User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2006/12

MT

Perhaps it's due to my old wiki-age, but I fear I'm out of touch with the latest wiki-slang. Could you define "MT" in the context of 05:56, December 2, 2006 King of Hearts (Talk | contribs | block) (bkd, MT)? Thanks, Essjay (Talk) 06:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

mt is empty. like emm tee. at AIV it is a short form of list empty. bkd is blocked. see? DVD+ R/W 06:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what DVD R W said. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I see; I got "bkd" as "blocked", and the circumstances (in particular, that the list was empty) suggested MT was "empty", but I couldn't figure out why it was being used for empty. Now, I understand, you kids and your leetspeak! ;) Essjay (Talk) 07:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ben has Arrived

Its the B-man. Hey!!! GEEK!!! BTW, how do you revert? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajaxrools (talk • contribs) 21:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

A DB-Blank Article

Hello King of Hearts, this db blank article has been up for awhile. The content mentions only that it is "the band." Could you take a look at it please? Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Update: I contacted admin Gwernol and they took care of it.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A Serious Waste of Time

Why did you delete the A Serious Waste of Time page? It was marked for speedy deletion, but I put the hang on tag on the top of the page. Nobody really had a chance to chime in. What does "CSD nn web" mean? Banaticus 21:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted it as an article on a website (or a part of a website) that does not assert the notability of the subject. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (websites) for more information. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

On my talk page you recently posted a paragraph on how I should have applied the hangon template and how I shouldn't have deleted the speedy delete template. I did apply the hangon template and I didn't delete the speedy delete template. Why did you delete the article a few hours after I'd applied the hangon template, after another person posted a well written and well thought out reason for the article to remain and before anyone else could post anything regarding whether the article should stay or be deleted? Please revert the article so that a proper discussion about deleting the article may occur, as before you'd deleted the article I'd followed all of the appropriate rules to contest the deletion of the article. Banaticus 13:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restored it to User:Banaticus/A Serious Waste Of Time. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Controlling of Projects deletion

Hello,

why was article "Controlling of Projects" deleted??? If you think that this software not exist or is "to commercial" for wikipedia i think that you make wrong. Please explain me you reasons for deletion. I see no diference between Controlling of Projects and tools like MS Project??? I'm administrator and birocrat on serbian wikipedia, wikinews and wiktionary and I know what is NPOV, advertising and so on. See to same article on german wikipedia. So please make you deletion retrogressive.

Thanks, --Kaster 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll relist it on AFD to get a consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Game

This keeps popping up in my watch list - I've already suggested a permanent redirect to the wikiproject, Six degrees of Wikipedia. There appears to be (limited) concensus for the redirect (from NawlinWiki and Gurch). It would then provide a degree of usefulness. Gurch has expressed concern regarding WP:ARS, but as this is a redirect, nota reference, I don't see that as being an issue. - Tiswas^(t/c) 12:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have salted the page and put {{deletedpage}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My point being that a redirect might be more suitable than {{deletedpage}} in this instance - Tiswas^(t/c) 16:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects (i.e. from the main namespace to the Wikipedia: namespace) are discouraged. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Why was Jane Kuntz deleted?

Hello. I recently added the article for Jane Kuntz, because she was linked to from Ninth Letter and recently mentioned in the New York Times for a translation she had done on a new novel. I set it as a stub because I was still gathering content on her. All the information on her was referenced. Given, she isn't as notable as for example the author of the novel, but I think the fact that she was highlighted in the New York Times recently gives her some merit. Since her name was redlinked, I assume it was a requested article. I would appreciate your reasoning on this delete, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnadolski (talk • contribs) 22:19, December 26, 2006

Unfortunately, the article does not assert notability, so I deleted it under criterion A7 of WP:CSD. If you believe that she is notable according to WP:BIO, you can re-create the article. Please visit the links that I have provided for more information. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information; it was my first time doing a bio from scratch. Maybe I should wait until there's a little more information about her. Could you move the deleted article to my user page so I can work on it in private? Thanks! --Cnadolski 03:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. (Moved to User:Cnadolski/Jane Kuntz). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Range block

No need to range block, I have the user covered. Besides, I have already narrowed (in all probability) the range to 69.157.224.0/22 and 69.157.232.0/22, so a /16 is a bit over destructive. Will you unblock please? Prodego ^talk 04:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked /16 and blocked /22. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It really does make a huge difference, can you guess without looking it up (or doing the math)? ;-) Prodego ^talk 04:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Coincidently it is a factor of 32. A /16 is 65534 IPs (really shouldn't block them except in extreme cases) while a single /22 is 1024. So 2*1024 = 2048 IPs. Much less devastating. Prodego ^talk 04:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)