admin stuff that others do over mine (i.e., I don't wheel war). Part of the fun of wiki to me is that things can be done and undone as concensus shifts. So, if you'd like it back where it was, be bold and go right ahead! Thanks for messaging me about it. Teke ^(talk) 16:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I nominated the Don Bell (reporter) article for speedy deletion because it does meeet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 or Wikipedia:Notability (people). I have now listed it for regular deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Bell (reporter) (2nd nomination). RMP 2584 16:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In defense of myself, I found the [[Don Bell (reporter) article when I hit "Random article" and felt that Don Bell (reporter) didn't meet the inclusion criteria. When it wasn't I tried the next thing, which was the nomination. After I added it, I noticed that it had been nominated before, so I followed the instructions to nominate it again. It appears that the first nomination was not a true discussion, as CFIF accused the nominator of being a sockpuppet. From what I read on CFIF's talk page, he has a history of doing this to other people in order to keep his articles, despite the fact that Wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone! Isn't the whole point of the exersise that if a user finds an article that doesn't meet the established standards, they can try to obtain a consensus by having it deleted? Is CFIF's goal on Wikipedia to make it an elite clique where his articles are never deleted or to just attack the newbies?

As for my addition of Plantation (Maine) to all the Maine plantations, I not only created the Plantation (Maine) article, something that was needed, I went and added a relevant link to all of the articles, including at least one that was impoperly linked to Plantation. If this is the level of aggravation that is going to be typical of Wikipedia, then I don't think I want to be a part of it. I am definitely not this EDP named Scott Brown. Just because someone nominates some delete worthy TV reporter doesn't mean that they are part of some greater conspiracy. If anything I would say that you are all the EDPs for acting in this way. You people took something that was fun and turned it into some sort of sick and disturbed schoolyard scenario. On the schoolyard people like you had a name - bullies, who had their own sick and twisted pathology behind their behavior. And guess what? You people are acting the same way. You all would never make it as cops, since you would most likely arrest anyone without cause and do not seem to understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty - something that Wikipeida incoporates in its assume good fatih doctrine. God, do you people have lives or are you all sitting at home all day dreaming up conspiracy theorys? I am not going to waste my time with this, since judging by what you have written you are all seemingly suffering from some degree of schizophrenia with unseen people out to get you or things you think you own. I have dealt with enough EDPs in my life to realize it is a loosing and fustrating battle to reason with them. This isn't what I signed up for, so you win - I QUIT! RMP 2584 19:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wknight94: On further consideration, I've blocked him. Just in case you miss the note on my talk page. -Splash - tk 01:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you should delete your nominations till the aid is fully ready. I think we need to discuss all the rules before we start nominating articles. I've started discussion of the rules on the talk page. Kingjeff 03:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree or disagree with any of the rules I proposed? Kingjeff 03:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

From Seekraft]. He explains his many edits that you had asked about. The explanation he makes gives me the impression this is OR. :) Dlohcierekim 12:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We are not testing the waters. In fact the foundation would rather we didn't. If you didn't notice there is an arb case going on for Splash for his unprotections. I have listed the reasons on my talk, please don't keep doing this, there is no consensus to uprotect. pschemp | talk

From the Rfa: "Semiprotection of these articles is essential to ensure that our readers are not subjected to useless or offensive content." pschemp | talk 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks; I see the ones that were fixed that I missed. Thanks for tidying up; I'm still getting the hang of the whole thing. Shimgray gave me a good tutorial on IRC a few days ago, such as what to put in the RM page edit summaries and such. Glad to be working with you, please let me know on further formalities if/when I miss them! Teke ^(talk) 04:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I was minded to remove protection, but feedback from the involved editors (on both sides of an edit dispute) was that they considered this valuable and key to preventing an outbreak of the previous edit war. However, things may have settled a bit since they commented. A particular consideration is that Ignatieff is standing for Liberal leadership candidate and has already attracted politicised edits, which are likely to increase as the December leadership election approaches. I have been playing safe, as there have been very constructive discussions on the talk page, and I've been afraid of these being sabotaged by ill-meaning contributions. One of the previous problems was disruption from dynamic IPs. That's the situation, and I would welcome your advice on this as someone from an objective viewpoint. Tyrenius 04:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

On your MfD for the City Naming Strawpoll, you haven't commented on Ericsaindon2's other poll (Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll) which is still ongoing. Since he is banned, who is in charge of it? And should it still be open until September 18, the date set by the poll? Tinlinkin 05:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

These are unfortunately a special case. You are probably not familiar with banned User:Gibraltarian. He was blocked by the Arbitration Committee last February. I dare to say it will not take him more than two days to hit back. Sorry if I sound pessimistic, quoting ChrisO (the enforcing admin for the previous semiprotection): "Gibraltarian is one of the most persistent vandals I've ever seen (and I've seen a few) - he's been vandalising Gibraltar-related pages and now user pages on at least a daily basis for the past seven months." Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 06:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I can only second what Asterion has said. Please check out the editing history of those pages. The guy is utterly obsessive - he's even been vandalising Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee lately [1]. He can't be blocked without blocking his entire ISP, unfortunately. The semiprotection may be inconvenient for some, but it's considerably more inconvenient to have to revert the page on an hourly basis for days on end, which is what we've had to do on some occasions. -- ChrisO 08:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But protecting a Talk page?! Surely occasional vandalism on a talk page can be controlled to an acceptable degree. The threshold of "acceptable degree" is far lower on a talk page than an article. The vandalism that was recently removed from Talk:Economy of Gibraltar had been sitting there for six weeks before anyone even noticed it! If vandalism sneaks in there and no one's watch list catches it, just delete it and any response to it. A couple vandalisms per day is not exactly George W. Bush level - it hasn't been touched since I unprotected more than 6 hours ago! And it's even more pointless to protect only a talk page and not the article itself. Try using User:VoABot II if the problem is that bad. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right regarding Economy of Gibraltar and its talk page. It has not been vandalised for a long time. Nonetheless, I would ask you to reconsider before lifting the semi-protection for other articles in the series, including Gibraltar, History of Gibraltar, Algeciras, San Roque, Cádiz, and a long list (refer to template {{Gibraltarian}} for details). If you check the contributions history, you will realise we were not exagerating. Thanks and regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 17:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I will - if you'll consider at least opening up the talk pages of those articles.  :) That just seems like a slap in new users' faces. "Can't edit the article, go to the talk page - woops! Can't edit here either, sorry!" —Wknight94 (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the talk page situation is unusual, but when you consider that Gibraltarian forced the Spanish wiki to block an entire ISP for weeks because his persistance, you start seeing this as a small inconvenience in comparison. I do like your suggestion for using the bot but AFAIK it was not working properly for Gibraltarian edits somehow. Not really sure, I think ChrisO contacted VoiceOfAll about it a while back. Cheers, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 17:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My error, I thought that was the article rather than the talk page and that the vandalism was recent. Its an ongoing situation as the Spanish editors continue to taunt user:gibraltarian and attempt to enforce their Governments POV, he shouts and screams ineffectivly and on the strength of that they try and get the whole of Gibraltar banned and locked out so they can have their wicked way with truth and the pages. Why should wikipedia be different to Other sports.--Gibnews 09:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews, "to taunt User:Gibraltarian"? You know perfectly well my only interactions with him in the past seven months have been to revert his edits, to restore section/articles blanked by him or to remove offensive edits he has left at many editors' pages (including ChrisO, VoA, Wookohitty and a very long etcetera). I am certainly not impressed. On the other hand, I disagree with generic ISP blocks and have mentioned this many times before. Regards (and apologies to WKnight94 for replying here but I do not take lightly this sort of comments), E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You recently removed the move tag for that page, I guess I was the only person interested in the page move. I still think it needs to be done. It would be a move over a redirect but the redirect has some history so I need an admin to help. Can you do that or should I go back to the Requested moves page? Again the requested move is old name Rhodesian Man to new name Homo rhodesiensis in order to make it consistent with all the other species pages (Rhodesian Man refers to a specific fossil while the page is about the species.) I am working on creating pages for several fossils and that info will eventually end up there. Thanks Nowimnthing 14:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the article "asserts notability" for the band, but you're the admin. --Walter Görlitz 04:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, It's on Google Books [2] Dlyons493 Talk 12:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should go through AfD - it's just one of thousands of similar type stories. I suppose apparently originating in the 13th century is its main claim to fame, but let the community decide whether it's worth keeping or not. The article is pretty much a direct translation of Migne's original, so I don't have anything to add tight now (if something occurs to me I'll put it in the article). Dlyons493 Talk 13:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)