User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2011/05

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

AfD closure for Seventh Day Christians - Norway[edit]

The closure of this AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh Day Christians_-_Norway, was a merge to Church of God International (USA).  The merged material stayed in the article for only two days.  Please either support your closure or notate specific policies/guidelines that need to be corrected.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I closed it as "redirect," not "merge and redirect." Therefore I have no opinion on whether the content should be merged, and the decision whether to merge should be based on further discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, someone had mentioned in passing that merge and redirect had the same meaning and I've never paid it much attention and need to know more.  I looked in WP:Deletion process but there is no mention there of "merge and redirect" nor did I find anything with a couple of searches.  Is there more information available in the guidelines?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there was I wouldn't know about it, because they're descriptive, not prescriptive (i.e. they intend to convey the closer's intention). There are only three basic AfD closes: keep, delete, and no consensus. Merge basically means "keep with a strong recommendation to merge." Redirect means "delete but there exists a suitable target, to which content may be selectively merged if appropriate." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These may be helpful: WP:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes and recent RfC WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect. Flatscan (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for help understanding the difference between merge and redirect; again I am explaining what I mean by those closes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should have indented to direct my comment to Unscintillating. I don't agree with the bit about three basic AfD closes, but I agree with nearly all of your comments here, and I know that you're highly experienced in deletion. You don't need my "helpful" links. In any case, I was rude to jump in with an apparent rebuttal, and I apologize for that. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All's well ;-) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've skimmed both of those, thanks.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that all three participants supported a merge, how can this AfD be closed with "redirect" rather than "merge and redirect"?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator said "merge or delete," which implies that a redirect would be acceptable to them. JoVam said redirect as the content had been merged already, but you can't assume they will automatically !vote to merge if the merge had not been performed. Again, this is a fine line and can be overturned by further discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how you get a redirect instead of a merge and redirect.  User: JoVam had already done the work of the merge, so there is no hypothetical state here regarding his/her view for the case in which "the merge had not been performed".  I think a paraphrase of User: JoVam's position is, "I've already done the merge phase of the merge and redirect, and I accept it if you continue with a redirect."  The nominator starts out by proposing, "Merge with parent denomination" which is not a preference for a redirect.  Do you now agree that there was unanimous consensus to merge and redirect?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I am concerned about is that you will use this to force content into Church of God International (USA). That is not the purpose of AfD. AfD is still primarily a deletion process, and recommendations like "redirect" and "merge and redirect" are not set in stone. Even if the result had been "merge and redirect," if you tried to merge the content into the target article and got reverted, you couldn't just keep revert warring and saying you're right because the AfD said so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not more concerned that I will then ask you to support your closure and community consensus, as I have done before, thinking that you had already signed-off on the merge?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work this way. The AfD was on Seventh Day Christians - Norway, so there is no community consensus for Church of God International (USA) to accept the content from that page. Also, it is uncertain whether content should be merged to The Intercontinental Church of God or Church of God International (USA), if at all. If you are so firm in your position, why don't you open a discussion on the talk page rather than holding onto a three-person discussion out of which very little consensus may be reasonably extracted? It's not like the article was deleted or anything. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you already closed as a redirect to Church of God International (USA), and no one is questioning that target, the issue of whether the merge should go to The Intercontinental Church of God doesn't seem to be at issue.  The discussion/consensus at the merge target is hypothetical in that you have not agreed to a merge closure.  Please explain why you closed as redirect rather than as merge.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are still fundamentally missing the point of AfD, articles for deletion. An article is either deleted or it isn't. To reverse a decision between delete and not delete is the only thing that requires use of the Wikipedia: namespace (i.e. deletion review). Anything else can be solved by discussion on the talk page. Even if an AfD results in keep, later discussion might find consensus to merge the article into another. Even if an AfD results in merge, later discussion might decide to just keep the article as is or redirect it without merging any content. Even if an AfD results in redirect, later discussion might decide to recreate the article or merge varying amounts of content. Regardless of the result, if you try to insert content into any article like Church of God International (USA), someone else is fully entitled to revert it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that as a newbie, I don't know the way that things work around here.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over the Limit (2011)[edit]

You closed this as "incubate" - interesting, as nobody !voted for that.

But, anyway - it was almost immediately moved back to a live article.

What happens next?  Chzz  ►  02:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks; please try to monitor it. Unfortunately, many articles on future non-notable-yet wrestling events are causing problems (and have done for a long time). Cheers,  Chzz  ►  02:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I create-protected the article until May 22. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Asian Games logo.svg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Asian Games logo.svg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bill william comptonTalk 05:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts, I apologize if I [any how] offended you, but if I didn't have any valid reason then I would never do any such thing of nominating this file for CSD, specially after discussing this file's license status with you. It was just a bold step, please refer File talk:Asian Games logo.svg and you'll know my reason, thanks --Bill william comptonTalk 06:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see your rationale. (Even if it's a non-free image, I think WP:CSD#F8 would have been a more descriptive tag.) Anyways, I've deleted the image, as PD-ineligible is plausible. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011[edit]

Move[edit]

This is correct? 187.91.30.3 (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now move-protected the Article Incubator page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment - Money in the Bank (2011) Would not the same case? 187.91.30.3 (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed and protected the redirect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You redirected WWE Capitol Punishment to the wrong page. It should be redirected to List of WWE pay-per-view events not WWE. It should be re redirected to List of WWE Pay-Per-View Events.--Voices in my Head WWE 20:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Light current[edit]

Thank you for your suggestion at ANI. Here's a good technical summary by the user Red Act, on the ref desk talk page.[1] Please start with that and see what you think. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More information at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Light current. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over The Limit (2011)[edit]

The above article is essentially the same as Over the Limit (2011) which was deleted by you after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over the Limit (2011) and copied to the article incubator. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of articles were mentioned above. Which one are you talking about? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I did not make myself clear. You rightly deleted Over the Limit (2011) after the AfD was closed, almost immediately Over The Limit (2011) was created with the same content. The difference being the case of the word "the". User:MrKIA11 deleted the latter, but the talk page remains. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed the capitalization. Create-protected. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A match has been announced for this event which means incubation is a bit redundant at this point.--Voices in my Head WWE 00:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please 2 matches have been announced for this event. Incubation is REDUNDANT at this point and it needs to be a live article now.--Voices in my Head WWE 21:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody needs to know the card, poster and preview of the future events. We need this article. From AntoWWE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.110.180 (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

You should probably take a look at this. postdlf (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Straw AFD[edit]

Bluntly, your closing here was just wrong. There were three delete !votes, all based on well-established guidelines and practice concerning candidates running for party nominations for the US Congress. The only keep !vote(s) came from the IP SPA who created the article, and the arguments aren't grounded in policy, just on rather defective analogies to other articles. The page remains a horrid little campaign biography, not an encyclopedia article. This should have been closed as delete, and I urge you to rapidly correct your action here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right; I didn't read it carefully enough. Deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. These things happen to all of us on occasion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haig-award.png[edit]

Your repeated[ [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Haig-award.png&diff=427613129&oldid=426651107 removal of the no-source tag shows your failed understanding of our image polices. I know you didn't had to pass an exam to become an admin, just a popularity vote, so, I can't really complain about your incompetence. What I do, however, is to ask you to leave issues related to images to less clueless admins. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 00:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it with the assumption that you would nominate it for FfD. We do not want to be losing images that might be free without discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't want to keep images that might be copyright violations. --Damiens.rf 06:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we discuss them. We agree that obvious copyvios should be deleted, and obviously OK images should be kept. In the middle ground, you seem to be in favor of a summary deletion, and you tend to think that I am in favor of automatically keeping them. I am not. I think that (and this is true for me in general) discussion is always the way to go if we are uncertain about anything. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to think that but as an admin you're supposed to enforce our polices and process as they are, and not as you wished they should be. Unsoruced images are speedied. --Damiens.rf 14:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, speedy is only an option. There's nothing that prohibits going to FfD. Since the picture looked like a work of the federal government, it would be better to research the issue before deleting it, unlike other unsourced images which are much more likely copyvios. For example, sometimes I decline a CSD A7 and send it to AfD not because I think they're notable, but that they might be notable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced images are to be speedied either or not they look like copyvios to you. You're free to dislike the process but not to ignore it. --Damiens.rf 17:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may know more about image copyright, but I definitely know more about our speedy deletion process than you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your incompetence wouldn't be so much of a problem if you weren't also arrogant. Would you submit your action for review by other admins? --Damiens.rf 17:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely possible to hold your position regarding image copyright without your stubborn attitude. Take, for instance, J Milburn and B. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Straw[edit]

Deleted? Good move! Your decision helps maintain our consensus on unelected political candidates. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Cadet to the SPI Clerking class[edit]

This is a notice that your teacher is ready and delighted to have you in the class. Please report to the classroom for your first assignment. Feel free to ask any questions you want. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the two scripts in Lesson 1; I only see markblocked. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ya...my bad, it's Tim's SPI Helper: importScript('User:Tim Song/spihelper.js'); Sorry about that. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 May 2011[edit]

Andrew Straw[edit]

Why does it say you deleted Andrew Straw's wiki page? Andrew Straw is now officially a congressional candidate and the only candidate on the democratic side. This has been cited by many news organizations and I believe this will meet the requirements for a politician on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.11.39 (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD closers just can't win. postdlf (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case I didn't feel lobbied, but genuinely made a mistake in my original close. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please restore RAKEOPS[edit]

There are several reasons for which the RAKEOPS page should be reinstated. It seems to me that deleting it may lead to more work than simply reinstating it. I've read that an unreliable secondary resource was the reason for it's deletion. As has been previously explained, the Luther College newspaper, CHIPS, has written in regards to the existence of The Rakeops on several occasions. That said, the experience I had at Luther College was unforgettable and had a hugely positive impact on my life. From chapel on some mornings to "RAKE" meetings some nights. It would be gracious and reasonable if the RAKEOP page were reinstated. Otherwise, please explain to myself and the thousands of other Luther College Alumni and guests who would like for it to be reinstated why it was not.

Thanks much, Peerzat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peerzat (talk • contribs) 02:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did reinstate it a while back, but looks like it got deleted again by somebody else. Now the page is available at User:Olsonandrew1/Rakeops. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Limit (2011) in article incubator[edit]

I just dont understand why was WWE OVER THE LIMIT PAGE REMOVED. I always use wikipedia to find this type of stuff for matches and posters to see who is going to be on the poster for the next pay per view Can you please tell me why this page was removed just like out of the blue

From Brian.

The event has not yet happened. We do not accept speculation on future events. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you don't accept speculation, but the page need to exist. Everybody needs to know the card, poster and preview of the future events. From AntoWWE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.110.180 (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, just because everyone knows it doesn't mean that it has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You need to add it back up. There are already matches for the show

“I Quit” Match for the WWE Championship: John Cena (c) vs. The Miz

World Heavyweight Championship Match: Randy Orton (c) vs. Christian

Jerry Lawler vs. Michael Cole (Jerry Lawler will give up his WWE Hall of Fame ring to Michael Cole in the event of a loss.)

Intercontinental Championship Match: Wade Barrett (c) vs. Ezekiel Jackson

R Truth vs. Rey Mysterio

And the pay per view is only a week away from this Sunday so i think its about time to add Over the Limit back up and stop removing the Real stuff on Wikipedia. you should have your ADMIN rights removed. Maybe i will contact Wikipedia and tell them what you are doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])


put wwe over the limt back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.149.7 (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page will be back on May 22. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also my talk page User talk:Amatulic#Over the Limit (2011). I declined to move it for now, deferring to you. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move out of Wikipedia Article Incubator.[edit]

The page Over the Limit (2011) is ready to be published. The event is 9 days away and it really needs to be published now. This is a sure event that will happen on May 22 and it's not like it can be cancelled with a snap of a finger.

I request that the said page be moved out of the Wikipedia Article Incubator. |bibboorton| (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL like the WWE is going to cancel a pay per view, LOL who ever told you that they can be cancelled in a snap of a finger might need to learn his facts about the WWE. This is a pay per view for the WWE. This is not Boxing. Where fighters chicken out of a match like Pacuquio did against Floyd Money Mayweather 2 days before the fight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.203.157 (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you completely supported my argument. And sign your posts, please. |bibboorton| (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you erase over the limit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.110.10 (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete Over the Limits (2011)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan19 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous now. Put the Over The Limit page back up already. I have been viewing PPV pages from wrestling and MMA companies for years before the event occurs to see the official card for the event. Why has this been taken down and not similar pages in the past (and even currently - UFC 130 for example)?

Utterly ridiculous. King Of Hearts' actions need to be considered very carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.92.128 (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added[edit]

Hey King of Hearts, I observe that additional independent sources of coverage of this event have been added. It looks like the article may now meet WP:SIGCOV. If you don't object sometime before the end of the day, I plan to restore the article to main space. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False positive?[edit]

Hi King of Hearts. Can you take a look at this one? Thanks. 28bytes (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. That range is not allowed to edit the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! 28bytes (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2011[edit]

File:Glass Joe2.png[edit]

Thanks, that's exactly what I was hoping for. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection of WWE Capitol Punishment[edit]

Can you unprotect WWE Capitol Punishment from creation and editing on the basis that contradicts the AfD it underwent a couple months ago. The basis for the AfD was the existence and production of the event; however, the company WWE has officially confirmed the event thus needing a lift of its banning from Wiki. Ticketmaster page for event at Verizon Center WWE pay-per-view listings Verizon center listing --Truco 503 01:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any significant coverage in independent reliable sources? WWE itself is not independent, and mere listings are not significant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image of promotion outside the Verizon Center in DC (where I live that I took) Event guide for DC (credible source) and InDemand promotion--Truco 503 01:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither counts as significant coverage; it needs to be at least a decent-sized paragraph. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Request to unprotect at earlier date[edit]

I request to at least unprotect the page at an earlier date than June 19. The build-up to WWE Capitol Punishment would start after WWE Over the Limit. So, by May 23, May 30 perhaps at the latest, the event would start getting coverage from other independent sources. |bibboorton| (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So when the coverage does appear, post it here and I'll review it again. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. |bibboorton| (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much more evidence you need : This is the official website for the event; it features a promotional poster for the event of the President Barack Obama. Not only that, WWE has featured a promotional video (in that link as well) that features the President in a mock-press conference and has placed the disclaimer for the Capitol Punishment event in the intro to the video. If you're trying to get proof from CNN or the WashintonPost, you might as well wait for the world to end because WWE PPVs never get that type attention (unless its WrestleMania or a death at a PPV).--Truco 503 23:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not whether or not it will happen. United States presidential election, 2016 is almost guaranteed to happen, but we do not have an article on it. In order for an article to exist, there must be sufficient verifiable material to fill up the article and outside sources must care about it enough for it to be notable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian Online Explorer has this article from a PPV from last night of WWE that features statements about the next pay-per-view, which features that promo I mentioned above. "The next WWE pay-per-view is Capitol Punishment on June 19th.: The promo for Capitol Punishment features a fake press conference with clips of President Obama inserted to answer questions about the upcoming PPV."--Truco 503 23:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But thats over four years from now, this event is less than a month away. Events are always created because of the promotion and production of storylines that are established for matches at the event. --Truco 503 23:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're on the right track here. If you post some more secondary sources with significant coverage, I can unprotect it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[2] [3] : "Booker T, Josh Mathews and Jerry Lawler plug the Capitol Punishment PPV on Sunday, June 19th. They play a video mixing in video of President Obama answering questions related to WWE (much like the NFL Coors Light commercials with past NFL coaches)." These two sources also mention it. (Claimed reliable by Ealdgyth through FAC: User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet)--Truco 503 00:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. I've restored it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Truco 503 01:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ban?[edit]

Thanks for the discreetness, but I don't think that edit was a violation of my ban. I did not add, edited or removed information about any living person. I know you intended good, though. --Damiens.rf 18:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I think it's best to observe the ban broadly interpreted and in spirit" "You just have to stay away from BLPs—and posting about living persons on other pages—until July" (both SlimVirgin, emphasis mine). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing that. Well, thanks anyway. --Damiens.rf 19:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinese (3rd nomination)[edit]

Hey King of Hearts,

I think you may have missed the request I made in this AfD; can you please copy the deleted article to my sandbox so I continue to work on it? - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - User:Theornamentalist/Shinese. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecosse Heretic Titanium[edit]

Can you share why you chose to relist this discussion? How is consensus not clear here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioFan (talk • contribs) 18:10, May 23, 2011

There were only two votes including the nominator. With regard to quorum, sometimes you have to count raw votes to determine whether the !voters are a representative sample of the population. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats your decision as an admin of course, but I respectfully disagree. It's pretty clear that this article doesn't cut it and an additional week isn't going to change anything. I've noticed a growing tendency with admins lately to relist AFDs. I encourage you to resist the temptation to do so and be bold yourself. Relisting AFDs isnt free. It costs you and other admins time and other editors as well.--RadioFan (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When in doubt, don't delete. Anything with just one vote for deletion other than the nominator is going to be in doubt. But my usual definition of quorum is two votes other than the nominator, and it has met that now, so I have deleted it. (IMO AfDs that get quickly killed within 24 hours of relisting don't waste too much time.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reconsidering, I appreciate it. Good to see that WP:COMMON still trumps all other guidelines including "when in doubt, dont delete"--RadioFan (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 May 2011[edit]

Nomination for deletion of Template:DYK-Backlog[edit]

Template:DYK-Backlog has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

Thanks for fixing the protection duration on Clifford Kubiak. I had intended to protect it for the same duration as the other pages I protected at the same time, but must have accidentally left the default of "indefinite" on that one. --RL0919 (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of California Anti-Chinese racism[edit]

Why did you delete my article before 7 days? What is mitbbs? CallawayRox (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a Chinese-language forum? I have nothing to do with it. CallawayRox (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of California Anti-Chinese racism[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of California Anti-Chinese racism. 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. CallawayRox (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 19#File:Doctors wife screenshot.jpg[edit]

I'm not understanding this close. The participants seemed to be experienced editors and there seemed to be no consensus to delete. Your close seems to be making some technical argument. I'm not quite understanding it and reckon that, if you wish to present such an argument, you should be contributing to the discussion rather than closing it.

But you indicate that you will restore if something is added to the article. I'm not quite sure what that is but it seems likely that I will be able to do this. Please clarify this detail so that we may resolve this.

Warden (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; it was a reference to TreasuryTag's "If you are saying that the critical commentary which would support this image's inclusion is yet to be added to the article, then one must logically conclude that you are admitting that as it stands, the graphic fails NFCC8, in which case I must ask why you chose to upload it at this stage?" but I didn't realize he corrected it with "That has dealt with the first sentence of my comment above." With that cleared, it seems pretty much a no consensus right now. But I'm not sure what to do with a no consensus. The last time I tried to get a clarification, there was no consensus in the discussion to determine what "no consensus" for non-free images meant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to disagree here (obviously...) because I think that there was a consensus to delete. There was a 50-50 split of !votes, but at least some of the 'keep' arguments completely failed to address NFCC8 – ie. they failed to rebut the point made by those lobbying for deletion that not seeing the image would not harm readers' understanding of the article.
I do agree with your closing statement, KoH. In particular the argument advanced by Masem (talk · contribs) seemed to be that there was critical commentary which could be added to the article at some stage, but WP:NFCI says that there must be critical commentary 'now'. On that basis, I think that the image should indeed be deleted. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 09:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about "No, because one facet of the reason to use the image is already present: the contest result from Blue Peter" and "Oh, I must apologise then: I was misled by your saying, 'At the present time there is no sourced discussion of the elements in question, but I know they exist'"? That was the basis for the reversal of my decision. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it's a difficult position for you, KoH. As I said, in this case, I think there was a plausible consensus to delete, but even if not, I'm one of those people who thinks that 'no consensus' should default to deletion. I'm thinking maybe a DRV would be the best way to solve this? ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 09:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Been there, done that. Seriously, though, almost every DRV of a non-free image turns out to be an ideological battle, and the result is almost invariably "no consensus." Last time (regarding the discussion) I ran out of energy to push the issue further, so it never got resolved. Some people think "no consensus" defaults to "delete," others think it defaults to "keep." I don't think it would be equitable for certain images to fall into the hands of the first category and others into the hands of the second category, so we eventually have to decide this issue somehow. Any thoughts? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there needs to be a project-wide consensus about what to do with 'no consensus' NFC debates, but that is going to take significantly longer than I think it is reasonable to spend over this image. Unless you have an alternative short-term solution to offer, I can't see any alternative to DRV over this one. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about this image. If we did this for every image, it would be way too much effort. Besides, so many people would show up to the DRV that it gets blown beyond proportions anyways, without deciding anything substantial. But in any case, the one good reason to send this to DRV is if you believe that the consensus is "delete" and not "no consensus." If you decide to open a DRV, I would advise you to only discuss why in your opinion this particular discussion had a consensus to delete, not "no consensus should default to delete." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 10:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

File:László Nagy Bronze Wolf Carl XVI Gustaf.jpg[edit]

The deletionist did not notify me or any relevant parties that there was a deletion discussion. This is in fact a historic photograph. Please restore it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of fairness, I can relist the discussion to give you a chance to participate. But FYI it appears to fail WP:NFCC#F8, so it'll probably get still get deleted. It's up to you: do you want me to relist it? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Capitol Punishment[edit]

In accordance with your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment, can you check the article WWE Capitol Punishment and see if the result of that AfD has been ignored, please?

It's the same issue as e.g. Destination X (2011) (redirected, then undone multiple times) - and several other such 'future' wrestling events; it's a problem I previously highlighted on ANI - IncidentArchive697#"Future wrestling".

So...please take a look. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  20:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, can you check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slammiversary IX? I know, I should ask the closer - but I'm just seeking your opinion, as it is related - ie, should I do anything (such as DRV)?  Chzz  ►  20:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nm the latter; I've listed it on DRV now, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 27. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the first point. I'm sorry I didn't spot it earlier, but I see now, from messages here on your user talk in #Unprotection of WWE Capitol Punishment that you yourself agreed to "rv to last non-redirect version to allow recreation" [4], apparently considering the two sources given, [5] [6] (combined with whatever else) is sufficient to establish notability? I disagree. The first is aquick mention of a silly TV trailer promoting the event, and the 2nd is an article about another event, which seems to be a transcript of the show, and makes the briefest mention of the same trailer - literally, all it says is, Booker T, Josh Mathews and Jerry Lawler plug the Capitol Punishment PPV on Sunday, June 19th. They play a video mixing in video of President Obama answering questions related to WWE (much like the NFL Coors Light commercials with past NFL coaches)..

Does that really represent 'significant coverage' with regards to "WWE Capitol Punishment"? It still doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, to me. I'm not quite sure what to do about it though - AfD again?  Chzz  ►  23:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think those sources are enough. You can certainly AfD again if you want, but keep in mind it would end 6/4 which is just two weeks before the event, making it likely even more sources will pop up in that time. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks; I appreciate (and value) your opinion. I'm gonna see what happens with that DRV I mentioned above; if that gets booted out, I'll be dropping this stick and shrugging, and avoiding any more wrestling articles. (I mean that in the calmest, most WP:FUCK-ish, honest way; it's something I think is 'wrong', but it ain't worth me getting worked up about). Cheers,  Chzz  ►  22:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs up[edit]

The Special Barnstar
For your sustained fearless attitude, sound judgement and helpful attitude when dealing with contentious issues, particularly with regards to deletion. Deryck C. 23:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I appreciate it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2011/05&oldid=1150993634"