User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2009/04

Fledgling Jason Steed

You just deleted this page - despite more votes to keep than delete, and obvious on-going attempts to verify facts. I believe that was a mistake.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 01:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this article: WP:NOTVOTE. AfD decisions are not based on majority rule. Rather, they are based on consensus and well-reasoned debate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, your arguement doesn't stand up. There was no consensusin the debate and you took a personal decision to delete. The decision was taken too early - and didn't allow time for newspaper/magazine staff to get back after the Easter break for further research.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 01:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a personal opinion on the subject. I'm more involved with closing AfD debates than participating in discussions. When I close a debate, I do an objective analysis of the arguments presented — based on policy, not mere counts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you read the arguements, you could see that even one of the detractors was trying to find extra info. I don't feel that it would have been an unreasonable move to leave this open until after the Easter holiday. Tomorrow is yet another Bank Holiday, so nothing can be done until Tuesday at the earliest. Objectivity does't come into it - it is more a matter of common sense.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 01:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to have the deletion reevaluated, you can list it on WP:DELREV. Follow the instructions on the page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

England/Argentina matches

I note that you closed a recent AfD with a merge decision. I'm surprised (although impute no blame for it to you) that there is no standard reference made to the intended destination of the merge that this is proposed before it is made as a decision, so that editors with that destination on their watchlist can comment. In this instance, I would argue that the destination already includes a serviceable list of results of matches between the teams, and that the additional info to merge (goalscorers, attendance, referees) would be disproportionate, and irrelevant to the particular subject (i.e. the rivalry between the nations as expressed in a football context).

So do we:- A) Consider sufficient relevant info is already merged, and delete directly; B) Honour the merge decision and replace the existing results section with the fuller details from the AfDed article; or C) Have to take it to deletion review to argue that there is nothing additional to merge? Kevin McE (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is not a lot to merge. But the {{footballbox}}es give information like who scored what goal, that could be merged. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that's my point: why are referee, goal scorers and attendance an asset to an article that is about the rivalry (not the history of fixtures) between the sides? Kevin McE (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's goal is to be as comprehensive as possible. If there is information that would aid understanding of the topic, then it belongs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And does knowing who the ref was aid understanding of the rivalry between these teams? Kevin McE (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but knowing who scored the goals does. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled)

why was 'the lost generation' page deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.136.80.160 (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you'll need to be more specific. What is the exact name of the article you are concerned about? Titles are case sensitive. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous speedy deletion

Desmond Meeks was one of Paula Abdul's favorite contestants on season 4. He was on the show but did not make it into the Top 12 -- however he was on the show. Matthew Falber, as a performer has gone on to work in Broadway productions. These people are noteable and well known to Idol fans. I don't see why you deleted them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chumba27 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you'll need to be more specific. What is the exact name of the article you are concerned about? Titles are case sensitive. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lauri Dalla Valle

Hi, you've agreed to allow this article. However, you have simply unprotected it; could you not restore the version that was deleted, so I can improve it? Giant Snowman 17:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much obliged. Giant Snowman 17:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shufty

Nothing to change. Just a head's up for future closes that SNOW has been discouraged. We close early only by criteria in WP:Speedy keep or WP:Speedy delete. Regards 12:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Help sought

Dear KoH, I will be very glad if you give me your kind suggestion on my current problem. There was an article on wikipedia named Death and Adjustment Hypotheses and it was deleted to uphold wikipedia rules. At that time the main drawback of the article was the book of the theory was a self published one and the only quality reference was the review report at "Death Studies" of Taylor and Francis that was not published in black and white till then. Now that the review in that prestigious journal is in in market and a second book on the same issue has also been published and reviewed waiting to be printed in Nov, 09. Now will you please see the reference at http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a907644823~db=all~jumptype=rss and suggest me if it is ok to be a good reference for wiki. I also felt that writing about own research is a bit troublesome. It should be done by someone neutral. Will you please help me to find someone who can work neutrally on the pair of theories at wiki? I believe that this theory has importance as it relates human civilization very relevantly on adjustment issue. Therefore, though it seems advocacy for own research, I would request you to help this theory. You can also see the following link to understand its pattern, though its incomplete,

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0078883601/680442/Additional_Lifespan_Development_Topics.pdf

I will be very glad if you reply me at mohammadsamirhossain@yahoo.com

Regards Samir 123.49.5.171 (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HG

Hi, maybe you could turn off the automatic reporting function of HG if you'd block outright. Thanks. -- Menti fisto 18:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle has some technical problem that doesn't let you block. I wish I could directly block though ... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it has many problems but to reduce redundancy and since you're still going to manually block reporting could be disabled. -- Menti fisto 18:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Untited2)

What happened to the article called Tusayan ruines? I removed information copied from another website. you can see here http://www.freebase.com/view/en/tusayan_ruines —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfish Discord (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a copyright violation. Because Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, other websites are allowed to copy Wikipedia's content. The website you just referred to is an example of a fork of Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. That makes sense. Sorry I didn't see this. sinebot show my page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfish Discord (talk • contribs) 18:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Thanks King. Will you pls reply my mail, it would be helpful. Samir 203.112.199.157 (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

AfDs run for 7 days, and three deletes on the first day do not = snow. This is about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time magazine's "All-TIME" 100 best albums. There are possibly arguments to be made, and people need timeto make them. DGG (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been doing a number of these. I am reluctant to bring articles that are probably of no value to Deletion Review, but I think we do need to follow policy. Perhaps the only way to deal with this is to absolutely prohibit SNOW. That would be a shame, because there are are few times where it could usefully be used. But then, I just got censured rather sharply at deletion review for doing one myself that I though obvious . DGG (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've stopped after a user brought that up earlier on my talk page. I haven't been following discussions much recently. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FC de Rakt

Just wondering how you interpreted the Deletion review for FC de Rakt as Overturn and Relist? You see the problem here, as I pointed out, is debate fatigue and related issues. The first AfD was a clear no consensus, so by rights the article should have been kept. Unfortunately, that may not be the case now. Should the second, artificially forced AfD go against it, how to I appeal against that? ðarkun coll 10:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the deletion review was not at all a clear consensus towards a straight overturn. There were several people who !voted "endorse deletion" or "overturn and relist." Secondly, if the second AfD does end up deleting the article, then that would be equivalent to this situation: The first AfD is closed as "no consensus." Then the article is renominated for deletion, and is closed as "delete." I don't see any reason why this would be a problem. Besides, there is nothing preventing you from appealing the second AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last imp e-mail

Dear KoH, Pls find my last two new messages on your e-mail and reply, it would be really helpful for me. I will be waiting.Shoovrow (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, king, I'll let you know once my article is done.Shoovrow (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game Tour

Hi King of Hearts. I'd suggest another look at this. User:JamesBurns, User:A-Kartoffel, and User:Iam are all the same user, now all blocked for sockpuppetry. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a more or less identical comment (can be seen in the history). Please also see CheckUser and Category. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened and relisted the debate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Martin Luther Woodcut.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Martin Luther Woodcut.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Martin Luther Woodcut Flip.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Martin Luther Woodcut Flip.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likeminas

Hey, I was wondering when you blocked Likeminas (talk · contribs) if you also looked at Luis Napoles (talk · contribs). Either way, Luis has been edit-warring across multiple articles, and has just recently passed 3RR on Che Guevara. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 13:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, he's completely gaming the system. He made his 4th revert on History of Chile just 25 hours after his 1st. I'll warn him that 3RR is not an entitlement, then block if he continues even if he doesn't break 3RR in 24 hours. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you could’ve done a more through investigation. I reported user Luis Napoles for at least edit-warring on two articles here [1], yet, for some reason my request was ignored.
As per his complaint on me, I find it interesting that you ignored the other administrator’s advice of using the talk page. [2], then decided to block me, let him keep edit warring and didn’t protect the other articles.
I’m sure there must be compelling reasons for your actions, but I hope at least we can agree that fairness should be apply all across the board. Likeminas (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think getting to pages protected would be good grounds for a block. What about un-protecting, seeing that he's the problem, and block if continues? Grsz¹¹ 17:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll see what happens ... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death and Adjustment Hypotheses

Dear KoH, I have reinstated the article Death and Adjustment Hypotheses - as per our previous discussion. Will you pls see it at least for your acknowledgment? I will be very grateful if you help me in establishing the wiki rules for the article. Shoovrow (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now at AfD for a reevaluation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled3)

you deleted my page but i would like to know why you couldn't just revert it back to my user page or am i not allow to have a user page as ever one else —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keitaadama (talk • contribs) 20:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has restored the page to User:Keitaadama/Adama Keita. You may work on the page from there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]