User talk:King of Hearts

Feel free to leave a message.

Old talk is at /Archive.

Articles for deletion/Crackahs

Obviously you didn't read the Wiki definition of a gaming clan. Right on the page it clearly states "These range from groups of a few friends to 1000-person organizations. Adinsx88 | (talk) 00:22, February 1, 2006 (UTC)

I know that, but it doesn't make them notable. Read Wikipedia:Notability for details. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary - Foregrip

Thanks for spotting my mistake, feel free to move my entry to the Wiktionary. Just make sure it is the final one with the period at the end. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phatpat88 (talk • contribs) 05:38, February 1, 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat/Impersonators

Domo Arigato for your edits. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled)

have you read the discussion page of the section the deleted section links to? The most likely explanation is that the Russian designers included the battle-damage as a bit of a joke, as they were aware they were otherwise totally copying the aircraft. _No one_ with any experience with aviation would think that a bloody patched hole was a design feature. This is just another example of anti-soviet sentiment that still pops up every so often. I will re-delete the section once you have responded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.92.238 (talk • contribs) 22:03, February 4, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For the reversion of my user page. Appreciated. Stephenb (Talk) 22:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled2)

KoH, I deleted that section of cargo cults for a reason: it is both irrelevant and absurd, as it has nothing to do with a religion or social practice, and is highly unlikely to be true in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.92.238 (talk • contribs) 23:47, February 4, 2006 (UTC)

Next time, if you want to delete something, please leave an Edit summary. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vassilis Leventis (reporter)

Is this article REALLY patent nonsense? It's badly written, sure, but it does convey similar information to the Vassilis Leventis page. I'll not question the speedy since it's gonna go anyways, but it doesn't look strictly speediable to me... --Aim Here 01:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, it was speedied. You have to use your judgment now; if a hoax is so stupid that nobody's going to believe it, then it qualifies as nonsense. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your tag at Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation

I was disappointed that you chose to tag without comment, since it is impossible to refute. Please see [1] as an example of the fact that BP's sexuality is a topic of academic discourse (it is widely analyzed and debated). If you have further concerns, please express them. If not, I trust you will remove the tag (by the way, I apologize for my hasty message on the board there, I thought you were just another of the BSA people removing material they find objectionable). Haiduc 13:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's where it came from, where it was claimed that it was too extensive. You can't have it both ways. Haiduc 18:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? -- King of Hearts | (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was a section of the BP page until the other day when a group of users associated with the BSA decided that it was overextensive and removed it. A small paragraph is left in its place, and the new article has been started. Anyway, your position that it is not important is untenable in light of the amount of scholarship dedicated to this issue (a number of major biographers have delved at length into the topic) and to the political importance and timeliness of the topic to a lot of people. Haiduc 19:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is a BSA? The disambiguation brings up many possible meanings. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Scouts of America. I am disappointed that you would get involved in this discussion without seeming to have any familiarity with the topic. I am sure you are well intentioned, and I appreciate your doing patrol work for the Wikipedia, it certainly is necessary and important, but here I am afraid that you are off the mark. The move out of the article was the result of extensive debate, and your coming in at this late date without a knowledge of the topic or of the history of the discussions is not helpful. Upon what grounds do you base your statement that the topic is un-encyclopaedic? Haiduc 20:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not unencyclopedic, but it still should be merged, as info on a person are usually contained in the biography. When's the last time you've seen an article called Abraham Lincoln's log cabin? -- King of Hearts | (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are approaching some consensus here. The problem now is that at least on biography on the man runs to almost seven hundred pages, and probably over a hundred of those pages are devoted to discussions of his sexuality. This furthermore is a major historical figure who has created the largest youth organization in the world, as well as being important in British colonial and military history. You can have a number of articles all on Baden Powell, one on his military life, another on his personal life, another on his work with the boy scouts. It so happens that his sexuality is (obviously) of great importance to his biographers and to people interested in the scouts and their policies and politics and history. It certainly is discussed and studied and commented upon, both as part of his biography as well as for what it represents in the ongoing debate on sexuality and culture in the wider world. Does this begin to put things in perspective? And please don't introduce nonsensical examples here. I checked Articles in category "Abraham Lincoln". There are 54 articles in this section of this category. If you are going to debate please do so in good faith. Haiduc 20:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled3)

this is unfair. users demand my article back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stinkydave (talk • contribs) 18:59, February 5, 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your article on Pink tube sock is very useful on the encyclopedia. It is random nonsense. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up

I went ahead and changed my "Keep and clean up" comment for the article to the word "Comment". Madangry 18:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

My admin request went up in flames. (But thanks anyways!)

Hey, King of Hearts, I wanted to thank you for your support of my (unfortunately unsuccessful) request for adminship. The final tally was 37/16/5, which fell short of the needed 75-80% for "consensus". I don't know if or when I'll go up for nomination again, but even if I don't, I will try not to betray the trust that you and 36 others were willing to place in me. Thanks for having faith in me... and happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Image:Bohratommodel.png listed for deletion

I've replied at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 February 7. Please be aware that answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror? But thanks for letting me know. Last time I had an image deleted, no one told me about it. enochlau (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled3)

Ooook. Thanks for the info. Too bad it was a mistake that I tried to fix and not some horrible vandal out to destroy the best website in the world. Too bad wikipedia isnt as user friendly as it should be. Too bad someone sits around patrolling entries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.103.117.75 (talk • contribs) 18:57, February 7, 2006 (UTC)

Lancaster CITY not County

- Lancaster is NE of Baltimore, not NW

-High Steel makes beams, it doesn't manufacture bridges

-Those high schools are in the county (see my note).