Jump to content

User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2011/02

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

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

[edit]

Somalian genocide

[edit]

I am the editor who tried to save "Somalian genocide" after noticing it at WP:AFD (no prior interest or involvement). Thought I'd respectfully take the result one step further as I find it confusing. Boutros-Boutros Ghali, former UN Secretary General, called it a "genocide" in his memoirs and I found no reliable sources saying it isn't or would have included them. The only one quoted by the other user was along the lines of "though its not a genocide, its a useful case study in my book about genocide" and gave no further explanation (happy to quote that if that's what it takes to save the article though). I don't think (again respectfully) you are correct in saying it is original research because all I did was quote whatever reliable sources I found. Wouldn't OR have involved making an argument with reference to international law that it was genocide, or quoting raw accounts of military actions and drawing a conclusion? Article was presented as "various people have alleged" and we have many articles on claims and disputes that are not settled or are even disfavored (creationism). I am confused about the criteria for letting such an article stand: international criminal court? (there was none for the Armenian genocide). Country recognition? Isn't it potentially "original research" for us to say "its not a genocide unless..." as there are no clear rules on the issue? Suppose the article had been retitled "Somalian genocide allegations"? Thanks, Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between an encyclopedic topic and something that happens to occur in a particular location. Here it appears to constitute WP:SYNTH, lumping together a bunch of sources that discuss both genocide and Somalia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, still don't get how my reliably sourcing Boutros Boutros Ghali saying there was a genocide in Somalia, constitutes synthesis on my part. Also, can I possibly get a copy of the article? My bad for failing to keep one. I would like at least to add one or two of the sources to other articles such as Genocide and Somalia.Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the sources say per se. They must discuss it as a topic, an entity in and of itself. Sure, it's worth talking about George Washington's teeth. But any sources regarding that don't treat it as if it should have an encyclopedic article, so it is currently a redirect to George Washington. By the way, I userfied the page to User:Jonathanwallace/Somalian Genocide -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

[edit]

For a deletion review that results in a relist (e.g. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 24 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 27), would you include a link to the XfD? This will make it easier to locate the discussion. Second, when a day's log has been cleared, please archive the page by removing the headers. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote about linking to the XfD, I meant linking the XfD from the DRV page. Something like this. Cunard (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. :) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) Cunard (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you deal with many backlogs, ranging from DRV to MfD. Would you consider dealing with the SfD backlog? I posted at AN numerous times (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive220#Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs) but the oldest discussion I mentioned is still open. Would you close Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs? Cunard (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing what the other admins at AN were reluctant to do! Best, Cunard (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could just be psychological. When you ask a group of people to do something, no one feels responsible for it. When you ask a single person, they'll do it as long as they don't have any good reason not to. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree. I guess I'll be pestering you more often if you don't mind. :) Cunard (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing Tamil films

[edit]

i have recreated the page..its necessary.. we must correct it and make it proper as that of bollywood list.. deleting is not necessary i think.. Geocraze (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complexe Desjardins,

[edit]

this morning you deleted these articles before i was able to add the {{hangon}} tag with explanation. i'd like to get a reprieve if possible. thanks....cheers! --emerson7 13:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I may, I for one would oppose any such "reprieve." As I've stated in my initial merge proposal, I would urge the creator to simply create redirects for any complex towers that he wishes to list in a Montreal skyscraper navbox, and add any info he has to the main article, which is badly in need of expansion. As has been pointed out by others, even Towers One and Two of the World Trade Center don't have individual articles, and the notion of having them for three rather nondescript "towers" of this building defies any common sense and would not help navigation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article not deleted

[edit]

List of highest-grossing Tamil films is still there despite the Afd being closed by you as delete. Please delete this.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing Tamil films

[edit]

There appears to be some mix-up over page names or moves, List of highest-grossing Tamil films seems to be a doppelganger of List of highest-grossing Tamil-language films and yet points to the same AfD. Could you take a look? Thanks Fæ (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi

[edit]

Hi I only put this up for my project on a fake person. So if you could put this back up that would be great that ank you. I need an a in this class very bad and this is my assignment. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashgrif21 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your assignment is to create a fake article specifically on Wikipedia, then tell your teacher that Wikipedia has a policy against hoaxes. If you would like to prove to your teacher that you completed the assignment (whatever it is), I can send you a confirmation email. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at Veriss1's talk page.
Message added 03:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I tried to explain the situation and requested guidance on the proper protocol to resolve the problem. Thank you for your assistance. Veriss (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Relativity

[edit]

In the article Creative Relativity, the article creator, Randikasilva, keeps reverting the copyvio message you added. I've re-added the message once but he or she has again removed it, despite requests to the contrary both in the copyvio message itself and in my last edit summary. Can you please advise on the best way to proceed here? I can think of a few options ranging from the drastic (page protection) to the possibly ineffective (a message on their talk page) but I'm not sure what the standard procedure is. Thank you. LordVetinari (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bian lian copyvio

[edit]

The top part of the template may not really make sense - but the template says to leave this as the notice. While you are not "Erg022", you do list this as an article you created. Forgive me if this is wrong. Collect (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I created Bianlian, which was redirected to Bian lian. But it doesn't matter; I don't mind fixing problems when they are pointed out to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The standards were not as strict back then - I found another article (not yours!) which is only a few months old which is a far worse example. I do think the template is a tad brusque though. I went on a micro-copyvio patrol as I think all editors should do a "little of everything" on WP, no? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Bian lian, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/2003/0925/cu18-1.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Bian lian saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Collect (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hey.

[edit]

Dude f bomb you for getting Unstable's articles removed. You're all about yourself, and if it doesn't fir YOUR standard of metal you take it down. People like you I swear to god sometimes. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.111.181 (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

[edit]

Voyager_(metal_band) - deletion reversal request

[edit]

Hi

Voyager_(metal_band) satisfied notability (music), at least for following reasons:

Three albums on notable independent record labels - Element V - DVS Records 2004 - uniVers - Dockyard 1 Records 2007 - I am the reVolution - Dockyard 1 Records 2009

Playing at PROGPOWER FESTIVAL USA 2011 - http://www.progpowerusa.com/xii/index1.html

Having played at PROGPOWER FESTIVAL EUROPE 2006 - http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=52544

Countless reviews on reputable sites:

METAL.DE http://www.metal.de/cdreviews.php4?was=review&id=13663&search_highlight=voyager

POWERMETAL.DE http://powermetal.de/content/artikel/show-In_der_Gruppentherapie__VOYAGER_-_I_Am_The_Revolution,6545.html

TOP 10 - METAL RULES http://www.metal-rules.com/zine/content/view/1837/85/

There are many other links to reviews etc through the band's 10 year history.

Grateful for your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.213 (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that an article must have outside notability beyond the inner circle of metal fans. How do we know whether the festivals you cited are important enough to confer notability upon Voyager? That is where sources come in. In order to have a page on Wikipedia, a band must meet WP:BAND, or in general have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The reviews you mentioned are all metal sites; while often considered reliable enough for citing facts in the article if it is already notable, they do not establish notability as they are not sufficiently independent. Truly independent coverage would be, for example, a newspaper. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dangdang

[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dangdang, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://dangdang.co.uk.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up after AfD on Noron Theory

[edit]

I was rather dismayed when you relisted that Afd to seek greater consensus, when the only source cited was so clearly bogus. After the relisting, an impostor User:Richard Hills jumped in and claimed things in the name of a very real Richard Hills, supported by others (most likely socks). Needless to say, I was then even more dismayed. After watching the discussion further deteriorate, I finally wrote directly to the real-life Hills by e-mail, he wrote back saying he had no connection with this ridiculous theory, and not long after his reply, someone sounding very much like the real Hills posted as the second person claiming to be Hills, declaring the whole thing a hoax.

Hills mentioned to me by e-mail he'd like to see the impostors banned. And that's where you come in: I don't know the first thing about getting that process started, or what else needs to be done considering that this AfD archive page might be violating BLP policy. As a long-time admin, I'm sure you do know. And you have a certain responsibility for how this played out. By relisting, you opened up the opportunity for some people to make a reputable scientist sound even more like a nutjob on Wikipedia than Wikipedia was already making him sound, simply by hosting this article for so long. If I hadn't acted out-of-band, this thing might have gotten closed with No Consensus, and the socks might have persisted with a case foragainst any immediate renomination based on the guideline saying that a "reasonable amount of time" hadn't passed yet.

To get you started, the SPAs were: User:RichardHills, User:Christopher tomline, User:haxmax, User:121.208.169.157, User:Rocket Scientist01, User:Cameron mcleod, User:Ferris Claire. User:Sock purpet might be worth investigating, under the circumstances. Of course, you should also look at who originated, and who significantly contributed to this article, especially if they are SPAs -- they are serious WP:BLP violators. I'd double-check the above list to make sure it's complete and correct, but ... no. My work on this issue is done. Yours is not.

I'd try to be more civil in this request, but this kind of thing really pisses me off. Yakushima (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, some of the time a "keep" !vote at the end of an AfD does sway the discussion. We don't want to lose those articles just for the sake of efficiency. "When in doubt, don't delete." That "the only source cited was so clearly bogus" is your opinion; I was unable to make that determination at the time. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's tendentious to say it's merely "my opinion", it was also the opinion of others, and it was also a fact that could be have been established in your mind by simply clicking on the link provided, after seeing the objections of others dismissing it, and examining the claimed RS source. The "publisher" of it is well-known for collecting articles from PD/open sources and compiling them into (POD) "books", many of which are little more than Wikipedia mirrors. "Unable to make that determination"? You mean, it would have required as much as a full minute of effort from you? Please consider the possibility that you're overburdened as an admin and should take a break, so that others who aren't can make more sensible decisions.
By the way, you don't address my concerns about blocking those accounts. I'd like an answer on that. Yakushima (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could file a request for checkuser at WP:RFCU. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another complaint

[edit]

Hello, I don't understand when there are 7 or more major newspaper and magazine articles about a person and the magazine they founded, why this is considered advertising, please explain. Is there any way this entry can be accepted... simply, "Amy Schrier was founder and editor-and-chief of BLUE Magazine, a travel and adventure magazine which published from 1996-2003." without citing the awards?

did i enter the references correctly?

thank you in advance for any advice.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandybarnes (talk • contribs) 11:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voyager_(metal_band) - deletion reversal request PT 2

[edit]

Dear King of Hearts

The band Voyager from Australia meets WP:BAND.

Voyager has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. You have added additional criteria which are beyond WB:BAND. The fact that the band may have its height of popularity in "inner metal circles" is irrelevant, there are countless independent links, reviews and articles relating to the band's 10 year history which support its notability.


In any event:

1. Progpower USA and Europe themselves are a major festivals: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/ProgPower_USA#2011 http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/ProgPower_Europe

2. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e, an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).

The band released two albums on Dockyard 1 Records, a then notable indie label which itself featured many notable artists such as - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Virgin_steele - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Iron_Savior

Please undelete the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.213 (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not count as a reliable source. You must find reliable sources to prove that ProgPower is a major festival (i.e. widely covered in the news, in particular Voyager's participation). Dockyard 1 may fit the requirements, but it is unclear how many "many" actually is. After all, at the top it says that a band "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria," not absolutely. The reason why we have Articles for deletion debates is to resolve this ambiguity, and this time it resulted in a consensus to delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 2#John B. Kimble

[edit]

I linked to the AfD you relisted from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 2#John B. Kimble. I hope that it is okay with you. Cunard (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closure

[edit]

Hi. Regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Street East, there doesn't appear to be anything close to consensus for redirecting this article. Please reconsider this closure. --Oakshade (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Arguments that are not rooted in policy are given less weight. The article had no sources so the assertion that it is notable is just that, an unproven assertion. WP:V is not a policy we can just ignore. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. All the "keep" !votes discuss how it's "historical" or "major" without providing any concrete evidence. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
!keep - WP:ITSNOTABLE. As the merge supporters all mentioned, nothing in that one paragraph article can't be incorporated into its new target. The history is still at the redirected article, so feel free to merge all that stuff you feel is notable into the target; or, is it less about content and more about pagecount? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can merge, the bar for notability for inclusion of content in an existing article are much lower than for a separate article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback request

[edit]

Hi King of Hearts, I noticed that you are a member of Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests. I've been heavily involved with fighting vandalism in the past few weeks, and through my 4 year history in Wikipedia, I have continued to fight vandalism wherever I see it. Therefore, I would truly appreciate it if you were willing to give me rollback ability. Thank you! ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ spik ʌp! 21:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final consensus consideration

[edit]

Hi, King of Hearts, I currently have several articles that have been nominated for deletion, just yesterday you closed three of the articles with consensus being to merge, which I am just grateful that they weren't deleted. Would you be willing to change the final rapport from merge to no consensus? I just don't see how merging it with the discography will be beneficial. For one article it will be extremely expansive, and instead of a step forward I feel like we would be regressing. Thanks for your consideration. mattchewbaca (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A "merge" decision at AfD is not a mandate, but a consensus-driven suggestion. If you would like to suggest that the articles not be merged, then start a discussion on the talk page. If there is no opposition, then you can remove the merge tags. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

[edit]

Hi, King of Hearts,

Concerning: Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (CMDRC)

On Feb. 13, it appears that you made this decision: "Feb 13, The result was merge to Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. WP:UNDUE emphasis on the Canadian aspect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)"

The following tag now precedes the article: "This article was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 13 February 2011 with a consensus to merge the content into the article Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use the destination article's talk page."


SUMMARY Please forgive me, I am relatively new to Wikipedia in terms of administrator-related matters. The Discussion page for CMDRC notes: "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review)", but, after reading Wikipedia:Deletion review which recommends direct discussion with the deciding administrator first, I thought I should write you. Basically, I want to propose that the Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo page restored instead of having it merged into Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Alternatively, this page could be a subsection of a new page that I will create called "Canada-Democratic Republic of the Congo relations". By analogy, in Sept. 2009, I created the page "Canada-Mali relations" which includes a substantial section on Canadian mining in Mali. In March 2010, a tag was added to that page suggesting that it was too long and needed to be split into sub-articles. I have not yet addressed that issue, but one possibility would be to create a "Canadian mining in Mali" sub-article to "Canada-Mali relations". And, analogously, a "Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo" sub-article to "Canada-Democratic Republic of the Congo relations".

DETAILS On Jan 31, I created the page Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and on Feb 4, Bearcat nominated it for deletion within seven days. Also on Feb. 4, a anonymous editor directly edited the top of the page contesting the decision - please refer to the article's history [Revision as of 14:32, 4 February 2011 (edit) 78.124.56.42 (talk) Who suggested this article should be deleted? ... etc.]

I sent a "talk" directly to Bearcat on Feb 4 asking them to reconsider their proposal, and outlining my reasons [IVX8O8XVI (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)]. Bearcat then created a full "AFD" discussion page which ran from 5 to 13 Feb, the result of which were two recommendations to "Delete" (Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 5 February; Robofish (talk) 14:19, 9 Feb), one "Delete or Merge" (Nomader (Talk) 06:08, 7 Feb), three "Merge" (Ravendrop (talk) 04:12, 5 Feb.; Mû...û (blah?) 17:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC); SanchiTachi (talk) 22:05, 7 Feb.) and **four** "Keep" (Zachlipton (talk) 01:45, 5 Feb.; Ret.Prof (talk) 02:26, 5 Feb; 86.132.54.90 (talk) 14:59, 5 Feb.; victor falk 01:35, 13 Feb). If we add my "keep" recommendation in my Talk to Bearcat, and the "keep" recommendation via Edit, mentioned above (14:32, 4 February 2011 (edit) 78.124.56.42), then **six** editors recommended "keep".

In addition, to address the criticisms made by the deletion nominator, Bearcat in this discussion [00:47, 5 Feb; 18:05, 5 Feb] that the article failed to establish uniqueness of the topic to justify a separate page that was encyclopedic, on Feb 8 and Feb 10, I added new material to the introduction, citing the predominance of Canadian-owned mines over all other countries both in terms of sheer numbers and actual production figures and contribution to the DRC economy; the administration of the DR Congo's national mining agency by a Canadian during 2004-2009; and the history of controversies and Canadian legislation. I supported this information with additional data in tables in the new section "Cumulative Canadian mining assets". I was planning to post a talk to the discussion for deletion today and request that the page be reconsidered in light of these points, but note now that the discussion was closed by you. There was no closing date fixed on this full discussion, although Bearcat's original proposal was for seven days.


From reading various Wiki pages, I gather that administrator decisions to delete (or merge) are not simply based tallies of votes ("Wiki is not a democracy", etc.), but since the word "consensus" appears in the tag quoted above, then the results are 2.5 Delete (giving 0.5 weight to the "Delete or Merge" recommendation), 3.5 "Merge", and (**4**+2 = **6**) "Keep", if comments by 78.124.56.42 and myself are included among the "Keep" votes. If the administrator's decision is based on the quality of the arguments, then I would ask you to reconsider the discussion in light of the new information I added to the page Feb 8 and 10, and the data from Google News posted on Feb 13 by Victor Falk showing 199 news stories on Canadian mining in the DRC, more than two-thirds since 1997.


As it stands, the Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MIDRC) has received considerable criticism including its origin and style, and has only 24 references, compared to 144 in Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It would be a major undertaking to revise to Wiki standards. Therefore I agree with Zachlipton that "merger [would] pollute Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo with too much information about Canadian interests? Such a merger would have to strip most of the content in order to avoid giving undue weight to Canada, so a merger would essentially be a de facto deletion." (Zachlipton (talk) 01:45, 5 Feb.).

This seems to relate to your posted comment Feb 13 ("Feb 13, The result was merge to Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. WP:UNDUE emphasis on the Canadian aspect."). Does this mean that if the article is merged into MIDRC, it will have to be substantially shortened, and if so, what should be retained, and what deleted?

So, I would appreciate your perspective on this. To reiterate, I maintain that the article merits retention on its own. Are you able to reverse the decision to merge and re-open the discussion? Or should I submit a request for a deletion review? As a second option would be possible to make this article a sub-article to a yet-to-be-created "Canada-Democratic Republic of the Congo relations" article?

Concerning comments about "To the extent that it does prove some kind of point, that's an NPOV issue that can be addressed through editing. Zachlipton (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)" and "Article as of now may need wp:cleanup victor falk talk 01:35, 13 Feb)", I have revised it, and am willing to make any necessary improvements.


Apologies for the length of this message, but hopefully I've added sufficient context to this issue. IVX8O8XVI (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I felt there was substantial consensus at the AfD to merge rather than keep. However, if you disagree, you can start a discussion on the talk page of the article, and if you get consensus there to not merge, then you can reverse the decision. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I've re-opened the debate - hopefully in the place you are referring to - on the original article's discussion page.IVX8O8XVI (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

[edit]

Re-opened discussion on Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

[edit]

Following your suggestion 23:46, 14 Feb, I have re-opened the debate about the article Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo on its Discussion page. So, could you please edit the tag: {{afd-mergeto|Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo|Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo|13 February 2011|date=February 2011}} - so that readers are aware of the status change, and can contribute on the original article's discussion page? Otherwise, they will only be directed to the discussion page of Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Or is there another fix for this? Thanks! IVX8O8XVI (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the tag. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 384

[edit]

What do you consider a sufficient test for false positives? Someguy1221 (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time. No test is sufficient if it is not run for a sufficiently long duration of time. Give it a week, see if there are any FPs, fix them if necessary, then reactivate it to disalow. I'd say 10 false positives is worse than letting through 1000 acts of vandalism (especially since nearly all will be blocked by another filter, reverted by a bot, or reverted by a human). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just went to the filter, which is saying, "Warning: This filter was automatically disabled as a safety measure. It reached the limit of matching more than 5.00% of actions." This is exactly why we don't tack on disallow so early; mass hits may occur, and there's a good chance many are FPs. I've modified the filter, so the auto-disable should disappear. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 February 3 ‎.
Message added 06:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

testing tb....this first tb had a broken link Veriss (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tag on Talk:Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

[edit]

Thanks for changing the tag on Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. However, on the Discussion page, there is still the old tag, which will confuse potential contributors:

Could you please revise that one also? Thanks again! IVX8O8XVI (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the result of the AfD, so it should stay. That doesn't mean that an article's fate must follow whatever the AfD says. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand your point. So, for the benefit of any newer Wikipedia contributors, would it be acceptable to add the following note directly below your {{oldafdfull| tag? I am assuming that the WikiProject tags should precede all other discussions, which may obscure the latter's presence for some readers:
While the previous discussion, 5-13 February, was closed with the proposal to merge Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a new discussion was opened here on 15 Feb. to retain this article instead of merging it, following a suggestion on 14 Feb. from the administrator.
Please consider using criteria at the following pages to inform your contributions to this discussion:
Wikipedia:Merging
Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates
Wikipedia:Before commenting in a deletion discussion:
The discussion follows the WikiProject tags directly below...
{{WikiProject Mining...
IVX8O8XVI (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that would be OK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

[edit]

AfD closed, but article still says it is up for deletion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I hate it when people move an article in the middle of an AfD because it makes script-closing difficult. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I appreciate your work in closing AfDs. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD result

[edit]

Before I take this to a DRV, I wanted to ask your opinion on it. Both keep votes were arguments right out of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (specifically "something has mentioned it" "there's no harm in keeping it." The most telling vote is the weak delete, which was someone who actually made an effort to find notable coverage and was unable to. Thanks in advance for your input.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was only one !vote for "delete" other than nominator, so this AfD is considered insufficient participation. If you still want it to be deleted, you should renominate it at AfD as I have suggested (WP:NPASR) rather than take it to DRV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, missed that, thanks so much.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away

[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afd

[edit]

You deleted the article Tõnis Vanna (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tõnis Vanna), but I didn't have time to have a copy of it. So please provide me a copy of the article. Thanks. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Jüri Jevdokimov (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jüri Jevdokimov) also please. Thanks. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Is it possoble to get those in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henri Anier too? Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

[edit]

HELP

[edit]

As an admin who is online NOW, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#user:Awikipro spamming his services as a professional editor? This "professional wiki editor" is spamming his services to any and every new account he can find. mass reversion of his "welcome" template for many user talk pages may be needed. WuhWuzDat 08:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2011/02&oldid=1143115717"