User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2009/08

Rollback right request

Hello! :) I've been editing like mad with Twinkle and AWB and would like to know if I could receive rollback rights as well to be able to utilize Huggle. I'm very familiar with the vandalism and other wikipedia policies :). Let me know what you think. -Falcon8765 (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done - You seem to be a fine contributor and vandal-fighter. Note: With the rollbacker flag, you are automatically eligible to use Huggle. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie B. Bond

Hello King of ♥ ♦ ♣. You recently closed the above AFD as delete. Can you throw a copy of the article on my sub=page. I'll work on it over the next couple of days and see if I can get it to a least stub status. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done - User:Shoessss/Annie B. Bond. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ShoesssS ^Talk 17:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yucatann change

I left a message on the change of user name page. -Iross1000 (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC).

Do you have any updates for my request ? -Iross1000 (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

GoldDragon

You blocked GoldDragon for 24 hours. As soon as the block expired, he went back to the same edit war.[1]. Also, someone using a similar name, The Bronze Lizard, has been carrying on several of GoldDragon's edit wars. Thought you would want to know. 69.159.28.35 (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that GoldDragon would evade a block by creating an obvious username like that and doing obvious edits like that. GD has been around Wiki for several years and does gets himself involved in edit wars but I've never seen him hide what he does. On the other hand, he does have a wikistalker who reverts and tags the edits he does, for better or worse, but certainly annoyingly and definitely does hide who he is. I'm suspicious. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In case that makes you change your mind, CheckUser says the 2 users are  Unlikely to be related. -- Luk ^talk 11:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked both users. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tupolev Tu-160

This article is still protected and was the subject of an edit conflict as well as editwarring by socks. Please unprotect the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

The protection has expired. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:AFD Closing

Sweet....Thanks for fixing that! I usually had to rearrange the title after subst: :P Cheers, I'^mperator 19:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

westnet

hi, i noticed westnet is moved to a user profile, is there anyway to retore the article now so I can add things..

tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.78.131.45 (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You can add things to another user's page, it should work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A MAGAZINE curated by

Hello,

Just contacting you to understand a little bit more the reasons for deleting article. We have written an article on Wikipedia since many readers are looking for official fact about the publication A MAGAZINE. We are an independent publisher with just this tittle since 2001... A is seen as an artistic project and we thought that Wikipedia was a great place to get official information.

Looking forward to hear from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanlolivier (talk • contribs) 00:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot include everything; content must be notable in order to be included. Please see our notability guidelines for more information. Be sure to cite reliable sources and avoid writing the article in a promotional tone. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you suggest us how to write it?

We are not promoting anything, A MAGAZINE is an artistic project, involving many artist and creative people, we are not about selling thousand issues but still is a reference for the creative industry. It has been voted many times but ZenithOptimedia, (Publicis) as one of the 100 reference tittles...www.thestylepress.com. You can read about it on Vogue.com, Style.com... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanlolivier (talk • contribs) 19:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

According to our autobiography guideline, you should not write articles on yourself or your organization. If you really are notable, others will write an article on you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

• News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
• 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 SoxBot (talk) at 04:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted more material as requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)

Have deleted more material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) since your last vote to delete could please could you review your deletion decision in the light of the last editBold text, according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)many thanksPenright (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again

for your assistance :-) Scribner (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(Untitled)

You deleted the article on Goldsea Asian American Daily. Your reason is a non-reason. The site is the leading Asian American content site that is no. 1 in its category according to Ranking.com. It has a more extensive collection of professional articles on Asian Americans than any other site on the web. It has been publishing continuously since 1998.

If you can point to a higher-quality, more substantive, better-organized and higher-trafficked site on Asian Ameriacans I would be delighted!

I think the article should be replaced intact. AA Patrol (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your Deletion of Goldsea Asian American Supersite is highly suspect.

You deleted an informative, fact-filled article on Goldsea Asian American Daily using the fig leaf of "not signficant". Goldsea happens to be the oldest, most trafficked Asian American content site on the web. Unlike most sites which are hobby blogs, social networking pages or organizational pages, Goldsea is a professionally written and edited content site that provides a lot of perspective and resources for Asian Amerians and others interested in that community. It also happens to be ranked no. 1 in its category by ranking.com.

Let me hear your response. AA Patrol (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you give a reason as to how the website passes our notability guidelines for websites? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

CHU clerking

I saw your question on CHU where you asked what RTV was; this gives me some concern about you clerking at CHU, where "RTV" is a somewhat common phrase. Please, in the future if you're not sure, either don't say anything or do a bit of investigation on your own before you comment; usually any seemingly random collection of letters (especially in all caps) can be tossed in front of "WP:" and you can figure out what it means. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Eronel

I noticed that you recently placed a block on this user. I'd like to point out an instance where I've been having trouble with this user in case it may impact your blocks. Here is the edit history of Bobby Hill (King of the Hill). There was an issue with the character's birth date between this user and at least two other editors. I took the issue to the talk page where there was a 3 to one consensus on the birth date (against Eronel's beliefs). Still, tried to revert and has recently jumped to IP addresses (I believe) to make the same edit daily. I believe it's him because of the arguments made, the way he presents the argument, the fact that all of the IPs have no other edit history, and the fact that the IP edits are made during the same time periods when Eronel edits daily.

I could honestly care less about what this page says is Bobby Hill's birth date but I believe that, if I back down, this user will think that all he needs to do to get his way is switch to IP users and bully others into leaving the page alone. I'm not looking for action or even a response but I just thought that you should be aware. OlYeller^Talktome 19:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Article Khokhar

Hi Fellow Editor, before you take action, please take alook at the article and how one editor has WP:Assumed Ownership. I have tried to WP:Assume Good Faith all along but someone seems to be WP:Gaming. Thanks --Sikh-History 17:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to remain neutral. In any case, Khokhar's edits cannot be called "vandalism." You should never use rollback in a content dispute. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but I think I will take it up with another Admin here. I thought deletion of valid refrences from cited sources was WP:Vandalism. He is definitely gaming the system, and he has made it appear I reverted his edits when it was him who reverted mine. Just take a look. It's very interesting. Cheers --Sikh-History 17:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your decision here has been made in haste. I have a good record as an editor and revoking such a tool makes life difficult or at least read this and reconsider your decision Thanks--Sikh-History 19:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's an issue of WP:OWN or not, Khokhar's edits do not constitute vandalism. Indiscriminate blanking of huge sections is vandalism, but a selective, purposeful removal of a few lines is not. If you promise not to use Twinkle for anything other than obvious vandalism, I will restore it to you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi King Of Hearts. I promise not to misuse Twinkle if you restore it. Like I said to the other editor, think I need a wikibreak, because in this instance, I kind of got mad at him deleting verifiable references. It will never happen again and I apologise for my childish behaviour unreservedly. Thanks for taking the time to reply and giving me some great advice. Cheers and All the best. --Sikh-History 15:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have restored Twinkle access to you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for stopping my bout of unauthorized AfD closures before I got into trouble. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also: thanks for cleaning up after me. If you have problems with any of my closures - feel free to reopen them.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't label them "unauthorized"; you were clearly acting in good faith. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Honor Society band

I don't care if they want to call it a group or a band, but it should be in parens either way. Honor Society (band) is protected so would you mind moving it please? I don't want to get into a move war by moving it back to ... (group). --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Question Re: 222.127.15.250

Hey, I appreciate your comment on my report for 222.127.14.250 and just wanted to clarify the extent to which 4im warnings are valid. I put it on the ip's talk page at that level mostly because he had been repeatedly messing with that page over the 20 minutes before (and had been reverted by another user earlier but never warned). I also waited two more reverts for reporting but thats a little bit of stretch I'll admit :). Would it be better to start at a mid level warning or do you think always start at 1?. Jamesofur (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would say: If a user has vandalized an article once or twice and was reverted but not warned, and I saw him/her vandalizing a second or third time, I would give a test2. If it's somewhat intensive (such as this), I would give a test3. I only give test4im's in rare instances, such as: replacing an article with 220 KB of "PENIS" repeated over and over again, making several vandalisms a minute (aka vandalbot), etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough thanks again Jamesofur (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

AIV

I'm not quite sure what you were thinking here but this is plenty for a 4im warning. Toddst1 (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, must have missed that. Feel free to block if you wish. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

DocKino

Hi King of Hearts. I watched with dismay the situation that unfolded between DocKino and Jeff G. DocKino is a good contributor and I'm sad to see him blocked. I wonder, if you don't mind explaining, how his actions constituted harassment? I'm reviewing both of their contributions and it looks like they were both templating each other in an exchange that could have been stopped by either party had they chosen to disengage. I see some personal attacks (DocKino calling Jeff mentally disturbed) but I'm not sure how that's harassment. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's for violating WP:NPA. But there is no "NPA-block," only {{uw-hblock}}. It's the template that describes the situation most closely. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

But perhaps the template could be reworded to say "making personal attacks or attempting to harass other users"? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah maybe. Sometimes I'll just type something, especially if it's an established user and the regular templates don't seem to fit. It helps them understand exactly what they're being blocked for and sometimes preempts an unblock request. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Orly Taitz relisting -- suggestion

Instead of creating a 3rd AfD, can you reopen the second? That way, those of us who commented late last month wouldn't have to repeat our comments unless we wanted to change or amplify them.

If that's technically unfeasible, however, then I have no problem with your closing it as you did. JamesMLane t c 05:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It is technically possible. However, I think DRV relists usually result in a new nomination. Due to the special circumstances (early closure), however, I put up a note on the 3rd nomination asking which one !voters would prefer. I'll re-open the 2nd if there's consensus to do so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Shakira protection

Thanks for that: with her music re-entering the pop music charts again, there's been an increase in unproductive edits on her article. Thank you. Acalamari 20:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:Zara1709

Hi there. I appreciate that I did not give evidence of actual contravention of the 3RR. However I was actually reporting a serious threat by this editor on the article talk page to start an edit war, as I clearly explained. I reported this because this behaviour clearly violates WP:EW, and WP:EW advises me to report it, as a pre-emptive measure. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, although I thought I worded it quite explicitly. However, it no longer matters, as other admins have since taken it up at WP:AN/I and have classified it as edit warring. Thanks anyway for taking the time to respond. Wdford (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I sure you know this already King, but WP:AN3 is for reports of 3RR and edit warring, which may not involve an actual 3RR violation. The article in question is protected anyhow, but both editors (Zara and Wdford) were technically edit warring, particularly with the former users' block log. No biggie tho, and love the username theme you've got going on! Nja²⁴⁷ 10:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Baatin

Not another darn "Wikipedia Bully"... I was working on that page to make it notable.(LonerXL (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Taitz

You relisted Orly Taitz yesterday and it's already been closed as a keep. What's that about? I thought the point of relisting was for it to be relisted - if it was just going to be kept, why not call it overturned and be done? (Will crostpost to the closing admin.) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It should not have been closed and should have run the 7 days. I'll look into the matter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've replied at Jclemens' talk page. It seems to me that he has, in practical effect, transformed your conclusion that the consensus was to relist into an overturn. I'm not sure that there was consensus to relist, to be candid, but there certainly wasn't consensus to overturn. This result accordingly won't do. Although DRV isn't well-suited to dealing with the situation, I think that renominating the article gives effect to your conculsions about the DRV consensus without benig pointy. What's your view?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Also, you wrote above that you "think DRV relists usually result in a new nomination" - doesn't that, too, support renomination?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You see, if this had a second DRV, I would say "Endorse keep, not the closure. The early closure was highly inappropriate, but per WP:SNOW, process for the sake of process would be counterproductive and just lead to more drama." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be process for the sake of process (and even if it would be, see WP:PIMP). Although there is too much dissent to hope for a clean delete vote, it remains to be seen whether this should be a no-consensus close (which is the most one can possibly wring from the AFD and DRV), leaving open the possibility of another nomination later, or a keep vote, which really makes it tough to imagine a future nomination succeeding. SNOW just doesn't apply here, a point that SNOW itself underlines: "[i]f an issue is 'snowballed', and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause." Unless my objection that it should not have been closed and should have run the full seven days is not only mistaken but unreasonable -- something I doubt you'd agree with, since you said exactly that above -- SNOW is off the table.

A second DRV is unnecessary: the mandate from the first one has not yet been fulfilled, so all that is necessary to fix this situation is to implement what the first DRV decided. That means either JClemens reversing himself (whether under pressure or of his own volition comes to the same thing) or a new nomination (which you seem to have indicated would be the normal thing to happen anyway). I've asked Clemens to reverse himself, and that would of course be the best result. It would help for him to be pushed a little. I've considered simply removing the close and relisting it manually, but that doesn't seem appropriate. If he refuses, I don't see what other option there is other than for someone to renominate.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this can be renominated. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I've asked Clemens to revert his early close and he has made it clear that he refuses. I have accordingly relisted the AFD myself: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (3rd nomination). I would appreciate it if you would let me know which admin's noticeboard you would regard as most appropriate for reporting Clemens' conduct.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to report his conduct, as he was unaware of the DRV situation. But I do approve of letting the third nomination run its course. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I can understand and forgive his closing the AFD when he was unaware of the DRV situation. What cannot be justified, however, is his refusal to correct the error after it was brought to his attention. He has freely admitted that the early close was improper, and that the way he closed lines up with his personal opinion on the merits of the dispute (by sheer coincidence, we are to believe). In that situation, the only honorable course of action would be for him to fix the mistake. His refusal to do so demands some kind of response.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess you can go on WP:ANI then. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Jerkin'

hi, I noticed you were on the deletion logs for this page.. it seems to be salted. I'm not sure if you know but there has been some local coverage in the LA Weekly about this "trend", and it appears there is an interest in this article to exist. Can you restore the article so sources can be added and it can be brought up to standards? thanks riffic (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done - You can find it at User:Riffic/Jerkin'. Since it's been deleted multiple times, you may have to search through the history to find relevant revisions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#Request for abusefilter(editfilter) permissions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

responded.Smallman12q (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Smallman12q (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States)

Hello, King of Hearts! As you edited the List of British females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States), I invite you to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States); I am arguing for some sort of inclusion of the list and would welcome your participation there. Nobody else seems to be paying attention to the value of the information or the question of merging or expanding the list. Thanks in advance if you're willing to vote or comment, whatever your take might be. Abrazame (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-external-images

Is MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-external-images suppose to tell users to report problems to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation? I thought it was suppose to go to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives?--Otterathome (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I copy-pasted it from MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-AFC, that's why. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Filter Manager

Hi there,

I noticed your question to Smallman12q on the talk page (question 2) and thought I would give it a shot. It may be totally wrong, but I figured I should put it here, separate from the talk page, so as not to ruin it for him if I am correct. Would the regex below work in your example?

Bria(n|nna) is a (bold|headline) text[.]

I cannot check with batch testing since you need the permission, but I used a website and it seemed to work. Feel free to let me know on my talk or the EF talk page. Thanks, MacMed^talk_stalk 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup. My personal preference would be Brian(na)? is a (bold|headline) text\., but yours is correct. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Would yours be any more optimized (reduce strain on system) or is it just a personal thing? Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 18:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a tiny, tiny bit. The period, however, is entirely cosmetic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see its been solved. Erm...well I came up with Brian(na|) is a (bold|headline) text.\b.Smallman12q (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a problem with the period: In regex, the period is not a literal; it actually stands for any character (e.g. A, t, 3, %, etc.) except for the break characters \r and \n. Read through the whole thing, feel free to ask me if there's anything you don't understand. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

=(, a period is a wild character...right. So I'd have to put it in a character class. Perhaps I am unqualified. *.* Smallman12q (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we all make mistakes. If you need to remember anything about regex, it's [\^$.|?*+(){}. Not in the list, then WYSIWIG. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I get one for me=P. (Sorry for the delayed response, I didn't check that page until now). Also, would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Criteria_for_Abusefilter.2Feditfilter_permissions for helping devolp criteria for granting nonadmins permissions?Smallman12q (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Template talk DYK - Battle of Stralsund

Thank you for your message. I responded on the TDYK talk page. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

T:TDYK

And done. Trimmed the hook :) Cheers, I'^mperator 20:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Um...it looks like you forgot to give credit for T:DYK/P1. You might want to find the credits... :D Cheers, I'^mperator 21:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Salting a page

Forgive me if maybe I'm not seeing something, but I think you meant to salt Exile the brave, but I think you just "unprotected" it on accident. I just wanted to check, as I'm still getting my admin-bearings. ;-) Killiondude (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't protected in the first place, so I effectively did absolutely nothing to the page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Hence my quotation marks around unprotected, above. :-) Killiondude (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

GnuDoyng

Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at GnuDoyng's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

blocked

You blocked DocKino. In the United States article, he hasn't been too helpful. For example, in the caption of a White House photo, he removed a phrase about John Adams being the first resident there so now it looks like Washington was there, which is wrong and could get a student a lower grade if they wrote a paper based on WP.

I am not calling for extending the block on DocKino but have asked him to be more careful about the US article. I hope he or she will be a good editor. User F203 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"No Israel"

Please remove the image from the blacklist. Using it is totally OK unless the community decided (following the rules) otherwise. Please wait few days before doing such an action. Thank you for understanding.--OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello?!--OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 18:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(Untitled2)

Why did your delete "Sticky Dirt"?

What the hell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.18.31 (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted Sticky Dirt because the article does not assert why its subject is important or significant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ilona Staller

You concluded that this article was not undergoing edit warring because it has only 1 revert in 5 days. By my count, it has been reverted 6 times in 12 days. I keep improving the article by adding new references or deleting weak references to address perceived BLP and RS issues, but to no avail. Should I revert completely in a short time frame to get a third party review? Thanks 01:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghosts&empties (talk • contribs) 02:41, August 12, 2009

You can try at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard or Wikipedia:Third opinion. These places help you resolve a dispute, rather than reporting another user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect...

B is wrong: sanctions against Clemens are appropriate and the ANI thread should continue until they are imposed. You evidently disagree, and that's fine. If B is correct, however, which was your stated rationale for closing the ANI thread, you should close both the discussions he said ought to be closed, no? He said "Continuing this thread and the one on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement only add to the drama, so I'd like to propose we close both of them." Either B is wrong and neither thread should be closed, or he is right and both should be. Personally, I think both should be left both open, but we must be consistent.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album)

Hi The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album) is back, which you deleted. It is fairly different to the earlier version, but confirmed by twitter messages? Do you think it should be deleted again (speedy delete or AfD), or should we restore the old history? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the original version was pure WP:CRYSTAL; it even claimed itself that it was a "rumoured greatest hits album." But now there are plenty of News sources, so I think it would be better to just work on improving the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RfA surprise

Hey there KOH. Maunus' RfA is now live; the 'surprise !vote' you'd coded there shows up now when viewed as transcluded from the RfA page, but doesn't show on the page itself. Dunno if that's working as intended, or not? I haven't amended it or anything, will leave it up to you... cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Hey King, just a reminder to include the {{DYKbotdo}} template when updating queues. The bot just posted on WP:AN because it didn't recognise that the queue had been updated. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Got it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

GnuDoyng 2

Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at GnuDoyng's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

By the way, King of Hearts. I see you have put the zh-4 box in your user page. Are you of Chinese origin? ;) --GnuDoyng (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was born in Hangzhou, but came to America when I was three. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A picturesque city where John Leighton Stuart now rests in peace. --GnuDoyng (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

File:PeterPan1.jpg

Please see [2]. The consensus was to keep. It was not "neutral" as you claimed when you nominated it for deletion again. LargoLarry (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "neutral" consensus; "neutral" means that I am nominating the image merely as a procedure, and not voicing "delete" like most nominators. I relisted the discussion because I found no consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 30. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

I would like to thank you for deleting the old Azzi Family page, while it is true that we do not know our true origin we are very certain that it is most likely not Italian. I have looked at that article for hours just wondering who on this planet had written it and was too afraid to delete it because I really didn't have a reason to as I did not know if the information on it was false or not. Although I see a part of the military and civil service section that does actually have some truth to it, the mayor of Tabarja's name was Nabih Azzi and he did indeed recieve a Free French Medal of honor as well as two civil service medals and one Limited Edition Dodge Royal Monaco from Fouad Chehab, this is common knowledge in the Tabarja area. Although I must say that I do not know if the rest of those people existed or not. Thank you, you have relieved me and my family of a lot of stress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.69.208.4 (talk • contribs) 17:43, August 12, 2009

No problem. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Head counting

Did you really read some convincing keep argument on this discussion, or you just counted the votes? --Damiens.rf 18:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

NFCC #8 states "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." The keep !voters agree that it is "historically significant." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What arguments from the "keep !voters" convinced you this is a historically significant image? Or maybe you didn't care to consider arguments and just counted how many of them stated a belief in the historically significance of the image? --Damiens.rf 18:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Historically significant" is subjective; on the other hand, "decorative" is also subjective. What argument did you use other than saying that it is decorative? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand it is the burden of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale? --Damiens.rf 13:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is: Does the image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? Now, looking back at it, I am willing to re-close it as a "no consensus," but there definitely does not exist a consensus to delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to repeat myself but, again, as an administrator involved in image deletion discussions, are you aware that our policy governing the use of non-free content material stipulates that it is the burden of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, and that this implies that, in the case of a "lack of consensus" (if this is how you read that discussion), the non-free content material should to be removed? --Damiens.rf 18:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand the burden of proof, but for Articles for deletion, the burden of proof is also on the creator of the article per WP:V. However, no consensus AfD closes default to keep. Nowhere in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Administrator instructions do I see that no consensus NFCC images default to delete. For example, see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 22#File:CherryCokeBottle.jpg, Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 18#WbNORTHstand_gallery_470x313.jpg, etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No consensus discussion about non-free content do imply the removal of the non-free content. How else does you interpret the above mentioned piece of WP:NFCC? I've raised a concern in the deletion nomination that it was not clear how the image significantly aided in the understanding of the article, but none of the keep voters addressed that concern. Once the users seeking to retain the image failed to provide a rationale explaining how the image significantly aids understanding (and you conceded they failed), the image should be removed. --Damiens.rf 19:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on my understanding of burden of proof on AfD, I'm not so sure. I've put up a question at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#No consensus, since nowhere in policy is it written down what FfD no consensus closes default to. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems it didn't attracted many eyes. Would you consider posting it to the much more active WT:NFCC (or maybe just understand your mistake and reclose the ffd as delete)? --Damiens.rf 11:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The great majority of editors who commented on this nomination considered that the photo has historic value and hence adds to the article. Why are you trying to impose your views on the photo? - I'm satisfied that the photo meets the criterion, and there seems to be no reason to assume that the other editors who commented didn't also take this into account. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You are arguing for the head-count, right? --Damiens.rf 12:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We'll just leave it at this. Wait for the discussion to end, then decide what to do. (I've added it to CENT, and another user has added it to RFC.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of those discussions, I've never agreed with your interpretation of the FFD discussion as a case for keep/no-consensus. It's more a case where none of the keep voters care to argue why was the image historical or relevant for the understanding. They surely repeated that, but never gave any argument to support such claim. Would you consider deleting that specific image now, in the light of this? --Damiens.rf 19:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindented) Mind explaining how File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg is historical? I feel that "historical" is a subjective rather than objective criterion; you can't really "explain" why. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg is a Pulitzer Prize winning photography. It was featured on postage stamps[3], had been turned in a sculpture[4], into a commemorative coin[5], had been re-staged at the 9/11 [6], had movies shot about it and books written after it. File:New_Zealand_soldiers_in_Iraq,_March,_2004.jpg shows "soldiers doing what they were deployed to do". Would you delete it, please? --Damiens.rf 21:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I concede that the keep arguments were weak. But what makes your arguments for deletion any stronger? As I interpret the NFCC enforcement rule, it doesn't make weak deletion arguments stronger. To do so would completely redefine consensus. What it does is (possibly) make no consensus closures default to delete. If not for the AfD "burden of proof" I mentioned, I am more than willing to delete it, as I would be simply following the procedures that imply that no consensus closures should default to delete. But as we see with AfD, even though the burden of proof is with those seeking to retain content, no consensus closures still default to keep. I stand by my no consensus closure; what to do with a no consensus is subject to debate. If the discussion does result in no consensus → delete, then I will delete it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was wise. --Damiens.rf 12:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

one more...

Hi. Just to let you know there's one more ongoing deletion debate where the keepers are arguing about irrelevant points like irreplaceability (when the deletion nomination is actually about WP:NFCC#8). Please, try to keep some distance from that, saving us from your head-counting-based closings. Enough damaged has been done to the project with the recent change on the definition of "reader understanding" in regard to paragraphs about soldiers working. --Damiens.rf 19:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Order of credits in DYK hook sets

It's of little consequence, but I thought you might want to know that there's no need to separate the "DYKMAKE" from the "DYKNOM" credits in a DYK hook set. I think the bot can figure things out. Additionally, I think it's somewhat beneficial to put the "nom" for a hook next to the "make" for that hook (i.e., keep them together), just in case the hook needs to be moved to another queue or deleted. Thought you'd want to know. --Orlady (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirley, Squirrely and Melvin: LIVE

In regard to this AfD, I would like to request reconsideration. While there were sources added to the article, at least one of them was invalid in that it didn't mention the subject album nor did it support the claim it was supposed to support. Supposedly George Gimarc's book Post Punk Diary identifies the personnel on this album in its entry about Chipmunk Punk, but the book is available on Google Books, doesn't mention this album anywhere, and doesn't refer to it in its entry on Chipmunk Punk. [7] I even mentioned this in my own recommendation. The fact that one of the sources provided was invalid makes me suspicious of the other source provided by the same person (the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll) which is not online and which I haven't had the chance to look up yet. Two of the other three sources mentioned the artist Shirley, Squirrely and Melvin but did not even mention the title of this album, much less establish the alleged collaboration with The Chipmunks. My recommendation would be to reopen the discussion. Thanks! --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What a "no consensus" closure means is that the status quo is kept. Therefore, you could renominate the article and argue your points, emphasizing how sources exist but that they are invalid. I've had a few bad experiences with reopening AfDs when requested to do so on my talk page, so I don't think reopening the original nomination itself is a good idea. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

See...

This. Gets reported here Wknight94 ^talk 14:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought the filter was disabled. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists

Hiya,

Re. Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists, [dispute going on at Talk:List of best-selling music artists|ANI thread here] etc,

Please could you keep me updated on this one, the sock issue, etc.

I've been working very hard to mediate the discussion to consensus (as you'll see on the talk itself), and as the talk is currently fully-protected, we're a bit stuck. I understand the complexity of the socking issues, I'd just appreciate it if you could let me know what happens. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  22:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/226 is the edit filter I set up; it currently does not make any actions. Also, it's not full protection, but semi-protection. I would recommend that you speak with Tedder about it, since he protected the pages. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

92 IP back at talk:list of best selling...

I made a statement about it at ANI again. It did trigger the filter too but some edits got through. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

another barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For building an edit filter to restore civility and allow protection to be lifted. Stepping in and helping out with conflicts is admirable and valued. tedder (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Filter

Is there way to block the Saban troll's other edits? I don't know if there's a string that can be caught with the edits of 64.228.128.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they seem to be uncharacteristic: changing people's ages, removing content. There are good reasons to do both of these, so checking for a string is impossible. However, is there an IP range we can narrow this down to? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There are between three and five IP ranges based on his contributions for this year. I asked Versageek to check them out, and they all appear to be high traffic and not all this guy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I don't think there is a way. I simply don't see a pattern in the Saban troll's edits other than the blatant "critial, lousy American adaptation" rubbish. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Public housing in Hong Kong

Hi, you have moved a discussion to Talk:Public housing in Hong Kong. While I can somewhat understand the rationale, it may create a confusion in the future. The discussion was not directly related to this article, but rather to one (several) of its sub-articles. As the text stands now, it looks like the article Public housing in Hong Kong was proposed for deletion, which was not the case. Is it possible to give some background, maybe by saying where the discussion had taken place? Cheers. olivier (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, thank you! olivier (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Another 92 IP getting around the filter

New 92 IP is editing as I speak, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.3.162.220 Momo san ^Gespräch 15:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like somebody disabled the filter and no actions are being taken. Apparently looking down it may have caught false positives. Momo san ^Gespräch 15:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it and re-enabled it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

fetch episodes protection

you recently procted the fetch episodes page put [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 17:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 17:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC))= this seem too long. I can see 3 mounths not fours years. thanks please respondExtremeguy (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see the request on WP:RFPP. The last three times protection was used, it was too short, and thus ineffective. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

RFPP @ University of Canada West

Hey KoH ... have a quick look at my comments on WP:RFPP regarding the action on subject article. Thanks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I upgraded it to full. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring has started again, with a new ip pushing the agenda of the previous ips. Care to protect the article again? --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take a close look at university canada west. The RONZ and Ingroman users have stated in the discusion they both work for this private for profit "university". Please see the discussions, I beleive they are trying to advertise for the school on wikipedia. Whenever something negative appears about the school they delete it. The school is unique in canada in that you cannot transfer credits out, or be recognized as approved for any kind of grad school entry. These facts were sourced, but they say the refrences dispute this, which they do not. It is clear they are being paid to watch this wiki site by this diploma mill, and I assume wikipedia is not a diploma mill advertising service.

Thank you for looking into this. I appreciate it, and welcome you comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.175 (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected images on main page

You've placed a few unprotected images on the main page recently, including File:Ctenomorpha chronus02.jpg. Make sure you review the DYK instructions. — RockMFR 22:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep forgetting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Admin coaching

Sure, I agree to all the conditions and look forward to getting started.--Giants27 (c|s) 03:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's great to hear! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Shall I create the admin coaching page or will you?--Giants27 (c|s) 04:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have already done so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How to handle a duplicate article

Hey! I desired an opinion from a seasoned editor and you seem to be more-than-qualified. During my nightly patrols, I came upon Leon Nunez and Leon Nunez (comics). What do you think should happen? Send one to AfD, prod, let them be, other unspecified action? TheTito ^(Discuss) 07:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently another editor has redirected Leon Nunez (comics) to Leon Nunez. (That is what you're supposed to do.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the time and the letting me pick your brain.TheTito ^(Discuss) 20:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Your closure of the no homo AfD

As someone trying to give review on the DYK nomination of no homo, the way in which you closed the AfD debate gave me considerable difficulty. Because you had cited the existence of a DYK nom as a reason to close as keep under WP:IAR, I felt compelled today to deny the DKY nomination. If the DKY nom had not existed, the AfD debate would likely have continued for several more days, and might still, in fact, be underway. It seems to me that you've put the cart before the horse with this ruling. Isn't it more important to build a solid consensus, first, on whether an article should be here — before we give it the rather trivial honor of listing it on the DYK page? You've clearly been here for longer than I have, and have achieved a greater "status", but in my opinion, you've made a mistake here that requires redress. A DYK nom is not a reason to speedily close an AfD. Closing an AfD in the middle of a DYK nom is particularly dirty pool because it makes reviewers dig around a lot harder than they need to. I would ask that you personally call for either a deletion review or a second AfD debate, now that the "impediment" of the DYK nom has been reviewed. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 15:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, DYK was not the reason I closed it as keep. Normally, AfDs should not be WP:SNOW closed. DYK was my justification for a SNOW close. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, if we didn't close such obvious AfDs early, someone could game the system as follows: Wait until a DYK has been on the suggestion for 5 days. Then nominate it for AfD, where it will have to stay for 7 days even if it's a SNOWy keep. By then, the DYK will have gone stale. Interpretation of consensus (note that not a single !voter mentioned DYK) is different from the decision of when to implement it. Therefore, I recommend that you reinstate the DYK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why didn't you mention WP:SNOW? Perhaps because you didn't want to give the overt impression of using a controversial argument for closing something early? I don't know if I quite understand your rationale. DYK wasn't the reason you closed as keep, but DYK was your justification for an (unmentioned) SNOW close that had the result of keeping the article. Not sure I see the actual difference, there. No offense, but it really sounds like you were trying to doing a manipulative little dance, so that you could get the outcome you wanted without raising too many red flags. I'm with User:Mairi from your admin review: there was something just a little "off" about the way you handled this. Apparently Mairi was right in seeing that you really meant to do a SNOW clause, and, indeed, I would've preferred you use the rationale you meant instead of one that was completely inappropriate (IAR). But I would have liked, even more, had you just let the discussion run its normal, 7-day course. The only "harm" in letting the discussion run its full 7 days was that the DYK nom might've failed. And DYK's simply not so important that it should in any way be used to justify the closure of an AfD.

In fact, I tend to think that objective viewing of this one case would suggest that you were the one gaming the system. While I take your point about how the system could indeed be gamed in the other direction, there's no evidence that such at all happened in this case. The AfD nomination was quite genuine, and almost certainly done without knowledge of the DYK nomination (the DYK and the AfD happened five hours, not five days, apart). And because it's only you suggesting the DYK link, it's quite obvious that you're "clearing the pitch" for the DYK nomination to go ahead. It is possible for a legitimate AfD and DYK to happen at the same time. When that occurs, I see no reason to automatically discount the AfD as necessarily gamesmanship. After all, unless you regularly visit the "DYK space", there's no way to tell that an article is up for a DYK spot. I think that as long as we carefully pay attention to who's making the AfD complaint and who's regularly hanging out in DYK-land, we should be able to reasonably spot most "gamers". In this case, there's just no evidence to link User:Exploding Boy to the DYK page. That editor genuinely thought he had a grievance, and he never backed down from that position. He got one person to join him, and another to suggest that the information belonged elsewhere. It was a genuine debate that deserved to run its course, more than the article deserved to be on DYK. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 19:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I am not suggesting Exploding Boy is gaming the system; I am merely saying that if such AfDs were not SNOWed, the potential to game the system exists. After all, why do we have passwords for our accounts? I trust that you won't log in to my account in order to vandalize, but the potential for that exists. Moreover, consider why SNOW closes are prohibited. It's because there's that 1% chance that the result might be different, while there is no harm in letting the AfD run its course. However, that 1% is very minor; we only follow process because there is absolutely no harm in doing so. But the prospect of failing DYK is large enough to trump that 1%. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding FFD closure

Hi,

I'm a little concerned about your closure of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 20#File:New Zealand soldiers in Iraq, March, 2004.jpg as "no consensus" a couple of days back. If was nominated for beeing a non-free image that did not significantly aid the understanding of the article, the people wanting to keep it focused almost entierly on it not beeing replacable (not the issue), that it had "some value" as illustration (hardly a ringing endorsement of it's significance), historical significanse of the event (not the same as image beeng significant for understanding the article) and one even claimed the entire nomination was spurious (clearly showing a lack of policy understanding).

In your (amended) closing statement you even say "(...)It has not been shown whether the image significantly aids understanding or is merely decorative". I agree with that statement, the only thing I don't understand is that if you agree that it has not been shown that the image is in compliance with WP:NONFREE, why was the image kept? Per the non-free policy "Enforcement" section:

“

• A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that that satisfies all 10 criteria.(...)
  • Note that it is the burden of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale(...)

”

Emphasis added, italcs original. Since we seem to agree that no convincing rationale having been provided for how the image significantly increase the readers understanding I don't feel that a "no consensus" close is apropriate in this case. It leaves the non-free policy compliance issue unresolved and gives a degree of protection against someone re-raising the issue for some time since re-nominations soon after a XfD closure is frowned upon in general. As the closing admin would you be open to reconsider the close? or at least re-open (re-list) the debate for another week to get more input? Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Currently, there is no policy governing "no consensus" results for fair-use images. I'm not arguing that such images should not be deleted; rather, there is nothing to suggest that I should delete them. "Burden of proof" seemingly argues for their deletion, until you consider AfDs. Even if those seeking to retain an article fail to establish verifiability, the article is kept on a "no consensus." Accordingly, I have opened up a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#No consensus in order to formulate a policy; feel free to participate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your DYK question

Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at Template_talk:Did_you_know.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your assistance please.

You closed the discussion on the redirection of Dostun to Afghanistan. The contrubitor who created that redirection, created over one hundred other similar redirections.

I think the next step that would impose the smallest administrative burden on the wikipedia community would be for the creator of those redirections to place {{db-author}} tags on them. I have asked them to consider that.

This was my first redirect for discussion. If the redirect creator doesn't choose to do apply {{db-author}} tags, if I understand the instructions, I could nominate the other geographic redirects in a single bunch, or several bunchs, by, for instance, country.

Have I got that right?

Only one contributor weighed in. Is that sufficient precedent for a mass nomination?

How long do you think I should wait to see if the redirect creator replies to my suggestion they apply {{db-author}} tags?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They seem to be pretty active, so I think they'll reply to your message. If they agree, don't have them place {{db-author}}; refer it to me, and I can delete them all very quickly using Special:Nuke. If they disagree, then you can do a mass nomination. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. They don't seem interested in the {{db-author}} approach. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

File:New Zealand soldiers in Iraq, March, 2004.jpg

In all seriousness, if you're not going to delete these images, the least you can do is link to the discussion on the image talk page. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not refusing to delete it; I am just uncomfortable deleting it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please link to the discussion on the image talk page, so that others can review it as needed? Is that not what is usually done upon an image being kept after a discussion? J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you know what I'm going to say now... If there is no consensus to retain NFC, it should be deleted. The non-free content criteria are pretty clear about this, and, regardless of the RfC, until policy is changed, it should be followed. This is pretty much exactly what I was talking about in your administrator review (and I hadn't seen this discussion, as you hadn't linked it on the talk page). J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The image falls under the legal definition of fair use, so there is WP:NODEADLINE. For me to delete it now would be like SNOW-closing an AfD. I will delete it when the discussion ends, assuming that it results in a consensus for no consensus closures to result in delete. Yes, the NFCC are pretty clear, but so is WP:BURDEN (and no consensus AfDs default to keep). It is this confusion that has prompted me to open the RfC in the first place. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing what WP:BURDEN has to do with this, especially not in support of keeping NFC when there is no consensus to do so. In anything, the fact that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" shows that it is up to those wishing to retain the material to convince to demonstrate that it is in the interests of the encyclopedia to keep it. What you're basically saying is "I know policy says I should delete it, but I'm not going to delete it". Or am I wrong? I'm really not seeing where there's any ambiguity here, it just looks to me like you're acting directly in opposition to policy. J Milburn (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Then what you're saying is that anyone who closes an AfD as no consensus, defaulting to keep, is acting in direct opposition to policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After all, the weakness of WP:OTHERSTUFF only goes so far. AfD is surely large enough to cause me concern, wouldn't you agree? The thing is, nowhere in WP:NOCONSENSUS or WP:DELPRO does it say that no consensus non-free images default to delete. I am not pro-NFC; I am merely following process (or the lack thereof). The RfC will help write it into process. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm, no, as the non-free content criteria rarely have anything to do with AfDs. Serious question- do you know what the term burden of proof actually means? J Milburn (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But another serious question - Do you get my AfD analogy? If it is required for article creators to show why the content should be retained, why do AfD no consensus results default to keep? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, stop. AfDs are not important. We're not talking about AfDs. We're talking about the non-free content criteria, which typically do not influence AfDs. The NFCC are clear with regards to where the burden of proof lies. Where is the ambiguity? J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, we'll stop. The discussion ends, I delete the image. Simple? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thankyou. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Storm shadow dispute

You protected it with the unsourced/speculation The Movie Master 1 (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be another case of meta:The Wrong Version. What the IP added was sourced, so what we have here is a content dispute. You should try to work things out with the IP on the talk page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying but they believe they're right based on what they think and what happened earlier in the movie and their favor for the character but as I said he thinks he right, I'll keep trying though, Thanks for the help The Movie Master 1 (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that based on the movie, we did not actually see the character die. "Movie Master" seems to feel that every fact on the page must be 100% accurate (he wants to wait until the sequel is released before he's willing to acknowledge that Storm Shadow could have survived). Well, that's great : but what I am saying is that by Movie Master's own standards, the character was NOT shown to die. He was shown to be injured, possibly fatally. I also included a link to an article where they interview the actor who plays Storm Shadow, who explicitly states that he will be returning in sequels. If a sequel is never produced, we still can't say that Storm Shadow died : we can only say that in the movie that was released, he was defeated and injured, possibly fatally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.212.138 (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

• From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
• Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
• News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• 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 SoxBot (talk) at 02:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for AnnArbor.com

On August 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article AnnArbor.com, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at Template_talk:Did_you_know.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. OTRS came through with an okay on the photo. You already okayed this for DYK in such general terms it's probably okay but thought I should let you know. Thanks for your help! -SusanLesch (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

adding an unclosed afd to gain more exposure and input

is there a category that you recommend adding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Roger_Currie_%282nd_nomination%29 to in order to gain more exposure? Theserialcomma (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I sorted it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_for_August_23

Since you are a regular reviewer at DYK, I request you to review Siddhivinayak Mahaganapati Temple (Titwala) for 23 August, I know I am a little late for the "articles should be nominated at least five days" deadline. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the new wording. Please take a look. Can you put a green tick instead of the question mark now. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked the prep area: it has the old wording: please replace it with "... that devotees believe that worshipping the Hindu god Ganesha (pictured) at the Siddhivinayak Mahaganapati Temple, Titwala will result in a successful marriage?" (your-the better- wording). Feel free to move the article.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb one again: article Siddhivinayak Mahaganapati Temple was not given DYK credit. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

AbuseFilter

Please see Wikipedia talk:Edit filter#Filter Cleanup, a filter/filters which you were the last to edit is/are on the list of filters that I identified to disable. Please comment there if you do not want this/these filter/filters disabled. Prodego ^talk 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work.

Thanks very much, all responsible editors are working towards the betterment of the wiki in their own way, I appreciate your contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Could you please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#Request_for_abusefilter.28editfilter.29_permissions with regards to my request for edit filter permissions d. Thanks.Smallman12q (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

2009–10 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round

Hi King of Hearts,

Can you update the first leg of the Knock out round. The data is updated in the parent page, but this one is not updated since you have protected it. Please get them updated and make the data consistent.

Thanks & keep up the good work. Chock (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel that admins shouldn't be editing the same pages that they protected. I think you should go to WP:RFPP#Current requests for edits to a protected page and make a request there. (Tell them I told you to go there.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion of Jay Jennings

I have no problem with you deleting the page. The question that I have is that I was told to put that template on the page at the WP:DeletionReview. By doing this, I was creating a page, but was I incorrect for doing this. Thanks for your help. keystoneridin! (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. I put the correct template {{delrev}} on the page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

BDSA

What was the "infringement" on the Bruce Schulman website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattpearson99 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the content was copied from [8]. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Note

Please take part in Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#Special:AbuseFilter.2F103_not_working as you seem to be editing it a lot.--Otterathome (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If the filter we have been discussing it still going to catch the all the same vandal edits as before, feel free to mark Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Uncy_2 as done.--Otterathome (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:New Zealand soldiers in Iraq, March, 2004.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:New Zealand soldiers in Iraq, March, 2004.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Damiens.rf 22:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(Untitled3)

Hello King. I see that you closed the RfD discussion on the Upn.com article here with the result as delete . I just wanted to let you know that this section included sixteen other articles of the same format (url's, dot-com 's), which probably should have been deleted as well. (I put them in the summary, since sixteen individual entries in the RFD would have been excessive. In hindsight, I probably should have titled the section "Multiple articles"). Could you go ahead and delete those others as well? Thanks for all your efforts. -Sme3 (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Cbc.ca v. CBC.ca

Hi, did you mean to delete CBC.ca? This looks like a valid article and certainly not a redirect. I'm thinking that the listing at the RFD deletion discussion should have been for Cbc.ca, which was the redirect to CBC.ca. Cheers. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly unfair block and admins taking sides

Hi King of hearts,

I see you are very active on the incident boards and there was recently an incident here [9] which I reported with all the evidence needed, yet a senior admin took sides against me and even blocked me when there was clear evidence against the other user and I had done nothing wrong, In fact a number of 'Indian' editors shad been canvassing against me, including with that administrator that blocked me, such as here [10] and this can be easily verified as you were recently involved in a matter where the said editor used TW privilages unfairly against me, here [11] . I would appreciate it if you could help or advise me on this matter. Regards. Khokhar (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that both of you should stop edit warring. Neither of you is right or wrong; you should discuss your changes on the talk page first. Remember to stay cool when the editing gets hot. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

help

would you mind to help me accelerate my understanding of wiki language? i would love to contribute more, but can't understand wiki programming language. help me please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshymail (talk • contribs) 07:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This page might be of use to you. If you have any questions when reading it, feel free to ask. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Url redirects

I saw Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_11

The outcome of the discussion interferes with Wikipedia:Notability (web), which says "Websites or content which fail these guidelines but are linked to a topic or subject which does merit inclusion may be redirected to that topic or subject rather than be listed for deletion." - The whole point of redirecting the URLs to the article pages is to cover those kinds of websites. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There was consensus to delete the redirects at the RfD. Currently, this use is not covered by WP:RCAT but it is covered by WP:WEB; we often have conflicting guidelines. In these cases, the best thing to do would be to open up a discussion to form a consensus on whether to include such redirects. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As per your advice I started Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)#Redirects_from_websites_to_subjects :) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

• News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
• Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• 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 SoxBot (talk) at 05:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MacMed

Hi, I am concerned about your closure of this nomination. MacMed is a dedicated and skilled editor and WP:NOTNOW is not appropriate in this case. That essay was designed for editors who have only been around a few weeks and have no experience. That said, if you read the page it contains the following sentences:

• However this should be done with caution and good judgment. If there is any doubt, posting to the candidate's talkpage and asking them about their RfA is often a better course of action than abruptly closing their good faith attempt at adminship.
• Note that some editors prefer their RFAs to remain open, even if clearly failing, as the feedback is useful.

I don't see any evidence that you have asked the editor about this anywhere. And it was open was less than two hours altogether; this almost seems derisive. I'm won't undo your close unless the candidate indicates that this is their wish. However I urge you to be much more cautious before doing this again. Best regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: for your information, the editor has decided to re-open it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was mainly operating on the clause "a pile-on of oppose comments may occur ... [and] be demoralizing for the candidate." Regardless, since he wishes to continue the RfA, he is entitled to do so. Yeah, I probably should have asked him first. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:ISKapoor/Bhapa

Thank you for moving Bhapa to User:ISKapoor/Bhapa (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhappe). I plan to work on the article and then use it to create a well referenced article, perhaps "Khatri Sikhs", with "Bhapa" redirecting to it.--ISKapoor (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK newb question :)

Hi, thanks for letting me know about the status of the article I started - Violin Concerto No. 1 (Glass) - in the DYK process. I've never had an article featured in DYK before (and I'm excited), so please forgive the obviousness of my questions. At the time of writing this message, my fact is not yet on the main page. Am I right in assuming that the article really will appear in DYK? Can I ask when? Should I just be patient? Thanks again! ▫ Urbane Legend ^chinwag 13:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has appeared on the Main Page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I must've blinked and missed it! Well, at least it was there :) Thanks! ▫ Urbane Legend ^chinwag 08:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/103

Can you remove/change the tag on Special:AbuseFilter/103, or split the AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA detection to another filter. Because not everyone who holds down AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA on their keyboard is from uncyclopedia is the tag may be confusing and deceiving.--Otterathome (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I refined the criteria to be more characteristic of Uncylopedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem

As you can see, they are edit warring back in their blanking even though consensus is against them on the main page. There were six clear "no"s to the reducing of the page so dramatically. Alefbe was the original one reverted by Wizardman for the inappropriate action. It seems obvious that he is dead set on a blanking and will not confirm to consensus or Wikipedia practice. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I warned him about 3RR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already participated in the discussion and have presented my arguments there. You should have given warning to users like Durova who all of a sudden participate in edit-warring and admit that they have "No idea whether this is misinformation or not". Alefbe (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between reverting once and reverting three times. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

3 times when? Alefbe (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This, this, and this. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about the 3RR, a revert on August 23 is irrelevant. If you are talking about edit-warring (instead of using talk page to resolve the dispute), you should first give warning to whose have participated in edit-warring, without presenting any justification for their preferred version in the talk page. Alefbe (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that NuclearWarfare has reprotected the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

An unfair deletion

I know you get this message time and time again, so here goes... Why did you delete Priscilla Renea's Wiki page? She is a legitimate up and coming artist signed with Capitol Music, and every thing on the page was factual information, so, what gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.61.108.17 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priscilla Renea. It appears that she does not meet our notability guidelines for musicians. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Filter 225

Fix or kill 225, this should not be happening: [12] Prodego ^talk 00:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I limited it to the main namespace. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you for your help. Once the condition limit is hit the filter stops running checks, basically it gives up. Prodego ^talk 00:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I have initiated a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Portal#Does a portal need to be actively edited in order to be useful? which mentions an MFD you recently closed. FWIW, I think you that based on the comments made at the MFD, you did nothing wrong, however, I think that the comments themselves were wrongheaded. I am going to wait for people to weigh in at the above-noted thread, but, I may boldly unredirect the lost portal based on the character of the responses. Unless you would prefer I went through formal DRV procedures? –xeno^talk 14:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you could do that in the meantime. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with your changes to filter #29?

Hi there. I noticed you changed filter #29. I don't understand the change but somehow I am now able to trigger the filter (see my log). That's highly irritating that the filter now triggers on every removal of such templates, it makes it useless even. Could you revisit your change? Regards SoWhy 15:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I made it check for everyone with at least 50 edits, rather than under 50 edits. :8} King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. Oh, and there is something I forgot...

Whack!

Enjoy your day ;-) Regards SoWhy 22:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/237

Could you modify this to include some more most frequently seen ones like notability, unreferenced and article issues? Triplestop x3 20:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)