User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2008/01

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus not keep

Regarding this, the result was not keep. No consensus at best. Ra2007 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, more weight is put on comments made by people later during the discussion, as the article is reviewed in further detail. They aren't "votes" that can be "counted." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so I should wait to voice my concerns until after the Afd has been submitted for some time? Ra2007 (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you still wanted to get the article deleted, you should have voiced your objections to the findings of the people who supported the "keep." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see your perspective (barely), but I think that silence should not be interpreted as a change of mind. Do you see mine? Ra2007 (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody home? Ra2007 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could re-submit it to AFD if you wanted, using {{subst:afdx|2nd}} -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Kim

Actually, she is notable. She's a school board of directors in the San Francisco area. Is it OK if you restore the page, I have some research on her. Here's some google hits. —B o L 23:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Failed GA

I've done some of the listed things (which are marked with a Done on the talk page) and will do the rest tomorrow. Thanks for reviewing. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 03:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connection speeds

In the discussion of Non-administrator rollback you wrote:

(it seems now that dial-up is out of the way, even DSL is considered slow).

Dial-up is far from "out of the way". It is still the only connection available to many people, myself included. We may be an endangered species, but we're definitely not extinct yet. (Since this is pretty well peripheral to the rollback polls, I thought I'd mention it here.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, isn't your comment also in support of it? Oh well, it only matters that people with slow connections benefit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vibraphone -- Aluminum or Aluminium?

So, in your changes to the vibraphone page, I'm wondering about the thinking that would lead to using the British spelling, aluminium, instead of the American in an article that is otherwise completely written in American style. Has WikiPedia really standardized on the British spelling variants everywhere? Then how about synchronize (synchronise?), minimize (minimise?), utilize (utilise?), etc.? Tpvibes (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent AWB edits

Hi there

I noticed your recent AWB edits. Generally, there is no need to "standardize" the spellings to another English variant, per WP:ENGVAR. Aluminium is spelled that way for all Chemistry-related pages as part of the Chemistry styleguide (short version, IUPAC mandates this spelling and we agree).

For other articles, there is no reason to change the existing spelling. Also, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AWB#Rules_of_use AWB's rules] include "Don't do anything controversial with it." As you've noticed, you have already received one complaint. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(This is also a reply to "Vibraphone -- Aluminum or Aluminium?") I'm from the US myself, and I typically use American spelling, but I'm trying to make the pages conform to the IUPAC standards. I apologize about Vibraphone; however, most of the articles I changed are either chemistry-related or specific to a country that uses "aluminium." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Snow (physician)

Will you please consider making your (not unreasonable) request for additional references on the article's talk page instead of defacing the article itself? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Template:Refimprove/doc#Usage. The template is intended to be placed at the top of the article or section. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

characters of fantasy???

I never even heard of that article, and certainly did not edit it. Please do not accuse me of vandalism. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.99.91 (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]