User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2009/07

Village Voyage and Wikicity

Hi. You deleted Village Voyage after an AfD. As far as I can tell, the Village Voyage website was renamed to Wikicity, and a new article was created for it at Wikicity. Is Wikicity the same as the old Village Voyage and therefore G4-able? 152.3.249.7 (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please revert this deletion. 152.3.249.7 requested this deletion b/c he runs a competing website. Furthermore, the reason that Village Voyage was deleted (not notable enough) has since been addressed with the creation of the new article, yet you deleted it. Please explain your reasons for the recent deletion, and also note that the deletion request came from someone with a conflict of interest. This sickens me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.34.78 (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot verify whether that IP comes from a competing website. However, I found their rationale suitable; while it's not an identical copy, it does no more to assert notability than the previous article. 12 million articles is irrelevant; see WP:BIG. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(Untitled)

why did you delete the list of celebrites on south park —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankento123 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrities on South Park. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollback Request

Good Evening,

I would like to request the permission to perform "rollbacks" to revert vandalism. Typically I use the "undo" feature, but it seems reverting may make the process more productive. If you have any questions, please let me know!

Thanks, gpia7r

 Done - Enjoy! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Lily Thai

Why did you delete the lily thai page?

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.93.17 (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC) 

- never mind - just read the archives so no need to answer. Still doesn't seem right though. She's certainly a person of note whether you have prejudice against pornography or not.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.93.17 (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC) 

DRV x2

Hi; as the closer of this DRV, can you take an initial look at this? I'm not at all clear at why another one was started, though there's been much said against me personally, which makes me think that perhaps the nominator is confusing the process with WP:DR. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea either. I speedy closed this one as a duplicate, but Badagnani re-opened it. Double DRV's are against policy, but I'm not going to start an edit war over the matter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Brant Arseneau is a article of geninue value for renewable resources

Please un-delete the Joseph Brant Arseneau article.

This article has been referenced by the securitization article and the Renewable Energy Derivative article. They may be more references. I do agree that this was a CV-like page but we have been slowly making it more about the subject and what I did for it.

The research and subsequently important work that has been done to secure citizens housing with the lack of funds or credit has been a very important step forward in global financing. This program has been recognized by Muhammad yunus , the Nobel Peace Prize winner, and is being deployed through out South East Asia. We belive that this program is very important and it has been described to the WHO in a white paper last year. If the article reads incorrectly; please help. But this person and more importantly this topic belongs available to the people of renewable energy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.52.17 (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardfeyman (talk • contribs)

It is not deleted; you can find it at User:Jbarseneau/Joseph Brant Arseneau. The problem is that it reads more like a resume, and does not assert notability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If one does not belive this is not "notability" they should read more about microfinance and what the IBM team did in SEA.

The article is not a "CV" it only tells about the person the developed Renewable Energy Derivative. We belive it is important and what we are doing is important. DO you need to be Yunas or Gore to define the people that did important things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardfeyman (talk • contribs) 01:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the next form of "appropriate" objection to this deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardfeyman (talk • contribs) 01:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You can appeal at WP:DRV. Do note that what I did is called userfication, not deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

B2B Trust discussion

Hello!

First, I apologise for my wiki protocol ignorance and hope that I going about this the right way.

My name is Francois Desjardins and I am the President of B2B Trust.

I wish to address the notability issue about the B2B Trust page and add my 2 cents but have not found a way to do so. If this is inappropriate, please advise.

I am encouraging the wikipedia community to keep the B2B Trust page seperate from the Laurentian Bank page for the following reasons:

a) B2B Trust is a separate legal and operational entity, Laurentian Bank owns it but it does not function like a Laurentian Bank business line. In essence, the community that would look for B2B Trust in wikipedia, either the financial advisor community or their consumers (and I believe the general public), would recognize a separation between LBC operations and B2B operations. You can tell by the almost complete absence of references within the Laurentian Bank website. B2B Trust operates its own at www.b2btrust.com

b) B2B Trust is a unique venture in the Canadian marketplace because of its distribution model: it offers products and services via the financial advisor community only (about 80 000 individuals). This community is very misunderstood and should be part of the wiki world.

c) B2B Trust is one of the only remaining fully functioning trust companies in Canada. Most of them have been bought by larger financial institutions and their operations folded into them; basically leaving only a shell.

d) B2B Trust is a financial intermediary, one of the only remaining FI service Independent Financial Advisors in Canada.

e) The site is a work in progress and must be linked to at least the following: - Trust company - Financial advisor - Independant financial advisor - Financial intermediary - Financial industry in Canada - MFDA - IRROC - AMF (Autorité des marchés financiers) - Hoover's

f) You have to start somewhere! There is little in wiki in terms of the financial industry specific to Canada. There is even less information about financial advisors, brokers and dealers, fund manufacturers, etc.

f) What does it hurt?

g) AND MOST OF ALL: Sources for the company are Canadian financial regulators sites (OSFI and AMF). You can't beat that!

On that note, I notice that some of these sites are country specific, I believe that some of the information provided on the preceding pages should be worked on, I am wary that the public would think that what works in England or the US also applies to Canada. Q: How do we fix that so that the correct information is provided?

Anyway, my point is that if the purpose of wiki is to properly document and inform, keeping the B2B Trust page separate from the Laurentian Bank page is the best approach (in my opinion).

By the way, I have no ego to bruise. I also play a role in Laurentian Bank as I am dually employed (at least for the moment!).

As you can tell I am new to this so again please forgive me if I went about this the wrong way.

And thanks for your help.

fd

Desjarf (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B2B Trust. As it stands, it does not appear that the article will be deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ultimate World Championship

heres a link to an article in which EWA recognizes the Ultimate World Championship http://www.impactwrestling.com/Content.aspx?ID=27431 Wrestlings Savior (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not know much about wrestling; I merely closed the deletion discussion. However, seeing so many people !voting delete, it appears that at least some of them have looked at the sources, and not found them sufficient to establish notability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

AFD closing of Giants–Yankees Rivalry

I'm going to object to your decision in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giants yankees rivalry, which you closed as "keep," and which I think should have been closed as "no consensus." I'll preface my comments by saying that I'm not planning to take this to DRV (since there's no practical difference in the two outcomes). But I do think that when I when I disagree with how an AFD was closed I ought to let the closer know.

First, while I'm fully aware that consensus is "not a vote," I still think it's worth pointing out that in this discussion the participants were evenly split (3 for deleting, 3 for keeping), which suggests there may have been a lack of consensus. At a minimum, I think in closing a discussion that's so evenly split, the closer ought to provide an explanation of why he or she thinks the consensus went one way or the other.

I'll admit that our arguments for deletion weren't particularly well articulated. Nevertheless, the argument for deletion was quite straight forward—no evidence of notability, such as reliable sources saying that a rivalry exists or once existed, was presented in either the article itself or the AFD discussion. While several arguments were presented for keeping, none of them seemed especially strong. Here's my summary of the main arguments presented for keeping the article: (1) The circumstances (teams playing in the same city, appearing in multiple World Series, etc.) make it likely that a rivalry would have developed (though no sources were cited that say that a rivalry actually existed). (2) Two books listed on Amazon discuss baseball in New York in the 1950s and might discuss a Giants–Yankees rivalry (though again, the editor citing the books didn't demonstrate that they actually do discuss such a rivalry; the fact that the book review uses the plural "rivalries" doesn't prove that a Giants–Yankees rivalry existed, since it probably was referring to two far more famous rivalries, the Dodgers–Giants rivalry and the Yankees–Dodgers rivalry). (3) A rather vague charge was made of "recentism," which seems to me to be a distraction, since those favoring deletion never asserted that a recent rivalry carries more weight than one that happened long ago. While the statements made by the three editors arguing for keeping the article were certainly longer than those by those favoring deletion, on the whole I don't see their arguments as any stronger or more consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. In fact, their arguments seem to involve quite a bit of speculation and an absence of evidence based on reliable sources.

While I probably should have done a better job of refuting the arguments made for keeping, as someone who only can't always edit Wikipedia every day, it can be difficult to respond to comments made late in the discussion. In fact, I was just planning to respond to some of the comments posted on the last day of the discussion when I saw that the discussion had been closed.

I appreciate that it can be tough to decide some AFD discussions and that you may not see things the same way that I do. Nevertheless, in future discussions when participants are nearly evenly split, I suggest that you not try to impose a consensus when one is lacking, and if you do see one, please provide an explanation of your decision. Thanks. BRMo (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll keep that in mind. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Your block of User:Osprey9713

Please reconsider. The revert you blocked him for was over two days ago, and was right before he had been warned for 3RR and started engaging in discussion at the talk page. In the 2 days since that revert, he was posting on the talk page and did not edit the article at all (see the article history). Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and this block is not preventing any damage--he has already demonstrated that he's not going to revert the article anymore.

(By the way, perhaps I should have marked that AN3 thread with (Result: Warned) and closed it, so this erroneous block is 50% my fault. I just wanted to leave you a message rather than wheel-warring over it.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Meh, maybe this isn't so urgent. While I don't think an edit warring block was necessary, it looks like he also did vandalize the TFA right before he was blocked. 24 hours isn't so bad. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I know about the warning rule; however, in his case, warning is not necessary. By posting on the AN3, his is acknowledging that he understands 3RR. If he reverts again after that, he's knowingly violating it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

My point wasn't the warning; my point was that he had stopped edit warring two days ago and there was no long a reason to block, as far as I could tell. I guess we just disagree over the extent to which blocks should be preventative or punitive (and there's nothing wrong with that--it's a constant subject of debate anyway). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter 203

Thanks for setting up Special:AbuseFilter/203. I'm curious about two things: Where can I see the log of the filter's actions - if possible I would like to check up on it from time to time? And what would the vandal see if he tries this vandalism and the filter is triggered? Astronaut (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the log: [1]. I don't know what he'll see, but he'll be prohibited from making such edits. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Rapture

Why did you block me from the Rapture page and not the other editors who also reverted the page several times within 24hrs? I posted large blocks of text from the books other edits misquoted, and also provided links to recognized scholars as well as large institutions who have a specifically defined doctrine on the subject, but all of my edits were reverted without discussion on the talk. Afaik, wikipedia does not allow original research, or invalid references, or misquotations. There are no counter links, or quotations, etc. accoriding to wikipedia's rules for content on the talk page. If they are unwilling to discuss the content on the talk but only revert, then they too should be banned. Osprey9713 (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll begin by saying that it is easy to call others' edits "original research" when engaged in an editing dispute; I cannot support your actions, which show that you are not attempting to build consensus. However, in light of Rjanag's and your posts on my talk page as well as WP:PUNISH, perhaps the block was a mistake. I'll leave a note in your block log of that. In the future, try to avoid revert wars. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Admin Coaching

I think it is going really good here. I was a little busy myself with a college course. Thank you for the message. I appreciate it very much. Once again, thank you. All the best. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I've disabled 200 per Wikipedia talk:EF#Filter 200. –xeno^talk 16:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Death of Naser Amirnejad - redirect

Thanks for taking action as a result of the deletion discussion concerning Death of Naser Amirnejad. However I think you may have made the redirect to the wrong page (though it is very difficult to be sure of anything concerning this matter). I have pasted the following in Talk:Death of Naser Amirnejad.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no reliable evidence that he was killed in the 2009 Iranian university dormitory raids. An unreliable source says that he died "during anti government protests in Azadi street in Tehran". Source: I am Neda org - reported list of killed in June 2009

It is just an assumption that his death was in the 2009 Iranian university dormitory raids. Unless someone objects providing evidence, I will change the redirect to 2009 Iranian election protests. I will copy this to the admin who made the decision concerning the redirect.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty reasonable, I guess. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Billy Hume Deletion

Hello, being the person who made the article in the first place I would like to make a case that Billy Hume does meet the notability requirements to be included in wikipedia.

Billy Hume has:

taken from "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC

2.Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart.ASCAP writing credit 3.Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. 11.Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

You can see all this from the Shop Boyz Wiki page which is [verified http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Like_a_Rockstar#cite_note-5]

This is only one of many records Billy Hume has been involved with that has reached Gold Status, Charted, and/or been placed in rotation by a major radio station, but it alone does in fact qualify Billy Hume for a wikipedia article.

Again under

"Criteria for composers and lyricists"

1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.

I was in the process of gathering all the links to reliable 3rd party sources for his credits when the page was deleted. I ask that you reinstate the page and allow me to do so since he does meet the requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emortis9 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is also confirmed through the Ascap link above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emortis9 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The ASCAP writing credit has been mentioned in the discussion. However, the consensus was still to delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So your saying that even though someone meets the requirements to have a wikipedia page and has been involved with many notable works that people can still have it deleted? Just because a few people say that it shoud be deleted does not mean that the requirements are not met. Please allow me to post references to all claims....I assure you they can all be backed up by 3rd party sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emortis9 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Here, I have restored it to User:Emortis9/Billy Hume, where you can work on it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, so I will be able to restore the page once I confirm all claims with reliable sources? Justin Mullinix (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:MOVE for how to get the page back to its original location. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

CfD closes

I noticed that you have started to help with closing discussions. Could you take a look at the ones from June? Many of these are easy closes. I have been involved in most of those so I can not close them. The same goes for other regular closers. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually going to become a regular closer myself. Before, I was only a regular closer of AfD's because it was easy using a script; I was too lazy to bother with closing other XfD's. Last night I decided to write some scripts to close those other XfD's. They're working great! If you want to use my script, simply paste

importScript('User:King of Hearts/closexfd.js');

into Special:Mypage/monobook.js. Enjoy!

Note: In order for the CfD script to work, the header must be set off by spaces. That is,

==== [[:Category:Asdf]] ====

rather than

====[[:Category:Asdf]]====

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and sure, I'll look into the old CfD's. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I give the script a try. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI. Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion entries need to be analyzed before deleting. I think most of what was there was OK to delete. The problem with C1 and C2 deletes is that many editors where using these as after the fact cleanup for out of process renames. In reviewing those, I'd say that between 10% and 20% have been reversed. In the past these were flying under the radar. I'm glad that someone else is now looking at that category. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know about that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at User:Tyw7/Admin coaching.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tyw7 as anon ip! 90.219.205.112 (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Widelands

Nothing personal, but it would have been nice if you (and obviously all others that voted for a deletion) had first read the discussion page of the Widelands article. There was no reason for deleting it. It was clearly pointed out that "Widelands" fills the notability point, as it was reviewed on a full three A4 paged article in the German LinuxUser magazin (printed magazin by the Linux New Media AG that is sold i -> http://www.linuxnewmedia.de/Produkte/Print/LinuxUser )

Of course you can not link a printed magazin as reference, that was the reason why there was only a link to the online article on the main Widelands article.

So any way to recover the original article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.134.146.135 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry was not logged in above was written by me --Nasenbaer peter (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The best thing you can do here is to be bold and create it in User:Nasenbaer peter/Widelands, and when you think it has sufficiently met notability guidelines, move it back to Widelands. I can restore the content to that user subpage if you so desire. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be very nice - as I wrote this comment is nothing personal, you just get frustrated if you spend hours in writing an article, discuss about it's notability and one year after all people agreed to it's notability it just gets deleted. So sorry for harsh words! --Nasenbaer peter (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories for rugby league players

Hi. Thanks for closing the discussion and moving the categories at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_1#Rugby_league_players_by_club. However there was a whole bunch of categories to be moved in addition to the one listed there. For some reason links to them didn't appear there even though I put the right template on all of them so they link to that Cfd entry. I don't know what went wrong there, but could I trouble you to go through and move all the rest of the nominated categories with that CfD template on them?--Jeff79 (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Listed on WP:CFD/W. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed: Cydebot has successfully migrated all the categories. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Just one that was missed: Category:Gold Coast Giants/Seagulls/Chargers rugby league players. Jeff79 (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackson timeline

Hi King, are you sure there was consensus to delete the Jackson timeline? I read the numbers as either no consensus or keep. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's 17 keep, 16 delete, and two ambiguous. I know that numbers alone don't count, but this is not borderline. There is no way that's a consensus to delete. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that the discussion resulted a "keep" consensus. As for "no consensus," I took a long time to sort out the arguments, but in the end I decided that the arguments for deletion were stronger. On the other hand, you can be bold and create a new template that addresses most of the concerns raised by those arguing for deletion. As I read it, there were mainly three types of "delete": 1) delete unless the template is substantially improved/rewritten; 2) delete because it is inherently NPOV; 3) delete because it gives undue weight. It may be a challenge, but #1 and #2 can be addressed; if that template had been nominated, I'm sure the consensus would have been either "keep" or "no consensus." (Feel free to restore it to your userspace while working on it.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind if I were to request a second opinion? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Hercules Networks

Hi, I was wondering in what way a company might meet the notability standard. The company that I wrote an article about had coverage in printed magazines, on television, and has very notable staff/funding. Yet, the article was still deleted. In what ways might I make a stronger case for the article?

66.250.143.213 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is not much that you can do. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hercules Networks, the point that there are many sources has been refuted, as those sources are more like news announcements than significant coverage. Having notable staff, in and of itself, does not make for notability; notability is not inherited. Moreover, whether they are actually notable, is not subject to your personal opinion, but rather the notability guidelines for people. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between news accouncements and significant coverage? For example, if Time magazine writes a half page article on the company's technology, clearly there it won't be the most in depth coverage - yet a mention from Time magazine would be notable, correct? Simon311A (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between news and lasting notability. Even if a major event is covered by L.A. Times, N.Y. Times, Time magazine, and other notable publications, a person or other entity associated with the event would not be notable unless they had other claims to notability. See WP:ONEEVENT. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Article on Bhai Sahib Satpal Singh Khalsa

Hi,

The article on Bhai Sahib Khalsa has been deleted by you. The deletion was still under discussion. When did the members reach a consensus that the article can be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tariksingh (talk • contribs) 00:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are closed after 7 days. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that it is more important to dispute the deletion than actually update the article to eliminate the objections. I firmly believe that the article should not be deleted. Is there a way I can get the article up again. -- Tariksingh —Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

I have userfied the article to User:Tariksingh/Bhai Sahib Satpal Singh Khalsa, where you can work on it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for doing this. But I have not been able to understand why this article cannot be published. I have already provided most of the information for the objections raised. He is the only Ambassador of Sikh Dharma of India, the only person to be awarded the title of Bhai Sahib. The only other lady to be awarded the title of Bhai Sahiba is Dr. Inderjeet Kaur. He is actively involved with the Sikhs outside India, especially represents the American Sikh, based out of New Mexico. Please let me know what is missing in the article that needs to be worked on, so that the article can be published. Thanks in advance for your help. -- Tariksingh (89.182.147.134 (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

Some of the news sources are not notable enough, and many of them do not provide significant coverage (as opposed to mere mentions). See WP:V and WP:N for more information. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit filter

I elaborated on the Saban troll one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Glen Ackerman

I am confused as to why you deleted the Glen Ackerman article? Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that consensus does not equal a poll which was clearly how you treated it. In addition you based your consensus on blanket statements, and no one addressed the points I made in my rebuttal. I studied the wikipedia guidelines for notability and I am positive Glen Ackerman meets them. Also, notability does not equal fame, he is a DC lawyer and anyone outside of DC may not have heard of him, but that does not make him less notable. He has been asked by think tanks to help develop programs for LGBT rights and out of over the 80000 attorneys in DC, he was approached by the the DC bar to offer his insight on the economy and the effect it had on law firms. I respectfully disagree with your decision and believe you gave too much credence to blanket statements. Also you closed the new consensus too quick to get an accurate sample.

Since you deleted the article, what do I need to do or information do I need to gather to make it suitable for wikipedia? Was the formating wrong? You must have ideas for assistance, or you could provide me more guidance regarding the notability requirement since it is quite vague. Can you please restore the page to my user page for it to be edited, updated and corrected.

Unlike most authors, I spent a lot of time in making the page look presentable and crafting my rebuttal. I know and believe Glen Ackerman meets the notability guide lines, but maybe you can help me translate that more effectively to other readers. Amanda.cook.esq (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because consensus does not equal a poll does not mean a headcount of votes is always overruled. In fact, the side with more votes is, more often than not, where the consensus lies. The consensus is that there is no significant coverage. Unfortunately, even after you provided sources, many others still argued that the article should be deleted. The mere existence of sources is not enough; those sources must provide significant coverage. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Preventing school violence

Hello, now that you have decided that this has to be merged into School violence, what is supposed to happen next? Who is to do the work? Alarics (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can do the work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And what happens if they don't? Alarics (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It used to be that the article could be renominated for deletion. However, it has recently been decided that doing so in order to get the article deleted was counterproductive. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sci Fi to SyFy

You closed the CFD for this category with a rename to "SyFy" but as noted in the discussion the channel uses "Syfy". Can the close be updated to use the channel's capitalization? Otto4711 (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Which CfD was it? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

New CSD category RfC

I noticed your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slap whack‎. I've been passively advocating a new CSD category for made up card/drinking games, but your idea is attractive too. I'm just testing the waters, but do you think there's any usefulness in an RfC on the issue? (And is RfC the right place to start?) Shadowjams (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 35#Religion against sea swimmers, among other ridiculous articles. Yeah, an RfC might be useful. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Add this to the fire. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howland Rounders. I'm mostly serious about this RfC thing. Shadowjams (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I read your link. I agree with SoWhy. This might be a first. This might have potential. Shadowjams (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not laughing at the RfC, but at just how interesting people can make these articles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek: First Contact

Why have you protected this page? There are only 2 editors actively working on this page, and at the moment we seem to be getting along just fine, and making improvements to the article. I cannot find anywhere anyone has requested page protection. Please explain. Thanks. --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 17:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, then, I'll unprotect it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am back

Just letting you know that I have my laptop back, and will be able to continue as normal.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 19:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

are u ok?

did you delete the article westnet wireless? its a local phone company in canada, its very notiable. what is wrong with u? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.201.142 (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:N for Wikipedia's definition of notability. Notability must be proved using reliable sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Article Stefan Temmingh - I have the permission and also emailed it

I cannot see why you deleted the article [Stefan Temmingh]. I do have the written permission to use the text content by the author and I also sent it to Wikipedio Permissions on 5th June.

Please do upload the article again. It contains information on one of the TOP5 recorder players in the world.

Thank you.Best regards, Andreas Janotta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.141.216 (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Temmingh. Although lack of permission has been mentioned as a problem, another issue is notability. It appears that the subject is not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia; see our notability guidelines. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WestNet Wireless

I am a reporter trying to do a news story on WestNet, and I noticed you deleted the entry. I strongly suggest you restore the article, as WestNet is currently the most controversial wireless carrier in Canada at present and having the Wikipedia entry assists the public and my colleagues.

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

159.33.10.92 (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WestNet Wireless for the reasons given as to why WestNet is not notable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... i noticed this post too. westnet is gone.. you claim that westnet wireless is not notiable enough, its a regional CARRIER.. its been around for 10 years. one of the reasons why you guys claimed it only offers service in one city, well of coure its a regional carrier. then you claim not notiable enough, well the above post was posted by a CBC reporter from Canada's news outlet. Maybe if you allow them to do their jobs there will be many references and links to their news story. Why don't you delete Sasktel and MTS etc? If WestNet was not notiable there would not be such a reponse from the public let alone the CBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.192.43 (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend that you create an account, keeping in mind not to make it the name of a company or organization (see our username policy for details). This way, it provides an easy way for me to restore the article under your account; or, if you prefer, I can e-mail it to you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fired/idiot

Your an idiot. You need to get fired. You are just getting off on a power trip. I read this section and its full of complaints. You dont even have the brains to do this stuff correctly. Go join disney forums and play god there dumb kid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.148.10 (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your efficient and accurate AfD work over the past few months. I know this is sort of a random barnstar, but quality work too often goes unappreciated. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Aces and eights

If mathematical formulas is required, I can not produce that content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could help, I know LaTeX. :-) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandal

92.3.126.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) how is this stale, it's not 24 or 48 hours old? it's not like they've stopped because of the warnings? they've probably gone away from their computer for a while, you can bet that when they return they'll do the same, given that almost every single edit is vandalism. LibStar (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the blocking policy, "The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment." Since the user has stopped, a block is no longer necessary. I'm personally not a big fan of this rule, but failing to see why WP:IAR should be invoked here, we got to stick to the policies. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, point taken. you don't mind me contacting you directly if this user becomes active again? LibStar (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind, feel free. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Jealousy

I LOVE your signature, I LOVE your edit notice, I LOVE your username • S • C • A • R • C • E • 15:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(Untitled2)

HI KOH!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tippaar (talk • contribs) 20:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

no conesnsus

on the dogs on acid page you left no consensus, whats this mean

^^^Jayflux (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Usually, an Articles for deletion discussion ends in a result like "keep" or "delete." However, there are certain instances where the discussion does not have a definitive outcome. In those cases, an administrator closes it as "no consensus," and the article is kept by default. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

westnet

Hello I also suggest to restore westnet cell phone company. I been using them for many years and they are very good service. takecare —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.251.215 (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WestNet Wireless for the reasons given as to why WestNet is not notable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

yes we know that, but all it needed it someone to post the links to the reference URLS, maybe you can restore the article so I can post. How is a major regional telephone company carrier not notiable ;) good luck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.238.138 (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I can restore the article to a location that is convenient for you to work on if you create an account. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I am now logged in. Thank you for wishing to restore the article. Mobileman2009 (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done - You may find the article at User:Mobileman2009/WestNet Wireless. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks, i spent lots of time citing sources, i think it should be good now maybe you can post it online. thank you Mobileman2009 (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks king of hearts, I have greatly improved the article, do you think you can restore the article to the popper location now? thank you kindly.Mobileman2009 (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sources do not seem to provide the significant coverage in secondary sources necessary to satisfy the notability guidelines. Here is an analysis of the sources: #1 is in French, which I can't read, but judging from the format, it seems to be a directory listing, which proves only existence, not notability. #2 is a forum, which is not a reliable source. #3 and #7 are blogs, which are also not reliable. I cannot open #4, #5, or #6. From the domain name, I can see that #6 is a primary source because it's from WestNet. So unless #4 or #5 prove notability and are reliable sources (in that case, please email me copies of the two Internet articles since I can't access them), notability will not have been demonstrated. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Admin coaching

I have noticed that you haven't added a new lesson to the page. By the way do you ever hangout at the Irc?

Hello King of Hearts/Archive/2009. You have been invited to join WikiProject Software, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Software-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Software}} to your userpage and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Announcement-u}} to the top of your talk page with the heading ==WikiProject Software Announcement==. If you know someone who might be interested, please pass this message onto others by pasting this code into their talk page {{subst:Software invite|~~~~}} with the following heading == [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Software|WikiProject Software]] Invite ==. Thanks, Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 02:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 02:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I've never been on IRC. Perhaps it's because when I was a n00b back in 2005 I tried IRC and it didn't work, so I gave up. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I joined WP Software. As for admin coaching, you definitely would want to participate in AfDs. They're the surest way to gain experience; participation in them is usually a must for RfA candidates. First make sure you've masted the policies and guidelines surrounding deletion, including WP:DP, WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:BIO, etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actors who have played animated characters

Hi, KoH. In your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actors who have played animated characters, you said Anarchangel gave "excellent reasoning". I object to this, as his/her "keep" recommendation contains errors, as well as a question directed specifically to me, but I did not have a chance to respond before you closed the discussion. I could have addressed his/her error and question had I the chance, and I believe that that might have affected your evaluation of his/her argument. Powers ^T 13:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've re-opened the AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone does like the results after the AFD has closed, they can have it reopened? Is that only if they want to delete something that was previous kept, or can I protest AFDs that previously ended in delete, because I wasn't around at the time to add in my opinion? Dream Focus 11:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's where WP:BOLD comes in. If you think that the article should have been kept, then recreate it, making sure to address the issues raised by those who !voted "delete." Here, WP:CSD#G4 does not apply, since the versions are not substantially identical. If no one tries to take it to AfD again, then you will have successfully contested the deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Toni Turner

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Toni Turner. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toni Turner. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Line

Any particular reason why you closed that as "no consensus" when the !votes were 4 keep, 3 delete (including nom) and 1 merge prior to the rewriting, and an addiional keep !vote was the only subsequent new input? It's rather disheartening to have invested so much work only to have it seemingly discounted, simply because there were few subsequent commentators in the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's the only call I can make. For example, if you make a proposal but no one objects to it, that's not called consensus. I was not happy with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rufino Pablo Baggio, but that's the way things turned out. (I ended up renominating it for AfD.) There are some things that nobody likes, and lack of participation is one of them. But I cannot assume consensus when I do not see it before my eyes. If your work were really able to be "discounted," then the article would have been deleted; of course I gave your work full consideration. Besides, the end result is that the article was kept, so be bold and keep improving it! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

deleted article "Kouros Shahmiri"

Hi. I previously created an article about the Iranian musician Kouros Shahmiri, but you deleted it because it had insufficient information. Recently, I was contacted by Kouros himself that this page be re-opened. Would you allow me to do this? I appreciate your help.

Sincerely, Arash Nabili —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arash n2006 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because it did not assert notability, rather than having insufficient content. If you would like to recreate it, I would suggest doing so at User:Arash n2006/Kouros Shahmiri, where you can work on it at your own leisure without it getting deleted. Feel free to leave me a message after you have created the article at the indicated page and believe that it meets the notability guidelines for musicians. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Saban troll, etc.

He shows up now and then, as in 67.70.153.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). He doesn't seem to be doing the page blanking. But he is doing the same edits as usual.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This really needs to be prevented.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

List of actors who have played animated characters

Official notice, as required by Wikipedia:Deletion review#Instructions, of multiple issues concerning the manner and means by which the AfD was closed. Precipitous close, inappropriate use of Relist, closing statement reflects WP:VOTE. Anarchangel (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that my close reflects the current consensus in the discussion. However, if you would like to respond to Abductive and LtPowers' comments under your post, I am willing to reopen it again (sigh). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And besides, the vote does matter (a little). For instance, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurghiu (my nomination). Even though I believe that I gave very good reasoning, there's no way it's getting deleted. If there is an already strong argument (WP:IINFO in the case of this list), more votes do help. That's why RfAs pass with 70~80% support. Given that both sides present valid arguments, having several times the number of votes on one side than the other does reflect consensus. Of course, a bunch of meatpuppets screaming WP:ILIKEIT are to be disregarded. And even established users with weak arguments are given less weight. Clearly, voting is secondary to discussion, but that does not mean the vote is worthless. With that said, I am still willing to give it a second relist, if you so request. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, for the "inappropriate use of Relist," I know the policy regarding it, but I believe I have invoked WP:IAR appropriately here. After all, you asked a question, so they deserve a chance to answer it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Your very difficult decision to close as no consensus default to keep was (IMHO) the better interpretation of the discussion per guideline. That someone failed to take advantage of the discussion while it was open is really not (IMHO) a strong reason to have re-opened to then allow a "last word" or "last vote", as the editor had had days within which to comment and then when it was reopened simply repeated earlier refuted arguments. Certainly were it to be reopened a third or fourth or fifth time to allow even more editors to make "last arguments", the scales might then again have balanced or even tipped more strongly toward a keep. Your undestanding that AfD is not a vote nor a count of heads was the correct choice in your reading of the arguments and actions within guideline... and was a tough a call to make. Unfortunately it has now been made to lok like AfD is indeed a vote and head count, as opposed to what the guidelines instruct. You followed guidleine. You made your decision. Yes, RFCs are a vote... but they are votes of confidence. AfDs on the other hand are not supposed to default to head counting. AfD is not a vote. If it is again re-opened, and I knew of it, I or others might then refute the last minute "votes"... but I dislike wikidrama simply for the sake of wikidrama. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Considering that the AfD was initially closed with no consensus, that King of Hearts (hi there) was clearly hesitant in his closing statement and that LtPowers's objections were not unreasonable, I saw no harm in reopening the discussion shortly thereafter. It also didn't seem to conflict with WP:DRV that states that Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. Also, let's be clear: no consensus is a de facto form of keep and the only objections here come from ones who clearly weren't pleased with the outcome of the second closing. I'm definitely not saying that your protests are baseless but... Let's just take the whole matter less personally, shall we? The only real issue I see is the premature closure of the relisted discussion. To avoid any further objections from the unsatisfied party, I propose to relist it again and let another admin to handle the next closure. — Rankiri (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Also, considering the fact that I'm yet to see a single discussion where one solid argument outweighed a dozen of WP:WWIN-like votes, I'd say that "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote" is a bit of an overstatement. — Rankiri (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reopened the AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• If it had closed the way you liked it, would you have reopened it for future input? It was kept, you didn't like that, so you reopened it, and then some new people suddenly appeared, not making any real arguments just saying delete, and then it closes that same day as a delete. Reopening it now does no good unless you also undelete it, since new input can't be gotten if people aren't able to see the article being discussed. Dream Focus 16:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• The following closing statement doesn't show any signs of preferential closure. I have great respect for the squadron but some of you people are pushing way too hard.

"The result was no consensus. This was a somewhat difficult decision. For the delete side, the only main reason was WP:NOTDIR/WP:IINFO (both about not being indiscriminate); on the other hand, that was a very strong reason. For the keep side, although there were fewer !votes, MichaelQSchmidt and Anarchangel gave excellent reasoning. There was significant debate on both sides of the argument." — Rankiri (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks for reopening--that's what i was about to suggest.DGG (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding: Wikipedia article "Kouros Shahmiri"

Hi, I followed your suggestion and created an article for Kouros in the directory you provided. This time, it is more complete and asserts notability. Please make this a public article so that others can work further on the page if needed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arash n2006 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, it does assert notability, so it cannot be speedily deleted. However, speedy deletion is only one way for it to be deleted; there is also a regular deletion process called AfD. To prevent it from getting deleted there, you would want to make sure that it satisfies the notability guidelines for musicians. It is important to add reliable sources to the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

• From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
• Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
• Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
• Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
• News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
• Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 10:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: IRC Cloak

Hi. You'll need to contact me on IRC about your cloak. I'll be around for most of today. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

AFD

You closed this AFD but did not delete the article? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I came here for the same reason -- Policybazaar.com was deleted but not the title that it was moved to mid discussion, Policybazaar. 66.57.1.79 (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

THE SINGLES COLLECTION _ BRITNEY SPEARS

WHY Singles collection got deleted?????? PlatinumFire (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album) (2nd nomination). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that before but it's no reason to delete it. PlatinumFire (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CRYSTAL. It has not been confirmed in reliable sources to exist. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Closed AfDs

Why do you collapse the AfDs that you close? MrKIA11 (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Afd top#Proposal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OIC, thanks. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThaddeusB

I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.) I was familiar with your work, and was proud to have the support of a user I respect greatly like yourself. I especially appreciated your kind words about my "insightful responses" and look forward to serving the community in my new role.

Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thank-you note. Of course I've seen the result, don't worry. You'll make a great admin. :-) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

added sources to "Kouros Shahmiri"

Hi. I added sources to the information in the article. Would it be enough so that this page becomes public, so that others can improve it? I do not have enough knowledge nor enough sources for the biography part, I know other people have lots more information that they can add to the article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arash n2006 (talk • contribs) 05:45, July 30, 2009

Unfortunately, both of the sources you added were from kourosmusic.com, which is a primary source. Please see WP:RS to see what kind of sources can be used. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:DELPRO and WP:NPASR

Actually, I agree with this edit to WP:DELPRO but I don't know if it can be considered an "unwritten rule" as I don't know if there's anybody else who is doing this but me. (though I have been trying to talk Julian into doing this on IRC). I think the practice itself needs a discussion before being written into the guidelines as right now it's just a personal application of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. WT:AFD would be a better venue for such a discussion then WT:DELPRO as former sees more participation then the latter. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded it to say that the closer may, at his discretion, specify that. It's actually more of a shortcut; now, we can just cite WP:NPASR rather than spelling it out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Block on Ryulong

I think he should be blocked for continually removing other users comments without their permission. I recently approached Ryulong regarding this removal asking him to restore the comment and asking him how it was "unimportant". He didn't restore the comment. Later, if you look at diffs linked here, he was removing constructive comments of another editor (Drag-5, who you also blocked) without that users permission. For removing other editors comments, I think he should be blocked for 48 hours, not 24, but that's just my opinion. What do you think? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know; usually, when two editors violate 3RR on the same page, they're given the same block to be "fair." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. What do you think will happen the next time he removes a harmless user comment without their permission? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually

...I did not ask Powergate92 to make the 3RR report. Please look at my posts at User talk:Powergate92 again. I did not ask Powergate92 to make the report whatsoever. All I actually did was ask Powergate92 to voice an opinion on the removals of comments. Please strike out your "I did not know that Powergate92 was asked to make the report by Mythdon, who is under ArbCom restrictions". Thank you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you should also strike out the "I did not know that Powergate92 was to make the report by Mythdon, who is under ArbCom restrictions", unless I'm not understanding the current versions meaning. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You have had a role in it; I'm not going to strike out the whole thing. While the letter is grammatically incorrect, the underlying meaning remains. I think the resultant statement is understandable. It means that while you did not specifically ask Powergate to report Ryulong, you partially caused him to do so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I reported Ryulong because he was knowingly edit warring and he knew he was going to be blocked for edit warring as he said at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Drag-5 "I don't care if we both get blocked for edit warring." not because Mythdon asked me to. Powergate92Talk 01:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Did I partially cause you to like King of Hearts says? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You did not cause me to report Ryulong as i said before i reported Ryulong because he was knowingly edit warring. Powergate92Talk 01:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That does not mean that four hours later you should have paid attention to that statement when there was no editing by myself or Drag-5 going on and certainly no edit warring.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The edit war had ended but you had still knowingly edit warred and that is why i think should not had been unblocked. Powergate92Talk 01:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that's a very wrong mindset. If the edit war is over and neither party has even touched the page for four hours, and especially when I don't respond to you on my own talk page, neither Drag-5 nor myself should have been blocked at that time. If the blocks had occurred during the edit war, that would have made more sense and I would have accepted it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Hopefully that settles it, and that King of Hearts modifies his/her comment some more. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, then. Per Powergate92's clarification, I take back my statement. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Change of username

In reference to change of my username, i have left a message for you on the change of user name page. -Iross1000 (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC).

I left another message few minutes ago. -Iross1000 (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English cricket team streak of 27 Test matches without defeat

Saw that you just closed this as no consensus. However, there is a basic problem with this article which makes it not merge worthy: It's factually incorrect and reliable sources show that. The merge votes did not consider that, because that information came to light after most of the merge votes were made. I was probably the only one that switched to delete after seeing the inconsistency. Although, it's just one delete vote, I think in this particular case it should be viewed as overwhelming. Alternately a relist would be fine too (I think it's been relisted only once). Might you reconsider? I am a fan of the English team, so it is disappointing for me to see the article go, but given that it is wrong, it has to... -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! cheers -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your move of Maltese–Turkish relations

I see from the AfD you moved this article to "comply with bilateral naming conventions". At a requested move discussion here there suggestions that there is no such convention and opinion is split a bit on what form to use. Is there a policy that people on that discussion have missed? I've removed several speedy deletion templates trying to do similar moves on the basis that they're actually not un-contreversial as there's a requested move discussion (especially now there's oppose votes). (As an aside it seems a little odd to me that the nominator would 'requested move' one article then try to speedy the rest). Dpmuk (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• As an addition note most of the articles in Category:Bilateral relations of Turkey appear to use the Turkish form so if there's isn't a policy already in place it would seem consensus is unclear. Dpmuk (talk)

It appears that there is a guideline that states that the noun form should be used. However, since the page says it's "not set in stone," feel free to move it back if you believe that the adjective form is better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK - that's a start but it's hardly a community-wide agreed consensus. Wasn't asking so much for this particular article but wanted to make sure I weren't barking up the wrong tree when it came to removing the speedys. I think this needs wider community discussion somewhere but not sure where and haven't got time to find somewhere at the moment. Dpmuk (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe you can bring up a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

sources for the article "Kouros Shahmiri"

Hi. My name is Arash Nabili. I was able to find an article related to the Wikipedia page "Kouros Shahmiri" which I created. Please make this a public page so that others can improve on it. Also, there is a duplicate article for this person, by the title of "Kouros," which someone else has created. I would appreciate if that article were removed or merged with the one that I created, as mine has more accurate information. What can be done about that? Thank you very much!