Jump to content

User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2011/06

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment (2nd nomination)

[edit]

After some consideration, I decided to relist this; I haven't quite given up on wrestling yet. Still waiting to see what happens with the DRV and other noms too - all re. 'future PPV wrestling events'. I still stand by what I said before though - ie that if the DRV fails to support my basic premise re. these, I will step away. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  07:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best & Co. (retailer founded 1997) DRV

[edit]

Why did you resurrect this article? The article creator admitted (quite grudgingly) that he'd made a mistake in creating it, and said he wanted to withdraw the DRV, the content remains in the main article about the enterprise, Best & Co., and the subject of the article technically doesn't even exist? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His reason for withdrawing the DRV is not that he agrees with you, but that he wants to "re-creat[e] the article in a manner that will allay the concerns that led it to be deleted." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

[edit]

request to change an edit filter

[edit]

Could you set filter 39 to disallow? I have been seeing 0 false positives and a bunch of non-constructive edits being tagged by it. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 20:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I took no part in the creation of this filter, so I think Zzuuzz would be more qualified to judge whether this can be set to disallow. Try asking him. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historicist SPI

[edit]

Hi, please could you provide reasons for declining here. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Also, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_POV_editing_contrary_to_consensus_by_User:I.Casaubon as I mentioned the SPI report decline. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much a reiteration of HelloAnnyong's statement that the edits were stale, so a CheckUser is not possible. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

[edit]

Special:Undelete/Zheng Saisai

[edit]

She is notable now by winning a 25K event. Thank you! (Gabinho>:) 08:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Could you provide a reliable source proving that fact? Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are. Thanks! (Gabinho>:) 22:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! (Gabinho>:) 07:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

User:Tjholme

[edit]

You unblocked a Checkuser confirmed sock account (admittedly you weren't to know that, but .... ) Black Kite (t) (c) 22:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is more likely to be a meatpuppet than a sockpuppet, based on behavioral evidence. For experienced users, they're pretty much the same thing. But for relatively new users who don't know our policies, blocking must be preceded either by common sense or prior warning. And while common sense would suggest that one person creating multiple accounts to vote is not OK (so an instant block is in order), campaigning to get other people's votes seems perfectly reasonable in a democracy (and they don't know Wikipedia is not a democracy). He was not warned of our meatpuppetry policies beforehand, so an indef block is a bit arbitrary.
Oh, and welcome back! :) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

[edit]


Mail for you

[edit]
Hello, King of Hearts/Archive/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

MacMedtalkstalk 02:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again MacMedtalkstalk 20:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Omnicon

[edit]

Since you closed that discussion, I want permission to start a deletion review. Please. NotARealWord (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, this one had very few participants and too many off-topic comments. In general, for me to close an AfD with fewer than two delete !votes other than the nominator as "delete," the rationale for deletion must be very strong. Here, the nominator didn't even make sense, and the rest of the AfD turned into a battlefield of editors making personal comments, far from reaching a consensus.
So when I say WP:NPASR, I mean what I say: there is no prejudice against starting a new AfD. By opening a DRV, you are asking usually at least five, if not ten or more, editors to evaluate the merits of an AfD with insufficient content to make a decision. Those editors' time would be better spent looking for sources (and !voting in the new AfD depending on whether the sources are adequate). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to suggest redirecting. i'm terribly doubtful that Omnicons are actually notable enough. They were only relevant in the Transformers: Energon anime, and, as far as Transformers series go, that one was real unpopular, so notability for something with barelyany presence outside of that is unlikely. So, I just want a redirect for that. NotARealWord (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a deltion review. I'd not be too adverse to proposing a merge to List_of_Transformers:_Energon_characters#Omnicons. Thing is I really wish the deleters would leave alone the "team" pages, because we have been merging individual Transformers back to their team pages to clean up less notable articles, so a team page would be the last thing we want removed now - it would stop up from merging back all the members of that team. Mathewignash (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do they actually count as a team? Aren't they more of a subspecies or something? Plus, unlike most teams, groups, whatever, the concept of these guys haven't been significantly revisited. They're not like the Dinobots or Combaticons and other such things that receive different incarnations. Anyway, my problem with proposing a merge is that there's no standardized way to determine consensus. There's not gonna be a neutral party to swoop in and decide. I think. Did they come up with a new merge procedure while I was gone?NotARealWord (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

[edit]

I took you in as a trainee several weeks ago, sorry for not keeping up, school stuff got busy, but it's done now. At this point, I think we can do a week or so (allowing you to spread your edits) of trail and then set you in as a clerk, sound good? -- DQ (t) (e) 16:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2011/06&oldid=1136171495"