User talk:King of Hearts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

King of Hearts's status: Traffic lights yellow.svg
I will reply to your message
within 72 hours.

Old talk is at /Archive.

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (6th nomination)[edit]

Hey King of Hearts

Please can you look again at your no consensus decision for the above AfD? Surely with such a long running AfD as this, you have to decide whether it is notable or not, rather than choosing no consensus? This article will be brought back for its 7th deletion nomination soon enough, I'm certain of it, perhaps because I'm very likely to do it myself. If nothing else, could you relist instead of no consensus? Many thanks. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Just face it, the article won't be deleted. People have already tried five times without success. Relisting is only done when further discussion would be helpful in determining consensus, which I did not find to be the case here. All that needs to be said has been said. -- King of ♠ 04:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, with respect. Your closing decision is "No consensus", not "keep". That suggests an element of doubt. I urge you to relist or to allow a further period of discussion in some way or other. This article has been deleted before under a different name, it most likely shouldn't have been re-created on that basis alone. Many thanks. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
In the interest of not wasting editors time by rehashing the same arguments over and over again with no conclusive result (or a "delete" result that was only obtained through luck of the draw), a "no consensus" close is meant to be binding for at least several months. Otherwise, there would be no reason to specify WP:NPASR in discussions that receive little participation; the fact that we would need to specify "no prejudice against speedy renomination" means that by default there is prejudice against speedy renomination. -- King of ♠ 20:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


How did this AFD end in a redirect when there were far more Keep votes and no consensus to redirect? Especially at the end it seems like there was a consensus to keep as the last 8 votes were 6 Keeps and 2 Redirects. Of the 16 total votes, only 5 were votes to Redirect.

Lonehexagon (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I hesitate a little to question a closure that didn’t go my way but maybe best to say I’d also be grateful for more explanation? To me the close read less like an evaluation of the community discussion and more like your own opinion on the subject’s notability—to which you are entitled but as an ivoting editor rather than as a supervote close, of course... Help me see what I’m missing here? Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Hello, I was wondering if you could take a second look at this close? Lonehexagon (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I count 7 votes to delete/redirect and 9 votes to keep, so within the discretionary range. While there is plenty of coverage of her (which the "redirect" side acknowledges), the "redirect" side made stronger arguments that her notability is only relevant in the context of the election. -- King of ♠ 20:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your reply. I only see 5 official !votes for redirect in bold on that page: LtNOWIS, XavierGreen, Enos733, Bearcat, SportingFlyer. For Keep there are 9. Additionally, the article was improved dramatically over the course of the discussion, and therefore I believe it's important to consider what people have said after the changes when determining consensus. If you look at the course of the discussion, it goes like this: Redirect, Keep, Keep, Weak Keep, Redirect, Redirect, Delete, Keep, Redirect Significant changes to article, Keep, Keep, Keep, Redirect, Keep, Keep. You mentioned that the "redirect" side made stronger arguments, but if you look at the votes, 6 of the 9 Keep votes directly quoted official policy guidelines, specifically WP:GNG. On the flip side, most of the Redirect votes don't list any guidelines, and if they do they link to unofficial essays that have not been vetted by the community. Could you take another look considering that information? I also wanted to ping @Innisfree987: since I see they were interested in this discussion, too. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes... I think what's tripping me up is that community opinion seemed quite divided on whether coverage being election focused was in fact disqualifying. I can certainly see taking a view one way or another (obviously I did!), but what's harder for me to see from either this discussion or the one just preceding is whether community consensus actually landed on one side or another. Closes would, I hope, be in the vein of "this appears to be the community's view [if in fact community consensus has been reached]" as opposed to "I think this is the correct view". I understand this can be a sticky wicket, and less easy in practice than in theory to ask someone to make a close without taking a point of view, but still, do you see why it might feel disconcerting? To make sure I'm being perfectly clear--I don't think there was consensus on my side either. Or for that matter, consensus against me, which I'd be glad to leave be and move onto other things. Rather, there seemed to be substantial disagreement and that is why I've been confused about the basis for concluding there was consensus... Innisfree987 (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey @King of Hearts: I hope you're having a good day so far. Happy Birthday! I don't mean to bug you and I realize you might not see this until tomorrow, but I was wondering if you had a chance to look at this? Lonehexagon (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).


Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer sonAliveFreeHappyCenariumLupoMichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.


  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-23[edit]

21:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Happy Birthday[edit]

Anniv.svg Hey, King of Hearts. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Clockist (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-24[edit]

21:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

June 20: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (and Pratt Women Wikipedia Design this Saturday June 16)[edit]

Wednesday June 20, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
Wikimedia NYC presentation - WikiPhotography at WikiWednesday July 2015 3 crop.jpg
Wikimedia New York City logo.svg

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.

We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 145 West 14th Street
(note the new address, a couple of doors down from the former Babycastles location)

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. You are also invited to Wikiproject Women Wikipedia Design @ Pratt Institute School of Architecture, Saturday, June 16!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)


Hi there -

I was looking for Looker in Wikipedia and was surprised not to find it - there are a few dead links pointing to where it used to be. I did a bit of digging and noticed that you were involved in the decision making process that determined it was probably too early to include Looker in Wikipedia. Well, it's a couple of years later, Looker is a billion-dollar company, and it's now on the Gartner Magic Quadrant. All of its competitors (and some companies that Gartner does not consider noteworthy) have Wikipedia entries, but Looker does not. Perhaps it's time to review that decision?

I'd do more about it than message you but I really understand very little about how Wikipedia works, and (full disclosure) I'm a recent employee of the company, I think it would be unethical to actually create or edit an article myself.

Sorry for bothering you about this :)

Best, LI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeuvenInfo (talkcontribs) 21:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gina Ortiz Jones[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gina Ortiz Jones. 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.

Tech News: 2018-25[edit]

21:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)