User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2013/03

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

clockwork[edit]

clockwork is coming to make itself known wait please wait and let the clock do its thing 2602:306:C5A5:66E0:3C28:8A7B:F93:8D83 (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)joseph freeman[reply]

AN thread[edit]

Hello King of Hearts, I'm the same user being discussed here. For now I have to use a proxy to post because as you no doubt noticed in the AN thread, Future Perfect disabled both posting and registration from my regular IP range.

The AN thread where you commented has had no activity for almost two days, and it will soon be archived by a bot if no one else says anything. Two other uninvolved people, Kyohyi and BuickCenturyDriver, also said in it that the block should be modified so I can register, but their comments are hard to notice because they're buried in all the comments from the involved editors. Can you do anything to help this thread reach a conclusion before it's archived? 190.95.223.146 (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thread just was archived without anyone closing it or making a decision. As an admin, can you at least tell me what the status of my block means? The blocking admin said that the purpose of the block was to make me register, but he also disabled registration from my IP range, and he never responded to any of the queries about why in the AN thread and his user talk. 94.137.247.36 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Letting it go stale is of course no way to handle an unblock request. Therefore I have reduced it to a soft block as I suggested. You still can't directly create an account, but you can visit http://toolserver.org/~acc/ to request that one be created for you. Once that is done, simply log in and you will be able to edit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, it's me again. I asked for an account on that page a few days ago, but never received a password in my email. Maybe requests on that page are like AN threads, and sometimes go "stale" without anyone acting on them.
I was wondering something. Now that registration is disabled from my normal IP range, but I'll be able to edit from it after I have an account, it might be possible for me to register while using a proxy, and then edit normally after that. Is that allowed? I would rather get someone to make an account for me as you suggested, but that seems to not work. 222.175.132.195 (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently handling your request for an account. There is presently a backlog of requests, hence the delay in dealing with yours. You will receive an email response shortly. Kind regards Pol430 talk to me 12:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts, what do you suggest I should do if ACC declines my request for an account? They haven't acted on it either way yet, but I just learned they might decline it. You and Future Perfect at Sunrise both told me to register an account, but the way you said I should do that might not be possible. 80.73.15.107 (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they? Give it a few days and wait and see. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pol430 told me because Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked my IP range, he had to defer my request to a Check User. Two days ago he told me a Check User was looking at my request, but it might be declined because there was something wrong with it, but he couldn't tell me what, and if it's declined I would not receive any further communication. He also told me there is nothing else he can do for me. I've heard nothing else since then, so I think it either was declined or went stale.
I'm still wondering if I should use a proxy to register an account, and then edit from my normal IP range after that. I don't know whether that would be block evasion or not, because nobody has told me not to register. Future Perfect at Sunrise told me TO register an account, although his block prevents me doing that unless I use a proxy. He refused to answer questions about that inconsistency any of the places other people asked him about it, so I don't know whether I should follow his instructions. 78.46.63.51 (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be considered block evasion; you, the person, (as opposed to your IP) have to be blocked for it to be considered block evasion. However, it is considered a violation of the "no open proxies" policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is one other thing you should know. In December, there was an arbitration request about Future Perfect at Sunrise blocking another editor without a good reason. In that request one of the arbitrators, Sir Fozzie, told him to make no more admin actions in relation to people participating in race and intelligence articles "or the next step WILL be to hand out sanctions." His block of me while I was participating in those articles was doing the same thing Sir Fozzie told him not to do, so I think now he should be prohibited from using his admin powers in relation to that topic anymore. I would be more comfortable registering if I could know he can't just block my account right away. But I don't know what I'm supposed to do to make the arbitrators follow through with what they said. What do you think I should do? 78.46.63.51 (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just wait. Maybe the request will go through after all, and we won't be needing to have this discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard nothing at all from ACC for a week now. How long do you think I need to wait? If my request were going to go through, I think it would have by now. I'd like to try something else now, if you have any idea about what. 94.211.174.60 (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have any other ideas, or do you give up? 112.213.97.69 (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the request finally went through. That sure took a long time. But, thanks for all your help. Akuri (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editfilter[edit]

Hi,
Filter 534 is up and running. Thanks for your help! bobrayner (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't able to respond as quickly to your request. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On checkuser blocks.[edit]

Hey KoH.

I've been looking at some of your unblock actions, and I have to say I'm quite a bit concerned that you would change block settings for explicitly marked {{checkuserblock}}s. This, for instance, seems really hard for me to explain away as error and I was hoping you had a very good reason you could share? — Coren (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening of discussion that you closed[edit]

It's unfair that after you closed down this discussion, the same people have opened a new campaign here. Apparent female editor Tristan made an easily-verifiable claim of stalking when she and elvenscout had a mutual interaction ban, but she was given a one-sided interaction ban plus a topic ban. LittleBen (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at ༆'s talk page.
Message added 14:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2013[edit]

1948 Arab–Israeli War[edit]

Why is this fully protected indefinitely? That's an innapropriate protection. Was there a discussion on this? I'm not aware of the full history so it might help to explain to me what's going on.—cyberpower ChatOnline 13:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is under ArbCom sanctions, and there are autoconfirmed sockpuppets on the page which we need some way to keep out. See the original discussion that led to my protection of the page using PC2. However, Fluffernutter removed the PC2 protection, under the opinion that lack of consensus to use PC2 in general was tantamount to consensus to prohibit PC2, even if local consensus supported its use. I didn't want to undo this action, so I restored the full protection, the second-choice remedy to PC2. Feel free to propose unprotecting it on the talk page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo consensus discussion[edit]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is more appropriate for the Infobox in the Scott Allie article in this discussion? You don't need to know anything about Allie; I'm contacting you because you've worked on matters pertaining to photography. I tried contacting lots of editors who work on comics-related articles, but every time I do so, we wind up with the sentiments split down the middle, and no clear consensus. I'm thinking perhaps that people who work on matters dealing with photography might be able to offer viewpoints that yield a consensus. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plcoopr[edit]

I just wanted to thank you f0r hearing my case...If feels good to be back on the good side of the law... Plcoopr (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 March 2013[edit]

Anthony Ausgang undeletion[edit]

Hi King of Hearts, I wrote an article for Anthony Ausgang, but discovered that you deleted a [article] in 2009. I've been following the lowbrow art scene in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York for 20 years and Ausgang definitely has notability, and my articles is sourced and referenced. Recently Ausgang was written up in Italian Vogue after the department store Rinascente commissioned artworks for their Christmas window. He received a Lifetime Achievement Award at Barnsdall Art Park in 2011. I have many other references and citations. I was shocked to discover there's no page for him, with all the available information about him and all the major organizations that have commissioned his works, plus he is included in several books. Of course, I haven't seen the original article and maybe it just needed to be cleaned up. Please undelete so I can edit, or I will open another deletion review. TBliss (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may open a deletion review if you wish. (The more eyes to review this, the better.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of 131.247.0.0/16[edit]

Could you please expand upon your unblock reasoning? This block was placed following a discussion on WP:AN/I (DragoLink08 Returns; Request for range blocks) in response to years of disruption. I have been in direct contact with the network admins at USF in charge of this range and was dismayed to see the block was reversed without the action being noted anywhere on-Wiki that I am able to find. Please note in the discussion, WilliamH reviewed checkuser information and even recommended a hardblock should disruption continue. I would like to reinstate this block as disruption has continued (and now I know why). --auburnpilot talk 20:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated the block. According to UTRS #6595, a professor at the New College of Florida is having students edit Wikipedia as part of a course assignment. The sender of the email had a ncf.edu domain, so we know it's a legitimate user. I unblocked it so that the students could create accounts. Since a month has passed, I think they're probably done so we can reblock. But hardblock is completely out of the question, unless you want to give all the students IPBE. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply and for reapplying the range block. It's odd that the range would also include addresses assigned to NCF, as that's not something that has been noted up to this point. I'll make sure to include that with my next email to the network admins at USF. I'm not seeing a need for a hardblock at this time, but liberal use IPBE would apparently be a viable option if we ultimately go that direction. Hopefully the issue is resolved by other means soon enough and the rangeblock can be removed entirely. Best, --auburnpilot talk 22:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That range consists of 65k IP addresses, it's not that strange.--v/r - TP 12:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance please[edit]

You closed the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Hamlin.

The reason I didn't voice reasons for keep was that Iqinn and a partner were in the process of nominating so many articles I started for deletion that there were several dozen open deletion discussions.

If the avalanche of {{afd}} had left room for me to respond to this afd I would have tried to refute the canard that she was just another illustrator. The reason she was chosen to be the sole illustrator at Guantanamo was that she was already one of the USA's leading illustrators. The large number of books for which she was the technical illustrator is one of the confirmations of this.

Some administrators closing comments offer information as to under what conditions the article could be restored. Of course they would be unlikely to do so when no one voiced a keep.

Hamlin is going to publish a collection of 160 of her Guantanamo courtroom sketches -- scheduled for October. The book is going to include her observations on Guantanamo.

  • Hugh Armitage (2013-03-15). "Fantagraphics prints Guantanamo courtroom sketches". Digital Spy. Archived from the original on 2013-03-17. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • Joseph Hughes (2013-03-14). "Fantagraphics To Release Book Of Guantanamo Courtroom Sketches". Comics Alliance. Archived from the original on 2013-03-17. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

So, I am going to request userification please. If you are someone who offers advice, please feel free to offer it here.

Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the userification. If I add some material, and think the article merits restoration to article space, my plan is to ask a few people if they agree. Do you want a heads-up at that point? Geo Swan (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Nominations Request For Comment[edit]

A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here.

At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support.

If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread.

Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.

Humanpublic's topic ban[edit]

Your Highness! Should the topic ban be limited to editing articles? Did you intentionally leave out talk pages?--v/r - TP 12:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I edit Greco/Roman and Nordic mythology? Humanpublic (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is "broadly construed," if you have to ask, consider it part of the topic ban. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, would it be prudent to limit it to 'practiced religions' or 'modern religions'? Other than books and law, I'm not sure if Romans and Greeks really practice anymore. Maybe I'm wrong.--v/r - TP 14:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guess it is still practiced.--v/r - TP 14:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I considered allowing it for a while, but since his issue was over the veracity of things related to Christ, there may be mythological figures which may present a similar situation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've never edited any faith/religion article unrelated to Christianity. Humanpublic (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you mean by "my issue"? I attempted a single two-sentence edit to Jesus, and my supposedly disruptive discussion on Talk was about sourcing. Humanpublic (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't decide what to do; the community did. There were even people calling for a site-wide block, and given that there were some in favor of a faith/religion topic ban, I went with that as a compromise. You can bring it back up on WP:AN if you want, if you wish to have the topic ban reduced to Christianity alone. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're not supposed to "go with that as a compromise." You're suppose to find consensus. There was no consensus for something broader than Christianity, and it made no sense since I've never even edited faith/religion articles broader than that. Humanpublic (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For me, consensus means, what's the result that is mostly likely to be accepted by the participants of the discussion? If I had gone with Christianity alone, a significant number may have objected to it as being too lenient. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A small minority of the voters--yes, it was a vote--specified all faith-related topics. And, if it is not not a vote, you are supposed to look at the strength and quality of the arguments. Your answer above suggests you just based your decision on popularity. Humanpublic (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you went back to editing Talk:Argument from silence, which was one of the pages which led to your ban. This shows every reason why no leniency should be shown. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never broken a single rule in editing Argument from Silence, nor is it part of my topic-ban. Humanpublic (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. The spirit of the ban is to prevent you from making the same edits as you did before. You are editing the talk page in a section that begins with Jeppiz's statement that "There is an unusually large number of sources that are Judeo-Christian and concern religion," so it falls under the umbrella of "related to faith and religion, broadly construed." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so if I make a new section, and make the exact same comments in that new section, that doesn't violate the topic-ban? Would you please document, with diffs, a single rule that I broke in editing that article, ever? Humanpublic (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That still violates the topic ban. Basically, you are banned from any discussion on that page that has to do with the use of religious sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a religious source. Humanpublic (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the source we are discussing? Humanpublic (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the type of discussion that the wording "broadly construed" is intended to avoid. If a user in good standing believes that something is part of your topic ban, then it is part of your topic ban, period. If there is any question about whether it counts, it counts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? Humanpublic (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A topic ban is not to be taken lightly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking about its seriousness. You accused me of discussing a religious source, when you hadn't even read the source. When even the editr defending the source called it non-religious. When I asked if you were serious, I meant are seriously suggesting that anybody can cause me to be in violation of the topic-ban with a mere accusation. I meant are you seriously going to argue a source is religious without even bothering to look at the source? And even if the source's discussion of ancient history is considered religious, are you seriously saying I violated the topic ban by discussing other parts of it. I read policy, did you? I can discuss subjects that aren't innately religious as long as I avoid any religious aspects (e.g. Society). You have put no research or care into this, but you accuse me, convict me, and warn me. Are you serious? Humanpublic (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Jesus

Rangeblock question[edit]

Hello KoH. I have been processing CU requests at ACC and saw a request from this blocked range, but I'm not able to determine why it has been blocked. CU can see no activity on the range and I only saw one live edit, an unblock request, from the range this year. Perhaps you can shed some light on it. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about this range. CT Cooper was the admin who originally blocked the range, with the reason "Personal attacks or harassment." I got a UTRS request from that range, so I changed the block reason to something more informative. You should contact CT Cooper for more info. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see, and I don't know why I didn't look at the full block log. My coffee had not taken complete effect yet, I suppose. ;) Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 March 2013[edit]

Interpretation of vandalism[edit]

I suggest you reevaluate the edits of Special:Contributions/68.54.164.208 and reconsider what you think vandalism means. He's had 5 warnings, is clearly edit warring, has violated 3RR and is violating the plot word limit guideline. If that does not constitute vandalism and you're content to let him carry on, then I also suggest you abdicate the authority you have to intervene in vandalism. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think you haven't violated 3RR? Recall that the exception is "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." I'm pretty sure you'd agree that the IP's edits do not fall under this definition. As such, I felt a 3RR block for the IP would be unfair. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive editing constitutes vandalism, someone with the power to block for vandalism should know that. Someone say, adding a bloated plot which violates the plot word limit, the copyright violation guideline, ignoring completely ALL the warnings given and making no attempt to respond to them or explain his edits while blatantly ignoring the guidelines being provided, and then edit warring over it (Edit warring itself vandalism and separate to 3RR which he also violated) with multiple editors is being disruptive, detrimental to the article, and thus being a vandal. These are things, basic things, that you should either know or not involve yourself in at AIV and let someone else deal with it properly. Instead you marked it as not vandalism based on a lack of knowledge and it was later removed as stale, freeing the IP-turned-user to come back and start all over again. So no, I do not agree with your definition at all, and considering the amount of times people have been blocked for doing what the IP was doing, I think many wouldn't agree with your definition. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The key is obvious vandalism. And as for your first point, take a look at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Disruptive editing or stubbornness. Remember that vandalism is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Even if the IP is unresponsive and unruly, I wouldn't conclude that they are intentionally trying to harm Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Doppelganger-other[edit]

Template:Doppelganger-other has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  Ryan Vesey 21:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your opinion[edit]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a photo in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input[edit]

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#JavaScript_tool_request? Werieth (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 March 2013[edit]

Jimbo's dopplegangers[edit]

A small side issue has come up at User talk:GiantSnowman#ANI about creating about creating dopplegangers for Jimbo. Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that creating unrequested dopplegangers for him is routine and perfectly acceptable. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at Materialscientist's talk page.
Message added 01:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Toddst1 (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback rights[edit]

Hi KoH- I would like to request rollback rights. For most images I upload to a WP article (every currency image), I add the page to my watchlist. When changes are made to the page I review them. I have reverted some cases of vandalism by simply reverting to the last version of the article. I recently came across a string of vandalized entries that required manually re-entering the original information. I would like to have rollback rights for situations like these. Please let me know if it is too soon for me to be asking for this. Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally more anti-vandalism work would be expected, but since I know and trust you I've given you the right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Official Lists[edit]

The same day when you unblocked him, there they go and revert to their preferred whitewashed revision all over again. *facepalm* Is there any problem in blocking them for that now, or would such an instant re-block be bad form? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the block was for legal threats, which should be undone as soon as the threats are withdrawn. For other issues I would warn first, then block. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About a year ago you deleted a page and I ask that you rein-list the page. The person, Shane Bitney Crone, created a YouTube video that has now been viewed over 3.5 million times. This was a very newsworthy video and the video by itself deserves a Wikiped[edit]

Hello,

About a year ago you deleted a page and I ask that you rein-list the page. The person, Shane Bitney Crone, created a YouTube video that has now been viewed over 3.5 million times. This was a very newsworthy video and the video by itself deserves a Wikipedia page.

Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9gyloyOjM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shane_Bitney_Crone

You claimed that the person wasn't noteworthy enough.

Shane Bitney Crone has appeared on many national and international news programs.

He has produced and is the subject of a documentary that is premiering at The Tribeca Film festival on 4/23/13. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridegroom_(film))

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/linda-bloodworth-thomason-bridegroom-marriage-equality-361321

http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/linda-bloodworth-thomason-and-jodie-foster-take-on-new-directing-projects

http://www.tribecafilm.com/filmguide/513a8354c07f5d4713000206-bridegroom

Below are some more links to reinforce that the page should be undeleted.

Appearance on CNN http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/shane-bitney-crone-video-meant-to-humanize-the-issue/

Shane did an interview with ABC http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8668043

While in amsterdam as an official guest of honor of Amsterdam Pride he did an interview with Nieuwsuur. http://nieuwsuur.nl/onderwerp/402768-homoacceptatie-niet-vanzelfsprekend.html

Huffington Post Named Shane one of the most compelling people of 2012 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/27/most-compelling-lgbt-people-2012_n_2347769.html

Instinct Magazine named Shane on of their leading men of 2012. http://instinctmagazine.com/archives/features/instinct-s-leading-men-of-2012

He was named an official Spirit Day Ambassador by GLAAD http://www.glaad.org/spiritday/ambassadors

To confirm that he's the producer and executive producer you can visit his IMDB page. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1858683/

His Official Facebook Fan Page with over 25,000 LIKES www.Facebook.com/ShaneBitneyCroneOffiical

He was a guest on The Ricki Lake Talk Show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzl56jl9IKo http://therickilakeshow.com/episodes-clips/2012/9/Coming-Out-Stories


Thank you for your time. Please re list that page asap. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EqualLoveEqualRights (talk • contribs) 17:50, March 31, 2013‎

It has already been done by James086. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Columns-list[edit]

Template:Columns-list has been nominated for merging with Template:Div col. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Beland (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2013/03&oldid=1142811685"