User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2007/04

Tom Delay

Thank you for the GA pass. Happy editing! Wooyi 18:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wooyi has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Kelsey Olson entry

I do not know how this entry survived deletion - it's the worst example of vanity writing I've seen yet, listing all agents, work without citations, and insistence that she is one of the highest paid models (when she is not), all written in extremely poor grammar.

If noone is jumping in to save this entry, then that is clearly enough to validate its worth for deletion. Perhaps when she gets her own website and doesn't have to rely on third party links? I just tried to make it read better, but there is nothing I can add that makes her any more notable. 203.36.120.8BG Models

I do not know anything about her; all I did was interpret the AFD discussion, which closed as unanimous keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

It pained me to see that thing there and think of what it says about us to the kazillions of people visiting Wikipedia for the first time and seeing that. --BigDT 04:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quesion...

How did you gauge the voting time for the proposed deletion of the Liviu Librescu article. I asserted a Speedy Keep, yet was just wondering.

76.109.163.61

There isn't a definite closing time; admins just use their judgment. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I edited my comment on the vote, not that it mattered... 76.109.163.61

Something must be done regarding the cites & (NON-PR Articles) used in speculating the motive of Cho Seung-hui, Facebook comments are not viables sources.

76.109.163.61

Bitterne Park Community School

Dear Editor, as a new contributor I am trying to gather information on the schools of Southampton, having read that the aim of the schools project is to have an entry on each school. The information is from the southampton city website and the ofsted website, but I have still to learn how to apply references.

Please don't delete my humble efforts, these are still a work in progress. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burdfield (talk • contribs) 15:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not trying get it deleted; I took it to WP:AFD because I didn't think it qualified for speedy deletion, as one editor proposed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac

Don't want to nitpick little things but I think you missed something in rating Isaac. The use of the copyrighted image by Robert B. Sherman "Sacrifice" [Image:Sacrifice 600.JPG] seems to be a violation of the type cited at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use and probably should have ranked a fail for that category. It is a non-notable, non-iconic, copyrighted image used to illustrate an article. The way it is tagged may not have made those problems obvious since it seems to have an erroneous tag - a look into its source seems to point to it not in any way being a "poster for an event" used "to illustrate the event in question". It seems to be a scanned image from sales brochure advertising and artist print series. I have removed the image from the article for these reasons. If I am way off base in my assessment please let me know. 69.72.2.72 21:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auryn Inc.

Dear King of Hearts, I noticed that you removed the Auryn Inc. entry I posted and then protected the page. However, I did not see a response to our comment. Can you please explain what aspect of our entry is not appropriate for Wikipedia and perhaps what we can do to validate that Auryn is an existing company engaged in legitimate business and interacting with the general public, without being classified as advertising. I'm not understanding why it has been pulled down.

I want to work within the spirit of wikipedia. Please help me understand where I am going wrong.

Thanks so much --Kgmyers 22:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the company is not notable enough to merit an article. See WP:CORP, a guide to the notability of companies. If you think it meets the requirements for inclusion, you may create it, with facts that make the company notable (make sure they're supported with references). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Beenleigh Rum" was deleted

I was surprised that the article Beeleigh Rum was deleted.

The deletion log said: {{db-product}}

I assume this means the product is deemed to have "no significance".

I have no connection with the rum company, but in Australia, the product Beenleigh Rum is available in most liquor stores. It has been produced since the 1800's (as stated in the deleted article), so it is also has historical significance. Plus, the distillery where it is made has historic significance and is a local landmark.

Was this the reason it was deleted? Can the article be restored again?

It was only a stub. I know it was maybe too brief, but I thought it would get expanded over time.

What can I do to get the article restored, and what can I do to bring it up to wiki standards? I'm prepared to research more info, if you think that is what it needs.

Can it be restored to give me 24 hours to add links? I don't want to have to start the article from scratch.

Thanks Lester2 23:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to User:Lester2/Beenleigh Rum to allow you to expand on it. You may move it back if you assert notability, backed with proper references. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, King of Hearts, for allowing me to rework the Beenleigh Rum article. I have expanded it, and moved it back to public view. I added an image -a Beenleigh logo taken from the label on a bottle. I then cleaned it up in Photoshop to remove other non-logo elements. I hope I have set the copyright tag correctly for a logo (maybe you can check that for me). Thanks, again.Lester2 05:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

db-product redirect

Why do you think that's an appropriate redirect? The only time someone would use a db-product tag would be on a product - something that isn't speedy deletable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A product made by one company is speedy deletable, because they're essentially the same thing. If the company isn't notable, why would the product be? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure? I'm not convinced that's true at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose Company A makes Product B. An employee of Company A decides to write an article on Product B. He says, "Product B is a product of Company A. It is notable because people buy it. Company A has three employees and blah, blah, blah." How would this get kept? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, it depends on a few things, but we don't speedy delete products, so why have a tag that suggests as such. I may be requesting to delete the redirect. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is obviously about the company, not the product, I would probably use db-reason and say "this is obviously about the company, not the product, so A7 should apply". Depending on the article, I might also tack on db-spam for good measure. And if none of that proves convincing enough, then maybe it should go to AfD. Xtifr _tälk 06:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When to remove schoolblock?

Is it okay to remove a schoolblock template when it expired awhile ago? See User talk:169.244.142.131. Note the oopsy of placed in 2007, expiring in 2006. Does anyone/thing clean these up automatically? Shenme 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No; it has to be cleaned up manually; I have done so already. Next time you see a {{schoolblock}} or {{anonblock}} tag which has already expired, you can remove it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a serious question

How can we tell how many times an article has been read?

Thx!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calypsos (talk • contribs) 21:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

To tell you the truth, I don't really know myself, sorry. Perhaps you could ask the help desk, and someone else might come and help. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THanks for the link! I always wanted to know how to cite wikipedia for my homework. However, I couldn't find a link to ask a question to customer service. There are a lot of FAQ's and stuff but no place to actually ask a question to someone real.

Chevy Chase, Maryland

Hi. I added something on Chevy Chase, Maryland and someone came and deleted it. He should have spent his time doing something productive. Can you lock him out of editing stuff I edit...? Thx! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calypsos (talk • contribs) 00:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

RFD Closure of Template:db-product

You closed the RFD discussion of Template:db-product as "speedy deleted by the creator of the template". The template history shows you deleted it at 22:43, 28 April 2007, but recreated it a minute later (22:44, 28 April 2007). Was this recreation intentional? Thanks. -- JLaTondre 00:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are still people using db-product, I would like them to know that it's not a valid criterion and should not be used. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jiang Meng

As a heads up, User:Ethandallas recreated Jiang Meng (which you deleted about 15 minutes ago) but with more content. I moved the page to the correct name from a lowercase "m", you may want to look it over. Teke 05:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NCAA_logo.svg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:NCAA_logo.svg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Iamunknown 08:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]