User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2008/03

Indian Invasion Comedy

Hi there, I've restored the article Indian Invasion Comedy which was speedy deleted as a copyright violation. In fact, the page it was copied from (http://www.indianinvasioncomedy.com/clips.htm) was released under the GFDL, and can be freely copied into Wikipedia. I suspect the GFDL release is probably for promotional reasons, but that will probably come out in the AfD discussion. Regards, Canley (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review for MileyWorld

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MileyWorld. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vand from a school

Here you wrote "one vand from a school is not enough, since it's different people, so they might not have received the final warning before".

Please look here and here. Different IP addresses, but both from schools in Riverside, CA, and identical vandalism. Obviously the same person. Both talk pages littered with warning after warning.

Based upon your logic, it seems to me that v3 and v4 warnings are never appropriate for shared IPs, since there's no way to know if anyone vandalising from that IP has ever seen a warning. Please pardon me if I quit wasting my time warning them. --Art Smart (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, the IP address are too far apart (138. & 204.), so I can't do a range block on them. Since the IP is shared, the users are constantly rotated. If I block one user, he'll probably be on another IP by that time, and an innocent user will end up getting blocked while the vandal isn't. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have taught me to never again waste my time issuing any warning to a shared IP. I feel stupid having already posted multiple "final warnings" that can never be enforced under your logic. I will now retract all such warnings that I've posted, but I'll leave behind the reason why I'm retracting them.

Obviously, the only solution is semi-protection for the repeatedly vandalized pages. How do I initiate that process, specifically for Garrison Keillor‎, Lake Wobegon, A Prairie Home Companion‎, and A Prairie Home Companion (film) (all of which have been repeatedly vandalized by 204.69.4.82)? Is it something I can do myself? Please advise. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implying that final warnings for shared IP's are not enforceable. For example, 204.69.4.82 was rightfully blocked in late January because it deterred him from further vandalism. Per the blocking policy, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." So when an IP just comes around and vandalizes once in a while, you could revert their edits easily without the need to block. In fact, blocking an infrequent vandal is often ineffective because the block expires before the user even returns to see it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my peace with this issue, discussed extensively at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#For_shared_IP_addresses.2C_vandalism_warnings_appear_to_be_unenforceable and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_user_warnings#For_shared_IP_addresses.2C_vandalism_warnings_appear_to_be_unenforceable. I won't be issuing any more v3 or v4 warnings unless I'm virtually certain the block that I'm threatening will be enforced. That means I won't be issuing any warnings to shared IP addresses, because what's the point of a v1 or v2 if there won't be a v3 or v4 to follow if necessary? If in the future the wording of templates v3 and v4 gets changed from "you will be blocked" to "steps will be taken to block you", then I'll once again feel comfortable issuing that threat. I refuse to issue a threat that I lack the authority to enforce. I can't block, but I can takes steps to block. I'm done talking about this issue. Thanks anyway. --Art Smart (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have anything more to say, please do so on my talk page. I'm unwatching this page. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twinking

Thanks for adding the protection tag... I couldn't connect to the server to do it for some reason. :) Jmlk 1 7 06:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for catching that vandalism to my userpage. He has some a vendetta against me for blocking him...Thanks again, Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support!

Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Konica Minolta.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Konica Minolta.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Image:Beijing 2008.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Beijing 2008.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Guest9999 (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your post on the 3RR noticeboard

I added more information to the report at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:70.129.197.15 reported by User:Tool2Die4 (Result: No action). I provided a new list of diffs, as well as a list of diffs by the reporting user. It appears to me that both have violated 3RR. I'm wondering whether it would be OK for me to change the header in this sort of situation so it no longer says "No action". --Coppertwig (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that TheTutor and ScienceApologist are edit warring and not discussing things at the Talk page [1] I wish things were so Pollyanna, however, to due respect, I wouldn't call this situation as simply as you would like it to be. To me, TheTutor has played an active role on the talk page and seems to have a lot of knowledge, RS references, and civility, while SA undoes his work in various places on WP, seemingly just to edit war. I'm also a bit confused that there is clear evidence that SA has exceeded the 3RR, and yet, you and others are silent. Did I miss something? DanaUllman^Talk 03:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for unblocking my account. I am much obliged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irish614 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin picture

Curious, how does a picture of Stalin qualify as "nonsense"? I love how admins nowadays give the bare minimum of explanations before deleting things. How am I supposed to follow another person's train of thought if all I get is: "CSD nonsense & blank" All that tells me is, "I'm too lazy to type more than two words so I'll just copy and paste a template so Wikipedia won't whine at me." I think it's now obvious that I hate it when admins do that. Why am I ranting to you? I just happened to see your deletion log entry. Unfortunately, you are not even close to the only one that does this. All you have to type is "copyvio" or "on Commons" or "duplicate". Most of you are at least deep into high school, I think you can handle that. -- §Hurricane E RICarchive 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me which image in specific it is? It's likely that the image description page existed, but did not have an actual image to go along with it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]