Jump to content

User talk:King of Hearts

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 07:27, 11 June 2008 (Signing comment by Rustyspot - "→Bear Magazine Article: new section"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Old talk is at /Archive.

Please note that I will usually reply to messages on this page, unless you ask me to respond elsewhere.

Please use the link provided in the blue box above which says "Please leave a new message."
This way, you will be able to give your comment a subject/headline.

If an admin action made by me is more than a year old, you may reverse or modify it without consulting me first. However, I would appreciate being notified after the fact.

user:Dreamality

Elsten Torres is his own page; technically he can't vandalise it. I understand you're probably using a bot so it's an automated rely, but still... HalfShadow 23:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I Have seen you grant rollback requests How do I request the rollback Feature? ElectricalExperiment 21:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this, King of Hearts, you have email at your earliest convenience. Thanks, Metros (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled1)

I agree with you partly Kiing of Hearts, although what I actually was intending was merging it with the Calella article.Marenach (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ordomag subtemplates

Thanks for unprotecting Template:Ordomag/+ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Ordomag/0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). They won't need reprotecting because they are no longer high risk. The risk had come through the transclusions of {{ordomag/+}} on

and through these on {{convert}}, {{ft to m}}, {{ft2 to m2}}, {{bbl to t}}, etc., and then on to hundreds maybe thousands of pages. {{Ordomag}} has recently been updated and the subtemplates of {{ft to m}} and {{ft2 to m2}} which had been transcluding {{ordomag/+}} directly have been switched over to the new version of {{ordomag}}. This eliminated the need for the entire array of {{ordomag}}'s subtemplates as noted on template talk:ordomag#Improved version. I'd hoped to have these unprotected so they template subspace could be cleaned up. JIMp talk·cont 05:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the subtemplates to preserve history and put them up for deletion through WP:TfD though they could probably go under CSD G7. JIMp talk·cont 05:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing to correct "POV"

Per your closure here [1], how exactly do you edit out POV, when as I thought I had made clear in the nomination and comments, it is the title and premise of the article that violates POV, not just certain certain portions of the text, which if you look at the talk pages is an irredeemable mess anyway (but that was not my motiviation for nominating deletion). MickMacNee (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the deletion arguments, there is still a strong showing for "keep." The Islamic world is a geographical location; for comparison, see List of United States inventions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The loose and varied definition of the Muslim world has absolutely no comparison to the tight definition of a country like the US, on so many levels. And, even if it were a tightly defined region (i.e. a federation like the European Union or the CIS for arguments sake), why should it override the practice in the example US article you gave, and is widely used in wikipedia for other topics, things by country? This only seems to reinforce the biased opinon that somehow the US is the corrolary to Islam, which makes no sense when listing arbitrary things like inventions instead of more relevant topics. Remember, this is not a particularly societo-cultural topic common across Islam, indeed no explanation is even given for the grouping on these grounds at all, it is merely presented as fact that the relation is notable. Either the list is a list of inventions by muslims (which I believe is probably also barred as NPOV and OCAT, and which this article is probably an attempt to runaround), or it is a list of inventions by country. Anything else is a manufactured correlation in violation of NPOV, not fixable by any amount of editing without keeping the basic violation in tact. What happens if someone lists an invention made by say an Iraqi Christian in this article? Which list would an invention made by a Muslim living in Los Angeles be added to? What has a clock invented in Egypt got in common with an abacus invented in Chechnya? Absolutely nothing. A bizarre closure in my opinon. MickMacNee (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may take it to deletion review if you wish. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather you gave a better explanation here that can be referenced from the article talk page. In my experience deletion review is a waste of time, and not because the deletion is always right. I'm frankly fed up of admins using 'you can go to Drv' as an excuse not to explain their decisions. MickMacNee (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:76.184.38.95

Useless changing of capitalization is not 'constructive'. Please do tell me how this makes it more readable, or this serves any point whatsoever, capitals in the middle of a sentence?. Q T C 06:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early History on this subject, I mean seriously now. Q T C 07:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work against vandalism!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For quickly reverting all kinds of vandalism, I award you this barnstar for helping to keep wikipedia accurate, reliable, and free of vandalism. Thanks for all your hard work! CrazyChemGuy (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kabi_Nazrul_Government_College

Actually, this is a reverse copyvio .... Banglabhasha.org seem to copy Wikipedia articles sans any attribution. For example, compare Dhaka_Central_Jail with this. They not only copied the article text verbatim, but also copied the photograph that I myself had taken on December 22, 2006, (we had a Wiki-photo shoot trip along with other wikipedians, and uploaded all the photos to Wikipedia).

Looking at other articles, it seems that the website is doing wholesale copying of wikipedia articles. You can verify this by picking any article in the site, and checking the corresponding article/photos in Wikipedia.

So, I request you to restore the article, and in future, note the site as an uncredited Wiki mirror. I'm posting a note to ANB to let other admins know about this. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I've never noticed that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed the site on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc#Banglavasha. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks a lot for the quick action. Have a nice day. --Ragib (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion review for Inventions in the Islamic world

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Inventions in the Islamic world. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the (sadly somewhat predictable) lack of an expansion of your deletion reasoning above, I had no choice. MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good articles newsletter

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Comet

I was editing Comet (song) to add refs while you deleted it, and it was recreated. How does this work now? Ford MF (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, wait, SPEEDY DELETION? It was not a copy of the old material, it was the old material with the refs the lack of which caused the previous AfD voters to go with delete. At the very least I think it requires a second AfD. Ford MF (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll relist it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the article in the meantime. Please look at the refs before you renotice -- I think the lack of refs was what caused the delete vote in the first place. (I would have voted Keep also, but didn't see the AFD). NawlinWiki (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our toilet paper friend...

...is in need of a lovely parting gift. Would it be too much to leave a link to the photo of toilet paper on his page? Sounds as if he needs it.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL XD I followed your instructions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should feel better after all that sandpaper and pine cones.

Cell

Why the hell did you erase my page for Cell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicbullet5 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the AfD discussion. It fails the notability guidelines for films. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for the user talk revert. I see your name quite a lot while I'm using huggle. Keep up the good work :) --Faradayplank (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for helping me vandal fight by beating me, multiple times, to not only reverting the vandalism, but warning said vandal. Justpassin (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I appreciate it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Please stop stealing all the reverts, there are other people on vandal patrol you know! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard of Huggle? Go get it. Remember back in those days how non-admins had to do all the clicking manually, and then there was Lupin's popups? Now there's Huggle, which speeds it all up exponentially for admins (and rollbackers). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, however, I guess I'm a purest and so will just stick to the good old rollback. I'm just saying, save some for me! ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damián Manso

I just wanted to let you know that I have closed your AfD nomination as "speedy keep". Why am I telling you this? Because you are an admin and since I think admins have more reasonable judgement than most users, especially when dealing with admin nominations vs. non-admin closures, I would just like to ask if it was okay with you. Please reply here. Thank you.--RyRy5 (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. In fact, I wasn't even !voting delete; it was a procedural nomination. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just making sure. Oh, and please stop beating me in reverting vandalism. :P Just kidding. Keep up the good work! -- RyRy5 (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovani dos Santos

Hey there, seeing as you were the admin who protected Giovani dos Santos I thought I'd ask for it to be unprotected - it is no longer needed as the edit war taking place was regarding a proposed move to another club and some editors were stating it has gone ahead for it actually had. But, this transfer has now been completed and so an edit war should no longer be taking place. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for March 19, 2008 anti-war protest

An editor has asked for a deletion review of March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Myheartinchile (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Taargus taargus

Hi! Please block the user. He/she remove 2 final warnings I posted and vandalized my user page twice. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Oda Mari (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Magazine Article

Somebody has chosen to omit data from the definition of "Bear Magazine" repeatedly. My magazine, 100% BEEF, is the publishing heir to Bear Magazine, which unceremoniously disappeared in 2002. The contributing writers, photographers and artists who created Bear Magazine now contribute regularly to my magazine, 100% BEEF, now entering our 7th year of publishing. A new publisher has chosen to edit and omit references to my publication in the "Bear Magazine" definition, and keeps editing the content to that end, even though 100% BEEF Magazine's information has been part of the Bear Magazine definition for years now. And, when I re-edit the page for accuracy, they report me for "Vandalism". I have not vandalized any Wikipedia Pages; they have. Please help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustyspot (talk • contribs) 07:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts&oldid=218576340"