User talk:Wknight94/Archive 17

Please note that I will likely respond to new messages here.

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 Archive 8 | March 27, 2007-May 22, 2007 Archive 9 | May 22, 2007-August 3, 2007

User:Sam Harris Singer

This user seems to be a spammer only doing so by creating userpages. -WarthogDemon 03:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked (along with some other blocks and despamming). Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

My User Page

Thanks for looking out for my user page while I was away!

Love to love ya!

IamMarkBlake 04:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 05:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting vandalism to my page. I haven't been here that long, but now I feel like I'm really one of you! :-) America's Wang 14:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh. My pleasure. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

firearms

responded on my talk page

Template cleanup

It seems at some point you moved a lot of templates relating to Congressional delegations, creating a lot of unused, old redirects. In an effort to clean out the Template namespace, would you object to me deleting these old, unused redirects (e.g., Template:110th Wisconsin Congressional delegation)? Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Those were the beginnings of an idea I had but I'll never get the ambition to see it through to fruition so go ahead. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Username blocking

I've just had my attention drawn to the case of User:Ggggggggggggggg12, who it seems you blocked, and who ended up driven away from Wikipedia.

I can't see any reason that this user needed to be instantly indefinitely blocked without even a warning. It's not a very clear username, I'll agree, but you should have talked to that user to change it, not indefinitely blocked them. Newbies don't know all of our rules -- that's why they're newbies.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

They should be seeing the message in {{Usernameblocked}}. Are they not? WP:U is pretty clear about what is not allowed and even lists "aaaaaaaaaaaa" as a disallowed name. It also says that in egregious cases - and I imagine names almost equivalent to the examples listed would count as egregious - your account will simply be permanently blocked. I don't block borderline cases but this wasn't one. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of unclear, which font am I supposed to purchase and install to see the talk page link in your signature? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Any Unicode font that contains IPA characters. One free Unicode font is Charis SIL.

Back on topic, that's not what "egregious" means. "Egregious" does not mean "mentioned in a rule that you are intensely familiar with but which the poor newbie has never seen". To me, it means a username so inappropriate that even the user should know it's inappropriate. WP:U is also pretty clear that when the user is not a blatant vandal you should be discussing their username with them first, not indefinitely blocking them.

You also never placed the "Usernameblocked" template, so the user had no idea they were being blocked and no way of knowing why. When the user requested an unblock, User:Kurykh responded essentially "Nope, it was a username block, go away."

In short, I think that you've favored a draconian interpretation of a rule over common sense. Newbies are the future of Wikipedia. We can't go around blocking them for being unfamiliar with rules that are far removed from our core policies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

When they are blocked they are supposed to see the block message. In this case the block message is {{Usernameblocked}} which should expand out to show that entire template. That entire template shows a nice friendly message and directs them to WP:U, etc. If they are not seeing that template when they try to edit, that's a whole other issue. I'm honestly not sure what else you're looking for. Is every admin supposed to personally apologize to every person that chooses a dumb username - in this case, one that is mentioned almost verbatim in the WP:U policy itself? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The user was a newbie. Despite that you have many times, you need to realize that newbies have never read WP:U. Even if you had correctly given the newbie the message, they would only see it after being blocked, at which point their first impression of Wikipedia has already gone to crap.

I don't see why you think you would have to "apologize" to users who choose a dumb username. You don't have anything to apologize for if you don't screw up their WP experience in the first place. What makes you want to indefinitely block someone for being a newbie, besides a misguidedly literal allegiance to an obscure policy? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you should be made aware that this is a discussion on this block here [1] so you may wish to contribute. As an aside to the issues made above I would point out that if you go to the User's talkpage it is far from clear who blocked him (especially to a newcomer). Given that when a user is blocked they are asked to email the Admin who blocked them as their first point of call this is not really very helpful to the user concerned and may have added to his frustration. Kelpin 18:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Need an objective viewpoint here

Howdy. I wanted to get an objective take on an issue that's recently popped up between myself and another editor, User:Maoster. Basically, I recently tagged a number of suspect images in the Regine Velasquez article and had some of them deleted due to violations of WP:NONFREE. The article has a history of bad images with no or poor fair use rationales. In retaliation, Maoster has seen fit to start removing images from the Kiss article simply because I edit it heavily. His rationale for removing them is that they are not allowed in the article at all, but my take is that they are since they are being used as part of critical commentary, not just as decoration.

I have no desire to get into an edit war, and I certainly have no intention of blocking the user just because I can. Can you take a look and offer your opinion? I think I'm being reasonable but I want to make sure. Thanks. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As you state, that's a pretty obvious WP:POINT violation. I can't honestly say what the latest trends are re: fair use and I tend to stay away from the whole issue. Your removals seem pretty clear-cut but the removals from Kiss are a tougher call so you might want to get a more useful response at WP:ANI for those. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The 172. vandal

I realize that indefinitely blocking this idiot's IP addresses doesn't resolve the underlying problem of the situation ... but it does seem to slow him down a bit. I'm not certain of the particulars of his situation, apart from the fact that he's targeted me repeatedly over a period of several months. CJCurrie 02:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you do me a favor...

...and block me for 24 hours for personal attacks? I'm getting fed up with some of the idiots on some of the pages; it's bringing out my "evil" side, and I need an enforced cooldown. (I told you I was "my own sockpuppet".) Danke. :) Baseball Bugs 02:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I did it myself, sort of. If I come back sooner than late Thursday evening, feel free to post a real one. Baseball Bugs 02:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)