User talk:King of Hearts

Old talk is at /Archive.

Please note that I will usually reply to messages on this page, unless you ask me to respond elsewhere.

Please use the link provided in the blue box above which says "Please leave a new message."
This way, you will be able to give your comment a subject/headline.

If an admin action made by me is more than a year old, you may reverse or modify it without consulting me first. However, I would appreciate being notified after the fact.

Rollback right request

Hello! :) I've been editing like mad with Twinkle and AWB and would like to know if I could receive rollback rights as well to be able to utilize Huggle. I'm very familiar with the vandalism and other wikipedia policies :). Let me know what you think. -Falcon8765 (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done - You seem to be a fine contributor and vandal-fighter. Note: With the rollbacker flag, you are automatically eligible to use Huggle. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie B. Bond

Hello King of ♥ ♦ ♣. You recently closed the above AFD as delete. Can you throw a copy of the article on my sub=page. I'll work on it over the next couple of days and see if I can get it to a least stub status. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done - User:Shoessss/Annie B. Bond. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ShoesssS ^Talk 17:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yucatann change

I left a message on the change of user name page. -Iross1000 (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC).

Do you have any updates for my request ? -Iross1000 (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

GoldDragon

You blocked GoldDragon for 24 hours. As soon as the block expired, he went back to the same edit war.[1]. Also, someone using a similar name, The Bronze Lizard, has been carrying on several of GoldDragon's edit wars. Thought you would want to know. 69.159.28.35 (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that GoldDragon would evade a block by creating an obvious username like that and doing obvious edits like that. GD has been around Wiki for several years and does gets himself involved in edit wars but I've never seen him hide what he does. On the other hand, he does have a wikistalker who reverts and tags the edits he does, for better or worse, but certainly annoyingly and definitely does hide who he is. I'm suspicious. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In case that makes you change your mind, CheckUser says the 2 users are  Unlikely to be related. -- Luk ^talk 11:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked both users. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tupolev Tu-160

This article is still protected and was the subject of an edit conflict as well as editwarring by socks. Please unprotect the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

The protection has expired. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:AFD Closing

Sweet....Thanks for fixing that! I usually had to rearrange the title after subst: :P Cheers, I'^mperator 19:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

westnet

hi, i noticed westnet is moved to a user profile, is there anyway to retore the article now so I can add things..

tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.78.131.45 (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You can add things to another user's page, it should work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A MAGAZINE curated by

Hello,

Just contacting you to understand a little bit more the reasons for deleting article. We have written an article on Wikipedia since many readers are looking for official fact about the publication A MAGAZINE. We are an independent publisher with just this tittle since 2001... A is seen as an artistic project and we thought that Wikipedia was a great place to get official information.

Looking forward to hear from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanlolivier (talk • contribs) 00:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot include everything; content must be notable in order to be included. Please see our notability guidelines for more information. Be sure to cite reliable sources and avoid writing the article in a promotional tone. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you suggest us how to write it?

We are not promoting anything, A MAGAZINE is an artistic project, involving many artist and creative people, we are not about selling thousand issues but still is a reference for the creative industry. It has been voted many times but ZenithOptimedia, (Publicis) as one of the 100 reference tittles...www.thestylepress.com. You can read about it on Vogue.com, Style.com... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanlolivier (talk • contribs) 19:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

According to our autobiography guideline, you should not write articles on yourself or your organization. If you really are notable, others will write an article on you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

• News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted more material as requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)

Have deleted more material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) since your last vote to delete could please could you review your deletion decision in the light of the last editBold text, according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)many thanksPenright (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again

for your assistance :-) Scribner (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(Untitled)

You deleted the article on Goldsea Asian American Daily. Your reason is a non-reason. The site is the leading Asian American content site that is no. 1 in its category according to Ranking.com. It has a more extensive collection of professional articles on Asian Americans than any other site on the web. It has been publishing continuously since 1998.

If you can point to a higher-quality, more substantive, better-organized and higher-trafficked site on Asian Ameriacans I would be delighted!

I think the article should be replaced intact. AA Patrol (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your Deletion of Goldsea Asian American Supersite is highly suspect.

You deleted an informative, fact-filled article on Goldsea Asian American Daily using the fig leaf of "not signficant". Goldsea happens to be the oldest, most trafficked Asian American content site on the web. Unlike most sites which are hobby blogs, social networking pages or organizational pages, Goldsea is a professionally written and edited content site that provides a lot of perspective and resources for Asian Amerians and others interested in that community. It also happens to be ranked no. 1 in its category by ranking.com.

Let me hear your response. AA Patrol (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you give a reason as to how the website passes our notability guidelines for websites? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

CHU clerking

I saw your question on CHU where you asked what RTV was; this gives me some concern about you clerking at CHU, where "RTV" is a somewhat common phrase. Please, in the future if you're not sure, either don't say anything or do a bit of investigation on your own before you comment; usually any seemingly random collection of letters (especially in all caps) can be tossed in front of "WP:" and you can figure out what it means. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Eronel

I noticed that you recently placed a block on this user. I'd like to point out an instance where I've been having trouble with this user in case it may impact your blocks. Here is the edit history of Bobby Hill (King of the Hill). There was an issue with the character's birth date between this user and at least two other editors. I took the issue to the talk page where there was a 3 to one consensus on the birth date (against Eronel's beliefs). Still, tried to revert and has recently jumped to IP addresses (I believe) to make the same edit daily. I believe it's him because of the arguments made, the way he presents the argument, the fact that all of the IPs have no other edit history, and the fact that the IP edits are made during the same time periods when Eronel edits daily.

I could honestly care less about what this page says is Bobby Hill's birth date but I believe that, if I back down, this user will think that all he needs to do to get his way is switch to IP users and bully others into leaving the page alone. I'm not looking for action or even a response but I just thought that you should be aware. OlYeller^Talktome 19:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Article Khokhar

Hi Fellow Editor, before you take action, please take alook at the article and how one editor has WP:Assumed Ownership. I have tried to WP:Assume Good Faith all along but someone seems to be WP:Gaming. Thanks --Sikh-History 17:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to remain neutral. In any case, Khokhar's edits cannot be called "vandalism." You should never use rollback in a content dispute. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but I think I will take it up with another Admin here. I thought deletion of valid refrences from cited sources was WP:Vandalism. He is definitely gaming the system, and he has made it appear I reverted his edits when it was him who reverted mine. Just take a look. It's very interesting. Cheers --Sikh-History 17:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your decision here has been made in haste. I have a good record as an editor and revoking such a tool makes life difficult or at least read this and reconsider your decision Thanks--Sikh-History 19:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's an issue of WP:OWN or not, Khokhar's edits do not constitute vandalism. Indiscriminate blanking of huge sections is vandalism, but a selective, purposeful removal of a few lines is not. If you promise not to use Twinkle for anything other than obvious vandalism, I will restore it to you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi King Of Hearts. I promise not to misuse Twinkle if you restore it. Like I said to the other editor, think I need a wikibreak, because in this instance, I kind of got mad at him deleting verifiable references. It will never happen again and I apologise for my childish behaviour unreservedly. Thanks for taking the time to reply and giving me some great advice. Cheers and All the best. --Sikh-History 15:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have restored Twinkle access to you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for stopping my bout of unauthorized AfD closures before I got into trouble. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also: thanks for cleaning up after me. If you have problems with any of my closures - feel free to reopen them.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't label them "unauthorized"; you were clearly acting in good faith. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Honor Society band

I don't care if they want to call it a group or a band, but it should be in parens either way. Honor Society (band) is protected so would you mind moving it please? I don't want to get into a move war by moving it back to ... (group). --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Question Re: 222.127.15.250

Hey, I appreciate your comment on my report for 222.127.14.250 and just wanted to clarify the extent to which 4im warnings are valid. I put it on the ip's talk page at that level mostly because he had been repeatedly messing with that page over the 20 minutes before (and had been reverted by another user earlier but never warned). I also waited two more reverts for reporting but thats a little bit of stretch I'll admit :). Would it be better to start at a mid level warning or do you think always start at 1?. Jamesofur (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would say: If a user has vandalized an article once or twice and was reverted but not warned, and I saw him/her vandalizing a second or third time, I would give a test2. If it's somewhat intensive (such as this), I would give a test3. I only give test4im's in rare instances, such as: replacing an article with 220 KB of "PENIS" repeated over and over again, making several vandalisms a minute (aka vandalbot), etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough thanks again Jamesofur (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

AIV

I'm not quite sure what you were thinking here but this is plenty for a 4im warning. Toddst1 (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, must have missed that. Feel free to block if you wish. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

DocKino

Hi King of Hearts. I watched with dismay the situation that unfolded between DocKino and Jeff G. DocKino is a good contributor and I'm sad to see him blocked. I wonder, if you don't mind explaining, how his actions constituted harassment? I'm reviewing both of their contributions and it looks like they were both templating each other in an exchange that could have been stopped by either party had they chosen to disengage. I see some personal attacks (DocKino calling Jeff mentally disturbed) but I'm not sure how that's harassment. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's for violating WP:NPA. But there is no "NPA-block," only {{uw-hblock}}. It's the template that describes the situation most closely. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

But perhaps the template could be reworded to say "making personal attacks or attempting to harass other users"? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah maybe. Sometimes I'll just type something, especially if it's an established user and the regular templates don't seem to fit. It helps them understand exactly what they're being blocked for and sometimes preempts an unblock request. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Orly Taitz relisting -- suggestion

Instead of creating a 3rd AfD, can you reopen the second? That way, those of us who commented late last month wouldn't have to repeat our comments unless we wanted to change or amplify them.

If that's technically unfeasible, however, then I have no problem with your closing it as you did. JamesMLane t c 05:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It is technically possible. However, I think DRV relists usually result in a new nomination. Due to the special circumstances (early closure), however, I put up a note on the 3rd nomination asking which one !voters would prefer. I'll re-open the 2nd if there's consensus to do so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Shakira protection

Thanks for that: with her music re-entering the pop music charts again, there's been an increase in unproductive edits on her article. Thank you. Acalamari 20:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:Zara1709

Hi there. I appreciate that I did not give evidence of actual contravention of the 3RR. However I was actually reporting a serious threat by this editor on the article talk page to start an edit war, as I clearly explained. I reported this because this behaviour clearly violates WP:EW, and WP:EW advises me to report it, as a pre-emptive measure. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, although I thought I worded it quite explicitly. However, it no longer matters, as other admins have since taken it up at WP:AN/I and have classified it as edit warring. Thanks anyway for taking the time to respond. Wdford (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I sure you know this already King, but WP:AN3 is for reports of 3RR and edit warring, which may not involve an actual 3RR violation. The article in question is protected anyhow, but both editors (Zara and Wdford) were technically edit warring, particularly with the former users' block log. No biggie tho, and love the username theme you've got going on! Nja²⁴⁷ 10:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Baatin

Not another darn "Wikipedia Bully"... I was working on that page to make it notable.(LonerXL (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Taitz

You relisted Orly Taitz yesterday and it's already been closed as a keep. What's that about? I thought the point of relisting was for it to be relisted - if it was just going to be kept, why not call it overturned and be done? (Will crostpost to the closing admin.) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It should not have been closed and should have run the 7 days. I'll look into the matter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've replied at Jclemens' talk page. It seems to me that he has, in practical effect, transformed your conclusion that the consensus was to relist into an overturn. I'm not sure that there was consensus to relist, to be candid, but there certainly wasn't consensus to overturn. This result accordingly won't do. Although DRV isn't well-suited to dealing with the situation, I think that renominating the article gives effect to your conculsions about the DRV consensus without benig pointy. What's your view?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Also, you wrote above that you "think DRV relists usually result in a new nomination" - doesn't that, too, support renomination?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You see, if this had a second DRV, I would say "Endorse keep, not the closure. The early closure was highly inappropriate, but per WP:SNOW, process for the sake of process would be counterproductive and just lead to more drama." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be process for the sake of process (and even if it would be, see WP:PIMP). Although there is too much dissent to hope for a clean delete vote, it remains to be seen whether this should be a no-consensus close (which is the most one can possibly wring from the AFD and DRV), leaving open the possibility of another nomination later, or a keep vote, which really makes it tough to imagine a future nomination succeeding. SNOW just doesn't apply here, a point that SNOW itself underlines: "[i]f an issue is 'snowballed', and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause." Unless my objection that it should not have been closed and should have run the full seven days is not only mistaken but unreasonable -- something I doubt you'd agree with, since you said exactly that above -- SNOW is off the table.

A second DRV is unnecessary: the mandate from the first one has not yet been fulfilled, so all that is necessary to fix this situation is to implement what the first DRV decided. That means either JClemens reversing himself (whether under pressure or of his own volition comes to the same thing) or a new nomination (which you seem to have indicated would be the normal thing to happen anyway). I've asked Clemens to reverse himself, and that would of course be the best result. It would help for him to be pushed a little. I've considered simply removing the close and relisting it manually, but that doesn't seem appropriate. If he refuses, I don't see what other option there is other than for someone to renominate.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this can be renominated. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I've asked Clemens to revert his early close and he has made it clear that he refuses. I have accordingly relisted the AFD myself: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (3rd nomination). I would appreciate it if you would let me know which admin's noticeboard you would regard as most appropriate for reporting Clemens' conduct.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to report his conduct, as he was unaware of the DRV situation. But I do approve of letting the third nomination run its course. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I can understand and forgive his closing the AFD when he was unaware of the DRV situation. What cannot be justified, however, is his refusal to correct the error after it was brought to his attention. He has freely admitted that the early close was improper, and that the way he closed lines up with his personal opinion on the merits of the dispute (by sheer coincidence, we are to believe). In that situation, the only honorable course of action would be for him to fix the mistake. His refusal to do so demands some kind of response.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess you can go on WP:ANI then. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Jerkin'

hi, I noticed you were on the deletion logs for this page.. it seems to be salted. I'm not sure if you know but there has been some local coverage in the LA Weekly about this "trend", and it appears there is an interest in this article to exist. Can you restore the article so sources can be added and it can be brought up to standards? thanks riffic (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done - You can find it at User:Riffic/Jerkin'. Since it's been deleted multiple times, you may have to search through the history to find relevant revisions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#Request for abusefilter(editfilter) permissions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

responded.Smallman12q (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Smallman12q (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States)

Hello, King of Hearts! As you edited the List of British females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States), I invite you to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States); I am arguing for some sort of inclusion of the list and would welcome your participation there. Nobody else seems to be paying attention to the value of the information or the question of merging or expanding the list. Thanks in advance if you're willing to vote or comment, whatever your take might be. Abrazame (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-external-images

Is MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-external-images suppose to tell users to report problems to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation? I thought it was suppose to go to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives?--Otterathome (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I copy-pasted it from MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-AFC, that's why. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Filter Manager

Hi there,

I noticed your question to Smallman12q on the talk page (question 2) and thought I would give it a shot. It may be totally wrong, but I figured I should put it here, separate from the talk page, so as not to ruin it for him if I am correct. Would the regex below work in your example?

Bria(n|nna) is a (bold|headline) text[.]

I cannot check with batch testing since you need the permission, but I used a website and it seemed to work. Feel free to let me know on my talk or the EF talk page. Thanks, MacMed^talk_stalk 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup. My personal preference would be Brian(na)? is a (bold|headline) text\., but yours is correct. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Would yours be any more optimized (reduce strain on system) or is it just a personal thing? Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 18:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a tiny, tiny bit. The period, however, is entirely cosmetic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see its been solved. Erm...well I came up with Brian(na|) is a (bold|headline) text.\b.Smallman12q (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a problem with the period: In regex, the period is not a literal; it actually stands for any character (e.g. A, t, 3, %, etc.) except for the break characters \r and \n. Read through the whole thing, feel free to ask me if there's anything you don't understand. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

=(, a period is a wild character...right. So I'd have to put it in a character class. Perhaps I am unqualified. *.* Smallman12q (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we all make mistakes. If you need to remember anything about regex, it's [\^$.|?*+(){}. Not in the list, then WYSIWIG. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I get one for me=P. (Sorry for the delayed response, I didn't check that page until now). Also, would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Criteria_for_Abusefilter.2Feditfilter_permissions for helping devolp criteria for granting nonadmins permissions?Smallman12q (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Template talk DYK - Battle of Stralsund

Thank you for your message. I responded on the TDYK talk page. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

T:TDYK

And done. Trimmed the hook :) Cheers, I'^mperator 20:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Um...it looks like you forgot to give credit for T:DYK/P1. You might want to find the credits... :D Cheers, I'^mperator 21:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Salting a page

Forgive me if maybe I'm not seeing something, but I think you meant to salt Exile the brave, but I think you just "unprotected" it on accident. I just wanted to check, as I'm still getting my admin-bearings. ;-) Killiondude (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't protected in the first place, so I effectively did absolutely nothing to the page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Hence my quotation marks around unprotected, above. :-) Killiondude (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

GnuDoyng

Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at GnuDoyng's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

blocked

You blocked DocKino. In the United States article, he hasn't been too helpful. For example, in the caption of a White House photo, he removed a phrase about John Adams being the first resident there so now it looks like Washington was there, which is wrong and could get a student a lower grade if they wrote a paper based on WP.

I am not calling for extending the block on DocKino but have asked him to be more careful about the US article. I hope he or she will be a good editor. User F203 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"No Israel"

Please remove the image from the blacklist. Using it is totally OK unless the community decided (following the rules) otherwise. Please wait few days before doing such an action. Thank you for understanding.--OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(Untitled2)

Why did your delete "Sticky Dirt"?

What the hell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.18.31 (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted Sticky Dirt because the article does not assert why its subject is important or significant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ilona Staller

You concluded that this article was not undergoing edit warring because it has only 1 revert in 5 days. By my count, it has been reverted 6 times in 12 days. I keep improving the article by adding new references or deleting weak references to address perceived BLP and RS issues, but to no avail. Should I revert completely in a short time frame to get a third party review? Thanks 01:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghosts&empties (talk • contribs) 02:41, August 12, 2009

You can try at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard or Wikipedia:Third opinion. These places help you resolve a dispute, rather than reporting another user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect...

B is wrong: sanctions against Clemens are appropriate and the ANI thread should continue until they are imposed. You evidently disagree, and that's fine. If B is correct, however, which was your stated rationale for closing the ANI thread, you should close both the discussions he said ought to be closed, no? He said "Continuing this thread and the one on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement only add to the drama, so I'd like to propose we close both of them." Either B is wrong and neither thread should be closed, or he is right and both should be. Personally, I think both should be left both open, but we must be consistent.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album)

Hi The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album) is back, which you deleted. It is fairly different to the earlier version, but confirmed by twitter messages? Do you think it should be deleted again (speedy delete or AfD), or should we restore the old history? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the original version was pure WP:CRYSTAL; it even claimed itself that it was a "rumoured greatest hits album." But now there are plenty of News sources, so I think it would be better to just work on improving the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RfA surprise

Hey there KOH. Maunus' RfA is now live; the 'surprise !vote' you'd coded there shows up now when viewed as transcluded from the RfA page, but doesn't show on the page itself. Dunno if that's working as intended, or not? I haven't amended it or anything, will leave it up to you... cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)