User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2013/01

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

Your Block of User:Carlmarche[edit]

Hello King of Hearts! You blocked Carlmarche for edit warring. 4meter4 and I made some comments about this at the relevant ANI thread that you might want to read. Thanks, Vacationnine 09:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPv6 ranges[edit]

They're all from a single customer as the standard is to allocate a /64 (half of 128) to each user. Also see [1]. ⁓ Hello71 8:13 pm, Today (UTC−5) (from [2])

List of planetary-mass objects in the Solar System[edit]

Hi. Thanks for protecting that page, but I don't think this dispute will be solved in a week. The "plaintiff" only posts about once a month, and, as this discussion is plainly visible on the talk page, isn't interested in discussion. Serendipodous 08:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended it to 1 month, how does that sound? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The {{pp-dispute}} template is stopping the redirect from working, would you please replace it with {{R protected}} so the redirect works? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done KTC (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2012[edit]

Mpenndesigns[edit]

Perhaps you can provide me with the information that was deleted about Daniel Hernandez, or direct me to where deletions are stored. Is there such a space on Wikipedia? Thank you. Fidoeinstein (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 405[edit]

I have disabled it, sorry. The trigger was blocking edits of 108.32.100.183 (talk · contribs) (e.g. [3]). I have only briefly looked into the coding, and apparently the filter is simply blocking wikilinking by given IPs/users, i.e., it works accidentally, simply because the vandal happens to use a certain IP range and add wikilinks. I haven't thought about a better algorithm (particularly how to detect wlinking of common terms). A spontaneous idea is to target edits that add two wikilinks into one word, like [[pea]][[cock]], i.e. just filter addition of ]][[ - this should have a nearly 100% hit rate, but might be insufficient. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that it is intended as a replacement for a rangeblock on a pretty active range, and the vandal's actions in the past have reached a level warranting a long-term rangeblock. This filter is actually weaker than a full rangeblock. So legitimate users who are affected should just create an account, as with any old rangeblock. That said, what I just said is purely theoretical, as the vandal appears to have stopped. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)[edit]

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter
Volume IV, No. 1 – January 2013

For past newsletters click here

In This Issue


This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AIV socking[edit]

Hello. I went to AIV with this one since "Obvious and malicious sockpuppets may be reported to AIV." - fair enough that your mileage may vary on "obvious and malicious", but I'd hope that a quick look at the linked sockpuppetry archive would be enough to show that this guy does nothing but set up innocuous sleeper accounts to continue this one bizarre piece of vandalism. --McGeddon (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the IP should be hardblocked for 1 year or something like that. But a hardblock is a serious issue, not to be given until we can be sure of all the facts. If you take it to SPI, a CheckUser will look at the IP and issue a block as necessary. (The benefit of a CheckUser is that it could also make sure few, if any, legitimate users are on that IP.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I raised an SPI anyway so that this got logged, but since it's a slow process I thought I should put him up on AIV as an "obvious and malicious sockpuppet" so that he could be banned while it was processed. He has now returned to vandalising the article. --McGeddon (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the edit, it doesn't look like vandalism to me. The point of SPI is to have people experienced in dealing with that user to take a look. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In case we are at cross purposes here, this is the edit. This isn't some nuanced and subtle POV-pushing that needs careful comparison and experienced opinion, and which could affect innocent, active accounts if misjudged; it's just a guy who uses rolling sleeper accounts to add the exact same "gwabadee gwabadee" section to the exact same article every six months.
What would you say was the best thing I could do in this sort of situation, as a non-admin? Raise it at SPI and give the user a level4im warning, and then take it to AIV if he ignores it? --McGeddon (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake! We were at cross-purposes after all, I must have clicked on the wrong talk page when I reported the vandal. I meant to report User:Demonkulus rather than an anonymous IP editor. Your reply is a lot clearer in that context, my apologies for not double-checking myself. --McGeddon (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

request for opinion[edit]

Regarding WP:TPG, which states, "Never use headings to attack other users", please express your opinion as to whether this diff is a heading used to attack another user.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the whole statement is an attack, but the heading itself is fine. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk, This is the edit that initiated my post here.  This edit changed your talk page from old page to new page.  Please remove the inappropriate comments.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

request for opinion (2)[edit]

WP:BAN describes the restoring of edits of banned users as "undermining or sabotage" of enforcement.  The editor who made this edit declines to discuss it or revert it.  What is an appropriate response?  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI- if you want to know what these questions are about, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Reyk_reported_by_User:Unscintillating_.28Result:_.29. Reyk YO! 04:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk, Until you added a banning policy comment to the AN3 page, there was no such discussion there, the discussion about Banning policy is on your user page.  The "D" in "BRD" stands for "discuss".  The puzzle is why you do nothing about being recognized under our policy as an editor associated with "undermining or sabotage" of banning enforcement.  I don't know why you don't just revert your edit and remove this association from your record.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody cares about this issue except you, and I have nothing to say to you about this or anything else. Please see my latest edit to the AN3 noticeboard. I'm sure KoH doesn't care either, so I don't think it's fair of you to continue this absurd dispute here, and I will not post here again. Leave me alone. Reyk YO! 21:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your argument doesn't add up.  You say you don't care (that only I care), and you say that you want this conversation to end.  You can end this conversation with one edit to revert yourself, and it is an issue that you say you don't care about.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for your latest edit at AN3 it was reverted and then restored, and I have not had time to analyze it.  As I have already mentioned, you are the only editor so far that sees a connection between that discussion and this one.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, it is not customary to strike out AfD nominations by banned users once they have received !votes from legitimate users. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that is a different (and complicated) issue.  Meanwhile, Reyk has joined the discussion, perhaps he will re-evaluate his position.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vaughan[edit]

Hello, I'm looking to create a wiki page for footballer Lee Vaughan and seen that it was removed. Could you tell what the problem was and how I could sort the problem out? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucks104 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He must have played a nontrivial amount of time as a fully professional footballer (as defined at WP:NFOOTY) or otherwise received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:GNG). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠

What would you class as a independent source? 19:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A source which was not written by the subject, or someone with any sort of relation to the subject. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2013[edit]

Script questions[edit]

Hi, I'm having a hard time finding the button(s) to actually use the close XfD scripts (for example, the CfD one), would it be possible to point them out to me? I'm assuming it's painfully obvious and I just can't find it. Perhaps a screenshot on the documentation could help. :p Salvidrim! ✉ 01:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I wrote it with monobook in mind since it is the skin I have always used. I just tried it on vector, and it doesn't seem to work, so if you want to use the script you're going to have to use monobook. Sorry about that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got it from a a "Close XfD" bundle at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts#Scripts where it's marked as Vector-compatible -- perhaps that should be updated. I assume it is the same for your other two XfD scripts? I wish I knew enough about scripts to fix it for Vector; it looks deceptively simple. :( Salvidrim! ✉ 01:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the last time I checked on that page it was definitely not divided into vector and non-vector sections. Let me try to find a way to make it vector-compatible. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of 92.25.192.0/20[edit]

In the course of my checkuser duties I ended up having to check this range, and I can't see why it was blocked. There are only a few edits on that range, and they're acceptable edits from logged in users. Could you please clarify why you blocked this range? As it stands right now it looks like it's only causing collateral damage. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now that you simply changed the block reason and did not place the original block. I did not notice that at first. You needn't respond to my question. Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey KoH, now that we figured out it was from the block log, if you are going to remove the word "abuse" from a phrase like such, could you please change it to "Users who wish to edit need to create an account from [[tools:~acc|the account creation interface]]."? Just because {{anonblock}} is not indicative of the actual nature of the block, which is usually related to socking. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User 99 119[edit]

Curious, did you mean to disable account creation by User:User 99 119? I'm not sure if you did this intentionally (e.g. to prevent a third username from being created?) or if you left it on by accident. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because there is no reason that account should create another account. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PC protection[edit]

I see that you configured the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article to have PC2 protection. However, this level of pending changes protection does not currently have consensus. Another admin mistakenly added PC2 protection and reverted it. Would you please do the same?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I came here to make the same request but I see The Devil's Advocate beat me to it. Here is the position; PC2 may be technically available but the community has not authorised its use. Full protection seems to be the best available option.—S Marshall T/C 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed: there is no consensus for its use, which is different from consensus against its use. Thus, if local consensus forms that a page should be protected with PC2, then the local consensus should be considered valid. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 January 2013[edit]

Image tagging error[edit]

I'm not quite sure what you meant with this edit, but it seems to have gone awry. Ditto for the other members of Category:Out of copyright in 1. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Ticket[edit]

[4] is meant for you, but AGK misclicked and it got the "old admin" messed up and I can't set it back to you without going into the database. So if you don't mind, can you just grab it instead? I released it from everyone's ownership.--v/r - TP 17:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 January 2013[edit]

Autoconfirm[edit]

Hello! Could you please help to set List of South Korean idol groups on autoconfirmed, so that new changes would need approval? I am trying to revamp this article and have spent long hours on sourcing each entry in the list but new editors and IPs keep adding and removing stuff without any notice, despite the template on top, and remove sources I added. It's impossible to finish up the restructuring and improving of this article this way. Thanks in advance. 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 11:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng 21:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AIV, also edit filters[edit]

Hey, just to let you know - I had blocked Contributions/209.68.120.106 before I saw your comment here. I thought that vandalism was sufficiently recent enough - did you mean to notate a different user?

Also, I'm trying to build an edit filter that disallows new users changing the image on a page to an unreasonable size. Can you think of a good way to code that? I'm having trouble figuring out how I'd get the filter to detect such a change; is it possible to make it stop anything past a certain percentage in change? m.o.p 19:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I intended for the message to go to 204.13.46.2 just above it, sorry. As for the edit filter, I don't think that's possible because it is incapable of parsing numbers present in text. The most we could do is check for an increase in the number of digits before "px." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no worries.
For the filter - drat, I was afraid of that. I can't use static numbers because some articles have legitimately large images, and I'm afraid specifying the most commonly-used size is just asking for false positives when someone tries to alter an image. I'm not the best with filters, so I thought I'd ask you, since I just can't see a good way to do this (and do it without false positives). m.o.p 19:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 January 2013[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2013/01&oldid=1146571321"