User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2010/10

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

Good call, but incomplete[edit]

Hi, King of Hearts. You were certainly right to block a particular user a couple of days ago, but I think you missed one: the person who filed the ANI complaint. I'm very familiar with the participants' edit histories, and have added information to the relevant ANI thread. I wonder if you'd mind taking a look, please? Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,again, King of Hearts: I know it's in many ways a thankless job to be an admin; I've seen some of the really nasty, abusive comments here on your talk page - good on you for ignoring the garbage that some very immature editors have tried to fling your way; those kinds of attacks say nothing about their intended target and everything about the user who makes them. I've been tempted to bring one of those editors to ANI, actually, but your maturity in ignoring the provocation and just considering the source has seemed the more grown-up alternative. So thanks for not letting such stupidity and childish remarks sway you from your willingness to help regulate the social infrastructure that allows people with such divergent and contrary opinions to (more or less) collaborate to create a (more or less) balanced, consensus-based presentation of important subjects and issues to the rest of the world. You have a right to feel proud about that, if you'll excuse me for speaking so personally.
Also, with the greatest possible respect, I need to ask you whether you have any intention to look more closely at the revision histories of the two Linda McMahon articles. As a more-or-less "lurker" on those two articles (I've edited only the campaign article, and that only once) it's abundantly clear to me that there's been an edit war going on since the end of August on those two articles, with Screwball23 on the one side, and FellGleaming and Collect on the other. It was easy to block Screwball23, because his incivility was so egregious and obvious, but you also blocked him for edit warring. As I've repeatedly said, you were absolutely, perfectly right to block him for that; I'm glad you did so. My only concern is that (I'm sorry to say this) you neglected to look at who he was edit warring with.
Again, with the greatest possible respect, it seems to me that when an admin responds to a complaint of edit warring by blocking someone for it, it's incumbent upon him to look very carefully to see who, exactly, the user he blocks was edit-warring with. It might take you 15 - 30 minutes to do so, but if you'll undertake the task, I think it'll be very clear that, as I've said, user Collect and user FellGleaming were Screwball23's opponents. They both performed blanket reverts on the two Linda McMahon articles without (imo) any good-faith attempts to compromise: both were, as Screwball23 claimed, trying to whitewash their candidate of preference in a closely contested mid-term Senate race. The two of them, imo, acted together to oppose Screwball23's edits: his attempts to include information into the articles that was not exclusively flattering to McMahon.
Unfortunately, it's hard to want to support Screwball23's efforts or POV. He hasn't been as sophisticated (sorry, Screwball23) as Collect and FellGleaming were in pushing his (also partisan) political preference; e.g. his very unpleasant personal remarks. It's hard to have much sympathy for him personally, to be frank, because of his reactive outbursts toward opponents. But neither should his opponents prevail in the edit war just because he might be a demonstrably less sophisticated POV warrior.
I know it's hard to get motivated to do the in-depth investigation that's necessary to dig out the truth in patterns of edits, based on an article's revison history, especially in a context of petty bickering. I'm not in the least criticizing you in this regard; I'll admit that I also find it very difficult and very tedious to look carefully into the revision histories of articles that I have no special interest in. But again, with the greatest possible respect, if you're going to block one user for edit-warring, it does seem important to me to look carefully into the relevant articles' edit history to determine who else, if anyone, might have been culpable on the opposite side of the conflict.
To try to provide you some help in that task, I'll reiterate my very strong impression, based on watching the two Linda McMahon articles articles since the end of August, that Collect and FellGleaming were every bit as responsible for the edit wars that took place in the two Linda McMahon articles as Screwball23 was. I'm not defending Screwball23's behavior, not in the least, please let me reiterate. You were entirely right to block him; we can't tolerate the kind of incivility he allowed himself; he was completely in the wrong to do that. But since you also blocked him for edit warring, it seems to me, as I've been trying to make clear, that it's important to carefully review who was reverting his edits.
Three users have asked me to provide diffs showing that Collect was also edit warring. I wish I had the time to do that carefully, but it would take me at least two to four hours to do so carefully (I'm very slow at some kinds of research and writing) and I just don't have that kind of time over the next day or two. I wish I did. But since you made your decison that Screwball23 was edit warring based just on the revison histories of one of the two Linda McMahon articles, I would respectfully submit to you that it would be reasonable to do the same, also based on just the revison histories of the two Linda McMahon articles, with respect to Screwball23's opposing editors, viz. Collect and FellGleaming.
I'll close by saying that I'd be very surprised if user Collect didn't follow up my post here (to your talk page) with ad hominem attempts to disparage the value of what I've said, saying I'm inexperienced as an editor, that he has more edits, that I haven't contributed enough here, etc., etc. He's following my edit history very closely, and doing his best to discredit me and whatever observations I might make. He's certainly an intelligent person, very smart politically and very skilled in the use of (sorry, Collect, but it's my opinon) propagandistic methods to attack anyone who dares to criticize his participation here. I'm tired of responding to his misrepresentations of my motives and behavior, pretty revolted, actually, by the whole process. I utterly loathe these kinds of interactions, and would much rather just quietly contribute to non-controversial articles. I've only commented on what I've seen as the egregiously unpleasant behavior of selected editors because I've felt a responsibilty to the community here to do so, when I've seen it represented on the various boards.
However Collect might respond here, I'm sure what he says will seem plausible, will discredit what I've said here pretty effectively, and that you'll find yourself doubting my motives or competence or whatever. I'm going to try not to respond here to whatever he might choose to say in that regard; I'm very tired of interacting with him. But I will trust to your intelligence and diligence to carefully evaluate the value of our respective comments, and to evaluate the revision history of the two Linda McMahon articles to form your own opinion, without being unduly influenced by either mine or Collect's. Thanks very much for your time in considering this admittedly unpleasant matter carefully.
If I don't see you comment in the thread you based your block on at ANI, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know here that you're unwilling to review the revison histories of the two Linda McMahon articles to determine whether Screwball23 was the only edit warrior who was culpable, or whether Collect and FellGleaming were responsible for the edit warring, too. I think if you'll do so, it'll be obvious pretty quickly that Screwball23 was by no means alone in the disruption that was in evidence in the two articles. But whether you choose to do so is up to you, of course; we're all volunteers here. I'd just be pleased to know of your intentions in this matter. Thank you,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OS, thank you for your detailed post. I will review the history of the edit war and get back to you soon. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I'm sorry to have felt it necessary to ask for more of your time on this, since it's a pretty unpleasant matter, but I do appreciate your willingness, very much, regardless of what your final opinon turns out to be. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I made no "edit war" on the article, I wonder what the roblem is. I note you think I follow your edits - I follow no one's edits at all. I frankly do not care what OS alleges - aspersions are odd when he does not even provide diffs of his allegations. - you can follow all my "partisan edits" if you wish -- I suggest you start with Alex Sink and [1]. Now just let me continue with my cancer therapy/recuperation. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone here wishes you the best in your recovery, Collect, as I do myself. If the consequences of your edits generates stress for you, then you might think about laying off political and controversial articles for a while. There are certainly more important things in life than Wikipedia, or correcting what you see as bias in articles here about political candidates. I have a dear friend who has battled the disease successfully, and it's her opinion that minimizing stress is an important factor in staying as healthy as possible.
But if you're going to keep up your practice of deleting very well-sourced negative info from your preferred candidates articles, I think it'll be hard to avoid controversy and strife with others here. I've had the Carl Paladino article on my watchlist, for example, since you posted to another admin's talk page right after I did.
That "woman having sex with a horse" comment of yours caught my attention, and I saw from investigating further that you wished to describe the racist, pornographic, and bestialty videos (scroll to bottom) Paladino sent to business associates and friends only as "improper e-mail", despite their being described as racist and pornographic in The Guardian, which you objected to as an unreliable source. And I notice that you insist on saying that he "allegedly sent" the e-mails despite his having admitted to the press on-camera that he did so.
Now I see that in two edits you've expunged from Wikipedia any reference to Paladino's very aggressive shouting "I'll take you out!" to a reporter, despite that being reported by ABC, NBC, CBS, the NY Times, the Daily Mail, New York Magazine, the NY Post, the Observer, the NY Daily News, the Huffington Post, Fox, NPR, and just about every other news source of any size in the world. Do you really think our readers don't have the right to know of this candidate's outburst, when the rest of the world thinks it's relevant to his candidacy?
I'm sure some other editor will be along shortly to revert those edits, so I'll not get involved unless I see you reinstate them after that occurs. But if you want to keep your stress level down you'll need to stop whitewashing the articles for your preferred candidates on Wikipedia. Best of luck in your recovery,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Jimbo, it is imperative that WP mot be misused for political purposes by including tabloid materian in our articles. I am sorry that you feel that a person who accused me on my talk page of liking bestiality was doing so out of a sincere attempt to get the BLPs written conservatively - as WP insists. I also feel that giving multiple paragraphs to a minor incident is not the best use of mainspace per WP:UNDUE. BLPs are best suited for factual material, and not for campaign talking points about anyone (and I am sure you have noted my zealousness about all sorts of people). As I have never "whitewashed" any article, I think it is better for you to calm down than anything else. Collect (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have come to the decision to block Collect for 72 hours. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm slightly astonished by this block KoH. Please can you expand on your reasoning and maybe put it up for review at ANI? Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 17:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12oz prophet wikipedia page deletion[edit]

Hey there, We'd like to have our page restored, we were not aware of the dire need for references in order to keep the page up. Please allow us to provide proper references and restore the page. Thanks so much for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, 12ozprophet.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.77.166 (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can restore it if you create an account. Could you do so, and (while logged in) post here? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Not sure if this is the proper way to respond, anyway I have created an account. Thanks for your response.Primerstar6 (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)primerstar6[reply]

OK, it is available at User:Primerstar6/12oz Prophet. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. I have added references to one section, I am gathering some more information to add the references to the other section. Might take another day or so but it's possible what I've added is enough for now. Thanks for your help. --Primerstar6 (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)primerstar6[reply]
Ok, let me know if you need more references. Much appreciated! Primerstar6 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)primerstar6[reply]
Pretty good, but could you provide a link to each of the sources (esp. New York Times and AP), and format it properly (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok, i linked to the NYT, Village Voice and AP sources, but there is no link to the other sources in the list, as they are to magazines and books never referenced on the net, and after a lot of looking, they just do not exist on the net, and I can't scan them all in.. I will instruct the other people from 12oz who may want to add to the page that they have to be airtight on the references and link to them. As it says on the citing sources page, I expect several people from the 12oz site to improve on the work, but they can't do that until the page is back up. I thought I had it formatted properly, for the books I redid it with the info available, as I can't provide much more info than what is there. The magazines don't list publishers, I may be able to get that info but it would be great if the page could go back up in lieu of that. Please let me know if I need to provide anything else. Many thanks. Primerstar6 (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)primerstar6[reply]

again, do i need to provide anything else? i've responded to your concerns. Primerstar6 (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)primerstar6[reply]

helloooo??? is anyone there?? 134.192.150.96 (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)primerstar6[reply]

I have reviewed the sources, but unfortunately they do not count because they do not even mention 12oz Prophet. Can you find reliable sources that have significant coverage of 12oz Prophet? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, all the references in the first section are about 12oz. the references in the second section are about people who write for 12oz. that seems significant to me.. not to mention, it seemed as though once the initial section was referenced properly we'd be good to go, i quote you on my first round of edits "pretty good, but could you provide a link to each of the sources" ..anyway of course i can find stuff that references it in what i see as a significant way, but i'm guessing it won't be good enough again? http://designnotes.info/?p=2301 http://www.fecalface.com/SF/index.php/good-stuff/2092-os-gemeos-mural-w-futura-in-nyc http://slamxhype.com/art-design/12ozprophet-site-relaunch/ 134.192.150.96 (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)primerstar6[reply]

there are more. http://filter.anat.org.au/issue-67/visabilitys-mixed-bag/ when is enough enough? 134.192.150.96 (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)primerstar6[reply]

some more http://www.complexmedianetwork.com/publishers/sites/Entertainment/12ozprophet.com http://www.knowngallery.com/blog/post/12ozprophet-1997-brazil-graffiti-with-os-gemeos-raven-sonik 134.192.150.96 (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)primerstar6[reply]

i'm reluctant to work on the page itself since the changes haven't really been accepted, and i mentioned already we could improve on it if you'd put it back up. "significant way" seems too subjective, so it would be nice if you could sign off on one or more of these links, i'll insert it and the page can go back up 134.192.150.96 (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)primerstar6[reply]

The part that discusses 12ozProphet in DesignNotes is a press release, so it doesn't count; same for FecalFace. Slamxhype is trivial coverage. ComplexMediaNetwork lists 12ozProphet as a "Partner Site," so that doesn't constitute coverage. Known Gallery does not discuss 12ozProphet beyond putting it in the title. Filter is the only one that may work; the thing in question is whether it is reliable enough, but in any case there must be more than one such source. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure i see what the problem is here. there is obviously no question the magazines, the publications, the books exist. the ISBN numbers can attest to some of that. If it's a question of relevance, I'll point out that the character 12oz mouse has a wikipedia page, no one seems to be targeting that for deletion, and yet it is not the top result for 12oz on google, 12ozprophet.com is the top two, one for the site/blogs, one for the forum. I'd ask you to consider, it is a tremendously popular website, don't you think some people would be interested in the origins, their other projects, maybe even want to oknow what it is etc? Just as much as someone might be for say, the 12oz mouse character from adult swim.Primerstar6 (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)primerstar6[reply]

Google doesn't prove anything. There are 14,400,000 hits for "yogurt" and only 4,150,000 for "yoghurt," yet our article on the topic is at yoghurt. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so then it actually has nothing to do with whether or not we had references, as the books and publications from 12oz are real. It actually has to do with whether or not you think the page is relevant. I wasn't aware you personally had to approve the wiki pages. You really should mention that when you are telling people they need to format things properly, that you actually are looking for proof the page should be important to you. And you mentioned yogurt. That is about a difference in how the word yogurt is spelled, not about two topics that have nothing to do with each other. Should you start deleting wikipedia pages on people you've never heard of? Primerstar6 (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)primerstar6[reply]

What I was trying to establish with the "yoghurt" example was that it doesn't matter how much we've heard of something. It's entirely based on community consensus on whether there are sufficient references. Google ≠ references. And just because the books and publications are real doesn't mean they are notable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello King of Hearts, full disclosure, I have been helping Primerstar with some of the writing/research. I believe that lost in some of the discourse here are some very valid points. They do not necessarily contradict some of the concerns exhibited here, but they do help illuminate the role that 12ozprophet has played, and does play, in the subculture of graffiti, one that I think is indisputably of worthiness as a wikipedia subject.

- You mentioned previously that some of our articles that referenced our writers (their political debates, legal troubles, etc.) were irrelevant for a 12ozprophet entry because it did not reference it specifically. Viewed purely in the prism of 12ozprophet as a magazine/single entity, of course this makes sense. But it does not have a single vision, rather it is THE vehicle for these individuals to put forth their views, views of which have been demonstrated by these referenced press accounts to be of the public interest. Therefore, I would venture that 12ozprophet is more of a platform for these individuals, and to be clear, in no way are they employees of 12ozprophet. Then, the question becomes, is the medium for the opinions of [according to press accounts] the most influential graffiti artists in the world, of enough significance to warrant a wikipedia article?


- To pose this question another way, would any survey of the culture of present-day graffiti be complete without consulting 12ozprophet? This is an unverifiable point, but there has been no comprehensive study of graffiti without attention to paid to 12oz prophet's contributors. Whether it is Martha Cooper (who's photography projects, Subway Art and Spray Art, introduced NYC train graffiti to the world), KR (whose ink company, KRINK, can be found on walls in almost every major city in Europe and North America), Cope2 (whose most recent arrest, once again received much significant press attention in the NY press, and has his own wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cope2), Ket (whose actions were considered significant enough by the NYPD to warrant extensive long-term investigations, as referenced in previous drafts), Os Gemeos (at their wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Os_G%C3%AAmeos), 12oz Prophet is credited for its role in raising their artistic profiles that led to the recognition they enjoy today). You were correct to say that each of the references provided did not focus specifically on 12oz, but the fact that all these references are about people whose views can only be viewed at one place, that is the point we were trying to make with those references. Are the actions and viewpoints of these 35 artists in the upper echelon of graffiti significant enough to warrant inclusion into wikipedia? The vast majority of attention paid to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute is not about the institute itself, it is about its members and fellows. Of course, put together, the fellows' varying visions contribute to what AEI is. Why can't 12ozprophet be treated the same way, considering the effect its contributors have had on the culture as a whole (much the same way the AEI has had such a dramatic effect on political culture).


- Another point I wish to clarify is the notion you have ventured at various junctures, that 'because there aren't significant sources that reference 12ozprophet specifically', it must be insignificant. Part of that is the insular nature of the culture, and part of it is the fact that whenever a graffiti arrest is made through internet investigations, police rarely publicize the website in which they did their investigated. This is similar to the way we read frequently of the diatribes of various Al Qaeda figures that were released on a 'jihadist message board' without releasing the specific domain. The fact that 12ozprophet is so much more popular within the subculture (ascertained by membership counts among the primary message boards: bombingscience.com , puregraffiti.com and 12ozprophet) surely leads one to deduct that police consider it a valuable crime-fighting tool, considering the numerous articles that come up on 'internet policing' and graffiti on a LexisNexis search. - Additionally, just to get some consistency, I wish to point out the wikipedia pages of 12ozprophet's contributors. This is worthy because, if one considers them of enough significance to warrant a page, surely the source of their viewpoints and contributions should be of significance as well? When we speak of Paul Krugman, it goes without saying that we also speak of the New York Times. To that end, 12ozprophet is the medium for these artists, among thirty others: 

    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Os_G%C3%AAmeos
    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cope2
    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Cooper
    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krink
    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_La_Rock_(artist)


- One more thing I wish to bring up. Among the administrators of wikipedia, is there someone qualified to weigh the accomplishments of 12ozprophet contributors against those of others within the graffiti subculture? I acknowledge that to an untrained eye, these names would not necessarily stand out (as I have seen in previous discussions here on wikipedia, that '12ozprophet is no Art Crimes', etc.). I went to your administrator page and noted that you had previously deleted many company pages on wikipedia, for what seems like the same reasons that you have deleted 12ozprophet. I am a little bit worried that you are not that educated in the history of graffiti as an art-form. Graffiti doesn't have the benefit of longevity the way that other art forms have had. For example, if I write, Rembrandt " is generally considered one of the greatest painters and printmakers in European art history" [as written in the wikipedia article], that is accepted (though not necessarily falsifiable). However, if I write, "Barry McGee's graffiti scripts have proven to be among the most influential in graffiti's short history", an equally true statement as the one about Rembrandt though it is does not have the benefit of Phaidon having published it.This is where someone educated or at least marginally knowledgable of graffiti as an artform would prove helpful. If wikipedia doesn't have a 'graffiti specialist' and decided to make one an administrator, chances are they would look first to a contributor of 12ozprophet. I hope that doesn't sound condescending and it shouldn't, but I just wonder if there is some sort of mediator that could judge the significance of these artists on the graffiti subculture as a whole, so it is not our word against yours (unless of course, you are an expert on graffiti).

I want to thank you for your attention, at the very least is making the 12ozprophet article a better one, which more fully recognizes the role it has played in the graffiti culture for almost 15 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MayorMeanBeans (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have forwarded this matter to the community at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 14. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll[edit]

As the straw poll is on the talk page, there wasn't a talk page to note this, much less move the comments to. And since you created the page, I thought I should at least drop a note here.

I commented out the sections regarding # of times a discussion can be relisted.

As I noted there, that's just a bad idea due to WP:IAR WP:CREEP, and general common practice.

I understand you were just trying to cover the bases, as it were.

I didn't simply remove the section, because I didn't want to see an edit war start, at least before some communication (and of course, before giving everyone on the sidelines a chance to buy popcorn : )

Anyway, hope you're having a good day. - jc37 04:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point about WP:CREEP. Regarding [2], where exactly do you wish to put (a hopefully simplified version of) the closing guidelines? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Black Falcon had some good ideas, I thought.
And afaik, he's working up a draft of a new way to organise the page at this moment. I offered to help edit when he posts it on wiki, and I'm sure your help would be welcome as well : ) - jc37 17:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we'll first wait for him, then go on from there. :-) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bogazici University: Your lock[edit]

Dear King of Hearts,

I am extremely disappointed by the fact that you have now locked the "Bogazici University" article, with the last version being that of the anonymous poster, with all the misleading information provided by this user there, and giving the image that this one misleading user's version should be supported against the whole community (please please see the discussion page and the comments posted by a variety of people before suggesting again that I talk with this poster). This person does NOT approach discussing anything in the discussion page, like you suggested. In the past, different versions of the "rankings" have been posted there, which also included his edits. There were, for example, versions which referred to his citations TOGETHER WITH the actual OSS rankings that people like me keep trying to include in the rankings section, which his version does not even mention - when the OSS rankings are the only rankings of Turkish universities, and one done by the Turkish Higher Education Counsil. Why does this information have to be hidden, and instead only "website popularity rankings" have to be provided? How can this be done with any good faith? Do you have any answers to these, King of Hearts? All I (and others with any sense) want is that the OSS rankings be mentioned under the "rankings" page. OK., his rankings (though they (4icu and webometrics) are not university rankings and are not even mentioned as university rankings by any reliable university in the world) can stay there, but the OSS rankings should also be mentioned, without which the article is not only not reliable, but also ultra-misleading, for the two other rankings that are constantly posted by him are already misleading (and his third ranking just refers to the ranking of a single dept., not the whole university). Anyway, I am hoping that you will take a second look at this issue. Best, Jack Jacksantr (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See meta:The Wrong Version. In short, protecting a page is not intended to promote one side's views over another, but rather to stop an edit war. When I was first alerted to the problem, the page happened to be on the IP's version; that was when I warned you both. Then you reverted. And then the IP reverted. I did not want to block either of you for WP:3RR, but the edit war needed to stop. So the page happened to be protected under "The Wrong Version." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the article is indeed the correct version. Please see the discussion page of the article for further info. (184.75.35.50 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

your block of collect[edit]

Hi, have you blocked Collect for edits he made to the Linda McMahon articles five days ago? This is your edit summary , You have been blocked from editing to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. - something that happened over five days ago can hardly be described as needing restrictions to prevent further disruption, would you please explain in a little more details why you think this block is necessary. thanks Off2riorob (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed Collect's unblock request on hold. If you could comment at User talk:Collect#October 2010, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off2riorob, indeed I took the "preventative, not punitive" clause into consideration in not blocking him earlier. But soon he made recent reverts to Linda McMahon and Carl Paladino. While it could be argued that he is removing BLP violations for some of the edits, his history of edit warring casts a shadow on any reverts he may make. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for commenting, I don't support the block as being beneficial or protective to the project under these circumstances but I will leave it with you, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohiostandard has pointedly posted to my UT page after being disinvited at [3] and at [4] and at [5]. At -[6] he asked Screwball23 for diffs as he did not have any to complain about me for. At [7] he ackowledges that he was CANVASSED by Screwball23. So we have a person who was CANVASSED, who admitted he had zero evidence, who issued multiple complaints, who posted in furtherence of his own machinations, and who posted thrice on my UT page after being told not to. I trust this elucidates his behaviour. Thanks. Collect (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nixon presidential campaign, 1968[edit]

Thank you for the GA review, and my apologies for the slow reaction, but I believe I have addressed all concerns. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive2[edit]

As a reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Jordan, I thought you might consider commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosgeologiya[edit]

Rosgeologiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hiya, can you revisit that one, and see what you think; I'm not convinced that 'no consensus' was valid there. I know it's a while ago, so maybe I should start a new AfD, I'm not sure...anyway, please let me know your thoughts. (I was just checking back on old-things-I-had-PRODded, checking for any misjudgements). Cheers!  Chzz  ►  07:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should have been closed as "delete," but I don't think it's fair to do ex post facto on this after the recent change in the relisting policy. It's better to just renominate it IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine. No problem, I will do so. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  17:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosgeologiya (2nd nomination)  Chzz  ►  17:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Paladino[edit]

needs WP:BLP attention urgently. Collect (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am watching this page. Currently a productive discussion is occurring on the talk page, but I'll protect the page if an edit war breaks out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Request an account/Administrators[edit]

Wikipedia:Request an account/Administrators, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Request an account/Administrators and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Request an account/Administrators during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of International organisations[edit]

Respected Sir

I'll be appearing for my exams in 15 days. I had bookmarked the "list of international organisations" page you had created. That was the best list available on the net. If you can't restore it, please just mail the 'list only' in text. I'll be extremely grateful to you for this. my email is sukritdrona@yahoo.com & sukritdrona@gmail.com. please sir send it as soon as possible. I need that very badly. Please.

Sukrit Drona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.165.189 (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Favour[edit]

Hi. Kristin Prim is currently nominated at T:TDYK. There was a prior AFD, here, which you closed last year as delete. The current article's history also suggests a history of copyright violation in the article. Could you please help to see if this is speedy deletable, either under recreation of deleted material, or under copyright violation? Thanks! Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 06:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a copyvio. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collin Knox[edit]

Hi! I noticed that you deleted Collin Knox because " * (del/undel) 19:11, 27 September 2010 King of Hearts (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Collin Knox" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G3, blatant and obvious misinformation. using TW) (view/restore) " Several people who have known Coleman and were in disputes with him said that he had published articles under that name, and those claims were published in the New Yorker magazine and in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. This information, and other information about this man is being discussed in an RFC. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll restore it and send it to RfD then. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will comment there, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayna Corporation Information[edit]

I have read the information you posted about Ayna Corporation, and there is not issue with copyright there. Also the history of the page is gone, so I can not comment if something was added after I added the information. Can you please advise how to reinstate the page? --Aelfakih (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it to your user subpage: User:Aelfakih/Ayna Corporation. If you work on it and provide significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, the page can be reinstated. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice[edit]

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 12:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

497th transportation company[edit]

King of Hearts,

I am questioning why the deletion of the 497th transportation company wikipage happened. I am currently the First Sergeant of that unit and I assure you that it is an active duty Army Transportation company.

Thanks

MikeChainbrakr (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/497th Transportation Company. That fact that it exists is not sufficient to warrant an article; it must be notable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the heading "Project Blue Beam (NASA)"[edit]

I just want to know why it was deleted. Why would you delete ANY information? Any information is just that, information, and having it deleted makes me wonder a considerable amount.

Even if it was false, why not leave that to the reader to determine.

Now, Please tell me WHY did you delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.214.254 (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted per the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Blue Beam (NASA). Basically, people agreed that it was not notable and constituted original research. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Massey - Deleted Page[edit]

I have been trying to gether information to create a wikipedia page for a xbox employee that seemed to have her name/page flagged for deletion. I have tried to read over the steps to try and get this fixed but I am new to wikipedia and confused. One page told me to contact a person that has deleted the page to to and get it resolved.

Laura Massey - Software Development Engineer in Test on the Xbox 360 (http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Live/EngineeringBlog/Home_ , Co-host of "Major Nelson Radio" podcast (http://majornelson.com/default.aspx)

In a deletion thread, I saw something about credit source or info needed, not just because she is popular.


http://www.facebook.com/lauramassey http://www.flickr.com/photos/lauralollipop/ http://twitter.com/lauralollipop/ http://majornelson.com/default.aspx

If you do a search on wikipedia for Laura Massey you get the guy who runs the podcast she co-host.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Hryb

In his article he has a section called PodCast, in that it list the other host but not her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Toulouse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Neustadter

Here is the post she made when they created the section on the website for engineering blogs

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Live/EngineeringBlog/011310-Welcome



I don't know what info you would need to show shes a important person in the xbox 360 community

Thank you for your time,

- Greg Steimel steimel @ gmail dot come —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregsteimel (talk • contribs) 18:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC) --Gregsteimel (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, per our notability guidelines, a person must have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The XBox links are not considered independent. The Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and Wikipedia links are not considered reliable. The Major Nelson link is not significant coverage; I cannot find where she is mentioned. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I will do more homework and gather more information. I tried to gather the above information in a hurry to try and get this page setup. She does have coverage from multiple reliable sources and will leave you a message once I gather them up. Thank you for your time. --Gregsteimel (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Laura Massey[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Laura Massey. 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. Bawitdaba1337 (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2010/10&oldid=1139069598"