Jump to content

User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2010/09

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

Filter 346

[edit]

Hi KoH. I noticed you added numbers to the filter exceptions for filter 346. I was aware that the relevant hits were false positives, but I wasn't sure what to do about it given that although such hits were not foreign-language contributions, they were all test creations. I was wondering if you thought it might be worthwhile to simply include those in the filter and provide a better warning message to display.

I attempted to create another filter to catch articles that contain no text in any language, but it consumed far to many conditions to let it continue running. In any event, the relevant hits would only be a few a day at most, and are easily caught and tagged for speedy deletion. I was just wondering your thoughts. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed all the hits of this filter, and except in 2 instances, all of them were either non-English contributions or clearly nonconstructive contributions. One of the 2 instances was probably a bug. An example of nonconstructive contribution is creating a new article which only contains "123". Sole Soul (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Sale el Sol

[edit]

I have nominated Sale el Sol, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sale el Sol. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Miller (South Carolina politician)

[edit]

You had previously participated in a deletion discussion for this subject, at its first AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Miller (South Carolina politician). It has been nominated for deletion, again. The discussion is taking place, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Miller (South Carolina politician) (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Cowshed

[edit]

Unlike the other pages in this group nom, the Seven Commandments (the last in particular) have been used outside of just being a summary of part of the novel.

(One of the troubles of group noms (as I presume you know) is that quite often indeed, all article are not the same)

Would you be opposed to its restoration/demerging? - jc37 23:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you have consensus to do so, I would not oppose such a move. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you mentioned in the closure, there wasn't a consensus to delete, and in this case, USEFUL and HARMLESS isn't the issue. And the nom was concerned with WP:PLOT, which doesn't apply in this case.
I guess I'm just not certain why a consensus need to be (re-) found to undo what was mistakenly done by group nomming. - jc37 06:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Would you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people killed by dogs in the United States? You removed the AfD notice on the article with the edit summary "AfD nc". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I already closed it as "no consensus" before, but it was challenged above, so I decided to reopen it. I would prefer that someone else close it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You never restored the AFD template after relisting by the way. That and the bizarre transclusion of the older version onto the talk page made it look to anyone not watching the afd like the matter was settled when it actually was not. Anyway, it's now closed as keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 320

[edit]

Curious, was there a particular false-positive that got you to change the filter from disallow to warn? I by no means review every hit to the filter, but was under the impression that since all of the exceptions were added, the false positive rate is actually near zero. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Near zero is the key. Unless we're dealing with a specific long-term vandal (where we would rather give up legitimate edits in order to stop them), there should be absolutely zero catagorical false positives. By "categorical" I mean an entire class of good edits that are caught by the filter, as opposed to a single one that happened to be caught due to a technicality. I have explained quite clearly how actual quotes containing "your mom" would be caught. Not "all of the exceptions" have been added, and will never be: How is it possible to tell between a vandal saying "yo mama is fat" and a constructive editor who reports on a incident in which a notable figure says "yo mama is fat"? Quotation marks, you say? There are other ways to quote, like blockquote tags. It's impossible to list them all. For a comparison, check out the "sucks" filter, for which false positives are also very rare but do happen. The reason that these two filters should be warn-tag only IMO is because the stuff they catch are not much any more harmful than normal vandalism, while defamation gone unchecked has obvious legal repercussions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of laws regarding child pornography

[edit]

As someone who occasionally looked at the above page, I thought it was unfortunate that the sourced content contained in it was deleted and not merged to other pages. I have no doubt that the page was about a fringe and lunatic POV, but it was useful to know that Mary Ruwart endorsed this POV at one point. I also think there is no place for this content except for a separate page, because it is fringe enough that to put it anywhere else would be undue weight. 66.213.10.5 (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there was consensus at the AfD that the content should be deleted and not merged, so I cannot restore it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your deletion of "Yuval Bronshtein" article

[edit]

Your deletion of this article was uncalled for and very inappropriate. Yuval Bronshtein is one of the most famous poker players in the world for being one of the best all around players out there. He holds two different records in FTOPs, one of them is for winning 2 events simultaneously on the same day, and the other record is winning 4 overall FTOPs which is the current record. Many believe that back to back FTOPs will never be won again, and certainly not simultaneously. This record will probably stand forever. Additionally, it is a common perception that his back to back and 4 overall FTOPs victories are the single greatest achievement in online poker history, and even furthermore all 4 of his FTOPs victories were in completely different games.

He also has several World Series of Poker final tables, including a 3rd place finish, and being a part of poker history for being a member of the first ever World Series of Poker Europe final table several years ago.

Yuval Bronshtein is an icon in online poker. He has a very big fan following and lots of fans. He is perhaps the most well known online poker player in the world who is not signed by a big poker company like Full Tilt or Pokerstars.

Last year he chopped the $5,000 buyin PLO championship for about $90,000 in winnings and also has won several other live tournaments and cashes in major live and online tournaments.

When he was on team Bodog he earned fame for knocking out Joe Hachem, TJ Cloutier and Shannon Elizabeth from a World Series of Poker tournament on the way to winning 3rd place for over $100,000.

Aside from his results he is very established in the poker world and very well known amongst all of the famous players in the world [1]

Last summer during the World Series of Poker he played in all of the biggest buyin tournaments with all of the big name pros and cashed 4 times. He also played the prestigious $50,000 tournament in each of the last 2 years, and has also cashed in World Championship Stud events in each of the past 2 World Series of poker.

He has also had several brief television appearances on ESPN and ESPN2 for World Series of Poker Europe coverage.

Yuval Bronshtein is very legitimate and a big time poker pro, anybody who knows anything about poker knows his name very well. He is one of the best all around poker players in the world and his online and live achievements speak for themselves.

He deserves to have his wikipedia page back, as do his fans and supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.96.228.115 (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the article's deletion debate, people did not seem to agree that FTOP was a suffiently notable tournament. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

[edit]

Arthic Online

[edit]

Why you delete that page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mraider94 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't know what page you're talking about. Could you please check your spelling? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Yuval Bronshtein article

[edit]

First of all, Yuval Bronshtein is a very accomplished professional poker player for many reasons which I have listed besides his FTOPs accomplishments [2] which warrant for him to have a wikipedia page on its own. In your explanation of why you deleted him you never revisited his other accomplishments in poker, you merely stated that you were discrediting FTOPs from notability. You have an FTOPs page on wikipedia, in which Yuval's name is not even mentioned once. You are not giving him due credit even though when people talk about FTOPs he is the first player that comes to mind [3].

Yuval is not a one-trick pony. He is currently ranked 134th live player in the world [4]

Yuval was considered the 5th most fascinating person in all of poker in 2008 [5] out of a list of players which included Phil Ivey, Doyle Brunson, Daniel Negreanu, and every other big name professional poker player. He was a member of the first ever world series of poker europe final table and is the only member of the final table without his own wikipedia page. At the time of the final table Yuval was the youngest player at the table, about 10 years younger than the next youngest player there. He will forever be a part of poker history for this appearance. He has won 4 major live tournaments, including chopping the $5,000 PLO championship at PCA Bahamas last year for about $90,000. He also has 2 World Series of poker final tables, and many other notable cashes in world series and other live poker events for over $430,000 [6]

Yuval is also known for his table image and look. 2 summers ago he came to the world series of poker with a tall blue mohawk and changed it to red for the second half of the series. He has quite a following on twitter, where he is often mentioned with the top tweeters in poker. [7] As you can see he is very established and has quite a fanbase.

He is considered to be one of the greatest all around poker players in the world, particularly in mixed games, and many consider him the very best in the world at several of the games he is best at, razz and stud hi/lo 8 or better.

Secondly, I don't see how you can discredit FTOPs as insignificant while not doing so for other poker tournaments. FTOPs is the championship online tournament series for Full Tilt, which is the second largest poker site in the world. Winning and FTOP is almost the equivalent to winning an online world series of poker bracelet. It is a title and a championship. Major online poker tournaments such as FTOPs and WCOOPs count towards a player's overall player of the year rankings, so they count just the same as live tournaments. To discredit FTOPs as such would be to discredit online poker as a whole. FTOPs are the most prestigious online poker tournaments in the world, and people in poker do care a lot about them, so your criteria for discrediting them seems unwarranted.

You give credibility and notoriety to world poker tour, napt, ept, WCOOP, and other non-world series of poker events, so why are you discrediting his FTOPs accomplishments?

Additionally, you provide wikipedia pages for countless poker pros who are less accomplished [8], less famous [9], and have less career earnings than Yuval Bronshtein. Your deletion of his page was un-warranted for these reasons. I just don't get why you rushed to delete Yuval's page while leaving all these other ones for less noteworthy poker players. I looked through the list of poker players on wikipedia, and many of them are not as accomplished or as well known as Yuval Bronshtein is.

Seriously, just google the guy and you will have no problem finding tons and tons of stuff on him. He is very well known for his image and poker abilities.

Yuval is an Israeli-born poker player, and is one of the top 5 most well know Israeli players in the whole world behind perhaps Eli Elezra and Rafi Amit

Please reconsider your recent deletion and reinstate Yuval Bronshtein's wikipedia page. If you don't do it now you will be forced to do it very soon when he wins more poker tournaments and you see his face on TV every day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.8.113 (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he actually wins more tournaments, then he does deserve to have an article, but we cannot speculate on future notability. Did Bill Gates have an article when he founded Microsoft? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama speech in Prague, 2009

[edit]

A user is questioning your close of this discussion but doing so at WT:AFD. He claims that he mistakenly posted his objections on the article's talk page. You may wish to respond there.

However, I took a look at the AFD and here's my reading of it...

Nominator says Speeches are not notable enough for an article simply b/c they are made by the President. True but it doesn't address the reason's he thinks this speech is not notable. First delete !voter quotes 2 policies but doesn't say why this article violates them. Second delete !voter wants it deleted because it doesn't have a reaction/reception section. With the 1 keep !vote and NPguy's comment on the talk page (which he unfortunately forgot to sign), I think there's enough doubt here for a "no consensus" close or a relist. Just my opinion though. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ron. I don't have a clear sense of how to document "notability," but here are a few links Prague One Year Later: From Words to Deeds?, Obama Calls for Nuclear Weapons-Free World, Issue Brief: Obama's Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament Agenda: Building Steam or Losing Traction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NPguy (talk • contribs) 02:58, September 9, 2010
Well, I haven't deleted the history of the page, so you can copy it to a user subpage to work on it first, and then reinstate the article when sufficiently sourced. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I want to spend time editing this article. I don't have the time and don't know how to create a user subpage to do that. I think as drafted it is worth restoring. Because I put my comments in the wrong place it left the mistaken impression of consensus to delete. NPguy (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello?? I've been waiting for a response. Or is this a dead end? Have you decided to ignore me and hope I'll give up and go away?? NPguy (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

undelete request - I was told I have to bug you since you deleted :-)

[edit]

Hi, I placed request where the deletion rewiew said to place it - you can read my explanation there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REFUND#Eight_queens_puzzle_solutions and also longer version here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_78#policy_on_computer_code

I'm also looking for a reliable way to escalate this as high in the ranks of Wikipedia as I humanly can since it was the most shocking and ignorant attack on knowledge I've ever witnessed. Don't even have a proper thing to compare it to. Like a medieval priest banning you from writing (using letters) or not being allowed to use a formula or a diagram. Never thought that I'd have to go explaining the significance of precise source code in USA and in 21st century. So sorry if I sound upset - it's a huge shock to realize that medieval mentality is lurking around the corner.

Also, that whatever that "normal seven-day debate" seems to be it might be appropriate for something that is genuinely controversial and urgent matter but not to something as neutral as a few lines of code for precise definition of an algorithm. There has to be a way to ensure much longer procedure for that and that people don't get to "just vote" when they don't even know what they are talking about. They killed solid intellectual tool like it was a porn or a page full of 4-letter words based on nothing more but that they don;t like code and that their computer education ceased 30 yr ago.

As the science and technology keep progressing, more "technical" content will need to find it's way in an encyclopedia. For example, pretty soon someone will have to be able to post some form of compact representation of DNA sequences to be able to actually show and explain something that might be very clear when you see a short sequence diff and might otherwise be very inaccessible if you'd have to learn a whole filed just to be able to follow.

Please feel free to forward what I wrote here and under "policy_on_computer_code" to whoever you think might be able to help. This starts feeling like I stepped into a Kafka's novel.

ZeeXy (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the village pump archive. No one at the AfD wanted to keep the article, but a small minority was arguing for merging. Do you have any reliable sources to support the source code? If so, I can restore it so that you can merge and redirect the article to Eight queens puzzle. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to undelete Junk (Transformers)

[edit]

I wanted to unmerge/undelete the article Junk (Transformers) since I now have a good third party source for the article. Powerplay: toys as popular culture By Dan Fleming here: http://books.google.com/books?id=U3u7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA126&hl=en&ei=p2mFTPPsENH2nAeZ_dCFAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBA#v=snippet&q=junkions&f=false Let me know if this is okay. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think two mentions in a single paragraph in a book would count as significant coverage. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article Jeremiah_Cohick

[edit]

I take exception to the deletion of my Wikipedia article about Jeremiah Cohick. The criticism and review process that led to this deletion is only based on the opinions of few reviewers, reacting on their own personal biases without putting the article into a greater context. While I believe in peer review, in this case I do not think it happened. Even if there were valid criticisms to the article, that would have made it a candidate for editing, not for deletion. If those criticisms were pointed out, the edits could have been made and the article would have remained. The complete deletion was unnecessary.

The Apple Switch Campaign article has been on Wikipedia since 2004, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Switch_ad_campaign with Mr Cohick's name as part of that article. If an encyclopedia is to be inclusive, then any references to individuals in existing articles, should be made available for exploration and study. When I saw Mr Cohick's name in the Apple Switch Article I decided to write and submit a Bio to Wikipedia, to help fill in the blanks of the Switch article.

In the review there was a critique that the Bio was autobiographical. I am not Jeremiah Cohick. I was a fan of the Apple Switch Campaign and the Internet phenomenon that surrounded it. I became familiar with Mr Cohick through those commercials. A few years later I did get to meet him, which helped me write the article.

Certainly there are others mentioned in the Apple Switch entry, that have existing Wikipedia articles, with Bios that are on the same scale as Mr Cohick's, like Ellen Feiss http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Feiss or Liza Richardson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liza_Richardson I am not suggesting that these articles be deleted, I only mention those to put the review process in a greater context.

The question is where is the line drawn? If a person is named in an article, shouldn't there be a Wikipedia entry? If not, why mention the name? If we delete bios of individuals mentioned in long existing articles, should that individual review lead to a review of the earlier and overarching entry? One logical conclusion would be to remove any name that is mentioned in an article, if they do not have a substantial biography. Personally, I think, using the Apple Switch entry as an example, if a person is mentioned in an article and there is no other information available, a small entry similar to this could be used ?In 2002, MR X starred in one of the Apple Switch ad campaign commercials.? With a link back to the main article. Entries like that would help make the Encyclopedia complete, encourage others to flesh out articles and make Wikipedia more inclusive. The review process for Mr Cohick's entry has the opposite effect.

All of that aside, I believe Mr Cohicks article was worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. His appearance in the Switch ads alone would make his bio worthy. But his appearance made him an Internet phenomenon and he gained quite a cult following. On top of that his survival of a helicopter crash, ironically while attending MacWorld, is of great interest. If one uses those two things as context to his success as an entrepreneur in technology, I think it creates an interesting and valid biography. In the context of other Bios I read on Wikipedia, it also worthy of inclusion.

Do not restore Jeremiah_Cohick

[edit]

Dear King of Hearts,

At this location [1] a user named "tozerboy" states that the Wikipedia article about Jeremiah Cohick is his. He also states "I was a fan of the Apple Switch Campaign and the Internet phenomenon that surrounded it. I became familiar with Mr Cohick through those commercials. A few years later I did get to meet him, which helped me write the article." This statement is misleading. tozerboy did not just get to meet him: They are business partners.

One section of the article is about the company "Digital Dandelion", which Cohick co-founded. If you visit this web page [2] you will see the names of the co-founders of Digital Dandelion.

If you visit this web page [3] you will the Digg profile and name of the user tozerboy. I am referencing the Google cache version of this Digg profile's web page, because the original profile was just deleted very recently.

This shows that tozerboy is one of the co-founders of Digital Dandelion. In the interest of having no conflict of interest, there should be no reason for tozerboy to conceal his relationship to Jeremiah Cohick and Digital Dandelion from Wikipedia.

I believe that tozerboy placed the article about Jeremiah Cohick on Wikipedia in order to promote the company that they co-founded, which is in violation of Wikipedia's policy against Conflict of interest WP:CONFLICT

Brown proud69 (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

[edit]

RE: Do_not_restore_Jeremiah_Cohick

[edit]

On the subject of the Undeletion of Jeremiah Cohick's bio, I have never denied that I worked with Mr Cohick at Digital Dandelion. And as I suggested in my response to the deletion, the bio could have been edited to remove offending material, if it seemed to promotional for example. I still maintain the bio is noteworthy when put in the context of the Apple Switch Ads alone. As far as my user name Tozerboy goes, it has a large footprint on the internet, I don't think leaving Digg, alters my footprint much. It is still very easy to Google me to see who I am and what I do.

User: Brown proud69 has a long history of stalking Mr Cohick and others associated with him (the darker side and an unfortunate long term effect of the Switch Ad internet phenomenon, that I spoke about in my last post) and the continuation of this debate will only fuel his passion.

I withdraw my request to undelete the bio.

King of Hearts, I am sorry if we wasted your time.

Tozerboy or Mark Fish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.106.70 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was not logged in during the last post. I would not want to leave it unsigned.

Tozerboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tozerboy (talk • contribs) 22:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted PredictiveIntent page.

[edit]

This company has just been mentioned in the UK newspaper, The Guardian, as a company to watch in their Tech Media Invest 100, a showcase of companies who have the potential to change the shape of the tech/media industry.

Please reinstate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.237.36 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me the article? Remember: it must be significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/tech-media-invest-100/top-100-technology-innovators . Significant, in that the company are one only 100 companies chosen, plus in a high-growth industry where not many people are knowledgeable about the company or the industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.237.36 (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's not the definition of "significant" here on Wikipedia. It doesn't mean "a major news source believes that the subject is significant," but rather "a major news source covers the subject in a significant manner," i.e. in more than one or two sentences. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: RE: Do_not_restore_Jeremiah_Cohick

[edit]

First:

WP:CONFLICT says the following:

Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.

User Tozerboy says he "never denied that [he] worked with Mr Cohick at Digital Dandelion", which is clearly in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines.

Second:

I had nothing to do with the discussions or debate leading up to the deletion of Cohick's biography on Wikipedia. This post and the post I made yesterday on your talk page are the only two times that I have ever made any entry whatsoever anywhere on Wikipedia. I did this because I had discovered the association between Tozerboy and Digital Dandelion, which I then brought to his attention via a message on Twitter. Tozerboy was following me on Twitter, yet for reasons he chose not to explain, he called me a stalker and then "unfollowed" me. I decided that since he would not willingly declare his interests in Digital Dandelion to Wikipedia, that I would do it. That is all. I deny the personal attack that I have "a long history of stalking" anybody. In fact, I consider resorting to personal attacks in lieu of a reasoned debate of the issue at hand to be an unproductive distraction.

Finally:

I acknowledge that Tozerboy has withdrawn his request to undelete the bio of Jeremiah Cohick, and I thank you for your attention.

Brown proud69 (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of Best Behaviour

[edit]

Hi King of Hearts, I notice you closed this AfD as redirect to N-Dubz, I thought you'd be the best person to ask: during the AfD I discovered that a second article on the same subject also existed, Best Behavior. Given that Best Behaviour was deleted because there were concerns that the subject did not meet the notability guidelines, and Best Behavior is on the same subject, can the latter not be deleted as a result of the AfD discussion? I just opened a new AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best Behavior with the same argument, and linking to the closed AfD, but given the reasons that the last AfD was closed, this seems inevitable to close as redirect as well; will it be necessary to keep it open the full 7 days again? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Ozai

[edit]

Hey I didn't want to change what you said on the AFD for Ozai. But can you chance the result to merge to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters instead of Avatar: The Last Airbender#Characters since that is the main article of the section. Jhenderson 777 17:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I simply didn't find that page before. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok. You're not the only one. ;) Jhenderson 777 20:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Wolfe

[edit]

I'm not sure why you deleted his page. He is referenced, although I know you guys frown upon this, several times in your own "encyclopedia" see below: these are all wiki entries that refer to Todd Wolfe.

Paul Morris (musician) He began his career playing with well known local bands (Vixen and Full House) which led him to touring with Todd Wolfe of Troy and the ... 4 KB (497 words) - 17:47, 8 September 2010 Sheryl Crow (album) "Hard to Make a Stand " (Bottrell, R.S. Bryan, Crow, Todd Wolfe ) – 3:07" "Everyday Is A Winding Road " (Crow, MacLeod, Trott) – 4:16" ... 11 KB (1,234 words) - 21:38, 26 August 2010 Musikfest Cabinet, The Bruce Katz Band , Cathie Ryan , The Headers, Todd Wolfe, Tin Bird Choir , Two Man Gentleman Band, Billy Bauer Band, Donovan ... 30 KB (4,016 words) - 00:30, 5 September 2010 Faith (Faith Hill album) Personnel : Todd Wolfe - guitar. Glenn Worf - bass. Curtis Young - background vocals. Production : Producers: Faith Hill and Byron Gallimore ... 9 KB (1,010 words) - 21:05, 26 August 2010 Hard to Make a Stand 07 | Label A&M | Writer Sheryl Crow Bill Bottrell Todd Wolfe RSBryan | Producer Sheryl Crow | Certification | Chart position | Last ... 2 KB (267 words) - 14:31, 16 December 2009 The Globe Sessions Personnel : Todd Wolfe – electric guitar. Mary Wooten – cello. Garo Yellin – cello. Production : Producers: Sheryl Crow, (Sweet Child O´Mine produced ... 7 KB (881 words) - 07:33, 3 September 2010 Loud Guitars, Big Suspicions "Hard to Make a Stand" (Bill Bottrell , Scott Bryan, Sheryl Crow , Todd Wolfe) – 4:01" "The Weight" (Robbie Robertson ) – 5:26" ... 4 KB (479 words) - 19:47, 11 September 2010 I Can't Quit You Baby Other versions : 1999: Todd Wolfe (Live from Manny's Car Wash) 2002: Lennon Page (L.A. Rockabilly Blues) 2004: Gary Moore (Power of the ... 6 KB (879 words) - 19:17, 19 August 2010 Masters of War (album) Personnel : Todd Wolfe - Rhythm Guitar Rev Jones - Bass Guitar Brian John Mitchell - Organ , Keyboards , Accordion Dave Stephens - Graphic ... 2 KB (183 words) - 21:32, 26 August 2010 Mystic Fire Personnel : Todd Wolfe Slide Guitar. Chuck Hearne Bass. Corky Laing String Arrangements, String Conductor. Lisa Walker Art Direction ... 2 KB (240 words) - 21:31, 26 August 2010 Crossroads Guitar Festival Performers: Todd Wolfe. DVD tracklisting Disc 1 : Introduction (Bill Murray) Uberesso (Sonny Landreth) Hell at Home (Sonny Landreth with Eric ... 11 KB (1,423 words) - 19:33, 3 September 2010

I look forward to your explanation.

Pam Adams (----) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.229.22 (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but those do not count. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable sources due to concerns with circular reasoning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN discussion notification

[edit]

A general discussion at WP:AN#AfD's generally closed too soon also involves some of your edits. You are invited to give your view on this as well. Fram (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Todd Wolfe

[edit]

Well that's fine. I don't mind if Wikipedia finds itself to be a circular source that it cannot find reliable. Makes sense. How do you suggest, since Todd Wolfe was in fact Sheryl Crow's guitar player and songwriting partner for several years, as well as a credited songwriter and performer for a number of "Grammy" award winning artists, that your website feel compelled to share that factual information? When we submitted these "facts" we actually did not use Wikipedia as a source (I only used it as an easy way to type a quick note to you so you could understand my delima. When we submitted references to these facts, we used youtube performances, all music.com, Faith Hill, Sheryl Crow, Stevie Nicks, Eric Clapton liner notes, etc... and you still took it down.

So again, what do I need to do to allow this musician who has contributed to the American landscape of popular, blues and rock and roll music for over 25 years without you deciding his accomplishments are not relevant in your view? How does one become relevant, in your view?

Pam Adams (----) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.229.22 (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, our standards for reliable sources may be higher than you think. Youtube or musicians talking about fellow musicians generally don't count as reliable sources. AllMusic depends: could you point to the specific link where it talks about him? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

[edit]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

[edit]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DRV Close

[edit]

I think you closed this a little early but 2 questions

  1. Since when does no-consensus = relist at DRV. If you look at the archives the practise is to default to endorse.
  2. Why did you close 1 discussion but not the other? They are the same argument with the same participants. You shouldn't have done 1 if you dodn't have time for both.

Please either vacate the close or do both, but I think you should be bound by precedent if you are calling this no-consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 02:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to these, eh, concerns, my questions are: why not expand more on the closing rationale of this whole DRV? Took a lot of editors argumenting time. Imo there were lots of angles that would improve the quality of the outcome (you know, we are supposed to argument too ;-)), and of DRV in general. E.g.: Relisting while the three articles on their two processes AFD DRV are swamped by copypastes -- what can we expect at relist? Which of the DRV arguments were convincing & weighing more? If there was a sense of canvassing, was that sided? Which arguments were discarded at all? And, was the DRV called correctly at all? In general, I have learned nothing of this DRV. -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the first question, from the DRV page, "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a 'relist'; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate." For the second, even though both are related to WP:NOTNEWS, they are not the same discussion. DePiep, I have expanded my rationale. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this a special case? Why have you closed one discussion and not the other? Why did you close it early? Surely it was appropriate to comment on the egregious personal attack on me by members of the keep side? Many commentators who addressed the issue of the tension between notnews and notability recognised that a policy trumps a guideline so that arguments based on the guideline should be given less weight. You effectively decided yourself what the outcome should be rather then addressing the discussion. This is the second time recently I have been very unhappy with your close of a DRV that I have been involved in. I am usually very philosophical about such things but I'm very annoyed about this one. I would be grateful if, in future, you recused from closing DRVs of my AFD closes and left it to someone else. Spartaz Humbug! 17:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Early? I closed it 7 days, 7 hours, and 48 minutes after the discussion began, so my close is not "early." Policies are designed to be all-encompassing and vague. Guidelines are intended to represent an interpretation of our policies as agreed on by consensus, not to conflict with them. So actually, an objective reading of a guideline trumps a subjective interpretation of a policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, King, I'm not gonna say "thanks" for a motivation we expected you to write first time. I could have said "thanks" if you shook a feather. You might have noted "All contributions of user Wikifan were discarded beforehand". That would have improved every future discussion: XfD, DRV and more. Also you missed the opportunity to set a new and better policy. These "discussions" keep coming back, you know that, and you, the closing admin of a heavy visited DRV, did not spend a type on it. Even worse, you write "the other two are a different discussion" (no, they were copyedits. How come you didn't know that?).
You claim "admins discretion" to decide -- without noting that at all (even here to the very admin you wheeled. Except by using cheaply "trumping" - so you do know how to make a statement after all). You quoted "in some cases", but did not give a sound reason for that "some".
What is going on? If you feel threatened, or made dependent, please act. The admin corps is making a bad impression on me lately. Like, not a corps. -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand; what "discussions" are you talking about? As for the other two, it's not the closer's responsibility to check if there might be other discussions with similar material; if you wanted all three closed simultaneously, they should have been bundled in the same discussion. And even then they're not the same; the one I closed is on a series of attacks, while the other two are specific. "Admin discretion" means just that: in the closing admin's opinion, is there a reasonable chance that relisting it will result in a different outcome (important note: I do not mean should)? And "wheeling" is defined as reverting another admin without discussion, which does not apply. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to set a policy. You had no balls where needed. Clear? -DePiep (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in setting a policy; even if I were, I would not be allowed to do so single-handedly. In fact I do not even know what policy you're talking about. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That leaves the "no balls". Clear? -DePiep (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will you answer the question? How can I "set a policy" if I don't even know which policy I'm supposed to set? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I won't.

You keep hiding behind policies, and an exception for yourself ("Why is this a special case?", as Spartaz asked. Your answer: I was not early, see the minutes I calculated). And: your "discretion". Argumenting: I can do what I want, the policy gives me the escape. You only use policy to hide, and to find an escape. Nothing notable at all. Meanwhile, another admin closed the companion DRV (your "not the same", remember). That closing admin keeps referring to your closing. Now how not the same is that. I keep claiming that you admins do not dare to take a job. While and when we need you. Despicable. -DePiep (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News.admin.net-abuse.email (2nd nomination)

[edit]

Yes the "keep" arguments were weak. Mine was weak "on purpose" so I was quite surprised to see someone saying "keep per ritzman". I really wouldn't have blamed you if you punched this "delete". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's not going to happen with just one "delete" !vote other than the nominator when there's a valid uncontested "keep" !vote (McDutchie's). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin review

[edit]

Isn't it a bit (as in, one year) stale? T. Canens (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just keep it open for people to comment on my actions whenever they want. You'll notice it's not listed on the main AR page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Warpath (Transformers)

[edit]

I wanted to appeal your closure of the page Warpath (Transformers) as it seems to least have popular support. Allow us to look up more sources for it. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have userfied the page to User:Mathewignash/Warpath (Transformers), where you can work on it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do I do to repost it? Mathewignash (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply move the page back, but make sure you have reliable sources that are independent of the subject first. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources, that's why people voted to keep it. I added more. Mathewignash (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are reliable, that fact is not being disputed. The problem is that they are primary sources, too related to the subject. As for the independent sources found on the Internet, those are not reliable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see articles from magazine and reviews that are not Transformers fan sites as primary. They would seem to be secondary at least. Mathewignash (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes they are press releases, as Hans Adler pointed out about IGN, which don't count even though they look like they're from a secondary source. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's helpful and constructive. I'll see if I can replace the reference with something that isn't a press release. Mathewignash (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German Pinscher Caption

[edit]

You said "(please don't insert ((hangon}} tags; these put the article in C:CSD) (undo)". How do I appeal the speedy deletion? GermanPinscher (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but the purpose of {{hangon}} tags is to contest an article that is up for speedy deletion, not an image. That said, you currently do not have to do anything; your images File:WKC BOB 2004 Windamirs Hunter.png and File:WKC BOS 2004 Windamirs Chosen One.jpg will not be deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community Action House - deleted page

[edit]

Dear King of Hearts,

I noticed that you deleted the Wikipedia page for Community Action House. Community Action House is an independent non-profit organization that was founded in Holland, Michigan in 1969. For over 40 years they have been assisting thousands of struggling families in West Michigan with food, clothing and shelter. They have assisted nearly a half-million people over the years. Community Action House is quite well known and respected as officials are often quoted and interviewed by every major newspaper and television station in this region of the country.

In the midst of the current national economic crisis, Community Action House is on the front line. They not only operate a food and clothing pantry, but have multiple programs that range from Educational Programs to Foreclosure Prevention Programs. They own multiple houses in the city of Holland that are used to place homeless families as part of the transitional housing program.

The Community Action House annual budget is nearly $2 million which is greater than the annual budget of the local United Way chapter.

It is interesting to me that the Community Action House page was deleted while I see that many other (and smaller) non-profit organizations who have less of an impact and are not as widely known, are able to have their Wikipedia pages remain. Even the local High Schools have Wikipedia pages.

Could you please send instructions on how to have the Community Action House page returned to Wikipedia?

Thank you very much, Steven Nicolet Nicolet (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(616) 392-2368 stevennicolet@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolets (talk • contribs) 14:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There are probably a hundred more if I had more time to place links.

Nicolet (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the page, as the MLive source is quite substantial; be sure to insert it into the article. Note that most of the links do not help to establish notability, such as the Community Action House website itself (because it's a primary source), Youtube (unreliable source), WZZM 13 (trivial coverage), and Holland Sentinel (local news). Try to find additional significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to further establish the subject's notability. You can, of course, use the aforementioned links (except Youtube) to cite facts in the article, once notability has been demonstrated already. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ngensolutions LLC

[edit]

I was out of town and now saw that you have deleted this article. I think we need to continue the discussion before taking such a drastic step. I will appreciate if it is put back and we can discuss the issue that concerns you

trueblood (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but there is not enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of the company. While making the decision, I have taken your comment about having added references to the article into account; however, those appear to be press releases, which do not qualify for our notability purposes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the FCC sources for the information, is that enough

trueblood (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, FCC is simply a catalog. While it qualifies as a reliable source, it doesn't count as significant coverage. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Can you guide me as to what is significant converage. As Grey Communications is listed

trueblood (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, "significant coverage" means coverage in multiple articles in publications with national recognition, which discuss the subject in detail (generally construed to mean "more than one or two sentences"). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks I will wait until that comes up and then retry

75.15.197.93 (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of iTablet

[edit]

Per Talk:iTablet could you recreate the article and then turn it into a redirect? It seems silly to lose the content forever in case something comes of it. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, if an AfD closes as "redirect" and the content of the article is unrelated to the target, the history is deleted to prevent confusion, as it is assumed that the content is not useful. Since you believe it could be useful, however, I have restored it to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/ITablet. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice Requested for Fire Mountain Retreat page

[edit]

Hello,

I'm doing my best to follow the wikipedia guidelines for creating pages. I need your advice for the Fire Mountain Retreat: how can I make this entry more acceptable for wikipedia?? I was following the logic of the Shree Gurudev Ashram page -- which is associated with Swami Muktananda; much like Mark Griffin (spiritual) teacher is associated with the Fire Mountain Retreat. Your help/advice is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougertman (talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to have a page on Wikipedia, the subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. This means that there must be two or more references that satisfy all three of the following: 1) in-depth coverage, as opposed to a one- or two-line mention; 2) from a reputable book or periodical with national recognition; 3) must be independent of the subject. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good close

[edit]

Agree with your close. An appropriate assessment and determination. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the speed was unseemly. DD should have had a chance to respond. As it stands, dollars to doughnuts there will be an appeal of some sort posted on AN or AN/I when he next logs in. → ROUX ₪ 19:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

[edit]

Dexfest Music Festival

[edit]

I found one news article in two websites in about four minutes at regular Google. Google News misses some periodicals. I removed your prod. Bearian (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logging a recent topic ban

[edit]

Hello King of Hearts. Since you closed the ban discussion about Danglingdiagnosis, please consider logging the topic ban at WP:RESTRICT. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Dear King of Hearts,

Thank you for letting me know about the three reversions rule. I believe I haven't violated it, for I am not editing that article as often as the other person does, but I will be more careful in the future. In any case, for the second part of your comment, this has already been widely discussed in the discussion page of the article. It is not I who is doing anything wrong here; it is rather the other person who does his edits clearly with no good faith. And the community in the discussion page of the article is in agreement with me on this issue, not the other person. Please send a meta editor something to take a look at this issue.

And thanks a lot for letting me know about the alternative ways of dealing with the situation.

Best, Jacksantr (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, How do I ask about protection, or semi-protection? This person edits the article constantly from anonymous IPs, and I am not the only person he or she has been in an edit war with. Whatever the person is trying to do, it is clearly with no good faith, and the stuff he puts there is NOT representative information about the university. A bunch of "university website" rankings (not academic university rankings), but no referral at all to Turkey's actual governmental/educational rankings system. Please guide... Jacksantr (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that protection is used only to stop an edit war, not to favor one version over another. This means that if I (or someone else) were to protect the article, either version would be equally likely to be protected as the other. If you believe that you are right, please work out the issue with the IP user on the talk page of the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that I have moved your post from my user page (User:King of Hearts) to my user talk page (User talk:King of Hearts), which is the same page we are on. In the future, please use this page to contact me, not my user page. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.casinocitytimes.com/news/article/top%2D10%2Dmost%2Dfascinating%2Dpoker%2Dpeople%2Dof%2D2008-176263?contentID=176263
  2. ^ http://www.pokerlistings.com/yuval-bronshtein-goes-backtoback-at-ftops-ix-29811
  3. ^ http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/poker-from-the-rail/bloggers-on-the-rail/ftops-xv-wraps
  4. ^ http://www.pokerpages.com/player-profile/yuval-bronstein.htm
  5. ^ http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-news/top-10-most-fascinating-poker-players-2008-123108.html
  6. ^ http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=73978
  7. ^ http://news.bluffmagazine.com/wsop-top-tweets-yuval-bronshtein-can-hide-behind-his-beard-11512/
  8. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Weisner
  9. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Eslami
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2010/09&oldid=1090441148"