User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2010/05

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010[edit]

wtf is with the Drew Fickett crap?[edit]

I think that should be changed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.134.242 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. What page are you talking about, and what do you need me to do? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Massey[edit]

Please reinstate Laura Massey. The deletion discussion, in which you did not participate, had only two people voting for "Delete" and two voting "Keep." No consensus was reached. White 720 (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 14 days were up, and excepting highly unusual circumstances an AfD discussion is not relisted twice. Please note that AfD is not a vote, and in this discussion the arguments for deletion were simply stronger than the arguments for retention. And the fact that I did not participate is irrelevant; in fact, by very nature as the closer of the debate I must not have participated in the discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Jarrell[edit]

Thnx for moving the page to my sandbox! Candyo32 (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010[edit]

Hellen Dausen Article[edit]

Thank you for your recent actions closing the AFD discussion on Hellen Dausen. Unfortunately, today User:Marcia Beatriz Einsfeld recreated the article. I have notified the user that this article was already AfDed for deletion, however I cannot delete the article myself. I also noticed the user wrote the new article in Portugese, so she may not have been able to read the information that the article had been deleted when she created it, or my notification to her.Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have nominated the article for Speedy Deletion.Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much!Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop[edit]

Um, are you sure about that? There isn't a single Keep vote based in policy there even if you include the SPAs, and there's plenty of people pointing out failures of various parts of notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Pushing it to the incubator, as the nom suggests, might be best. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep !votes with substantial arguments include: PÆonU (his problematic behavior and existence of his unsound arguments shouldn't make his good arguments receive any less consideration), Dream Focus, Cptnono. In particular, the "delete" voters either make a blanket statement about the unsuitability of the sources without explaining why they are unacceptable, or say that the local coverage does not show notability (and ignore the international articles). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, I agree with this close. When I take an article created in good faith to AFD, I'm basically asking "is it notable"? I want community input. If the answer is "yes" and it's closed "keep" then I don't consider myself as having "lost". In this case I really don't think there was a clear answer. Remove all the canvassed !votes (and counter !votes) and drama and there is enough reasonable doubt that "no consensus" is a valid judgment.
On the issue of the offsite canvasing and me being raked over the coals in that webforum, I expect that there might be some of that when it comes to AFDs on webforums, bloggers and popular youtubers but whodthunk that a skateboard shop in San Diego would have "groupies"? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus was pretty clear here there, the depth of coverage is an important consideration which is not at all proven by the very few keep arguments. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your disagreement with my decision is related to the notion that established users are somehow always "better" than new users. That is often the case, but in this AfD there were votes from both types of people that added little insight to the discussion. The "delete" side has presented arguments that the "keep" side did not refute successfully. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no it is not at all a reference to established users having a higher weighted !vote. I am taking this to deletion review. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Muir Skate Longboard Shop[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Muir Skate Longboard Shop. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Saidel[edit]

This newly created article has been nominated for speedy deletion and has rapidly descended into an edit war. I need an administrator's help to sort things out. Would you mind? NauticaShades 02:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fast action! NauticaShades 02:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About DAH[edit]

Dear Administrator, As previously Death and Adjustment Hypotheses article was not suitable for wiki it was deleted. It was my failure too. I have created a new one. I wish you could see it and help me increase its compatibility for wiki.Shoovrow (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't believe the topic itself is encyclopedic enough for inclusion; it is the theory of one person that hasn't received significant coverage in secondary sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Front[edit]

Hello,

The only reason I changed the Northwest Front page is that it's apparently a propoganda piece for a White Supremacist group... I, myself, took the edit from someone else's edit.

Cheers, Luke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.217.198 (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I've reverted back to your version. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party Movement[edit]

Hi, I saw you locked this page. Was there edit warring again?Malke2010 21:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the respite.Malke2010 18:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can the article be put on probation? Also, there's been a comment posted on the talk page that is offensive. Can this be deleted as vandalism?Malke2010 22:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See bottom of talk page for comment from "Wiki is free like hugs." Thanks.Malke2010 22:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
editor has deleted it. But question still stands: how does an article end up on probation? This might help. Disruption could be addressed immediately and edit wars averted. Thanks.Malke2010 23:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By "probation," do you mean protection? The two most common reasons are to stop edit warring and to stop vandalism. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection might help with vandalism, but I was thinking if the article went on probation, editors might think twice about the edit warring and it could help prevent the page from getting shut down in the future.Malke2010 00:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could start a proposal on the talk page to prohibit people from making more than one revert in a 24-hour period (as opposed to the three from WP:3RR). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed users[edit]

Hello King of Hearts.

I am working on the page for the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese and would like to put up our logo and a few other pictures, but as I've only been an editing member on this account for two days I am unable. Can you help me with becoming a confirmed member or uploading pictures? I'm relatively new to Wikipedia (on this side of things anyway) so any information will be helpful.

Thank you so much! Chelschamplin (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelschamplin (talk • contribs) 14:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has taken care of that already. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'd asked you because you were online, but it got worked out so thanks anyway! Chelschamplin (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/California Trail at Humboldt River[edit]

Can you clarify your participation at this nomination? At present, you have not voted at all (due to your strike-through of your previous vote). That's fine. I just wanted to make sure you didn't intend to support/oppose one version or the other. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support at my RfA[edit]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 supports, 9 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muir Skate Longboard Shop AfD[edit]

I have only just discovered the deletion review for Muir Skate Longboard Shop, so I was unable to participate in it. I see that your decision came under some criticism. I should like to say that, even though your decision was not the one I had argued for, I think you made a reasonable decision in a confusing case. I think any admin making any closure decision would have come under some degree of criticism. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010[edit]

Deucalionite revert attacks[edit]

I can see where you're coming from, but you might want to reconsider your decline in the WP:RPP report I submitted. This is a special case: this particular banned user never stops reverting until the page is semiprotected. After how many more reverts would you like me to resubmit this? After two? three? four? It makes no difference (except causing everybody more work), because these reverts will happen. Have a look at the recent history of Arvanites, which I also had a report declined over after the first few reverts. Deescalation just won't work. See User talk:SlimVirgin and User talk:71.172.192.37 for more background. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now it is worth protection. It's just that when I handled the RFPP request, there wasn't enough activity in the history yet. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, the question is then: in future cases like this (which will happen as they have been happening once every week or so for the last year), do you really want me to go through the little ritual of reverting the banned user until he's run up to four or five reverts, just to make it "worth protection", or wouldn't it be better to stop the disruption right in its tracks earlier than that, given that after the first two edits the next twenty are predictable with 100% certainty? This is not a run-of-the-mill vandal where it might make sense to warn and hope he'll stop. We know he won't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, not all admins know what's going on in every disruption case. Perhaps if you linked to a discussion of his activity or explained the situation better, admins would have more information to handle the case. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CozyCot DrV[edit]

Quick question, In the DrV there were one or two folks who felt the new draft wasn't up to snuff. The comments from the first were questioned early on (they claimed what looks like a RS was a press release) with no response and one other user did a "per" the first user, also not explaining their issue with the source. The only other person who didnt' want the draft restored said really nothing about the AfD or the new draft. At least 4 users agreed recreation was reasonable (including Chris C. who generally has quite a high bar for such things). I proposed we move the new draft into main space while endorsing the AfD close and the only person who responded (Chris C) to that suggestion largely agreed. My sense of the discussion is that moving the AFC draft into mainspace was the likely outcome. Given your close, you clearly disagree. Would you mind explaining why? I certainly agree the count to restore is close (5 to 3 in favor of restoring by my count, 4 to 3 if you discount the IP address as a sock ), but I really don't see how the 3 arguing for deletion had the stronger argument. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not make myself clear. What I meant was that the close was correct, but forgot to add that recreation was permitted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes more sense. Could you then unprotect and/or move the draft into mainspace? ThanksHobit (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some people in the DRV were quite opposed to restoration of the original article since it contained a lot of promotional material, but you have the AFC draft and I think working off of that will result in a better article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know I for one would oppose any reintroduction of this material into the mainspace. WP:NOT applies here, since the article's purpose is still as a puff piece and as such its a misuse of Wikipedia. Email me if you need more details on why I feel its coming from a banned editor. ThemFromSpace 04:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I'm lost. We have an article which seems to meet WP:N, and you've said that recreation is permitted, but the article is protected. What is the next step? Hobit (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Improve the proposed version to an acceptable state. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. As no one really had any criticism of the current draft (sources were claimed to be press releases though they don't seem to be and no one explained why they thought they were) I'm not sure what to improve. It isn't even all that SPAMY though that could be cleaned up a bit I guess. Got anything specific? Hobit (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to talk to someone on the opposing side and have them check the tone of the proposed article. (From the DRV we know that several people on either side are willing to compromise: they acknowledge that the original deleted article was too promotional but that it is possible to write a good article.) This will create more confidence in the quality of the article IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted the user Thumperward here and he reviewed it. Gatyonrew (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've unprotected the page. Feel free to move it back if you think it's ready. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Norway relations[edit]

I would be glad to, but I have a query: In order to merge any content, the history of the page must be undeleted for GFDL compliance (see WP:MAD). Where should I restore the page to? (I'm not sure if a user subpage counts for GFDL since it's technically not part of the encyclopedia; if we tried to link to it from the Cyprus or Norway article, we would be violating the no self-references rule.) Maybe a subpage of one of the countries' articles? You suggest a page name. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. How about Talk:Foreign relations of Norway/MergedRelations? I will link the main talk page of both articles to that subpage (placing the link in a header section on article milestones, to avoid the link to the subpage from being archived). This would appears to comply with CC-BY-SA, section 4(c). And its certainly better than snatching content from google cache and merging it on the fly, which apparently would violate the license, though I know this happens from time to time.--Milowent (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review of KidStart[edit]

As someone who had an involvement in the 2nd AfD for the above article, I thought you might be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Deletion review#KidStart -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tibla[edit]

I'm confused as to why you felt in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tibla, that !votes referencing WP:NOT are inherently weaker than !votes that reference WP:NOTE and WP:V. Powers T 00:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about which policy/guideline is stronger than the other. It's about which side used that policy/guideline more effectively, and the keep side simply explained their position better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to deleted article[edit]

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Front - would you mind snipping the redirect here as well, or does it need a separate XfD? Orpheus (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolmxl5 has done so already as a redirect to a delete page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for removing the vandalism on my user page. Have a great day! --Alxeedo TALK 19:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You too. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for change[edit]

by mistakeally i deleted that paragraph sorry for that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.58.5 (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank u for ur concern[edit]

The stuff i edited sourced to chinese-written sources, hence a difficulty in locating t. The stuff i edited sourced to chinese written sources, hence a difficulty in locating them. The best Western Source is chinahem if u dont know chinese. The best western Source is chinahistoryforum.com's "arsenal" page. I posted something similar on that site an there is much other topics of discussion on chinese armor sources. Check it out :) Username is Alamchop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.89.80 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Norway relations[edit]

Hi. Could you please move the last version of this page to User:Cdogsimmons/Cyprus–Norway relations? I'm hoping to improve the article further to the point it can be restored. Thanks. Regards. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's already at Talk:Foreign relations of Norway/MergedRelations. See the discussion on my talk page above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wet Paint Sign[edit]

Would it be possible if you can place the recently deleted article wet paint sign in my userspace with the full edit history? I believe it can be recreated with only some minor changes, and I plan to do so (though I don't know when because I am busy most of the time). Shaliya waya (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Velayudham[edit]

What happened to the Velayudham article? Why has it been deleted? Please reinstate the article. It took a lot of effort to maintain it and provide sources for it. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were the one who wanted it deleted? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2010/05&oldid=1085963499"