Jump to content

User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2010/08

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

Lee Whitnum

[edit]

Hi King of Hearts!

This is Screwball, I'm currently editing articles related to the U.S. Senate race in Connecticut, 2010, and the Lee Whitnum article has re-caught my attention recently. I am interested in reviewing the deletion of the page, and since I am unsure how to handle this, I undid the removal of the page and started to edit it again.

I do not know the procedures, but I feel that this article is relevant and has room to grow. Since you are an administrator and you were involved in the discussion, I would like your help.

Thanks!!! :-)

--Screwball23 talk 04:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you already added plenty of references to show her notability, no further review is necessary. The article is here to stay. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

[edit]

Pink Grand Prix

[edit]

Hi, King of Hearts, and thanks for taking the time to close the recent Pink film nominations. On your doubts as to "consensus" on the award, there are citations to English texts in the article on the award. More sourcing-- both English and Japanese-- can certainly be added, and I will work on it to make it more clear that the award is indeed "notable", cite-able with reliable sourcing, etc. (Not to continue the arguments, but I would note that the Delete votes refused to acknowledge the sourcing and proofs of reliability continuously presented. I would hope simple refusal to budge from one's first !vote, in spite of contradictory evidence does not affect a "consensus" close.) Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate AFD closure

[edit]

I do not believe your closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cousin_White_Paper:_Aching_Mature_Lewdness was appropriate. You appear to have treated the discussion simply as a vote count, without weighing the policy/guideline questions involved. In a situation like this, where there's no clearly expressed consensus after the initial listing, the closer should either relist the discussion or reach a conclusion by evaluating the arguments under applicable policies and guidelines. Please revise your action as indicated. If you do opt to weigh mthe arguments, please take my newest comments, recently added to the four companion AFDs, into account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Such POV complaints have been repeatedly and soundly refuted... though with the length of those various discussion, perhaps it was overlooked during the boilerplating of his responses. The GNG is not the final arbiter of notability... specially for films that have their own cultural significance in their own country and for different reasons than a film might here in the United States. Notable in Japan is plenty notable for en.WIkipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My reply: See WP:RELIST: Failure to achieve consensus after a substantial discussion is not grounds for a relist. My decision was based on the notability guidelines; people did not agree on whether the sources satisfied the requirement, hence no consensus. I understand your point about your recent comments, but more than 7 days have passed, meaning that I am entitled to close it while you can continue to add comments only if it has not been closed yet. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts, something very wrong is going on here. All five AfDs you closed are now open. They were closed before the statements above were added. These statements would have changed nothing, but somehow your closures have been circumvented. Something against process is going on. Dekkappai (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi King. Sorry to be a pest here. I either hallucinated, or something is amiss. Did you only close the one Pink film AfD? I could swear I saw several... Dekkappai (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I closed only one. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn! I need my eyes checked! OK, glad to get that cleared up anyway. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lrrreconcilable Ndndifferences

[edit]

I think that this was an improper close. All the keep !votes are "Wait until it airs, it'll be notable then" which really doesn't hold water. There was some discussion on IRC that the closure was improper. It looks like it should've been deleted or at least relisted. (also, you might wanna remove the link to User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels! from your talk page notice) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too, but thought my close would be the best way to avoid extra bureaucracy. But in the presence of disagreement, there's nothing a little extra discussion can't solve, so I am relisting it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus?

[edit]

Hi, IMO it was a clear consensus for keeping the article [1]. There were 3 "delete" votes against 9 "keep". May I please ask you to reconsider your clousere? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. I feel that the deletion arguments are strong enough not to be ignored. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lazzat with Asad

[edit]

I almost never do this, but really, no consensus? Would not another relist perhaps have been a better 'close'? GedUK  17:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I used to do, but I didn't make up the rules. See WP:RELIST. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it was relisted once. RELIST has two as a maximum. Considering that there had been a !vote after the first relist, I don't think a second relist was too big a jump to make, though personally I'd have deleted it (if I hadn't nominated it!). No matter, I'll see what i can do with it, I expect I'll list it again later. GedUK  20:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 August 2010 DRV log

[edit]

Hey, I was about to clean up the DRV log when I noticed that you commented out the DRV for User:Tarun marwaha/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi. You mention "relist" in your edit summary,[2] but I didn't see a closing statement. Just curious if I should archive the log for that day, or if you are still planning on doing something with it. I didn't want to remove the html that hid the discussion if you put it there on purpose, but I wasn't sure why it would be there. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to archive it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and yes, the HTML comment was on purpose. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh... I see what you did now... That makes sense. You relisted it at DRV as opposed to AfD. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

[edit]

Some users just don't get it, do they? Thanks for catching the vandalism (on my page) before I even saw it, that literally vanished in seconds. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time to block the IP temporarily. He reverted your warning. I have restored it thanks to a rollback, but it's in the history. CycloneGU (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Looks like he got canned already without my noticing. =) CycloneGU (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th Transportation Battalion (United States)

[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th Transportation Battalion (United States) reads like No Consensus to me. The closing admin must abide by the consensus, and if there is no consensus in the AfD then the article must not be deleted. If the closing admin's role is to close the AfD as he/she see fit, then why do we even bother to have discussions? I request that you restore the article for the reason that there was no consensus to it being deleted. Inniverse (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the closer's role is simply to look at how many people say "keep" and how many say "delete," then we could just have a bot close all the AfDs. AfD is not a vote, and I believe the "delete" side to be stronger and more grounded in policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th Transportation Battalion (United States)

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th Transportation Battalion (United States). 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. Inniverse (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National express West Midlands fleet

[edit]

Dear Sir,

I am aware of the reasons why you have deleted this page from wikipedia prior to an ongoing debate as to whether the page should be kept, deleted or changed. I would like to put my argument forward:

1) This page is the ONLY page in wikipedia that includes a DETAILED and extremely helpful fleet index for a big corporate bus company. If you delete it you will be deleting the only one in existance. 2) Bus enfusiasts like myself who are interested in the bus scene in birmingham reguarly use that page for tracking down a particular type of bus, noting any changes in the fleet such as withdrawals and many other things. 3) I however agree with some of the comments on the debate page about the fact that in places it can be TOO COMPLICATED FOR THOSE WHO DON'T REGUARLY LOOK AT IT. So cutting bits out like the tables (with the bus fleet number on 1 side and on the other side of the table you have the registration plate) can go as I personally don't see the point in that! I have noticed that on that page you have boxes with the fleet numbers in and their current garage, this can be used instead - so you don't duplicate information! 4) I would also suggest that the number of references at the bottom is cut a little. 5) I would also cut the sections about the Leyland Lynx and MCW Metrobuses, as these take up space and are no longer within the fleet, also cutting the massive paragraph down in the reserve fleet. 6) Apart from that everything else is extremely helpful, I would just like to add that the main reason why I look at your page almost every day is to see if the fleet has changed. And this is the most reliable page for that sort of information, if this page is deleted then I'm not sure where to go as the fleet page on the NXWM website has not been updated in 2 years! 7) I am aware that it takes tons of effort to make changes to this page every so 1/2 days, as the fleet can change that reguarly, but believe me that effort won't go unrewarded as people like me will reguarly look at ypur page!

I thank you for reading this and hope that this gives you a better indication of where the page is from a bus enfusiasts perspective. Please take into consideration what I have said, and if so I hope to see this page still on wikipedia soon which will make me a very happy man!

Best Regards, 

         Andy,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.175.129 (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not designed to hold all possible information; see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. In particular, Wikipedia is not a directory for things like an entire bus fleet. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of the Antoine Dodson article

[edit]

What is the point of anyone voting if you can decide by yourself to delete the article? You very much violated everything Wikipedia is about. You brazenly violated consensus. And you misunderstand Biographies of Living Persons policy. It says "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, AND if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." The justificaiton for the article was not that he was "MERELY in the news," but that he is famous for being in the news. And, do you see the "AND"?? Dodson is not a low-profile individual. If someone is in the news for a single event and he is notable then it's proper for their to be an article about him. Notability is all that's required to justify it. And go back and look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#People_notable_only_for_one_event . It says "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." Do you see that it is taking it for granted that when a person is notable for a single event it is proper for him to have representation on Wikipedia? There is no policy on Wikipedia that says if a person is notable for a single event then he shouldn't have an article. Notability is all the justification needed. Will you restore the article? Rapidosity (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I !voted so I didn't want to protest about this, but I also believe your closure of this debate was questionable:
  • You claim that you didn't consider the keep !votes valid for "not being grounded in policy" and then go on to support this view by linking to an essay
  • You claim that there are many reliable sources for the event, but deleted the information anyway, and seemed to ignore the keep-!voting non-SPAs suggesting that we might move the content to an article about the event rather than about Dodson himself (to address the BLP concerns).
  • You obviously didn't read a whole lot of sources if you believe the title of the song which made it to iTunes is "Auto-Tune The News".
Your opinion may well have been to delete, but as a closing admin, you should not be letting this get in the way. The result of this AfD was clearly no consensus. - filelakeshoe 20:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Famous" is a subjective measure of importance, one of the WP:ATA. And regarding my comment about it being "not being grounded in policy" and then proceeding to cite that essay, ATA is based on policies, or more precisely the lack thereof. Citing the essay saves me the task of repeating things like like "The 'keep' !voters said that it was useful, but no policy says that useful articles are automatically notable." For Rapidosity's second point, the current state of articles on Wikipedia has no bearing on their subjects' notability. Just because there is a possibly notable event, an individual with a significant role has an article, and the event doesn't, doesn't it should remain that way. If the event does indeed qualify under WP:EVENT (I have no opinion either way), then the event should have an article, not the person. For Filelakeshoe's second point, I am open to that idea, and can incubate/userfy if anyone requests so. The third point, sorry, my bad. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your chosen name says it all. You think you are a king. You violated the consensus opinion. You deserve to have your powers taken from you. You have abused them. Rapidosity (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Why NORAD Tracks Santa.jpg

[edit]

This image was not an identical crop, it is actually slightly better than the one at Commons, can you userfy me a copy, or upload over the present Commons variant? Thanks.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I like your card banner, but I don't understand "Unlike this King of Hearts, my name is not Charles."--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

[edit]

AfD closure disputed

[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Koltz‎. Every person commenting said to delete the page. How is this no consensus? If I had prodded it instead, wouldn't it just be deleted? Consider WP:SILENCE. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here to make the exact same comment about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Koltz‎. I don't think "no consensus, default to keep" is the appropriate outcome when the only !votes, mine and the nominator's, were to delete. I have the same problem with another nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP), which you closed as "no consensus". With that one, the only lack of consensus was between the nominator's "delete" and my "merge to Foreign Policy Research Institute"; there were no !votes to keep. If you feel a nomination has not received enough discussion, but what discussion there is all points to "delete", it seems like a relisting would be the appropriate action, rather than closing as "no consensus" which defaults to "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RELIST, "Users relisting a debate for a second time ... are encouraged to write a short explanation (in addition to the {{relist}} template) of why they did not consider the debate sufficient." This implies that there needs to be a special reason for a second relist to be warranted. Not finding one, I closed it as a no consensus without prejudice, so you can quickly renominate it at AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And here's another one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Economic Development Company. And somebody mentioned a fourth at your Administrator rating discussion. I'm not an administrator so I can't argue your rules, but I have never seen another administrator do this: FOUR discussions (that I know of, maybe more) closed as "no consensus", defaulting to keep - when in fact all the discussion was for delete or redirect, nobody at all arguing to keep. The only problem with those discussions was that only a few people had commented; there was no disagreement about whether to keep the article. It really wouldn't have hurt anything to keep it open for one more week, rather than forcing everybody to start the deletion nomination process all over again. --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it should be this way too, but WP:RELIST suggests otherwise. Therefore I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfDs with little or no discussion to gauge the community's opinion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate that and I'll look forward to the discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the closes mentioned here were technically proper per WP:RELIST. Yes "king of" could have used "admin's discretion" and deleted them but we shouldn't fault him for choosing not to exercise it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nothing Lasts Forever Anymore

[edit]

There were actually two related articles for deletion there - also Mundo Overloadus. Should I resubmit the latter or can you delete it based on the existing disussion? JohnInDC (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I deleted it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted 19th century by mistake

[edit]

I restored it. Edward (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I wondered why Twinkle froze when I got to 19th century. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I Didn't Love You

[edit]

Hi, not sure I understand this one. There is an AfD which was "delete" but there was no formal notification on the article page. You closed the debate and deleted the talk page (but not the article) - which is how I found it, I was checking WPSong updates and nearly re-started the page. I suppose the deletion should be done correctly... You can respond on this page or mine, either way, no problems. I have no axe to grind in any event. Cheers. Richhoncho (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did delete it ([3]), but TPH moved If I Didn't Love You (Steve Wariner song) to its present location, resulting in it appearing as a blue link. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Tony Koltz

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tony Koltz. 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. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1st century (Hebrew)

[edit]
  • I think that there may have been a mistake in the deletion of an article called 14th century AH; although I referred to it in a discussion concerning the Hebrew calendar articles, it wasn't part of that nomination. At first, I thought that perhaps it had been nominated separately and that I had missed it, but going back over the deletion log, I don't see that it's ever been tagged or nominated. It occurs to me that you might have thought that 14th century AH was a redirect to 14th century (Hebrew), which was nominated, but all of the AH dates are on the Muslim calendar rather than the Jewish calendar, so it's not at all the same, although the two look similar at first glance. It occurs to me also that another administrator may have deleted the article, although, again, I'm not aware of the 14th century AH article having been included in a nomination for deletion, so I'm hoping that it was simply an error. Thank you for any information that you can provide. 21:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs)
I have restored it. Sorry about the mistake. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FlippingBook Informational Page

[edit]

Hello dear King of hearts.

I have noticed today that my informational article about FlippingBook brand was deleted. I did not find the reason but it seems to me that you have tagged it like a advertising?

Please can you tell me how to sort this issue out. This brand provides free software to the most of US educational organizations and people want to have information around it. It was a good idea to create an article here and develop it.

Please advise me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishanoval (talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page where people have given reasons to delete the page. Articles must have sufficient notability to stay. If you can cite information in the article with independent reliable sources (meaning that they must not from the company itself, press releases, etc.), then you can recreate the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig

[edit]

Would you consider changing your signature per WP:ACCESS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnevin (talk • contribs) 15:06, August 20, 2010

I am aware of the recent discussion, but it seems to apply only to usernames. There is a section in the signature guidelines that suggests my sig is OK: Wikipedia:Signatures#Use unicode characters instead. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠
Your sig maybe be ok per WP:SIG but its not accessible . It's up to you Gnevin (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fair enough , don't know what happened to that last post Gnevin (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Duggy (below) accidentally removed it when making his post. I restored it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I originally found it confusing when seeing it on AFD closes. The only thing that stands out is the phrase "king of" (king of what?). However, I disagree that it's inaccessible. If it is then WPs standard text size is also "inaccessible". By clicking the "king of" part it's only one click away from his talk page and contributions. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LoEG timeline clarification

[edit]

OK, myself and the other person who replied to Capt Walden took his claim of "lists multiple secondary sources" to mean the references to the sources the characters come from (since Sherlock Holmes appears, an external Holmes timeline is used even though in Volume 1 it is clear that Holmes appearences are publication dates rather than by internal story dating.) As such those things have to go. Doesn't mean the page has to be deleted, but doesn't support the page and citations, either. His replies made it clear he was refering to the section that lists (but doesn't use as sources):

  • Heroes & Monsters: The Unofficial Companion to the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (paperback, 239 pages, MonkeyBrain, 2003, ISBN 1-932265-04-X, Titan Books, 2006, ISBN 1-84576-316-5)
  • A Blazing World: The Unofficial Companion to the Second League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (paperback, 240 pages, MonkeyBrain, 2004, ISBN 1-932265-10-4, Titan Books, 2006, ISBN 1-84576-317-3)
  • Impossible Territories: An Unofficial Companion to the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, The Black Dossier (paperback, 304 pages, MonkeyBrain, 2008, ISBN 1-932265-24-4)

These 3 books cover a "story" each. Heroes and monsters covers the first mini-series, A Blazing World covers Vol 2 and Impossible Territories covers the original graphic novel "The Black Dossier". I'm sure when all three volumes of "Century" are released a four will be added. These books started out as posts by Jess Nevins (Librarian and Victorian Literature enthusis) to usenet comic book forums as "annotations"... his page-by-page, panel-by-panel guess of who every one was (including background characters and shops signs). People replied with their own guesses and contradictions which he added and he created a webpage. I was one of those people who made editions. The page became popular and was turned into the books. The books included revised and expanded versions of these annotations (I'm assuming better than just the original guesses), essays and interviews with the creators. Unfortunately, I've only ever once seen a copy of one of these in a comic shop and didn't have the money at the time and it was in plastic. They'd probably be a good secondary sources for this page, although I really feel they're a single source and not multiple sources. Unfortunately, they aren't being cited, they just exist as something mentioned on the page. I still think the real issue is the comic book timelines are synthetic OR. However, I accept you disagree. Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin review

[edit]

Hi KoH! Im not sure you are actually watching the admin review you started. I have never interacted with you on Wikipedia, and I hope you realise therefore that there is absolutely nothing personal in my comment whatsoever. If you wish, I would be happy to provide more details that I did not consider necessary for the review page.--Kudpung (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am watching it, but I do not respond to the comments left on there. So what in particular are the "easy tasks an admin can do"? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback Request

[edit]

Hey, I saw you were one of the administrators on Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests so I'm asking you.

I'm requesting that the rollback feature be applied to my account. I would like to revert vandalism faster, and maybe be able to try out Huggle. I have read over WP:ROLLBACK and understand that rollback is only for reverting obvious vandalistic edits, my own edits in my userspace, or edits by banned users. I realize I haven't been on Wikipedia for that long (only been here for 5 days), but I find myself reverting vandalism most of the time, and I think I understand what is vandalism and what isn't. So if you would please review my reverts, that would be most appreciated. But of course, if you believe I need some more experience with vandalism reverting, then that's 100% understandable. No worries, no problem.

Just take your time, as I can see you're a busy administrator at work. Thanks! — Xcalizorz (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your request for the rollback tool. In general, the guideline for granting rollback is 50 reverts (which you have) and 500 edits total (you have 287). When you get 500 (which I'm sure you'll have by the end of August), feel free to come back and ask! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I'll be sure to message you then. — Xcalizorz (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of cemeteries

[edit]

Is there a reason why you closed the AfD for Lists of cemeteries but didn't remove the afd tag from the article? I thought it was probably an oversight, but I didn't want to remove it if there's a reason why it's still there. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's because I close AfDs using a script. The page was moved before I closed the AfD, and the script wasn't smart enough to detect that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kewl. I didn't want to remove it if it was there for a reason.  :) Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in South Korea

[edit]

Hi! This is Farjad. I wanted to ask you what was the criteria of deleting the List of schools in South Korea. Thanks! Farjad0322 (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC) {{Asia topic|List of schools in}}[reply]

I deleted it based on the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in South Korea. First of all, there were only 4 articles in the list, which made it not very useful. To be complete, it would have to include the 500,000 schools in South Korea, thus violating WP:NOTDIR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will return to you in a few days time after if I am able to find more articles about South Korean schools. Farjad0322 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the problem is not that the schools are not notable; the problem is that Wikipedia is not a directory, and the list duplicates the category Category:Schools in South Korea which sorts the information much more efficiently. For example, the word after is obviously very notable. But we don't have an article on it (the current page is a disambiguation) because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I think it would be much more wise if we involve the expertise of administrators that are a member of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Schools. There are in fact, featured lists of schools (look: List of schools in the Marlborough Region - few schools in the list, but still it is featured...). I don't know where I read it but all high schools are notable on wikipedia. Actually, most (if not all) South Korean wikipedians are lazy. They refused to help me on List of Korean musicians. Despite I am from Pakistan, I had to clean up there mess. Farjad0322 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Obertdp7" article deleted, 8/23.

[edit]

Dear King of Hearts,

Hello, thank you for the feedback. I did major source, filmography and career updates to the article and hope you got to see the latest version before your judgement.

You mentioned, "...recreate with proper sourcing and without the promotional tone." With all due respect, I could link you a few 'filmmakers' on Wikipedia who've done almost nothing outside of their student projects, and yet their articles are approved, posted, and use personal sites as sources, etc. And most were written with an obvious "promotional tone".

Could you please reinstate my relevant cinematography article? I did days of research, dozens of hours backing up notable credits, award recognition, linking actors' articles and other references to mine, etc. If you could, check out my updated article from this morning, 8/23 and please reconsider.

Thank you,

Dale Obert

Obertdp7(talk) 23:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the article to User:Obertdp7/Dale Obert. Please be sure to include independent reliable sources (your personal website, IMDB, etc. do not count; for news articles, they must be nationally recognized publications and discuss you in detail). Once you believe you have done so, please contact me for information on restoring the article to the mainspace. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank semi-spam

[edit]

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I also appreciate your endorsement of my content contributions. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Antoine Dodson

[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Antoine Dodson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoine Dodson (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Favonian (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DRV Steven Slater

[edit]

If you are effectively going no consensus, which is how you started the closing statement then you are bound to endorse as BLP is that material deleted for BLP reasons (and this includes BLP1E) should not be restored without a clear consensus to do so. Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning or you might want to clarify your thinking? Spartaz Humbug! 20:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going "no consensus." The DRV is particularly complex, and involves a particularly unusual scenario. If the event article had existed in the first place (assuming it was notable), pretty much everyone would agree to redirect the individual's article to the event, a textbook case of BLP1E. However, that is not the case. In reply to your current statement "you are bound to endorse as BLP is that material deleted for BLP reasons," most of the "overturn" !votes dispute the idea that the article should remain a BLP. Here we apply common sense: while it is technically true that the material was deleted while governed by BLP, the BLP criterion would not have applied had it been an article on the event, so retroactively creating an article on the event should be permissible. In short, there was a consensus that the Steven Slater article should not exist, at least not at that location. But there was also a consensus that the event should have an article, so why reinvent the wheel? It is possible that majority of the "endorse" !voters who did not notice this possibility would have believed that the event did not warrant an article, which is why I relisted it on AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed as much BLP stuff as I can without blanking it... Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a pile of crap, you never should of replaced that rubbish, users are replacing all the content from the BLP. if you were unsure you should have left it for someone else. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

[edit]

Manny Machado

[edit]

Why was it even at DRV? I think the userfication while the editor worked on the thing and while the subject's career evolved to notability was a tidy solution. As a matter of fact, I moved the thing to the userpage to avoid deletion and to allow the subject to become notable. I was not notified of the DRV discussion. Dlohcierekim 02:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't know why any more than you do. I had no involvement with it until I closed the DRV, when it was impossible to close it as a different result. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the creator just got a little impatient. He did edit after I userfied, so he knew and he saw my notability note. It was deleted again and restored after the original G4 honorer had his turn at it. Without a doubt the subject will become notable when he plays, and that will likely be September, when he plays the Rays. 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Machado (2nd nomination)

[edit]

Next time if it's an article concerning an athlete please categorize it under sports and games. Thanks Secret account 16:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people killed by dogs in the United States

[edit]

Your claim that "Astro$01 presents a multi-pronged argument worth several "delete" !votes" is a little hard to accept. Most people in the discussion rejected the "notable" argument. The other arguments such as "other stuff exists" and "it is rated high importance in a wikiproject" are barely relevant. The list is based on OR and is used to push a POV. It cannot be addressed simply by slapping on an incomplete template.

Also, the AFD is 6 days old. Shouldn't the full 7 days pass before a "no consensus" closure? --Dodo bird (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your first point, I'm not saying the "keep" arguments were stronger than the "delete" arguments, merely that the "delete" arguments are not sufficiently overpowering to declare a consensus in that direction. And I apologize for the early closure; in my defense, the AfD was misplaced in the August 21 log. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(just realised that in your closing argument I quoted above, you wrote "worth several "delete" !votes" when you meant "keep" votes)
You did not say that the keep arguments were stronger than the delete arguments, but you did say that his single keep argument is stronger than a single delete argument. What good points did he make in his argument that warrants giving extra weight to his vote?--Dodo bird (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively you are placing your opinion of one keep vote over everyone who came afterwards, clearly they had read the argument and still voted delete. This is a supervote and I request you to either reclose this as delete or relist the discussion for someone else to close. Spartaz Humbug! 07:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the strict votecount, we have a 2/3 majority for "delete," which is still within the discretionary range. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please address my point, you can't discard the delete votes just because you prefer a keep vote if the users contributing were not swayed by the argument and there is no discretion if the outcome is clear. Please reconsider this close. Spartaz Humbug! 05:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So are you conceding that your "worth several votes" argument has no merit but you have the right to close a 7/3 discussion as no consensus? If not, I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why his vote warrants more weight.--Dodo bird (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the "delete" !voters argued that this was a list of non-notable people. Astro$01 then suggested changing the focus to the attacks themselves, which were indeed well-documented; Chrisrus agreed with that sentiment. The "delete" arguments did not really address that possibility. And how am I conceding my "worth several votes" argument has no merit? I am saying: There are more "deletes" than "keeps" per se. One of the "keeps" is worth more. So in the end the "delete" !votes and the "keep" !votes are worth roughly the same. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the timestamp. Astro$01's comment about moving the list was the last comment before you closed the discussion. You cannot counter or agree with an argument that does not exist. A list of people is still a list of people no matter what you title the article. And notability is only one of the argument for deletion.--Dodo bird (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, I will reopen it to give more time for the others to respond. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Que?

[edit]

Hi, obvious to you but not me. was this a reference to the convention that no thread at WT RFA actually results in change? ϢereSpielChequers 08:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was agreeing with your modest proposal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people killed by dogs in the United States

[edit]

I'm confused as to the status of this deletion discussion. It has supposedly been re-listed, but there's no notice of this in the article. Deb (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed notability guidelines for earthquake articles

[edit]

Hi King of Hearts, in closing the discussion for Articles for deletion/2010 Ecuador earthquake you said that the proposed notability guidelines for earthquake articles "have not gained widespread consensus". I have in the past tried to get editors who start articles on earthquakes of dubious notability to contribute to the discussion on WikiProject Earthquakes, but with little success. Do you have any suggestions as to how I might be able to raise the profile of this and get more editors involved to reach that 'widespread consensus'. Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fields Medal

[edit]
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:FieldsMedalFront.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Makeemlighter (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:FieldsMedalBack.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Makeemlighter (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2010/08&oldid=1144389554"