User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2013/04

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

Reward for those involved in April's First pranks[edit]

 Hello King of Hearts, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That Misha nonsense[edit]

Normally I would agree with you; but in this case, we were dealing with a determined campaign to turn a bit of childish sabotage into an internet meme and to memorialize this crap in Wikipedia. Your good-faith redirect, while clearly well-intended, played right into their hands; I acted to block this clear violation of WP:ONEDAY in the spirit of WP:DENY. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

You can redelete File:Puerto_Rico_Primo.jpg and File:Jericho title.jpg. I had no idea they were such bad pictures. I guess, at the time, there wasn't that many suitable replacements, but looking at the articles, there are now. I will keep the picture of the Singapore Cane match as there currently isn't any on Professional wrestling match types. I'll add it there. I removed my wife's full name from File:Khali with a singapore cane.jpg. I was an idiot to use my full name as a username all those years ago and writing her name on the page. I've written my user name instead. Feedback ☎ 22:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. I've also hidden her name from the edit history in the Singapore Cane file. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts[edit]

Hi, by chance I stumbled upon the unblock request that you handled at User_talk:༆. I noticed that you denied the request with the statement "If you have multiple accounts, you must disclose them publicly, even if you are not editing in the same area with them." I thought I'd approach you since this goes against my understanding of WP:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses (I suspect this user would have fallen under the "Privacy" heading). As far as I can tell from the evidence presented at the SPI they didn't actually use the accounts abusively...they took similar positions, but always on different pages, and they did go to the trouble of privately notifying an admin about the accounts... Of course disclosing them publicly is recommended, but not always required. Anyway, I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job, but it's something to think about perhaps.

Also, I hope you'll consider unprotecting the user's talk page, since the block is expired and it doesn't matter anymore if they remove the block notice. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very grey area, but I take it to be that as soon as credible allegations of sockpuppetry come in, it becomes a requirement. Also, as for the block, you should contact BrownHairedGirl, who made the block. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please unlock WJLA, locked since Dec 2011[edit]

it has been over a year since you locked WJLA in Dec 2011. Please unlock it. Thank You. 71.191.244.33 (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected the page and replaced it with pending changes. This means that you can edit the page, but your edits will only show up after review by a trusted user (usually takes an hour or so). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 April 2013[edit]

Keen closure at WT:CSD?[edit]

Although the voting was unanimous, there was still useful nutting-out of the exact specifics going on within the votes. I think it was premature to close the discussion without providing for this to continue somewhere else. Where do we go from here? Do we add it under G13 or G6? Do we add a 7-day delay? Both sensible ideas that came up late in the discussion, but are now less accessible for further development. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I restarted the discussion on those issues specifically. I think it's better this way rather than reopening the discussion, which would result in a bunch of drive-by support votes with no further explanation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I don't think the close was unreasonable, but I was a bit bothered about the lack of a follow-up. Keep up the good work! — This, that and the other (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at Theopolisme's talk page.
Message added by Theopolisme at 13:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Your comment on 3RR[edit]

I would appreciate it if you would remove your "BOOMERANG" comment from my report of Bbb23 from the "result" section. That is not a result of an examination of whether Bbb23 edit warred. It also seems intended to bias any objective treatment by an uninvolved admin. Strangesad (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

Respected King of Hearts Sir/Madam

Thankyou very much,from now as i have promised,i will do useful edits with sources and in my comeback,now i will apologize to everybody about what i have done to them,by apologizing to them on their take page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adarsh the Creator (talk • contribs) 08:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 April 2013[edit]

Some edit filter help[edit]

Yo, King of Hearts, could you take a look at Special:AbuseFilter/545 for me? It's supposed to stop a serial copvyio/spammer/sockmaster by detecting the linkspam he inserts into his new articles. The filter didn't catch his latest edits (from User:Mmxcanvas; check the deleted contribs), although when I run them through the batch testing, it does. I'm guessing it's a condition limit problem? Which then probably means I'm doing something wrong in the filter itself and using too many. Advice? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that "http://en.wahooart.com" checks only for this one specific URL; you want to use regex to catch everything under that domain. Which brings me to: Why don't you use the spam blacklist? Are there potential legitimate uses of the website? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't, I've already mentioned at ANI that the website should be completely abolished for any use and have removed the instance I found where it was used as a source in an article not created by this editor, but the problem with completely disallowing the site would be that we wouldn't be able to use the edit filter to track the editor in question and easily discover new sockpuppets. Ryan Vesey 06:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I fixed the filter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Object[edit]

I need to point something out in the discussion you closed that got me topic banned.

I wasn't going to point this edit because I didn't care about the edit anymore, but I didn't know I was going to get banned over it. Can I just point it out to you here? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you can say whatever you want in this thread without worrying about violating your ban. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm asking is if I can explain why I shouldn't be blocked because I had no idea a discussion to block me was going on, which is now closed. I'm asking for the appeal I never got. If I can provide good reason why I shouldn't be blocked, will you remove it? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You had been notified twice that an ANI discussion about you was going on. It is your own responsibility to pay attention to notices on your talk page, especially if there are two of them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was after awhile though. I had assumed the discussion just closed then.
Anyway, if I could have justified my edit (about wheather a source was reliable), I wouldn't have been blocked. I choose not to only because I lost interest in upholding my edits on the articles. But if I can justify them, can my block be removed? It should be clear by my contributions that I'm not directly doing Wikipedia harm. In fact, this was a simple edit conflict, an unavoidable part of Wikipedia. I didn't break the three edit revert rule, I didn't personally attack anyone, I didn't use unreliable sources, etc. Bearman basicly told the admins "I don't like this guys edits and he's been banned before. Ban him again." --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You even had your chance to reply here. Part of the reason you are banned is your constant insistence that the source is reliable, despite being told many times to the contrary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will you remove the block if I can prove the source is reliable? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't "prove" that a source is reliable. Whether a source is reliable or not is inherently subjective, and thus must be established by consensus. You have insisted on your way despite the consensus of other users otherwise. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I had evidence my source is reliable, but I chose not to share it because I didn't care about the edit anymore. If I ad known I was getting blocked I would have shown it. Please give me that chance now. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your topic ban is not because you are "wrong," but because of your general attitude and tendency toward combativeness. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was far from combative; defensive if anything. Bearman has reverted edits of mine and then shown a strong interest to the article I edited, which he never edited before, several times, at least four or five times. I think it's quite clear that he has been stalking me. And then, before I can even say anything, he writes long paragraphs on my talk about how all my edits are worthless and that I can't be trusted because of I've been banned. Why isn't he banned? He is much more aggressive. It's unbelievable that I can't make a single edit without being blocked nowadays. It's a crime that people this blind are allowed to have power. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not ignore me. If you cannot justify this block, than you should remove it. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should not accuse others of wrongdoing. In that discussion, clearly much of your history was under scrunity, so it would be hard to believe that people would not come across Bearman's actions while reviewing your situation since there was so much interaction between you two. If there was something wrong with Bearman, they would have pointed it out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well they didn't. The admins did a horrible job doing their jobs. Someone who says "Clearly you should know by now", "I believe this is what got you banned previously", "This is a pattern and it looks like you are repeating it despite multiple warnings and bans in the past" and "Based on your past behavior" cannot be considered having good faith. You cannot even say where I went wrong, you just say "The admins must be right because they are admins." A simple edit conflict doesn't merit a 3 month block. Remove this now. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry it didn't go the way you would have liked, but you can't call people incompetent just because they happen to disagree with you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But no one can explain why I have to be blocked for so long! There is plenty of work I want to do and you are forbidding me from doing it for no good reason. Look at the case again and tell me if it really presents a good reason for me to be blocked. Over a simple edit conflict! Also, Gegard Mousasi is not a national Armenian and blocking from BLPs as a whole is hardly fair. If anything a block on MMA articles, but there is no reason why this should show I can't edit Armenian articles. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize this, my block needs to be changed to MMA BLPs because Gegard Mousasi is not an Armenian. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the behavior that led to your topic ban is not a good way to appeal your topic ban... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please just change the block to MMA BLPs? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The cause of your ban was your continued insistence on changing the nationality of an individual. It has nothing to do with MMA per se, so I see no good reason to have the ban target MMA BLPs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it has nothing to do with Armenia per-iod. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have previously been sanctioned with respect to Wikipedia:ARBAA2. Therefore your subsequent actions are likely to be viewed with increased scrutiny. Of course it has to do with Armenia; you are arguing that Gegard Mousasi is not an Armenian. Would you be so adamant about someone not being a German, or a Brazilian? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In your own words this ban is "broadly construed", meaning the block is just the general definition of Armenia-related articles. Gegard Mousasi falls out of this because he wasn't born in Armenia, hasn't been there, no relation, etc. And we weren't even talking about if he was Armenian at all. The debate was about if he was an Iranian citizen. So, by your logic, the ban should fall under Iranian articles and MMA articles. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a community-imposed ban; I was merely interpreting consensus (which supported this specific ban on Armenia and BLPs, broadly construed) and would be powerless to overturn it even if I wanted to. I don't have anything more to say. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who has the power to overturn it? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The community. But if you make an appeal right now, it is highly unlikely to be successful. Stay out of trouble for a month or so, and then go to WP:AN to see if people are willing to relent. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I once sent a message to the community and was supposed to get one back in two weeks, but never did. Who can I talk to here? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer me now. I am getting very sick of this ban and want to get rid of it ASAP. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already said, WP:AN. If they don't respond, then think of it as people quietly opposing your request. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took your advice and have a AN discussion. Feel free to tag in. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

El Ectric 201[edit]

I noticed that you unblocked User:El Ectric 201. I blocked the account because it is an obvious sock of Dy11111 and it was later confirmed by checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dy11111/Archive. Just curious - is there something I don't know? -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked DeltaQuad to run a CheckUser and he found that there was significant doubt. I will email you the details. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter jiggery pokery[edit]

Hi KoH. I seem to recall that in the past you've done some clever shenannigans with edit filters and the like to allow blocked users access to ANI or AN. Colton Cosmic would like to be able to comment in the discussion currently at AN (this one); would you be able to take a look and jiggle the settings so that he can do so? Understand if not (I recall there's been opposition to the practice in the past), but I thought I'd ask for him, since it's not something I know how to do. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 18:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this action within consensus? Blocked is blocked, no? I have raised the question at ANI [1] Spartaz Humbug! 06:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you came under fire for this one - seems a bit unfair that you should get flak for something I specifically asked you to do. The AN thread's now closed, otherwise I'd be 'fessing up there, but for those watching at home; I share the responsibility for what (like so many other disasters throughout human history) seemed like a good idea at the time... Yunshui 雲‍水 07:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Script question[edit]

I wanted to help with Wikipedia:An#Resized_file_backlog. I see that there is a script to help. I tried adding it, but scripts aren't my strength.

When I look at User:Sphilbrick/vector.js, I see I have added it before.

Any chance you could take a look and see if I have messed up the install process?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some character that might be comment characters, refreshed, and now I get a rescaled tab. I tried it once, and the old image was deleted, but it didn't remove the "rescaled" Tag.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm now convinced that I'm no longer having a problem getting the script to load, it simply doesn't do the second step of removing the tag. Probably best if I contact the creator.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Lions_at_Cat_Creek.
Message added 21:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 21:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS oddness[edit]

Hi KoH. As a regular UTRS admin, I wondered if you'd also noticed this issue, and whether you might be able to shed any light on it? Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 April 2013[edit]

Beat me to it[edit]

By seconds, it seems. It was really no consensus (two users does not a consensus make) but I figured it'd likely rot there if it wasn't touched having been relisted 3 times. Good to know people are on the job of clearing the AFDs :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My gut reading of the discussion was "keep" as well, but when there are few !votes the vote count really does matter. After two relists, 0 or 1 "delete" !votes other than nominator = soft delete; 1 "keep" !vote = no consensus NPASR; 2 "keep" = no consensus (NPASR optional based on strength of arguments). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I tend to see those too, but I remember an RFA a while ago which was pretty strongly opposed as they were a non-admin closing things as no-consensus. Don't want to stir the hornets nest :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, have you thought about giving RfA another go at it? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have, actually, but then I think about my minimal recent major contributions to articles, realise I will be torn apart at RFA for it, then change my mind. :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons images on the main page[edit]

Hello! Please remember to upload a Commons image to Wikipedia (and tag it {{uploaded from Commons}}) before transcluding it on the main page. Our cascading protection doesn't extend to Commons, so a vandal can replace the file there (which has occurred on multiple occasions).

As a fallback, a bot cascade-protects our main page images at Commons, but this isn't immediate (it took fifteen minutes in this instance, and it sometimes takes an hour or more) or fully reliable (due to occasional outages).

Also note that the image doesn't depict the explosions. (Stephen fixed this 3.5 hours later.)

Thank you! —David Levy 14:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, forgot about that, sorry. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 22:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cycen fjodr[edit]

why is it redirected to SMU main page? I checked other organizations like SMU Mustang band and they have their own pages? Is it not notable enough or are there more sources needed to verify its importance. How is this organization different from other notable college secret societies like Skull and Bones which have their own pages?

Goodoleboy1920 (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)goodoleboy1920Goodoleboy1920 (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ORG. If you would like to include it, then there must be multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a barnstar...[edit]

  • Comment Desysop the nominator, for abusing the AfD process, needlessly contributing to red-tape, distracting editors from editing, and altogether exercising lack of judgment not befitting a Wikipedian with an 8-year history of edits: how often do MIT police officers die of multiple gunshot wounds? Isolated incident, indeed. All snark aside, you really should have waited with pulling the trigger, King of Hearts. --Mareklug talk 06:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I was literally just too late from having added that, as an Edit conflict ensued with ...closing the nomination. I hope you are contrite. Better judgment next time. Good wishes, --Mareklug talk 06:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/P. Narahari[edit]

Please bring back that article? It was really necessary. What should I do to keep that article safe from deletion? Shobhit Gosain (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also added the notability factors to that articles after the discussion with other users. Please brink that article back. What should I do if I was the only contributor to that article. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the sources you added were insufficient to convince them. Do you have more sources to bring to the table? They must be independent reliable secondary sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources which I added were all government websites which are most trusted and renowned news websites of India. Those were the most reliable sources one can ever get. You can yourself check those references. I didn't added any blog or newly launched websites. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list below which sources you feel satisfy WP:BIO? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed all the sources on that article which you deleted. If you can see that deleted article you will find all the necessary sources. I also added well-known and significant awards and notability to that article after the discussion. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the other people at the discussion did not agree. Therefore the consensus is that those sources are insufficient. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can yourself see those sources, http://hamariladli.in/profiledm.aspx, http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/MadhyaPradesh/Got-a-complaint-Poke-Gwalior-collector-on-Facebook/Article1-945195.aspx and this is P. Narahari government profile: http://persmin.nic.in/ersheet/MultipleERS.asp?HiddenStr=01MP047800. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first and third sources are both government websites, so they are not considered independent sources. The second source does not provide significant coverage - you can't write a substantial article based on that material. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are lot many sources. http://www.dbindiaprideawards.com/winners/winners-2011/, http://tehelka.com/gwaliors-game-changer/, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-01-18/bhopal/36414703_1_facebook-and-twitter-gwalior-followers, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-01-23/india/36504913_1_biometric-attendance-system-e-governance-babus, P. Narahari made strict rules for examinations; http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/EDU-board-exams-begins-today-central-heads-will-be-suspended-if-students-cheat-4194277-NOR.html. His help for public through social media was appreciated worldwide, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B00wzma3bV8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobhit Gosain (talk • contribs) 13:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only one out of those that is reasonably acceptable is the second one. The first one is a prize which is not particularly well-known; there are only a few prizes in the world that can grant automatic notability, like the Nobel Prize (but by then they've probably met WP:GNG anyways). The third, fourth, and fifth are trivial coverage. The sixth is a Youtube video, which is generally not accepted as a source. Since multiple independent reliable sources are required, you'll need to find more. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's great that you found that source acceptable. Actually efforts of P. Narahari were mainly appreciated for the fact that he helped many people through social network and many independent sources have covered that topic. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for your reply. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you could find one more source like it, then it will be enough. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel warring[edit]

Hello King of Hearts, this is the user who contacted you here. I thought I should let you know that another admin, Timotheus Canens, has restored Future Perfect at Sunrise's hard block of my IP range. Did he discuss that with you? If he reinstated FPAS's hard block that you undid without discussing it with you, this seems to be a case of WP:WHEEL warring. I'm not sure what is the correct response to that. 54.225.81.59 (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look at the block finder, T. Canens blocked a much larger range. It's not wheel warring (which would require much more action in a much shorter duration), but I'll let him know about your case. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Is it not wheel warring even if he targeted me intentionally, and was deliberately trying to restore the effects of FPAS's hard block? I have the creeping suspicion that might have been his intention. 54.225.81.59 (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Akuri is the only user who has edited in that wide range.[2] Timotheus Canens is an arbitrator and checkuser, so casting aspersions about him is unwise. It's particularly surprising since the last edits before the range was blocked involved lobbying Sir Fozzie to start an arbcom request on Akuri's behalf. Mathsci (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole discussion was just removed from Timotheus Canens' user talk without him responding to what we asked him. He replied to our first few posts, but stopped replying when The Devil's Advocate and I began asking him specific questions such as what prompted the block or how he reconciles it with the outcome of the community discussion that led to you changing the block settings.

What is the proper response when an admin isn't willing to respond to queries about a block they made? This is the second time an admin has blocked my IP range and been unwilling to discuss it. (Future Perfect at Sunrise wasn't willing to discuss it either.) The first time it caused a discussion at AN that lasted two weeks, but there shouldn't have to be a second two-week community discussion to resolve what was already resolved there last month. 2001:DA8:203:503:D6AE:52FF:FE7B:19FC (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advice you to email T. Canens (from your account Akuri) to see what's up. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've consulted with another checkuser before making the block. It's a webhost range that should be treated as an open proxy: hardblocked whenever they are found, especially since this particular range has been abused before. (It should be obvious that I'm not at liberty to discuss exactly who was on that range.) As to the Akuri account, I'm not granting him IPBE until he provides a convincing explanation why he could not edit using a standard, conventional configuration. The area he's been editing has a chronic problem with sockpuppetry, and so far what he's been doing, especially the use of multiple open proxies when that range is blocked, tend to suggest that he's doing it to evade checkuser scrutiny. T. Canens (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts, do you know if a single admin is allowed to overturn the results of a community discussion, as Timotheus Canens has done?

You've been very helpful already, and thanks for that. If the answer is that Timotheus Canens was within his authority overturning the results of the AN thread, I understand if you can't do anything else. If I can't edit from my default IP range until my IP range changes or the block expires, I can always use proxies until then. I just want to have a clear answer about the implications of his rangeblock and what it means for me. 2001:DA8:203:503:D6AE:52FF:FE7B:19FC (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why your default IP is on a webhost range? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It must be what my employer uses. I'm not in control how it's configured. I'm not subscribed with a regular ISP anymore, what I do is connect directly to my employer's network and use their internet connection. It's free as long as I work for them, and I don't want to pay for an account with an ISP when my employer's network is adequate for every website except Wikipedia. And if their network is blocked at Wikipedia now, I also can use proxies. I just want to know if that's what I should do from now on. 2001:DA8:203:503:D6AE:52FF:FE7B:19FC (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can consider Free NetZero dial-up. It's going to be slow and limit you to 10 hours a month, but it's something. Also, you could try editing at a local public library. We almost often softblock schools and libraries, but almost never hardblock them, so as long as you log into your account you should be fine. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very inconvenient for me to try to edit at a school or library. With my company's internet connection I can edit from work during the day, and I can access the network remotely while I'm at home. Driving somewhere else just to edit Wikipedia sounds like more time than it's worth, especially if I can only edit during the brief time I spend there. I'll look into the other ISP you mentioned, but I've never seen that offered where I live. Are you sure they offer service in Melbourne? It looks to me like it's only for the USA and Canada. 2001:DA8:203:503:D6AE:52FF:FE7B:19FC (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking too much of you, aren't I? If you don't want to keep searching for other solutions, that's okay. I never meant for this to become your job permanently. 2001:DA8:203:503:D6AE:52FF:FE7B:19FC (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I assumed you were in the US. Unfortunately I can't really think of any other way for you to edit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Boston Marathon bombings...[edit]

....if you are still up and about and willing, I have no problems if you unprotect or shorten the full protection. I have left a comment to that regard at RFPP. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Marathon bombings[edit]

Do we want to try dropping it down to semi-protection and/or PC2 for now? I just did a bit of a cleanup of the article, but I didn't like having to use my admin privileges to do so. NW (Talk) 11:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was sleeping. Indeed I thought PC2 would have been a great choice (albeit with a rather high edit frequency — but with so many reviewers on the page as well, I don't think that would have been a problem), but people have in the past objected to my use of PC2 due to the lack of general consensus for its use, even though its local use was clearly supported. We should probably reraise the issue of PC2 somewhere, to allow its use whenever an individual discussion supports its use on a specific page. (According to my interpretation of the rules, this is already allowed, since global consensus is not against PC2, but rather there is no consensus to support it, so it ought to be like the 10th amendment in that whatever is not globally prohibited can be decided locally. But again, there is substantial opposition to this approach that I've backed away from it.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at WorldTraveller101's talk page.
Message added 12:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Yunshui 雲‍水 12:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

shortening of full protect / boston marathon[edit]

thank you for your professional adjustment of the BMBs page. the slow erosion of admin-ethic to de facto super-user status is greatly helped by your professionalism and hard work. -Camelgamin1 (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boston protection[edit]

Not sure if you are around, but Talk:Boston_Marathon_bombings#Proposal_to_remove_article.27s_full_protection —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral reversion of your ban by non-adminstrator[edit]

Your ban of User:Widescreen was unilaterally reverted by User:Little green rosetta here: [[3]]. I reverted back and advised LGR to either dicuss the matter with you, or take it to AN here [[4]].Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts[edit]

Do you play cards? NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 21:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I enjoy playing bridge and poker. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like to play video poker. Is that why you chose the name "King of Hearts"? NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 23:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was so long ago, I don't actually remember why I chose it. Must have had something to do with it though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I would like to thank you for uploading again this photo of mine. Gesture like this can help us in saving the culture of the world and compensate the lack of human rights in some countries. --MrPanyGoff (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing block?[edit]

I opposed his position, and so I think that his contacting me, along with NE Ent, can hardly be considered canvassing. Perhaps you should re-examine his contacts and perhaps warn him. Anybody contacting me about diacritics probably know that I support diacritics when they are used in high quality reliable sources. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of Kosovo[edit]

Hello KoH, I noticed you protected Cinema of Kosovo pursuant to your pledge when dealing with a recent AN/I case concerning my account. As the revision stands in its frozen form, the article reports the disputed items as I had been arguing for it to do. Be that as it may, I am willing to engage in further discussion with the accounts to favour the alternative presentation, and have launched a fresh discussion here. So far nobody has responded. I fear that once the page is unprotected we may see more edit-warring when certain persons who refused discussion try their luck at getting their favoured version to stick. I did not have to start a new talk but I did as I am more than happy to talk and work towards agreement. Therefore if nobody joins the talk but restarts the battleground editing, I ask that you consider their behaviour and assume arbitration from that point rather than freeze the page for longer. As someone who frequently edits on ARBMAC topics, I know the norms and the procedures on naming and sooner or later it will have to be taken into account over new editors with opportunist motives on item-renaming missions. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep an eye on the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor needing guidance[edit]

I believe the editor you were trying to help needs a little further guidance. Upon his return as his primary account, he's already hit 3RR again. AzureCitizen (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian feijoada[edit]

Presume you were waiting on deleting until the import was complete - therefore just confirming this article has now been imported to Wikibooks here. Thanks QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You :)[edit]

Good day to you !!!
Thanks for enabling reviewer rights on my account,I promise to do my best with this tool.
Cheers :) MediaJet talk 11:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E.W. Beth Dissertation Prize[edit]

King of Hearts, I think that your "No consensus" decision in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E.W. Beth Dissertation Prize did not take the strength of the arguments into account. I thoroughly refuted the one claim for an independent source and made a strong case that there probably aren't any. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. There are only two !votes in favor of delete/redirect, which is WP:NOQUORUM no matter how strong they are. If the keep !vote were not there, then I could close it as if it were an uncontested PROD, but the keep !vote invalidates the soft deletion and makes it no consensus WP:NPASR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how WP:NOQUORUM, which says "If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator", applies to a case where there were two votes and a comment. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it used to say "few or no comments," but appears to have been unilaterally changed in February. I will revert that change. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That editor seems to think you changed it unilaterally. I have started a discussion on the talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't see a consistent interpretation of your policy. In the deletion page discussion you are acknowledging that, in WP:NOQUORUM, "closer's discretion and best judgment" implies that the quality of the arguments should be considered; but above you seem to be saying that you have to close it with no consensus "no matter how strong they are". RockMagnetist (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to say "no matter how strong they are given that the keep rationale is reasonably valid," i.e. it's not so obviously an article that ought to be deleted that we can call two votes in one direction a "consensus." Clearly you and Carrite do not agree, which is the definition of no consensus, even if there's another person who agrees with you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have liked to see if Carrite had a reply to my rebuttal. Never mind - I'll go ahead and propose a merge the usual way. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you![edit]

Thank you for approving me to become a reviewer! I will use this new permission to the best of my ability! Sosthenes12 (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Matsuri[edit]

Hello, I've noticed you closed the AFD for this article as "no consensus". I was just wondering if it would be safe to speedy renominate it for deletion, or wait some more time before renominating it. Yes I gave an opinion on the discussion, but I feel that it needed at least one relisting so that a clearer consensus could be reached (hence a result of "no consensus", hahaha). Would it be safe to renominate it? Thank you and happy editing!

P.S. You're doing great as an admin. Here's a cookie for your hard work. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Actually, I was on the borderline between closing as "no consensus" and relisting. So I can relist it if you want. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If you don't mind, I'll take it to deletion review and see if there's consensus to reopen or let the status quo be kept. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do agree with you. I have reopened it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

d'oh[edit]

Thanks. I hadn't any coffee until then... mabdul 06:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VP post[edit]

I apologise for moving your comment without any warning. I thought that your comment, as it currently stands, was misplaced, and I boldly moved it. I have moved it back and removed the original again. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signed by Sinebot[edit]

Just letting you know that your talk page got signed by Sinebot. Seqqis (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Unsigned}}This user's talk page has been signed by SineBot.

Reblocked a user[edit]

Hi King of Hearts, I would like to let you know that I have reblocked El Ectric 201 (talk · contribs), not only because of the new obvious evidence, but because I believe that the unblock was inappropriate. I'm wondering what made you think that he was not a sock, 1) as my statement on UTRS was saying that it was beyond a reasonable doubt that he was as sock 2) the behavioral evidence is strong even without the new evidence. If you would like to know how I came to my behavioral evidence conclusion, drop me a mail, because i'm not going to spill it out onwiki with this sockmaster still active, plus I wouldn't mind giving you a small guide i've made up. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I was reminded in an AN/I discussion about your efforts to allow blocked editors to participate in their block discussions via an edit filter, and I just wanted to say "thanks" for doing that. Allowing people the dignity to participate in discussions about their "fate" seems much more kind and humane than forcing them to have others ferry their comments over to AN/I or wherever, so I wanted to thank you for your leadership on that. 28bytes (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite salting[edit]

SudoGhost has taken exception to my restoration of Darkwind's 1-year salting of Somaya Reece. It seemed that was the expected outcome, and I was thinking to put the matter to rest simply enough. But if you think I've violated WP:INVOLVED, I'll self-rv and ask another admin to fix the salting. Please let me know -- I'll be watching this Talk. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, 1-year/indef isn't that much of a difference to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Relay User Unblock[edit]

Thanks very much for the unblock. —Raymond Keller (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments left at RfA[edit]

Thank you for leaving comments at my RfA. This is just a friendly notice that I have replied to them. Regardless of your vote, and your decision to continue this conversation or not, I appreciate you taking your time to vote in the the first place. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 April 2013[edit]

Problem Solved...[edit]

I turned my phone into a hotspot and no problems editing... Thanks again for responding so quickly. Much appreciated.--Godot13 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volapük Wikipedia result[edit]

Your result on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volapük Wikipedia (2nd nomination) is puzzling. When you have a magnitude more keeps than deletes, I know it not a vote, but you have to reference some wikipedia rules to ignore that many people. It seems like a obvious no-consensus to me. Or just keep it. But to say an article with secondary sources is still not notable based on a minority opinion is baffling. Why even have discussions? --MarsRover (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I was going to write exactly the same thing. Obviously, arguments are more important than votes, but another important criterion is consensus. With 11 for "keep" and 2 for "delete", this solution can hardly be considered consensus-based (if anything, there's rough consensus for "keep"). Besides, I'd like to note that the discussion was still going on. I therefore agree with the previous speaker: if this is the way situations like this are dealt with, why even have discussions at all? I'd like to note that of the "delete" voters one uses the argument that it is an "obscure wikipedia with mainly bot generated articles" (which clearly is not a valid argument at all), while the second obviously lacks even the most elementary knowledge about the subject (suggesting that Volapük may be a hoax).
I don't know if you have actually read the discussion, but in case you have, you must have noticed what I wrote about the entire Category:Wikipedias by language. Of the 87 articles listed there, not more than some 10% have any sources at all. So here's my question: do you intend to perform the same action on those pages as well? And if not, don't you agree you've created a monster by moving one article to the WP-namespace and leaving 86 others behind, despite the fact that most of them are less substantial and unsourced? Best regards, —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 13:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, a comparison to similar or "less notable" subjects is only valid if it is known that such subjects deserve articles, e.g. high schools, through repeatedly established consensus. Many of the other Wikipedias can also be deleted if that have no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. A while back, there was a mass effort to delete useless bilateral relations articles like Iraq–Malta relations, and I estimate hundreds were deleted around that time, so it can be done. I don't see why that wouldn't be the case if some of the lesser Wikipedias were nominated for deletion. Also, there were not just two people arguing for deletion (or move to Wikipedia namespace), but four: Fram, Aymatth2, Iketsi, and Randykitty.
When you say "obscure wikipedia with mainly bot generated articles" is not a valid reason for deletion, yes certainly. But that shouldn't poison the rest of the deletion rationale. Before it appears I'm being hypocritical since I mentioned invalid keep reasons in my summary, note that I did so only in order to justify discounting certain !votes. Ultimately, my decision was based on the availability of sources. There was a consensus, albeit weak, that the independent coverage was insufficient. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Rajoy and Hitler comparisons[edit]

This edit that you accepted is clearly unacceptable on BLP grounds and is exactly why we have pending changes on that article. Most of the text is not supported by the sources and comparing the Spanish Prime Minister to Hitler, based on one users personal POV, is as far as it gets from NPOV. Please keep an eye out for things like that. Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mariano_Rajoy&diff=prev&oldid=552215114[reply]

Sorry, there were so many sources that it kind of hard to read. I must have skipped over the Hitler part. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I missed the change as well when it was first made, so it's easily done. Is there a case for semi protection of that article though? The user in question continually readds the changes, using a different i.p. each time and even though pending changes do apply to the page, it is slipping through now and then. Valenciano (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated! Valenciano (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chinaman_(porcelain)[edit]

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I started a merge discussion on the AfD you just closed. While your closure stated that the DicDef issue had been addressed, at least two of the participants in the discussion seem to have criticized potential possible information expansion as relating to " trade in Chinese ceramics (Chinese export porcelain) but the person who dealt with the trade" and therefore not actually satisfy the DICDEF concern, as you stated in your closure. I think a relist may have helped see how others felt on that, considering it was a very recent expansion and the editor who made the expansion frequently makes claims along the line of "my edits invalidate all the above arguments" without gaining further support. That being said, I trust your judgement as an admin and have chosen to move the discussion to the talk page, but if you feel that a relist would be more fitting I could close that discussion as no one has participated in it yet. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine as is. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Butcher of the Balkans"[edit]

I hope you appreciate the irony of how the DRV was closed in a manner that precludes full disambiguation a week after nobody presented an actual argument against that, just like the RfD was closed a week after the analogous thing didn't happen. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gillespie of Blackhall, Baron of Blackhall[edit]

Hi, this is for you, I think; since you both protected the article and later closed the AFD. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Monstercat[edit]

An article about the electronic music label "monstercat" was deleted by you recently, i'm just wondering if i could get a reason why. I'm not an admin or anything, just wondering Oreotoast (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was consensus to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monstercat. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Block[edit]

Thank you for addressing the Tor block bug. My previous IPEB had been in place since February 2006 (!), so I had no idea why it had suddenly gone nonfunctional. kencf0618 (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've just now ascertained, after two hours of frustration due to unhelpful end-of-the-process error messages, that Wikimedia Commons thinks that I am running a Tor exit node, yadda-yadda-yadda. So I can edit, but uploading photographs is verboten. kencf0618 (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've given you IPBE there on Commons as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! kencf0618 (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk request[edit]

I'll add your name to the clerk list! You should read the admin and clerk instructions, the multiple account policy (make note of the legitimate versus illegitimate uses of sockpuppets), the WMF privacy policy, and the checkuser policy. We sometimes work in #wikipedia-en-spi connect, and, although it isn't critical, it can be a big help when explaining things. WP:SPI lists the open cases so you can find them, and User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js is a helpful little script you might want to add to your js page to assist with clerking cases. Finally, you may find that adding importScriptURI('http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); to your js page to mark blocked users is helpful in determining which sockpuppets have been blocked already. Good luck! --Rschen7754 06:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Just wondering, after you get a cloak on IRC, how do you avoid temporarily revealing your IP address as described here? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a special trick to do that - see [5] and the linked pages for more info. --Rschen7754 06:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FPC closure backlog[edit]

There's a backlog of FPC closures that need to be done. Would you be willing to take care of those? Thanks. --Pine✉ 19:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sure. Though there is a set nomination in there and I don't know how to handle those (I just use the script); could you close that one? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also best if you closed Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dick Lugar since I voted in it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, hopefully I'll get to these soon. --Pine✉ 06:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Featured Pictures[edit]

I noticed you've started closing some of these in Armbrust's absence. If you would like any help, let me know. --Godot13 (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of 184.21.73.166[edit]

Hi, I appreciate your block of Seanharger's IP sockpuppet. I think one week is a fair block [to start], however if misbehavior occurs (such as personal attacks or talk page misuse), I think that it could be changed to indef (which sadly, the IP may very well do the same behaviors). Thanks for the help. WorldTraveller101Did I mess up? 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't block IP addresses indefinitely, even one that have done the most egregious thing imaginable, for the simple reason that the assignments of IPs change over time. 5 years from now, it is very likely that the same IP address is now owned by a different user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mhm. That's true. OK then. WorldTraveller101Did I mess up? 23:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2013/04&oldid=1136171488"