User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2012/01

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

The Signpost: 02 January 2012[edit]

(Untitled)[edit]

why has my page been deleted ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afterbath (talk • contribs) 20:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a hoax page and is obviously incorrect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Massey undelete[edit]

Hello, I've recently come across an article about Laura Massey published by Wired http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/01/nerdtrivia-twitter-game/ that I believe increases her notoriety enough to consider her entry for undeletion.

Best regards 201.144.87.40 (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed it on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 9. Feel free to participate in the discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 January 2012[edit]

Sabrina Harman[edit]

In August 2010 there was a decision to redirect Sabrina Harman to Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. No one ever performed the redirect and meanwhile the article's grown substantially. I don't personally care if her article gets deleted or not, but my guess is that it would survive AfD were it nominated again today. Is there a procedure to formally overturn the result of the 2010 discussion? Would such a procedure be required under the circumstances, or should the article just be allowed to continue of its own inertia?—Biosketch (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there doesn't need to be such a procedure. If anyone still thinks the article should be deleted, they will nominate it for AfD; otherwise, it just stays as it is. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for clarifying.—Biosketch (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2012[edit]

Requesting undeletion of Karley Scott Collins[edit]

I know the article was created by a banned user, but could you please undelete, so I can fix up the page myself. Based on her credits on IMDb, the actress passes WP:ENTERTAINER. QuasyBoy 20:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably create it from scratch. I know it's tempting to want to use material that is just there, but we have to send a hard line that banned users are not allowed to edit, so that material should not have appeared in the first place. If we use the content, we would be subverting the notion that banned = absolutely forbidden from editing, regardless of merit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see what you what you mean. I'll userify my content for her in the mean time. QuasyBoy 22:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join WikiProject Stanford![edit]

View of Hoover Tower from Main Quad.

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Question[edit]

Shouldn't at this TfD the outcome changed some way after this DrV? Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 08:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, in general XfDs are not modified after being overturned at DRV. That's the point of the link to the DRV on the XfD: to encourage people to visit the XfD to see what happened there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS question[edit]

Can you check ticket 2006113010018241 and see whether the permission on File:Garment.jpg is correct? If you look at the deleted local edits to that image, you'll see that it has a complicated history, and GFDL is not the only permission that's been claimed for it. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright owner was asked whether he was willing to release under GFDL, and he responded that he wanted it to be reproduced and distributed and had no desire to restrict its use in any way. It's a judgment call whether Copyrighted free use (interpreting his words to mean exactly as he says) or GFDL (in light of the fact that he was responding to a query that suggested GFDL) is more appropriate here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, January 20, 2012‎ (UTC)

AfD[edit]

Not sure what happened here as I can't view the history of the original article, but it seems that this article still exists despite this AfD. Seems like it was moved to the new title a few weeks ago, and you may have only deleted the redirect? Take a look when you get a chance. Thanks, —SW— speak 15:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPI[edit]

Hello King of Heats, I remembered recently that we still haven't finished your SPI training and I was wondering if you were still interested in finishing it? Your on the last leg which takes 4-7 days (and it's not 24/7 :P) aka real close to the end line. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll finish it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parabola GNU/Linux[edit]

Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comments in closing this AFD. It will help a number of us in working on other similar articles. - Ahunt (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nit[edit]

In restoring Qian Zhijun - you note that his role in Three Kingdoms (" addition, his roles in Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon was a key ) -- the problem is that he had no role in the film (all of his scenes were entirely cut out), thus you might wish to emend your close. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Død Beverte[edit]

Hi your majesty. I here to disagree with your close of the afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Død Beverte (2nd nomination). No one has said that any of the sources are "(a) reliable, (b) independent, (c) non-user-submitted and (d) discuss the subject in significant detail". The only person arguing for the keeping of this article just stated that there is sources, not that any are good enough for WP:N or WP:MUSIC. New sources since the last afd were addressed and noone gave any arguement about the analysis. No argument for keeping was made that was policy based. I'd like you to reconsider this close. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As closer my job is to read the discussion; I cannot get too involved in evaluating the sources. In this AfD, there has been enough doubt to prevent them from being ruled out altogether, hence the no consensus close. I guess with only 3 delete !votes and 2 keep !votes, it's pretty underpopulated, so I can relist it to get more opinions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dod Bevertee deletion discussion[edit]

Somewhat confusingly you closed the deletion discussion for Død Beverte and then reopened the discussion but did not add any notice of the reopened discussion to the article itself. Anyone watching the article or reading it would have not idea that the article's deletion is being discussed. Please add an AFD notice next time, to avoid confusion and to facilitate the further discussion you claim is neccessary. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clear Books[edit]

Hi, you recently closed this deletion debate as no consensus - could you explain the reasoning behind that with most individuals arguing for deletion and only the company founder and article creator arguing for it to remain? noq (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather lowly populated AfD, with only four !voters. Since TimFouracre's comments at the end have gone unchallenged, they must be allowed to stand. There are no !voters who voted "delete" in spite of his comments, so "no consensus" is the only possible result. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK. The only reason I did not challenge hem was that they were repeats of his previous comments and did not show any understanding of the arguments previously made - he remains very vociferous about this and is treating no consensus as establishing notability. His obvious conflict of interest and the statements on the article talk page seem to me to be using Wikipedia for advertising. noq (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drv closing[edit]

I'm a little confused by your closure of the How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. Most of the arguments for deleting the article did not relate to the sockpuppet issues, but rather had to do with issues of NPOV. Likewise, there was very little support presented for the notion that it was a neutral article as written. Could you please clarify your closing rationale? Additionally, it appears that there is at best no consensus, and endorsing the previous keep seems contrary to the review. aprock (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reference to "ArbCom" is intended to cover the whole affair. As for the strength of the arguments, many of the "overturn" arguments are debating the article's merits rather than the correctness of the AfD close. While in some clear-cut cases it is appropriateness to ignore bureaucracy, this is not one of them, so I have to conclude that the arguments for endorsing are stronger than the arguments for overturning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My reference to "ArbCom" is intended to cover the whole affair. This is rather cryptic. Could you shed some light on what you mean by this.
With respect to arguments relating to review, all of the editors who specifically reviewed the decision indicated that it should be overturned. aprock (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that the "overturn" !voters were re-arguing the AfD rather than evaluating the close. Now that I reread your first post on my talk page, I think I misinterpreted it. "Most of the arguments for deleting the article did not relate to the sockpuppet issues, but rather had to do with issues of NPOV." I thought you were referring to the DRV, but then I realized you were referring to the AfD. In fact, I think you may have misinterpreted my reference to "sockpuppetry/ArbCom/G5" as well. I was referring to their presence in the DRV, rather than the AfD. And your second statement, everyone on the "overturn" side was actually arguing to overturn the AfD close rather than voting to "delete," is not true. For instance, Mathsci's !vote was heavily based on ArbCom, Enric Naval's is based on the article itself, and Tarc's is based on sockpuppetry. S Marshall and Hipocrite's !votes can be seen as "endorse, but deal with appropriately elsewhere."
After rereading the DRV, I realized there aren't a lot of valid arguments for endorsing either, so I have modified the close to "no consensus" to reflect the fact that the majority of the DRV did not address the relevant issues. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking another look at this. aprock (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 January 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 30 January 2012[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2012/01&oldid=1079471218"