User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2007/03

biochemnick
Clearly there is no good faith. He has a history of adding references to himself (and using self-promoting words such as "influential") to articles where he is non-notable. Ask User:(aeropagitica). 208.255.229.66 03:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your block on Wiktionary
Hi, please don't do manual transwikis, at all. A reminder to me that User:CopyToWiktionaryBot didn't run the previous day is much more effective. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You deleted my article
Hi. My article was Amazing Vacation Homes. You deleted it because you thought it was spam but it isn't. Can I make another Amazing Vacation Homes article and can you protect it or something?? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calypsos (talk • contribs) 20:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Unfortunately, the subject is not notable enough for an article. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  16:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

NFL on Christmas
I asked for a deletion review of NFL on Christmas Day. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nitsansh 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

arkadium page deletion?
why did you delete the Arkadium page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karosenb (talk • contribs) 12:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

208.255.229.66
208.255.229.66, who has a history of edit wars, is currently removing large amounts of information and references from The Scientific Activist (information that was agreed to be relevant by others--see history). I won't deny that I have had my differences with this user before (just so we're completely open here), and I have taken a hands-off approach since then, but what this user is doing right now is completely inappropriate. Biochemnick 20:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article
Thanks very much --Aminz 04:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jordan FAC
The Michael Jordan FAC has been re-listed (which was probably a good idea). Thought you'd like to know, here's a quick link. Quadzilla99 14:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My new article!!
Hi King of Hearts. I made a NEW and much-more-improved Amazing vacation homes page. It's my first page-article that I've ever successfully created on Wikipedia so I am very excited and I tried to make sure that everything looks nice.

Unfortunately, you deleted my previous attempt Amazing Vacation Homes and you protected it so it can't be remade so I didn't have a chance to redo it. However, I remade my attempt with only the first word capitalized so it seemed to go through this time. I believe I fixed all the problems from my previous attempt so I believe that it falls within the guidelines that Wikipedia stresses for an encyclopedic article. Will you please take a look and tell me what you think about it...? I value your judgement and help. Thanks amigo!!

p.s. Is there a way to make my new article with capital letters in all words of the title?? THat would be cool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsos (talk • contribs) 06:45, March 18, 2007


 * Good; thanks for re-writing it into a non-advertising tone. I've moved the page back to Amazing Vacation Homes and removed the protection. Happy editing! -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  07:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

King of Hearts is SWEEET!!
WOW, thanks, King of Hearts!! You are so cool for being so nice and helpful!! You will be my first friend on Wikipedia!! Wow, I am so excited. THANK YOU!!!


 * BRAVO* to King of Hearts!!!!

(by the way, I don't know how to reply to your reply to my previous message, so I had to make a new message for you)


 * ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calypsos (talk • contribs) 16:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE_NAME. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ironhide1975 22:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of A Shanty No Lemon. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ironhide1975 22:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Maggie Kuhn
I noticed you uploaded a photo of Maggie Kuhn. If I'm not mistaken, the license that the image is tagged with would allow it to be put on the WikiMedia Commons. Have you thought of doing so? Dismas |(talk) 05:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

360 Architecture
You deleted 360 Architecture for CSD nn comp. I had made changes, added multiple reliable sources and had links to all the major projects within Wikipedia and some with external links. I do not understand how this did not comply with specifications? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdkucera (talk • contribs) 19:54, March 21, 2007
 * I've deleted it because the company is not notable enough to merit an article. If you think that it does, you can first start it at User:Sdkucera/360 Architecture; make sure that it asserts notability as a company per WP:CORP (please read). Then, reply here and I will take another look at it. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  23:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

360 Architecture recreated at your request
I followed your request and recreated a page at User:Sdkucera/360 Architecture that I feel addresses the issues in question.

A direct quote from the guidelines for Wikipedia's organizations and companies states, "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."

360 has built corporate headquarters for two Fortune 500 companies, and is currently the architect for two major league sports stadiums (one estimated at $500 million and the other estimated at over $1 billion) in addition to the other projects I have listed. There are also links to multiple publication that have featured work of and done feature articles on 360 Architecture. I strongly believe this constitues "notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" as listed in the guidelines.

Best Regards, Sdkucera 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  02:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Charley Levine
Kindly explain why you deleted my biography (Charley Levine). I have been a prime practitioner, primarily in Israel, in my chosen industry for nearly 30 years and have counselled numerous leaders (Al Gore, Senator Hillary Clinton, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Governor Schwarzenegger, Prime Minister Olmert and many others, not to mention top companies like General Electric and Bank of America). Would you please explain what seems to me a capricious and not very nice initiative on your part, to clc@netvision.net.il Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.132.181.177 (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC).


 * The article was deleted because it does not assert your notability; see WP:BIO for more information. Please do not re-create the article, as Wikipedia does not recommend autobiographies. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  02:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Film
Why was this cascading protected? I suspect there's some obvious reason I'm missing, but I can't think of it. -Amarkov moo! 14:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a high-risk template. With normal protection, someone can change the appearance of the template by editing one of the (non-protected) transcluded templates. By cascading the protection, those templates could be locked from vandalism as well. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  00:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Daylight saving time citations needed in lead?
Thanks for your GA review of Daylight saving time. I think I have fixed the 3rd point you raised. The 2nd will just take time (wait for edits to die down). I didn't quite follow the 1st point, though, about citations in the lead—could you please clarify that point on the talk page? Thanks. Eubulides 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification; I hope the followup fix works for you. Eubulides 05:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

username
Hi, I'm famillier with WP:AGF, but I thought that confusing usernames weren't acceptable with the username policy.--User: (talk • contribs) 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I just don't want to block him/her. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  01:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Question re: recent AfD that you closed
Hi King of Hearts, I was wondering if you could help answer a question about AfD policy. You recently closed this AfD with "no consensus", and in your edit summary when removing the tag commented "(AFD no consensus --> keep)". The editors who nominated the article for deletion are now simply redirecting it to Out of India instead, essentially deleting all of the article's content.

One user is claiming on the article's talk page that he can redirect because "Keep is a superset of merge and redirect" and that the lack of clarity in the AfD was due to "laziness on the part of the closing admin". This appears to me to be subverting the AfD process by deleting the article after all, with no consensus for the 'redirect'/delete (it's about 50/50, same as the AfD). Am I missing something regarding policy? Or do we just keep edit warring on the redirect, which is not much of a solution? Any thoughts or help with understanding policy would be appreciated. Thanks, &#2384; Priyanath talk 15:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have protected the page for 1 week because of the edit war. Anyways, keep is different from redirect. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you explain that? A vote that does not end in deletion does not rule out merging and redirection; I quoted on the article talkpage arguments from the AfD, even by the article's supporters, which indicated that.
 * Please note your 'no consensus' closure continues to puzzle me. Hornplease 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No consensus means that the people cannot affirmatively decide what to do. Therefore, the article is treated as if the AFD discussion didn't take place. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  19:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly the point I have been making. A no-consensus keep is not a vote for notability to the degree that merging and redirection is ruled out. How does this square with 'keep is different from redirect'?
 * This does not mean, of course, that my estimation is that that was a no-consensus closure. Hornplease 20:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But is a defacto deletion through a bad faith redirect (let's be honest and stop calling it a merge) really honoring the intention of a no consensus/keep result in AfD? I imagine this is probably a larger policy issue that has been discussed before, since I doubt this is the first time someone has tried to delete an article by redirecting it. &#2384; Priyanath talk 21:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't the vaguest, which is why I, and the two other editors who also merged-and-redirected, was careful to indicate that the AfD had not indicated notability other than as a subset of another article. The use of Wikipedia to create notability for partisan, fringe outfits and individuals is something we need to clamp down on, and that was reflected in the AfD. Hornplease 21:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop arguing. The point of protecting the page was to stop the edit war, not to move it to a different place. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  00:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The point of protection is to make people argue rather than revert, not stopping people from arguing. I am deeply disturbed by your actions in this episode. Hornplease 19:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Armada edit restrictions
Hi, King of Hearts. You protected Spanish Armada over a month ago, but it's been hit with a new wave of vandalism. Plus this edit was made just after you unprotected, and it remained in until today, because it got lost in the reversions of repeated vandalism. Maybe a registered-users-only restriction is needed on editing? It looks like it's a favourite of high school essay writers. Thanks.--Shtove 19:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Protected for 1 week. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  20:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Featured Article Review
Thank you for letting me know; I'll try and take a look at it in the upcoming days. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protection
I see that you enabled cascading protection on Template:Film and I was wondering why. It makes it impossible to edit the usage and I don't see any need to have such a high level of protection. Any thoughts? Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's used on thousands of pages, and therefore needs to be protected to prevent all of them from being changed if the template is vandalized. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  20:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)