User talk:King of Hearts

Old talk is at /Archive.

Please note that I will usually reply to messages on this page, unless you ask me to respond elsewhere.

Please use the link provided in the blue box above which says "Please leave a new message."
This way, you will be able to give your comment a subject/headline.

If an admin action made by me is more than a year old, you may reverse or modify it without consulting me first. However, I would appreciate being notified after the fact.

User:82.42.237.114

One year block to a shared IP seems to be an overkill. I believe we used to have a policy to give no more than 1 month to a shared IP. Is it possible to shorten the block? (I am reviewing the unblock requests) abakharev 11:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be indefinite. I've already done the IP a favor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repairing cut-and-paste moves

Hi there. I saw the links to your sandbox at Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut_and_paste_moves, and though I'm not sure I really understand what you are showing there, I though you might be interested in the discussions here and here. Any comments would be much appreciated. Carcharoth 12:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

Protected tag

You recently protected homosexuality and placed {{protected|s=semi-}} at the top. I'm not sure what the s=semi- stands for exactly, but the tag does appear misleading as it is not clear whether it is semi-protection or full protection. I decided to ask you about this first as there may be something I'm missing, but wouldn't the {{sprotect}} tag be more appropriate? Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 02:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Leipus afd

Not sure what happened there friend, but you cut off most of the AfD when you closed it. There was an overwhelming swing towards keep in the parts that disappeared. REgards, Blnguyen | rant-line 04:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Again, thanks for helping with the Ohnoitsjamie RfA. Proud to work with you, Blnguyen | rant-line 04:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Must be that stupid Firefox tabbed browsing bug again. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did the parts which disappeared affect your "no consensus" decision as I would tend towards a keep decision outright from the discussion as it looks? Ansell 13:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, doesn't matter. No consensus is technically the same as keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Dropping by an Anti Vandalism Barnstar for all your work reverting vandalism here. Thanks for taking out the garbage, OMEN 05:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the barnstar. I've moved it to my user page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conquistadors

Well, duh. Why didn't I think of that? Fan-1967 02:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOW checkuser

I noticed your note on the WOW checkuser request; you'll probably have more luck asking Mackensen directly on his talk page, as he should have the records from the check and will be able to look into it more easily. Depending on his watchlisting preferences, he may not see the note on the chekuser request. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has noticed the discussion; see his edit on 12:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tfdend

Good idea to add section names for umbrella nominations, but I changed it to be the first positional parameter to match the other umbrella templates for consistency. AFAICT, you hadn't actually used the new parameter yet.

--William Allen Simpson 06:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was keeping it consistent with Template:Oldafdfull. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A recent TfD

Hi, i recently nominated a template (userbox) at TfD after two speedy keeps you closed it. A fair consensus had not been reached and your decision in closing it may of been biased by the fact you use the userbox. Also.

A fair ammount of time had not passed (12 hours or so would of been fair to allow editors time to cat there opinion)
Only a few people had shared there opinions in the roughly 3 hours it was at TfD.

If there had say been 5 or 6 + speedy keeps then maybe it would of been a fair consensus, however there was not and i do not believe you have fulfilled your role as an admin very well and i am disappointed. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 12:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could take it to WP:DRV and get another review there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bb Derek-Laud.jpg

Hello. I see you reviewed Image:Bb Derek-Laud.jpg. What are your thoughts about the section of the tag about "known to come from a press kit"? The JPS^{talk to me} 18:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a publicity photo used to illustrate the subject. [1] is obviously a press kit for promoting he subject. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. A press kit is a pack prepared by a company for reproduction. That source is not a press kit. The probability is it was taken from a press kit, but we don't know that (and the word "know" is emboldened in the tag). The JPS^{talk to me} 18:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing we can do is to ask Shojo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I have. LOL There has been a lot of dicussion between luke and myself over this through the last year. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Kinsella

You just blocked an IP for adding "Warren Kinsella is criminally insane"...here's another one 64.230.36.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Thatcher131 20:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to semi-protect User:70.51.52.253 and the talk page. Warren Kinsella's blog links to these pages because they allege that the IP is a sockpuppet for Mark Bourrie, who is having a feud with Kinsella in real life. Hence the replacement of the content with a personal attack against Kinsella. I posted a request to RPP but you seemed active today and I don't know how long it will take for the RPP to go through normal channels. Unless the IP vandal has run out of addresses, it will probably come back. Thatcher131 21:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr/bots

Hi. Just a courtesy message to say I took out your changes to the 3RR re bots. I don't necessarily totally disagree - I recently excused tawkerbot2 - but I think this needs some discussion before a suitable form is found. Don't reply here, but at t:3RR William M. Connolley 23:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you send a Message to RPJ?

I received a message on my talk page which I don't understand. Could you specify which passages apparently displease you? Once you do that, could you please point to the specific language in the rule you cited that supports your positiont that something is wrong with passages you identified?

Thank you.

RPJ 06:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in receipt of your follow-up message and the link to the passage that you found may show signs of point-making. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

I am not exactly sure what was said that falls within point-making, but now that I have read the policy you provided I will keep that in mind when editing.

If I understand the rule it is basically the flip side of the "Golden Rule." "Don't do wrongful things to others in response to wrongful things they have done to you."

RPJ 23:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gundagai

Can you put the Gundagai changes back. They were both my contributions (I have changing IP) and I deleted some stuff that I had put to make room and tidy it up. You shouldnt just revert stuff without checking if people have changing IP address. Arktos had already read that stuff so no need for it to stay there and the new photo on that page addresses the book reference.

You should not remove anything from talk pages (except in the case of extreme personal attacks). You may archive old discussion into a sub-page, but do not remove active comments. If you made those comments, then strike them out using <s>(text)</s>. It will show up as: ~~(text)~~. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:207.200.116.11

You blocked an AOL IP for three hours. Please me careful not to do this again. Thanks. Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 19:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR if vandalism gets heavy enough. In fact, 195.188.152.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), an IP shared by Blueyonder, has been blocked indefinitely. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltarian

Thanks for blocking the Gibraltarian sock. However, since he's using a dynamic IP, it's potentially harmful to block him for more than a few hours. He'll be back tomorrow with a new IP address, and any legitimate user could be blocked (there have been complaints in the past over long blocks; this IP range belongs to Gibraltar's primary ISP). I'm at loathe to undo a fellow admin's actions, so please consider unblocking. Thanks! --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 19:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from the WHOIS that the user is using Gibtelecom, described in the article Communications in Gibraltar. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the RIPE WHOIS: [2]. I'm not sure if it's dynamic though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete

yo can u stop deleting my articles i did

Unfortunately, I'll have to delete them if they fall under WP:DP or WP:CSD. Remember to assert their notability and make them meet WP:BIO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username block on User:ELVIS

Hello,

under which clause of the username policy did you block this user? The policy only refers to names of living or recently deceased people as unacceptable. Since Elvis died almost 30 years ago, this seems like an acceptable username to me -- certainly as much so as User:General Eisenhower, who is one of our more respected editors.--Eloquence * 18:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like "screaming" to me. Check out User:TAIWAN. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clearing autoblocks

that muight be the first time I've ever been hit by a 1 second block, actually lost the page I was editing when I tried to refresh the page--205.188.116.201 06:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that... we hope that a better method of blocking that allows admins to select whether they want autoblock will come out soon. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email addresses

I noticed you blocked users with email address as username, I strongly suggest you advise a name changes instead of a block, as per WP:USER. The decision is yours, I can only give advice. Axiomm 06:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rothko Institute Page

You deleted the article about the Rothko Institute. We are a small grassroots organization in Toronto and have been responsible for several guerrilla art projects in and around the downtown core of Toronto. We don't have a website yet and a wikipedia article is the best we have been able to do. Why did you delete it?

If they don't even have a website, then it probably isn't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. See also WP:CORP (for corporations), WP:ORG (for organizations), and WP:BIO (for people). Wikipedia is not the place to create a website. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]