User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2006/10

Unblock of User:Enkil

I'm curious why you decided to unblock this account. It was indefinately blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user; an unblock had been denied by three seperate admins before the talk page was eventually locked to prevent just this sort of thing from happening. Do you have some new evidence that this is not a sockpuppet? Since the user has been banned, I'm not sure promising to behave is a proper reason to unblock.

I'm also concerned that while you stated in your unblock that the administrator who blocked hadn't responded in days, I can't find anywhere in your past 2 months of contributions that showed you ever tried to contact Cyde about the block. Am I missing something? Its very disturbing that a number of your unblocks have been questionable. Please use more care and research in the future. Shell ^babelfish 02:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked the account because Enkil promises not to perform any "meat-puppetry" and the like anymore; also, my attempt to contact Cyde was through email, not through his talk page on Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, let me try this again "sock-puppet of a banned user". There is absolutely no precendent to allow banned users to continue editing through sockpuppets. Did you review this accounts contributions or try contacting any of the other admins who denied this accounts multiple requests for unblock? You've been had - banned users and vandals are finding the new unblock-en list a great venue to let them loose back on Wikipedia. Shell ^babelfish 15:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly. In any event, you should have talked to Cyde on-wiki as well before unilaterally unblocking a user who was blocked as a sockpuppet. Ral315 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your reasoning; you can re-block it if you want. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let me explain this in no-nonsense terms that everyone can understand. I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone. I spoke out against Nathanrdotcom's block and that somehow qualifies me as a sockpuppet (though acting on behalf of someone qualifies as meatpuppetry, I didn't know this until I was told, I wasn't even familiar with the term). Now I'm located in Maryland, USA and Nathan is located in Canada, that would mean he'd have over half a day's travel to travel over here to be a sockpuppet, which is completely unrealistic. Besides that, Cyde's judgement isn't absolute. We all know that he's been wrong before (he just refuses to admit when he's wrong). Again, acting on someone's behalf doesn't automatically make me them, that's an entirely false premise. However, if you continue along this foolish road of "Enkil is someone else", I'll take this as high on the ladder of authority that I need to. If you have ABSOLUTE CONCRETE PROOF that I'm his sockpuppet, I'd like to see it. If you were to do a checkuser on my IP right now, it would show as sasami.jurai.net, based in VA. Nathan isn't in VA. It's very simple logic which some people are failing to grasp - that and Cyde's complete refusal to respond to a possibility that his ALWAYS CORRECT judgement is wrong all don't add up. I even offered Cyde a phone call to my home as proof that I'm my own person and he didn't listen. Without breaking Wikipedia guidelines by attacking you all for your lack of logical thinking (which is what I'd like to do), I'd like to tell you all to do the math yourself. Don't just accuse someone of sockpuppetry unless you're willing to prove it. I haven't seen any proof yet.

I'm going to repeat what I've said on my talk page - If anyone has any questions as to who I am (or who I'm not), I would appreciate being asked on my talk page (or use the Wikipedia e-mail function) and I will answer honestly. Continuing this foolish "But he's Nathan because he defended Nathan!" line of thinking is crazy. Several other users have spoke out against Nathanrdotcom's block - does that make them his sockpuppets too? Of course it doesn't, so that line of reasoning is completely false. Enkil 23:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Ranch

Hello there. If you can, please explain to me what about the article Adams Ranch justified deletion? It is one of the largest cattle ranches in the United States and has developed a unique breed of cattle. It spans over 65,000 acres of land in 3 different districts of Florida. I am baffled. How do I contest such a deletion to others? Thank you. {Mind meal 13:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

You can appeal the deletion on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Please follow the instructions provided on that page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Adams_Ranch would be welcome. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actuarial Association of Austria

Could you please restore Actuarial Association of Austria? A nation-wide professional association is usually notable, and the association has an article in the German Wikipedia. It might be worthwhile to add {{austria-stub}} to the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To belong here, an article must assert valid notability. For example, even if you wrote on Albert Einstein, saying "He was a cool guy, really smart," it would likely be speedily deleted for a lack of assertion of notability. I have restored and userfied it to User:TruthbringerToronto/Actuarial Association of Austria, and if you have shown it to be notable (remember references!), then you can move it back to Actuarial Association of Austria. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for King of Hearts

(Moved Here)

Thanks! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blocking of user

I see you blocked User:Wikipedia knows all could you provide your rationale? Thanks -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 22:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Wikipedia" may imply that the user has a role other than a normal user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check Wikipedia:Username. It doesn't actually explicitly say that "wikipedia" is not allowed in a username. You may also want to start working down this list then as well as there appears to by many, many usernames with wikipedia in the name. [1] -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 22:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many "Wikipedia" names on your link have been blocked, such as [2], [3], etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there are many (User:Wikipedia1011 User:Wikipedia2010 User:Wikipedia_Signpost...)that haven't and have existed for a long time. My point is that the username policy does not dis-allow usernames with 'wikipedia' in them. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 23:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll unblock. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sorry to be a PITA. I appreciate your efforts, keep up the good work. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 23:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to lodge a similar complaint about your blocking of User:Publicopinion. How is that a POV username? It doesn't specify any opinion whatsoever, merely contains the word "opinion". I realize that there was a rather large log of blocks to be done, but something as significant as an indefinite block might warrant a bit more than 5 seconds of consideration. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you very much. I tried pulling the name off the list pending a discussion with User:SunStar Net, but you were a bit fast for me. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the advice, was only trying to help by reporting AIV vandals! thanks anyway! --SunStar Net 22:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]