Jump to content

User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2011/10

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

IBHA

[edit]

It seems you (King of Hearts) deleted the page on the International Big History Association. Why?

http://www.ibhanet.org/

Lowell Gustafson Secretary IBHA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.107.143 (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion that led to its deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Big History Association. It was decided that the IBHA was not notable enough for inclusion because it did not have enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as required by our notability guidelines. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and revise Jux article

[edit]

Hi,

I'm writing, per the instructions on Wikipedia, to request restoration of the Jux article. Jux has recently seen significant coverage from several of the primary media outlets in its domain, including:

"Jux Reinvents The Blog as a Full-Screen Experience." http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/jux_reinvents_the_blog_as_a_full-screen_experience.php
“Jux learns from the rest to create the most beautiful blog platform yet”. http://thenextweb.com/apps/2011/08/24/jux-learns-from-the-rest-to-create-the-most-beautiful-blog-platform-yet/

The theme of the coverage is the newness of the experience and I believe this makes Jux notable for the Wikipedia readership:

"Jux is trying to create a new kind of content" —ReadWriteWeb
“Jux Introduces Blogging 3.0” ­—psfk
"[Jux is] challenging the idea of what is possible visually and narratively" —zbutcher

The previous article should be restored, simplified, revised and augmented with proper references.

Thanks for your consideration.

Ted.metcalfe (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Be sure to add those references to the article as soon as possible. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed mass deletion of lists

[edit]

Hi, I wonder if you would care to comment on the various "List of important publications in ..." (six topics) discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 1. It seems that your closing of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_important_publications_in_biology is being cited as precedent for deleting many other lists. Without being able to see the deleted biology list, it's hard to know if these cases really are similar. Thanks for any advice you can offer. Jowa fan (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just emailed you the content of the list. Let the other participants know that if they want to see it, they can ask me as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Jowa fan (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

[edit]

Hi, I saw your name on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 30 history and wanted to ask if you could help me put Death Valley Driver Video Review up for deletion. I am having trouble because it has been nominated before. Just look at my contributions. You will see what I mean. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msquared3 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the new nomination page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (5th nomination). Just edit that page to present your argument. Please note that there have already been four AfDs, so be sure to show why this time around it should be deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello King of Hearts, your assistance is appreciated. - Msquared3 (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While you're about...

[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dianne Burnett was relisted on September 26. In what may be one of the most delightfully reasonable and peaceful AFD discussions in a long time, I believe we have reached a consensus among editors that a redirect of Dianne Burnett to the now sourced section at Mark Burnett#Personal life is the sensible choice. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church

[edit]

I'm surpised at the AFD result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church. I would have thought that with three "keep" votes and two "delete" votes it would have defaulted to no consensus. But the result is completely puzzling - nobody mentioned redirecting, so how could that be the consensus? Please take another look at this. StAnselm (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was to delete. However, the option of redirecting is always open, even for a deleted article, as long as there is a suitable target. Basically, consider "redirect" and "delete" to be synonyms in certain AfDs, except that "redirect" implies that it is a useful search term for a parent article and that "delete" implies that there is no broader article that people who search for this term would want to be redirected to. (By the way, even though it doesn't really matter, there were actually three "delete" votes counting the nominator.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology

[edit]

In several related AfDs arguments have been offered why lists such are these are not inherently original research (e.g. similar lists have been published in reliable sources.) Please reconsider your closure of this AfD. Regards, —Ruud 08:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each subject area is different. There may exist reliable sources classifying "important" publications for one discipline but not another. Can you show me reliable sources documenting what is "important" in biology? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I'm not a biologist. By induction such sources are very likely to exists. The subject certainly isn't "inherently" original research as they easily could exists. —Ruud 09:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In order to retain an article, you have to present actual sources, not just claim that they exist. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just the word "important" that bothers you so? If the word "notable" was used instead, would that make any difference? The start of the articles do specify the inclusion criteria. Dream Focus 09:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between these two words. "Important" (as it is currently defined) means that at least one reliable source has called the publication "important" or equivalent. "Notable" means that the publication has an article on Wikipedia (as it would otherwise be deleted as non-notable). Now as Colin argues here, we don't have a List of beautiful people. Let me explain how this is different from the examples that Geometry guy cites, say List of landmark court decisions in the United States. Those lists all have reliable sources describing them as a whole. For example, my history textbook in high school had an appendix that listed the court decisions it thought to be important, and there are surely many other such lists. Now, we don't have to match their list exactly, but the existence of such reliable sources shows the validity of the topic in general. Meanwhile, someone (even a reliable source) might list people they consider beautiful, but there's no way they're claiming to catalog all the beautiful people in the world, so the topic as a whole is not covered by reliable sources. Can you give reliable sources that discuss the topic of important biology publications as a whole? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dream Focus means "important" or "notable" in the sense that most people use those words, not the perverted meaning Wikipedians have assigned to those words. —Ruud 13:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, in that case "notable" is just as subjective as "important." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your closing rationale was about this subject being "inherently original research". You're now changing your argumentation. Sources can be found later and are no reason for instantaneous deletion. Please reconsider your closure of this AfD or at least update your rationale with this new reason of which you believe it was apparently strong enough to overrule the (lack of) community consensus. —Ruud 11:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made my decision based on the evidence available at the time. I am now making my own argument after reading the other "List of important publications" AfDs. An AfD close must be based on the arguments actually given in the AfD, not meta-reasoning about what should happen. I found that in this particular AfD that the "delete" !voters argued that "important" was inherently OR and the "keep" !voters failed to successfully address that. I can consider restoring/userfying when the October 1 AfDs close. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church. 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. StAnselm (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Fastily#Please_restore_article_Jux

[edit]

Hi King of Hearts. When you have time, and if it's not too much trouble, I was wondering if you could shed some light on User_talk:Fastily#Please_restore_article_Jux. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 02:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 27#Jacobson Flare

[edit]

Hi King of Hearts. Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 27#Jacobson Flare and linking to the relisted AfD. I have not read the DRV so have no opinion about your close, but I noticed that you closed it over 10 hours early. Were you aware that you were closing the DRV early? Cunard (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I keep forgetting to look at the time in addition to the date, and the complexity of the debate distracted me even more from such practical matters. But I don't think unclosing it at this point would do much good, since the last post was at 1:03, 2 October 2011. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there was any harm in closing this particular DRV early, but if early closes become a regularity, other admins might close earlier and earlier.

Since this was an accident, I recommend that you take a look at the DRVs from Wikipedia:Deletion review. If a DRV is in the "Active discussions" section, it should only be closed when (i) it is the oldest log in that section and (ii) after the time in the DRV nominator's signature has passed.
If it is in the "Recent discussion" section, it can be closed at any time.

I agree that the DRV should not be unclosed, as the discussion was inactive and the new AfD would have to be deleted. Cunard (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French Republican Calendar

[edit]

These calendars are very useful, as you said, but I agree with your close. To where do you suggest the transwiki? — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either Wikisource, Wikibooks, or Wikiversity, but after searching around on them I can't seem to find any calendars or any almanac-like content. Which one of the three do you think this belongs in, or do you have a better suggestion? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was more or less my line of thought. Perhaps there should be a "WikiAlmanac" wiki. But seeing as there isn't, we might just have to put up with the status quo (i.e. leaving it deleted). — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A wiki almenac is proposed here, and people may vote. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs 09:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Facepalm TfD

[edit]

FYI, your WP:SNOW close of this TfD has been reverted by the nominator. Just wanted to make you aware of the situation. jcgoble3 (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

[edit]

Deletion guys rule! Yeay!

[edit]

Dear King of Hearts,

I'm very frustrated with this deleting fashion going on over the K-1/kick boxing related articles. Some people nominate them without a resounding, spreading, informing announcements. When I realized the stream, it was already too late for dosens of them.

I'm a commentator and partner of an event promoting company. I probably have got a better and deeper vision and knowledge than some other people who insist to delete the martial arts related articles, whose claims are based on the "Notability" criteria. Someone must re-think about this, many articles are being deleted without a major consensus. Please, have a glance over the discussions, you will see in ease that commenting over deletion of articles are most likely the same. Wikipedia have already lost many loyal contributors, and losing also me myself today. I'm not a major issue anymore.

Please consider that people who nominate and handle to delete related articles are also contributing to wipe the histroy of a an organization that changed the image of a bunch of brother sports (karate, judo, tae-kwon-do, kick boxing, boxing, muay thai, savate, sambo, ssirum, wrestling etc.) and embraced them in a common form, with its own platform, structure and rules. The rules even are considered as the rule textbook of pertinent sports throughout the World as even the most unrelated events are held under K-1 rules!

I'm not gonna be a problem anymore. I might change my mind, think that such people, who never attended a martial arts event, who barely watch a bout, who hardly can recognize the athletes in real life. And, I might join them to dispose the articles.

I could tell you more, why to keep them or, how this business is run, but I think that's enough for me now. Best Regards, Umi1903 (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRV Close

[edit]

Your DRV close was inappropriate. There was no consensus to overturn nor was there consensus to relist. How could you possibly have come to that decision. There was a single concrete link to a reliable source, that isn't GNG passing.--v/r - TP 20:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your close, you said that the "keep" !voters only had "rumors of reliable sources" when in fact explicit sources were presented. There was consensus that Flight International was good, and no consensus on the ARIC article (due to insufficient discussion of it). That is why I have relisted to clarify the situation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I see reason for a relist but I still dispute whether it was appropriate. I guess we'll just let it run, no point in me starting drama over it.--v/r - TP 23:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_September_29

[edit]

Hi KoH, do you think you could add a reasoning to the signatures close as this one has been through FFD, DRV1 and an RFC before coming back to DRV2 and I feel that something more considered then undelete all is merited. Cheers. Spartaz Humbug! 04:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

[edit]

Speedy keep of Digital storage oscilloscope

[edit]

Hi. Would you clarify your close of WP:Articles for deletion/Digital storage oscilloscope as WP:Speedy keep 1, "fails to advance an argument for deletion"? WP:Blow it up and start over has support – "irreparably poor" is an accepted deletion rationale. I can see how it could be 2.5, "so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article", as the nomination seems to describe the version prior to User:Colonel Warden's stubbing. I am concerned because Colonel Warden frequently recommends speedy keep, sometimes with dubious rationales, and has recently begun closing AfDs along the same lines. I worry that this close will encourage him. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly see how this would be considered "so badly written as to be barely recognisable as English." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledged Colonel Warden's rewrite ("stubbing") above. I agree that the nomination is not a valid deletion argument for this article at time of nomination, but I think that Criterion 2.5 fits better than 1. Flatscan (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion

[edit]

Hi, I have a suggestion regarding your very nice signature: How about having the last heart in your signature to be set for emailing you? That was just a simple suggestion for you and hope you like it. Regards, In fact 12:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it used to be that way back in 2006, until MediaWiki put a 255-character restriction on sigs, so I had to remove the comparatively least important part of my signature. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see ! . But you have mentioned your username twice in your signature. (King of and The first heart) I thought maybe you can omit the first one to make room for the last heart to be set. (King of could exist, but without a link to your username ) Just want the best for you. Cheers. In fact 05:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review these blocks

[edit]

There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.

  1. 729endouillon (talk · block log · block user) by King of Hearts at 2011-10-07T05:27:34Z, expires infinity:

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post at User talk:Anomie#Allowusertalk issue. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you

[edit]
Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Evans

[edit]

Hi there,

You deleted my Wiki entry. It was useful because as a free-lance journalist, I occasionally have to work using my hotmail email account, rather than one affiliated to a paper or TV company. With a Wiki entry, people I approach for info' could see I am who I say I am. I guess you may not think that's a credible reason for having one, although I did cite all the work of note I have done, which can be linked to many other Wiki pages. However, what now remains is something which says " am not a person of note and that my acting career was decidedly minor ... which is because I was a kid and I gave it up to become a journalist, but which makes me sounds like a proper loser. If you are going to delete the entry, please also delete that. It is offensive! Cheers. JE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.51.134 (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the content at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Evans. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in biology

[edit]

Hi,

There has been discussion that the delete of the article was against consensus. In the spirit of keeping standardization across articles, I'm asking for it to be restored. I hope to hear back from you soon. Thank you.Curb Chain (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how the other AfDs went, I am willing to restore it to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/List of important publications in biology. Please be sure to address the issue of having sufficient citations to document why each member of the list is considered "important" before moving it back. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the article and moved it back to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/List of important publications in biology. Please don't move it to the main namespace prematurely, as 1) it's not ready yet and 2) that will cause overzealous patrollers to delete it under G4. If you provide sources for the majority of the publications listed saying that they're "important," I will move it back to the main namespace, and you can keep on working on it there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

[edit]

Deletion review for List of important publications in biology

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of important publications in biology. 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. Curb Chain (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what you said in closing was a little to cryptic, so after I figured it out, I explained. If you want to move things around there, please do. DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's pretty much what I intended. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for The Risky Business

[edit]

I has asked for a deletion review of The Risky Business. 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. Gh87 (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the Page of "AVer Inofrmation Inc."

[edit]

Dear administrator,

Lately, the page of "AVer Information Inc." has been deleted because of some inappropriate writings that you remarked before. I really appreciate your suggestions to my incorrect Wiki page writing. Now,I'd like to revise my writing style and I hope that the new content won't violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

I am wondering that if I want to re-create the new page of AVer Infomation Inc., which is different form the deleted version, how do i start? Could you kindly let me that how should I obtain the permission form the administrators before I create the new page of AVer Inofrmation Inc.? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AudioVideoGuys (talk • contribs) 03:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the old article to User:AudioVideoGuys/AVer Information Inc., where you can work on it. Once you are done removing the promotional material, leave a message on my talk page and I will review the page. If I approve it, then I will move it back to AVer Information Inc. Also, if you are connected to the subject, please be extra cautious about WP:COI. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

[edit]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello King of Hearts/Archive/2011/10! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

[edit]

Whitelisting Google

[edit]

Regarding this entry to the whitelist: I know it's temporary, but have you actually observed the behavior you described?

My understanding is, the latest way the blacklist works, edits should still be accepted if they contain blacklisted links that already existed in the previous diff. So if a newbie edits something with a blacklisted Google link, it should save without an error message. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From personal experience, I know that that is not the case. A while ago I created a header template for old DRV month logs and went about inserting it into all the archives (example). Even though I didn't introduce any new links, I got blocked by the spam blacklist because many DRV discussions contained blacklisted links, and had to add a lot of links to the whitelist temporarily. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/List of important publications in biology Is Ready

[edit]

We at Wikiproject:Science PearlsWP:Wikiproject science pearls feel the article is ready to go live. Could you move it, thanksCurb Chain (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, most of it looks referenced, so I moved it back. Keep up the good work! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 354

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Edit filter#354 Promotional text added by user to own user(-talk) page - Why private. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  10:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in biology

[edit]

King of Hearts, I have been chided for moving List of important publications in biology to Bibliography of biology in an improper way. There was a pp-move on the page set (without any stated reason) by a now retired editor, so I bypassed it by doing the move manually. Unfortunately, by doing so I left the edit history attached to the redirect. I would really appreciate it if you could fix the history problem. I did move the talk page correctly, and my reasons for moving the page are stated there. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2011/10&oldid=1143115725"