Jump to content

User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2017/01

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

Request for Comments on use of certain files not copyrighted in the US

[edit]

Hello,

There is an ongoing discussion about the use of files on Wikipedia that are not protected by copyright in the US because there is no copyright relations between the US and the country of publication. You commented in a 2012 discussion on the same topic that resulted in no consensus. You are invited to share your views in the ongoing discussion. AHeneen (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Patrick McGuinn

[edit]

Hello -- First of all, thank you for closing the discussion on this page, as it was relisted a few times for further discussion. But I am wondering if you could provide me with any specific feedback on why the page was determined to be deleted? The original nomination was based on "no secondary sources" -- which was untrue, and additional resources were brought forth. And then it started to feel as if the other recommendations for deletion were based on the original nominator's suggestions without reviewing the article's existing references. I will respect your decision -- but I am a little confused as what grounds the page was deleted on since it seems that GNG and notability standards were met, and would appreciate any clarity to improve future pages. Thank you, once again! Pclibuser (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources are interviews, which are not considered secondary sources even if they are published by an independent newspaper. The others are passing mentions that don't count as significant coverage. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I was under the impression that the film reviews (which do focus on the film, not the creator) would have been sufficient as a collective for notability, but I can see how the argument could go either way. If a secondary source(s) is discovered that is more focused on the subject himself, would I need to rebuild the article from scratch, or is there a way to resurrect the article as a "draft" from its deleted state? Once, again, much appreciated. Pclibuser (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you find sources that manage to convince me of its notability, then I can restore it as a draft, allowing you to work on it until it's ready to be moved back to the main namespace. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh-Hindi film actor

[edit]

I don't know why the page on Suresh, the famous film actor of Bollywood of 1940s and 1950s has been deleted. I have given several details of his films of the era. many of his films are actually on the You Tube. He died young in 1979, so there are not many newspaper clippings on him on the internet. Kindly restore the page at my request. Vkjoshi123 (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. In the future please pay attention when your articles get tagged for deletion and participate in the deletion discussion if you do not wish for them to be deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belén Rodríguez Article you closed

[edit]

Hi there. I saw that you closed the debate on Belén Rodríguez.

I don't know whether you had the chance to read through each paragraph of the article. It is a mess in its current state. Your cleanup-afd tag was promptly deleted by the editor who was against the nomination. My edits on the TALK page were, likewise, deleted. The only thing that remains is this badly written article in its incomprehensible broken English for all to see. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia.

This time we have utterly failed in an attempt to improve quality. No doubt, this article in its dreadful form will be here for years to come. To be honest, I leave this whole process a little more cynical than when I first began it. Nevertheless, I'm walking away from it now. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion activity

[edit]

I see you're doing a whiz-bang job managing the current AfD backlog. I like that we are in 100% agreement!Timtempleton (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Neil AfD

[edit]

I wonder if you could have another look at Bob Neil AfD which you closed as keep, no-consensus. The article is about a supposedly living person with no evidence that he exists or has ever existed. If he exists, then it fails the test for a BLP. If he doesn't exist then it is a hoax. In either case it has no business on Wikipedia. Thanks.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even matter if he exists or not - we have an article on Homer Simpson. The only thing that matters is significant coverage in reliable sources, and Cunard has presented many sources though there is no consensus whether they are sufficient. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Wikipedia is not in the TruthTM business.  If you have evidence of potential WP:Inaccuracy, this evidence adds to the evidence available, but it doesn't dismiss the body of evidence available as "wrong".  In less than a minute you can prove that bobneil.com brings up a website for "Adelaide University Football Club".  Your AfD nomiation claimed, "No evidence of any notability for this guy.", yet the page at the time of nomination included the abc.au "7 Living Legends" article.  So perhaps you should refresh your knowledge of WP:N and use WP:BEFORE preparation for your AfDs.  I'm also curious about this "BLP test".  Unscintillating (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

for recreation of wikipedia page

[edit]

I want to recreate Deepsheel Bharat titled wikipedia page. because Deepsheel Bharat is a popular daily Hindi newspaper in Uttar pradesh, Rajsthan in india. so please give me permission for recreation of Deepsheel Bharat Titles wikipedia page. (Brhama rajput (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)).[reply]

You may want to read our notability guidelines. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jolean Wejbe

[edit]

Hi. As part of NPP, came across the above article, which had been created as a result of reverting a move to redirect. Regardless, I put it up for AfD using the curate function, but as you can see, the AfD is malformed. Don't have the tools to fix it, and noticed your name recently no AfD, so thought you might fix it. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 19:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I don't know what Curate is, but I use Twinkle to nominate articles for deletion (as well as a variety of other tasks) and it works very well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Curate is the tool that comes with NPP approval. Similar to Twinkle, but let's you mark new articles "reviewed" very nicely. So when doing NPP I use that. Otherwise, I too use Twinkle. BTW nice job at AfD on all the closures. Onel5969 TT me 21:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed

[edit]

Hi King of Hearts, welcome back. Unless a CheckUser says an account is confirmed, please don't tag the account as CU-confirmed. You've done two that I've noticed. One I changed to "suspected"; the other I thought you might want to say "proven", so I left it alone for the moment. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is  Likely sufficient for a CU-confirmed? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Talent Stack

[edit]

Hi. You recently closed the discussion here as no consensus. Would you mind leaving a comment there explaining how you came to your conclusion? Thanks. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday January 15: Wikipedia Day NYC Celebration and Mini-Conference

[edit]
Sunday January 15: Wikipedia Day NYC 2017

You are invited to join us at Ace Hotel for Wikipedia Day NYC 2017, a Wikipedia celebration and mini-conference as part of the project's global 16th birthday festivities. In addition to the party, the event will be a participatory unconference, with plenary panels, lightning talks, and of course open space sessions.

With special guests Katherine Maher of the Wikimedia Foundation and Tim Wu of Columbia Law School speaking on our Post-truth panel!

Also featuring an International/Multilingual panel, a Documenting Activism panel, a Multimedia/Tech Panel, a Science panel, an Art panel, and more.

And there will be cake.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.

10:00am - 7:00 pm at Ace Hotel, 20 West 29th Street in Manhattan

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2017-02

[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Problems

  • Editors who use Firefox 50 might get logged out or fail to save their edits. This is because of a browser bug. Until this is fixed you can enter about:config in the address bar and set network.cookie.maxPerHost to 5000. Firefox 50 is the current version of the Firefox. [5]

Changes this week

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakland Marriott City Center

[edit]

If you received no response from the article creator, I think you should go ahead and delete the article as there were no Keep votes. MB 19:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helvar on Wikipedia

[edit]

Dear Kind of Hearts,

We have just noticed that you have removed the Helvar Wikipedia page (English).

Based on the discussions and claims in December we had made clear chances to the page content to meet the Wikipedia principles. We do not understand the removal of the new content. Similar contents are available on Wikipedia at the moment (e.g. Google and more).

Please let us know more in detail why the Helvar content has been removed.

With kind regards,

HelvarMainHelvarMain (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our notability guidelines for corporations to see what we expect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled)

[edit]

Asswehly Volleyball is the department of Asswehly Sports Club so Asswehly SC the main name always refer to football team, but Asswehly vollyeball mean vollyeball team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enaro (talk • contribs) 16:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The volleyball team is not notable enough for its own article, so I have redirected it to the page on the more important football team. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Warth

[edit]

As creator of the page that was recently taken down, I find it pretty redundant how Warth's page got removed while drummer of the same band's article didn't get removed. Deletion is irrelevant with the article as it has references and also follows guidelines. NellyOriginPMOD (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody bothered to nominated Matt Traynor for deletion, so of course it wasn't deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

siae microelettronica

[edit]

the AfD of the subject page has been closed. I was wondering if could be remove the adv banner too. Could you give me a suggestion? BrVegas33 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should work to address the issue, which is that some of the prose sounds less like an encyclopedia article and more like a brochure introducing the company to prospective hires. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for help

[edit]

Hello, Sorry to bring drama your way. Duffbeerforme has nominated Tres Watson for deletion, and it was settled no consensus by you. Now he is repeating his process after the article was seemilingly updated, with the same tags. His issues have been addresses by many parties, please help I don't think repeating the same cycle is helpful or constructive. Thanks for your feedback in advance. Xyxyboy (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're allowed to continue to tag it for issues; if you disagree with a tag then discuss with them on the talk page. They only thing that is frowned upon for them to do is to nominate the article for deletion again in the next few weeks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xyxyboy: Duffbeerforme did not nominate it for deletion, he flagged it for conflict of interest concerns as well as for notability concerns.[6][7] Also, the article appears to have been created and initially maintained by a promotional sock ring, (Brilbluterin and Rogercosts) which is almost certainly indicative of paid editing. Paid editors need to disclose that they have been paid as well as who paid them, along with other relevant information. People who use multiple accounts for disruptive reasons, as these users have, are in violation of Wikipedia policy. Combine undisclosed paid advocacy with users who create multiple accounts to perpetuate their undisclosed paid advocacy, and you'll find two of the most despised traits in a Wikipedia user. So it shouldn't be a surprise that there would be resistance at this article. Also, if you have a conflict of interest, you should not be editing that article. It is very difficult for people to write objectively about themselves and about people close to them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: Well I understand that now that it's been explained, I'm learning on the fly here. I've talk d with a large amount or editors, and there is a degree of homophobic minimizing (what you LGBT people do isn't really that important to us), as a result of our under represented status. One editor I spoke with said he quit Wikipedia because as an LGBT person it's impossible to be an editor, it's very adversely slanted, I can't speak to your issues other than I was pinged, and once I saw what was happenening felt very much like the gay kid at the lunch counter when I was 15 and they threw a rock. I will continue to learn on the fly, as an activist I think building a project around homophobic bias in Wikipedia might be a good next step. Your feedback is appriciated, I will remain optimistic and assume good faith despite this experience.Xyxyboy (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xyxyboy: I don't understand what homophobic bias you are referring to. I've generally encountered editors who are open-minded to LGBT issues. As for building a project around homophobic bias, you might find a very capable friendly group at WikiProject LGBT studies. As for the tags, questioning a subject's notability typically doesn't by default mean the person is anti whatever the subject is about. We have specific notability criteria for a variety of subjects. If they aren't properly met, or if there are questions, particularly when there is a strong likelihood of paid editing, maintenance flags often result. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: it's called minimizing. Underestimating the importance of contributions to the LGBT community, and it has a happy home here at wiki as expressed by the editors I've spoken with. Our contributions by percentage are by default less regarded then our straight. Ounterparts, because we are under represented. Harvey Milk is probably not one of your icons, and ranks less important to you than me. Chadd Griffin is probably totally unknown to you, but a huge figure in our community. The term is minimizing,and we experience it frequently. That doesn't make our contributions less important, they just seem less important to those not in the community. It's a high level thinking concept, and can't be detected unless you are aware or victim to it.Xyxyboy (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xyxyboy: Your best bet is to focus on content and contributions, not on drawing unfounded conclusions about other editors. That's part of our assume good-faith philosophy. While you might be able to build a successful emotional argument about minimization, it's also quite possible that the notability of the subject has not properly been established. That should be your primary focus, provided you don't have a clear conflict of interest. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xyxyboy: Next time you want to cry homophobia at the slightest little thing that does not go your way pause and read this little fable. Next time avoid the defamation that comes from overplaying the victim card. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme Animus, revenge, and retaliation are generally frowned upon on Wikipedia, and yet here you admit that is what motivated you to target me personally. And here you are now threatening me in a place where it seem wholly inappropriate, and in a way so obvious. I've dealt with bullies all my life, most are more clever than to threaten me in front of the teacher. Stop harassing me, edit wars are unessecary, and the fact your feelings got hurt when I 'played the gay card' aren't relevant. Pettiness isn't a good color on you.Xyxyboy (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again, trying hard to be the victim. Imagining threats that don't exists, making up admissions that never happened, pretending gay had anything to with it. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit deletion (redirect)

[edit]

Hi King of Hearts - it continues to nag me that one article I've written in the past five years was deleted. The pride I take in my contributions is one of the main things that keeps me going. Here's the log. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Rodrigues. There were four votes - keep (mine), weak keep, delete and weak delete. That suggests no consensus, for which you usually close as keep. Your redirect decision effectively deleted the article. Since I'm more familiar with your decision calculus, and this seems like an outlier, I wanted to bring this back to your attention, and ask if you could please revisit. Would you do that same thing again today, when you have more time to consider that the vote had no consensus? Might this even deserve a relisting of the AfD to see if there are any tie-breaking votes? Here's the version that was deleted. [[8]] I'll respect your decision, however hard it is to have a single deletion in my record, one way or another. Thanks, and I'll see you in the AfD jungle.Timtempleton (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you gather the best sources (approximately three) you can find and reply with that below? I'll evaluate them for reliability and significant coverage. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but now that I'm rereading the nomination I realized that I forgot to count the nominator as a delete, so that makes it 2 delete, 1 weak delete, 1 weak keep and one keep (me). So that suggests you weren't wrong to lean towards redirect. But here are three decent sources I could find [[9]], [[10]], [[11]]. There are two WSJ articles behind paywalls so I'm not including them.Timtempleton (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I still have to maintain that it's insufficient coverage, for two main reasons: 1) a lot of it is more about Scour than him; 2) some of the first article, all of the second article, and most of the third article are interviews, which an not considered independent even when published in an RS. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in again. I wasn't aware that interviews shouldn't carry the same weight as media coverage. They are great for background info though, to flush out history. I'll keep my Google alert active and see if any new coverage pops up. Since it was a redirect and not a deletion, if I ever want to solicit consensus on bringing the article back, do I just go to the talk page? Timtempleton (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would be reasonable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Falco

[edit]

Hi I saw that you deleted the above article as an A7. I originally tagged this article for speedy delete but then I noticed that the article mentioned that he had been a professional footballer so I reasoned that as per the WP:NSOCCER he is considered as notable (as a footballer of course). I checked and there are sources that support this claim [12]. So I PRODed the page instead as there were no refernces. I was just wondering what was the reasoning behind the speedy delete, was it because the article wasn't specifically about his career as a footballer? Thanks for your help. --Domdeparis (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He played in Brisbane City FC, which is not in the A-League, the only Australian league that meets WP:FPL. The page was tagged G11 by SwisterTwister but I felt A7 was a better fit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi at the time he played professional football (1983-1984) the A League didn't exist it was created in 2004 and Brisbane City played in the National Soccer League which was the top-level league at the time so I think that he should meet the WP:NSOCCER criteria. The article was very close to a G11. Maybe it would be possible to rewrite it concentrating on the only verifiable notable criterion which was his sporting career? What do you think? --Domdeparis (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the FPL page I linked to, "National Soccer League (1977–2004)" is explicitly listed as one of the "Top level leagues which are not fully professional." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies I must have missed that one; Sorry to have wasted your time. Cheers Domdeparis (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for fixing this

[edit]

WP:Edit_filter/False_positives#47.222.203.135, it is appreciated. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Anna Strom AfD

[edit]

Could you please advise if this edit was in error (has since been reverted). Karst (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't care either way. It's just a formatting issue. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Stedman

[edit]

Hi,

I'm curious why you took my page down of Anne Stedman who is an accomplished actress who worked with countless follow actors who are on Wiki (who was mentioned by other wiki writers on their pages such as Electra Woman and Dyna Girl and Mullets -series regular)? She also wrote a book about cancer which is currently still selling and creates a popular blog Chic Mama LA. In my opinion she's done quite a bit for woman in the wiki world and deserves to stay up. What did I do wrong to have it taken down? I am new to Wiki so if I was improper in the format of how I did it, I apologize. If you can tell me how I can correct it I'd appreciate that. Thanks Lukebash76 (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone at the discussion (called an AfD) agreed to delete it. She doesn't meet our notability criterion for actors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antony1821

[edit]

When you archived this case earlier today, you accidentally archived the case from 5 December 2016 which was still open. (That's why so many closed cases had not been archived.) Could I get you to reopen the case please. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for deleting Environmental impact of menstrual cups

[edit]

Thanks for deleting Environmental impact of menstrual cups. Could you copy its content into my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EvMsmile/sandbox) perhaps (or somewhere else)? I just wanted to take a look if anything can be salvaged for the article on menstrual cup. Thanks.EvMsmile (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've restored the whole thing, because per WP:MAD the history must be preserved for attribution reasons if we do any merging. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will try to get to it this week, to salvage and merge; after that I will place a re-direct or contact you again for deletion. EvMsmile (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed the merger to menstrual cup and placed a redirect (or is it better to delete the page now?).EvMsmile (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ti zapisalsya dobrovolcem 1920 Moor.svg listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ti zapisalsya dobrovolcem 1920 Moor.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard. I misunderstood that you moved the file to en-wp since it couldn't be on Commons, which still makes little sense. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not public domain in Russia but it is PD-1923 in the US. Commons requires PD in both countries, here we require only US. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Wanted to leave a brief message of thanks for all of your contributions in closing the AfDs. It's nice to see them closed promptly, without extensive relisting. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

[edit]

I'm not versed in this aspect so, as I see your name in several investigation, maybe you can assist. I noted the different users editing this, the oldest of whom is blocked, though not for sockpuppetry, but other similar users all appear to be the same editor. You should also note their posting at User talk:MDOGG02G. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MG2002 is not a sockpuppet, as noted in the unblock request on User talk:Mdogantitrump02. I have blocked MDoggMKitten2002 and MDOGG02G per WP:DUCK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ww2censor (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kortowiada

[edit]

How can you define 100% of two editors agreeing on something as no consensus? Both me and another editor agree this should be deleted. There are no objections. At the very least this should be given another re-listing round. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be a WP:QUORUM in order to delete an article. Unfortunately at this stage it's not very well-defined. The nominator + 0 "delete" !votes is definitely not a quorum, and requires invoking soft deletion if deletion is to be the final result. The nominator + 2 "delete" !votes is definitely a quorum, and can be closed normally. The nominator + 1 "delete" !vote is a murky area, and I've been treating it as the same as nominator + 0 "delete" !votes: delete if it can be deleted under soft deletion, otherwise no consensus NPASR if it's already undergone 2 relists. On Commons many DRs are closed with no participation by an admin who effectively supervotes and makes a unilateral determination, but here there is no consensus for admins to substitute their own judgment instead of accurately assessing the quality of the !votes. You can start an RfC on whether nom + 1 is sufficient for hard deletion and/or whether the closing admin can supervote and hard delete it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning the close, but why do you think that a prior prod inhibits WP:SOFTDELETE?  I looked at WP:SOFTDELETE and don't see that there.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Soft deletion is basically pretending the AfD never happened and the nominator had instead PRODded the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that is not the point I'm looking at.  PRODs are normal before an AfD, and I see no reason why a PROD should inhibit a soft deletion, plus I'm not aware of this as standard practice or any place this is documented.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this is far more interesting than I thought. I initially added the language about soft deletion being similar to PROD in my implementation of straw poll consensus in March 2011. This wording is removed unilaterally by Black Falcon in February 2013, in a long series of edits in an attempt to clean up the page. In November 2013 Callanecc makes a change which includes a statement that contested PRODs may be soft deleted as part of implementing RfC consensus, but then self-reverts hours later when others argue that consensus was not achieved and he agrees. So it looks like at this point there is absolutely no guidance on whether contested PRODs that are sent to AfD may be soft deleted. If you guys have any leads, I'd be glad to hear them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and posted a change to WP:Deletion process, as without the previous prod state being posted on the XfD, it becomes a surprise when the closer can't soft delete the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Lowery

[edit]

Hi,

Please could you review and perhaps expand upon your reasoning for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley Lowery as 'delete'.

I appreciate that numerically, 5 people said 'delete', and only I said 'keep'; however, I don't understand why their arguments are supported by policy. I think my comment in the AfD covers why it's nowhere near '1 event', and I can't see how it fits 'notnews', which was the other argument.

There's a whole bunch of reliable sources (national-level news media coverage) about him, and it's not just for one thing; "goal of the month" award, getting thousands of xmas cards, a pop-single, a woman arrested for harassing him on facebook, a premier-league football-match to raise funds for him...and more.

I'm sure you can see that for yourself in Google News search or whatever; I just noticed, he's back in the headlines again today on the BBC [13] and The Sun [14]

I have read through the notability guidelines, and I think he certainly "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". 86.20.193.222 (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is WP:BLP1E. It says "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met"; which of the three do you think is not met? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that any of those 3 conditions are met, because this is not about a person known only for one event - as I stated above, there is national media coverage of a variety of 'events', some of which I listed in my previous message here.
Which "one event" do you believe he is only known for? Perhaps you feel that "having cancer" is the one event? But that's a very separate thing from getting the "Match of the Day" goal of the month award, or from being harassed on facebook, or from having a pop single, or from a football match being arranged in his honour.
So, for a start, condition 1 is not true; that "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event". The references give links to some of the events mentioned, and I posted further examples within the AfD discussion.86.20.193.222 (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)`[reply]
Exactly, "only in the context of a single event" - all of these different things that happened to him are because he had cancer and the news sensationalized his story. For the second point, I see no evidence that he is out to make a name for himself rather than a bunch of journalists trying to make a story out of him. For the third point, how is Bradley Lowery's cancer a significant event at all?
Anyways, I typically relist discussions where there's a single dissenting opinion at the end, but here they've had 7 days to do so and nobody changed. I'll ping them to see if they still stand by their !vote or if they just didn't see your !vote and would like to change it now. @Bearcat, PMC, Jytdog, Bradv, and Johnpacklambert: Your opinions please. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the ping. clearly the IP is passionate about this but no, none of that changes my !vote; this is really clearly a NOTMEMORIAL, BLP1E thing. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you explain what you mean by "NOTMEMORIAL", which says "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others..." - this person is not dead. Nor is he a friend, relative or acquaintance; I only know of him because of the extensive news coverage about him.86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have reread the discussion and the comments here, and I have not changed my opinion. You are correct that WP:MEMORIAL does not apply here, but the sentiment does—just because we might feel compassionate towards someone does not mean that their story is notable enough for an article. Bradv 05:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely.
But, there is significant coverage in reliable sources; there's lots of coverage about him, as you can see if you look on Google. And it's certainly not for 1 event, there's a whole bunch of separate things.
I don't understand this "one event" argument. Saying he is only known for having cancer is like saying Michael Jackson is only known for being a singer, or Obama is only known for being president.
Is him winning the goal of the month not an event? Or him being mascot yesterday for Everton? Or the story about his online harassment on FaceBook (and the arrest)? Surely those are all separate events.
He has received extensive coverage in the national media for all of those things; I don't understand what the problem is.
Anyway - surely we shouldn't have a continuation of the deletion discussion here?
I asked for an explanation of the decision for the technical rationale behind the closure; I still don't see how "1E" applies.
What's the next step in getting this reviewed? Or can I just make a fresh (and longer) new page, and see if I get a more receptive crowd next time? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at WP:BIO, which contain a number of categories for people which the Wikipedia community feels are generally considered notable enough for inclusion. Bradv 06:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I previously said, I've read it. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." - yep, checks out. (Per the references in the article, the additional ones I showed in the discussion, and a couple more right here). 86.20.193.222 (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please restore the page to somewhere, so we can all see what we're dealing with, thanks. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a week since I asked about this; any news? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled message

[edit]

hello.. please do not delete.. you CAN find the films.. when you watch the shows online, her name appears at the end of the shows.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.120.117 (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case move

[edit]

Hey there, I came across Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suwattanee which you deleted because the name of the master was incorrect. I'm not sure of the history, but I think that a {{SPIarchive notice}} should be left behind because there are links to that page from block logs, but I haven't done this because it looks like there might be other history here that I'm not aware of and you might have a good reason for having deleted the redirect. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I was informed early on to generally not leave a link behind for small-time sockmasters that get renamed very soon after the report, but it looks like there's a benefit in this instance. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjib Sahoo deleted article

[edit]

HI

I like to understand and can use help on creating the Sanjib Sahoo article again. Why was my article on Sanjib Sahoo deleted?

There are content pages like the following which are on living people up on wiki which are similar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_L._Ducker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_B._Carter

WikiContributorTH — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikicontributorTH (talk • contribs) 13:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other articles exist doesn't mean anything. If you think those people shouldn't have articles, then nominate them for deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing a deletion debate

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Red_Jumpsuit_Apparatus_(album)&curid=52689636&diff=760321466&oldid=759277014 When closing a debate, you are to do so based on policy. I'm afraid that "usefulness of the track listing to readers" is not a criteria. Please reopen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has supported deletion and the AfD has been relisted twice already; at that point we do not relist without a good reason, and clearly the consensus does not support deletion. Anyways, The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus is a perfect target for merging, so why not consider assisting in the merge? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, of course I discounted the "keep" !vote. But a "keep" !vote almost never strengthens the case for deletion, and I would have closed as "no consensus" anyways if the only !votes were yours and Chubbles's, so with Circumspect's !vote it is still "no consensus." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

regarding recent edit dispute

[edit]

Hello. My apologies, but the reason that I'm writing here on your talk page is because the discussion on the notice board was closed before I got a chance to respond, due to the Admin's decision and action (that you had a bit of a disagreement with). Forgive this lengthy comment here, but I needed to thoroughly state some things, on this matter.

Anyway, thanks for your consideration and concern to this matter from yesterday. I want to say that I do apologize for going a bit past the 3RR rule myself (though Jytdog went further beyond as you can see), and also my occasional somewhat battle-ish tone, or maybe sometimes over-bluntness.

And I do appreciate that later the editor Jytdog made an excellent modification, and found an agreeably better and more solid source for my section and paragraph. If he had done that to begin with, I swear I would NOT have undone it or fought it, as I respect people’s meaningful modifications, adjustments, or better source referencing. You see though that that’s not what he did at first, nor later on even. But only after he went beyond 3RR and for some reason afterwards he went to the noticeboard where he didn’t think that he’d be reprimanded or would get in trouble or have 1-day block himself. But after I wrote my defense on here, he did see (is my surmise) that he broke 3RR badly, and was gonna be in hot soup as well as myself. We both edit-warred, obviously, with 3RR violation, though he a bit worse, and yes I a bit worse with a more combative tone (though not every statement of mine). But I was rightly and understandably both hurt and annoyed, at what was disrespectful and overly hasty, and it came across as "Own" and "I don't like", rather than totally valid reasons to completely delete. Yes, admittedly the source I put in was not the best, or the most reliable, in WP policy, but I hope you can see that WP policy is not necessarily to wholesale remove everything just because the source used is not the most reliable by WP standards.

There are plenty of other sources, more solid, for the drift of my addition. (And Jytdog, to his credit, did a good job later on in finding and placing one, and modifying etc.) But before that was the problem, where he totally removed hard work, that a very good-faith (and accurate and copiously sourced) contribution, and hard work, were just summarily dissed and dismissed by him, simply because the source that I put was not the best, but he wrongly accused or said that it was just “original research”. That is patently not true. I did not come up with the Jesus using Lot’s wife to warn against clinging to material possessions at the end of a world thing. That’s obvious from the Biblical text itself, AND ALSO FROM VARIOUS OUTSIDE SOURCES. Yes, I may not have picked the best source (admittedly), but it seems to be forgotten that WP policy and strong recommendation is to NOT destroy another contributor’s edits because of that, completely, but to try to find a better source, or give a source TAG, or modify the edits or additions. Not totally remove or eliminate. And sorry, I had a very valid point with that. '

And as I said, it was arguably very needed, and sorely lacking, the thing that was only slightly briefly mentioned in the lede. Needing elaboration, as NO "New Testament" reference in the body of article regarding "Lot's wife" was present anywhere.

Now, as far as another thing that’s been said by both Jytdog and Lemongirl, and Coretheapple etc, that is actually a misunderstanding, and NOT what I did, regarding “pointy” about the name of God matter. No, that’s not what I meant. The edit itself (in that small matter of putting the Anglicized form “Jehovah” instead of what was there “God”) was to NOT “make a point” but for valid varying and clarity, in the Jewish context, of the God of Jews, and elaboration etc. When I said “my point” that was only in my comment on the TALK page, in response to Jytdog’s objection that that form “Jehovah” (the tri-syllabic English Latin form) is somehow not used by “scholarly sources” even though it clearly is, past and present...in various reputable works, by various scholars and theologians...though maybe not as much as the less-accurate two-syllable form “Yahweh”. When I said “it was not that big a deal to me” I meant if consensus (which is what Jytdog was later calling for on that specific matter) went against having that form there in that specific place. I would not fight against that so much, because it’s overall minor...though my EDIT on the actual article was NOT “pointy” but simply clarity and varying and elaboration. The edit itself was not meant as “to make a point”, but rather my comment to Jytdog on the talk page about “scholarly sources” and that the motive to remove that form was not really warranted given the fact that it’s a long-established form and found in a number of scholarly books, sermons, and references, as well as in a number of reputable Bible versions. THAT was my “point” about “point”. Not the actual original edit itself in the article. That was just for clarity in context.

Anyway, as I said, I do appreciate your thought to all this, though I do not think it was all that necessary for Jytdog to even go on the board to report me, since he was (though unintentionally) also ipso facto reporting himself. But his subsequent modification and compromise and collaboration and better source that he found I do appreciate and have no problem with. It’s cool. I appreciate also Jytdog’s diligence for good sourcing on Wikipedia, though I don’t agree that he handled it originally in the best way or in line really with WP recommendation or policy. And that was my argument with all of that. Anyway, sorry for the long presentation here. I appreciate your taking the time to read through it. I felt it was necessary (since I was not able to all day yesterday) to further state my case and maybe clarify a misunderstanding or two. thanks again. Regards... Namarly (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi King of Hearts: First of all, nice user name! Hey, just a note that you may want to consider de-linking/removing links to articles after they have been deleted. You recently deleted Lakers–Rockets rivalry per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakers–Rockets rivalry, but after the deletion a bunch of red links were left in articles, which may encourage users to recreate the article. Another user removed the content at Template:NBA rivalries (diff), and I removed the link from three articles (diffs: 1, 2, 3). Anyway, just something to consider. North America1000 22:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2017-03

[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Problems

  • video2commons was down for two weeks. This was because of a problem with Commons video transcoders. It is now back up. [16]

Changes this week

  • There is a new magic word called {{PAGELANGUAGE}}. It returns the language of the page you are at. This can be used on wikis with more than one language to make it easier for translators. [17]
  • When an admin blocks a user or deletes or protects a page they give a reason why. They can now get suggestions when they write. The suggestions will be based on the messages in the dropdown menu. [18]
  • You will be able to use <chem> to write chemical formulas. Before you could use <ce>. <ce> should be replaced by <chem>. [19]
  • You now can add exceptions for categories which shouldn't be shown on Special:UncategorizedCategories. The list is at MediaWiki:Uncategorized-categories-exceptionlist. [20]
  • The "Columns" and "Rows" settings will be removed from the Editing tab in Preferences. If you wish to keep what the "Rows" setting did you can add this code to your personal CSS: #wpTextbox1 { height: 50em; } You can change the number 50 to make it look like you want to. [21]
  • Sometimes edits in MediaWiki by mistake are shown coming from private IP addresses such as 127.0.0.1. Edits and other contributions logged to these IP addresses will be blocked and shown the reason from MediaWiki:Softblockrangesreason. This should not affect most users. Bots and other tools running on Wikimedia Labs, including Tool Labs will receive a "blocked" error if they try to edit without being logged in. [22]
  • When you edit with the visual editor categories will be on the top of the page options menu. [23]
  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 17 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 18 January. It will be on all wikis from 19 January (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on January 17 at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

relisting

[edit]

For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhys Matthew Bond, relisting is as I see it a good response to spas, because it gets additional editors. I can of course just bring AfD2, but perhaps you would be willing to reopen. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've relisted it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhys Matthew Bond (2nd nomination). The reason I wanted to have a new AfD rather than simply relisting the existing one is that I've found that seeing a huge wall of text can be demotivating to many !voters; there's a good chance it could have stayed there for two more weeks with no further !votes, and taken three weeks instead of one week to get to a WP:NPASR result. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no problem. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Miller

[edit]

Hello, I see you deleted Ice Miller after an AFD. I'm not sure how I missed noticing that the article was up for deletion, but I'm pretty sure I can find sufficent sources to re-write the article to be acceptable. Would you be so kind as to restore the deleted article to my userspace at User:ONUnicorn/Ice Miller so that I can work on re-writing it? Thank you in advance. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs

[edit]

Hi, AFDs need to run a full 7 days (unless it's a speedy/snow), Going through this log you've close a few yesterday morning as well as a few days ago,
Consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process/Archive_9#The_meaning_of_.22seven_days.22_in_AfD_closures was that AFDs need to be closed the full 7 days,
Because of timezones, consensus etc etc it's always best to only close those only listed under "closing" at WP:AFD, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 00:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where I've done that? Note that relists do not need to wait out the full 7 days. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KoH, My apologies I should've provided actual links,
Anyway This, This, This, This, This, This, were all closed a day early and This was closed 4 days early,
Even if it's relisted it still needs to go the whole 7 days, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RELIST: "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinion

[edit]

Sir, can I request your opinion on the discussion "Timeline of computer security hacker history" which is located on my talk page? Please leave your opinion/comments on my talk page instead of here if you have one. Mdikici4001 (talk)

"Relist"

[edit]

Hi King of Aces, if you are re-AfDing Rhys Matthew Bond anew as a so-called "relist" then in all fairness I think you should notify the one uninvolved and longterm user who !voted in the AfD, Rogermx, in order to make the debate an actual fair relist. I'm deliberately not pinging so that you may do that yourself. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rogermx: Please be advised that the AfD for Rhys Matthew Bond has been relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhys Matthew Bond (2nd nomination). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war case about Economy of Iran

[edit]

You already closed this once with no action, but if you match up IPs with registered accounts, it appears that 3RR may have been broken. I'm thinking of reclosing this based on new edits since your closure + matching up the IPs. Would you object, or do you want to look at it yourself? It appears that 45.* is the Spider guy, and 47.* is User:SSZ (admitted). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing it out User talk:EdJohnston. just telling my point of view. He(User:SSZ & 47.17.27.96) is reverting all my edits under pretext that IMF GDP estimates are not real values on other hand, Almost all Economies page contain estimates figures from IMF Oct 2016 report and latest CIA World Factbook see example : Economy of Brazil, Economy of China, Economy of Philippines, Economy of Japan etc. but he(User:SSZ & 47.17.27.96) don't revert those, maybe because he is just anti iran. Also i just not only updated according to IMF. I also updated latest figures from CIA World Factbook. I will revert all my edits. promise me that he(User:SSZ & 47.17.27.96) will update infobox of Economy of Iran according to latest figures from CIA World Factbook and IMF latest report himself?. Honestly, just ask him to add latest values in infobox and summary. Thank you. SpidErxD (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filter question

[edit]

Can you review whether filter 822 still needs to be active? Limited hits. ~ Rob13Talk 22:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are we having an issue with the condition limit? If so I'll disable it, but if not it's only been a week since the last hit and I'd prefer letting it sit for another week before disabling it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to review some of the low-hit ones to avoid running into performance issues in the first place. If it's still useful, feel free to leave it enabled. ~ Rob13Talk 08:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for page protection

[edit]

The page Guardian: The Lonely and Great God has seen an increase in IP editors that alter its audience ratings and prose without credible sources. Some of the prose added were even plagiarized from another site called DramaWiki. I hope you can do something about this. Thanks! Untukku (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of anonymous or new users editing the article, but most of them appear to be positive. Can you bring up some examples? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Examples:

Untukku (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it under pending changes for a month. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Hi, I wonder if you could move Dimitris Vardoulakis into my user/draft space. I've not participated in the AfD discussion, but I can see it was rather heated. I'd like to see what the article was all about and see if I could improve it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - User:K.e.coffman/Dimitris Vardoulakis. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Catflap08

[edit]

Somewhere, either on the edit summary of the block, or on the user's talk page, or on the userpage itself, there needs to be a permalink to the discussion and consensus that led to the ban, so that it may be referred to later if the ban is appealed or questioned. See for instance [24]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the userpage: "discussion at ANI." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be a permalink to the ANI thread on or after the block notice (as in, "You have been site-banned per this discussion"), so that (1) it is clear on the talkpage that the user is site-banned, not merely indefinitely blocked, and (2) the discussion is easily found and linked to if the site-ban is ever appealed. Softlavender (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the talk page with a ban message as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hugo Oliveira

[edit]

Talk:Hugo Oliveira has been created after the article was deleted. SLBedit (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Murphy Cup playoffs

[edit]

This is a package of a mass deletion by one editor. Please restore all so we can sort out the damage already inflicted. Trackinfo (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issue with how the AfD was conducted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made a request to restore. Please follow through and restore to my sandbox. I am not an admin, I cannot see hidden content. I will have to sort out just how deep this deletion effort has succeeded, source and restore. Whether your opinion is that it was proper or not, I want to review. 21:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you provide links that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try. Trackinfo (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2017-04

[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • You can see a list of the templates on a page you edit with the visual editor. [25]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 24 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 25 January. It will be on all wikis from 26 January (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Outstanding contributions recognition

[edit]
Outstanding Contributions Award
This recognition is from a ❤️ to the King of ❤️s :) Hello King of Hearts. I'm quite active in the Afd space and over time have noticed the absolutely stellar work you have been undertaking for ages. To say I'm impressed by what you contribute at the Afd desk selflessly, day after day, is to say the least. I would tend to believe the the community too perceives your contributions in the same way, or better. Thank you for being a great role model for new editors to follow.

As the legend in this award goes:

Your work and contributions are exemplary.

With intelligent and most helpful inputs, you truly are an outstanding contributor.

Thank you for being a great role model for new editors to follow.

Lourdes

Thank you! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Lynch

[edit]

Hi King of Hearts. In this discussion which you closed, you mention that the person potentially meets WP:ARTIST #4, or that nobody in the discussion addressed this point. I wonder if you could expand on this a little, particularly in regards to the comments of User:Duffbeerforme and User:Johnpacklambert which both go into why this person doesn't meet that criteria. We did go into the NGA holdings, but the criteria requires "several notable galleries or museums" and the only other institution mentioned was the "Phillis Kind Gallery" which is not even notable enough to have its own article here.

Thanks in advance for your consideration. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The keep !votes do not mention it by name, but that is pretty much their rationale: SwisterTwister and Aoziwe talk about the NGA, and Netherzone mentions the Phillis Kind Gallery. Once a plausible rationale for meeting a notability criterion is proposed, the burden is on the delete side to show that it does not qualify, and I do not believe that burden was met. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

[edit]

Hi! Shouldn't your signature be something like:

King of ♥ ♥

That makes much more sense to me. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2017-05

[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • The OAuth management interfaces now look slightly different. [26]

Changes this week

  • ElectronPdfService will be enabled by default on Meta and German Wikipedia. This is a new way to get articles as PDF files you can download. It will come to more wikis later. [27]
  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from January 31. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from February 1. It will be on all wikis from February 2 (calendar).

Future changes

  • The Community Tech team will develop more tools to handle harassment of Wikimedia editors. The goal is to give the communities better tools to find, report and evaluate harassment. They will also work on more effective blocking tools. [28][29]
  • The Wikimedia technical community is doing a Developer Wishlist survey. Developers can propose ideas before 31 January 23:59 UTC. This is soon.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Binary lambda calculus

[edit]

Luis150902 has asked for a deletion review of Binary lambda calculus. 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. —Cryptic 22:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2017/01&oldid=1143115752"