User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2009/05

Re: Admin Coaching

I would be glad to have you as my coach. :) Best wishes, Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Churchill College Junior Common Room

Regarding your redirection of this page, I do not believe the consensus was redirect. At the start of the debate, a few people said Delete, but then further sources were added and the latter opinions were only to keep. I do not believe a redirect should be used as a moderate option when the debate is split. Since the article has been updates, as per the discussion, there have been no Delete 'votes'. WikiWebbie (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe there is a clear consensus to keep. In other cases, I might have closed as no consensus (a default keep), but in this AfD, many people left "redirect" as an acceptable alternative, so that's what I'll go by. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

deletion

Hi, you were the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah. Weren't you supposed to delete various wikilinks to the deleted page, especially when it was deleted as a nonnotable vanity? I could have deleted them myself, but I thought you had some reasons to leave them behind. Twri (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice. I think the backlinks have been removed now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

I noticed that you have one more spot open for Admin Coaching. Could you be my coach?--Unionhawk ^Talk 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would be glad to. Welcome to Admin Coaching! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of File:7 Sqn RAF Chinook (1991).jpg

This file was previsouly deleted because of an incorecctly identified licence, so the file was uploaded again with the correct licence. Photographer Ed Groenendijk has approved of it's use via email with a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. He doesn't actually care how it's used, and did not make any attribution requirements. How do I stop this file being deleted? Mr Pillows (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You should ask him to send an email to OTRS. See the page for more details. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I just realised that you tacked your endorsement on to the previous deletion review. The file you just deleted, was a new version with different licencing, and was not part of the previous review that you "endorsed". You are in fact the first admin to delete this current version.Mr Pillows (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Still, how do we know that you actually have permission from the copyright owner? As I said, ask him to contact OTRS, which will be able to verify the permission. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do! I also have a question which you may be able to answer. Why doesn't wikipedia prevent users from uploading questionable content by limiting the licence options on the upload page? The first time I tried, I accidentally used the option "available for use on wikipedia", which was rejected in the first review - there's no point offering that option on the drop down list. This time I used an option for the correct licence (which included a permission description), but once again, there's no point offering an option that results in the file being deleted. An obvious solution is to only offer "There is no copyright" or "I am the copyright holder", because anything involving someone else's permission will get deleted regardless. Do you know why it is so? Mr Pillows (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Something requiring others' permission is not deleted per se, but rather requires confirmation that they actually have licensed the work under a free license. Also, images do not have to be your own work; they might be public domain because they are very old, created by the US Government, etc. However, this is not the case with this particular image, and you will need to get the copyright holder to confirm the release of the image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blaqkout

See here. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Must have slipped my eye. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of pedantry. Or is it pendantism? Aagh!

Good $TIME_OF_DAY. I meed to ask you about the reasoning behind the "no consensus" close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red String (webcomic) (2nd nomination). Sure, three hands are raised in favor and three against, but AfDs are theoretically about the facts: note that the "delete" !votes all rest on the same argument (which, I note with some malignance, contains no attempt to improve the article beforehand), while the "keep" !votes address this argument in elaborate detail. Chilliad22 comes around to cautiously supporting retention, which would swing the hand-count to 4-2 for "keep."

I ask this with the convenient excuse of supplementing my own, limited experience with AfD closings. Thanks, Kizor 10:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Now looking back on the discussion, perhaps that is the case. Still, the article's kept anyways, so nothing needs to be done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Now that I've remembered the issue again, I'm still pasting this conversation to the article's talk page to ward off any future AfDing. :-) --Kizor 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to right a wrong

Please note that user Luis Napoles has once again engaged in edit-warring[1] on several articles. User Lius Napoles has a habit making his edits highly political and refuses to discuss them on the talk page see this [2]

I know you warned him before, but he deleted your comment and another one from other administrators and seems to have ignored your advice. Please do something about it this time. Likeminas (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

He has been blocked by AGK already. See block log. Cheers, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of China – Hungarian relations

Hello, In regards to a recent afd that you closed, Articles for deletion/Republic of China – Hungarian relations I have found new sources that may indicate the article had notability. These sources, [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. I was wondering in your opinion what you think of all this, I don't believe it is too late to bring this to WP:DRV, and I really don't want to recreate deleted materials as that could lead to a whole mess of trouble. Your advice please, thank you -Marcusmax(speak) 03:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Turns out the article had a copy of a different name, that being People's Republic of China – Hungary relations perhaps I can just add the info there. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources you found were for the People's Republic of China (mainland China). The article has to do with the Republic of China (Taiwan). There simply are no sources indicating notability of Taiwan-Hungary relations. But yes, do add the info to People's Republic of China – Hungary relations where it belongs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Where exactly should such cases be posted? I've been called a vandal/threatened with a block with no just reason, so I took it to the vandalism board. Drone2Gather (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Take it to WP:ANI. Mention that it's not a case of simple vandalism, so that they don't tell you to take it to AIV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. I've figured it out by now. Drone2Gather (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverend Henry Kane

Hello! Could you please undelete the edit history of this article? There was some mergeable material in it and given that the discussion had no strong consensus for deletion, I cannot imagine anyone having a problem. You can keep the redirect, but there was some stuff in the edit history of value. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I was about to come myself and suggest that the proper course if you came to the conclusion you did was a redirect. not a delete and redirect. Delete and redirect is kept for where the material is in some way harmful. I do not think your conclusion was correct, in any case; there was very clearly no consensus of the few people there. I very rarely actually complain about the close of one of these articles, because there is a large zone for ambiguity. But this time, I think you should do something other than you did. DGG (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Staten Island Underground Music List

Hey King of Hearts, can you drop Staten-Island-Underground-Music-List into my userspace? Thanks! Nanowolf (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Church in Singapore

Hi,

My article in

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Church_in_Singapore&action=history

Was deleted. I failed to make a copy of it before it was deleted. Are you able to retrieve an old copy so I can keep for my own reference?

Thanks.

Pneumatikos (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello King of Hearts! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster

The Johnny Mercer rename

Why is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 9#Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer still an open question? It is clear that nobody except the one person who started the whole thing wants to do the change, but a whole bunch of songs got recategorized as a result of the earlier action, and the question really should be closed so the recategorizations can be reverted. -- BRG (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC) (Please respond on my own talk page.)

talk page stays behind?

Thanks for closing the complicated AFD for the three middle schools. You left the talk page behind on a redirected article; is that intentional? I thought it would have been merged to the new target. tedder (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's intentional; the {{oldafdfull}} is there to show that the AfD has taken place. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Untimely deletion of Pentax K-7 page

The Pentax K-7 page has been deleted because it was speculation; the actual camera was released today. The deletion discussion contains this segment:

 Also funny that according to the article, this camera was announced on 
 May 21, 2009. Surely a typo, unless Pentax found a way to manipulate 
 time... JogCon (talk) 

But actually, the date is right -- the announcement date was "preannounced" via teaser advertisements. And now that the camera is here, the deletion makes it impossible to create the real page.

This is likely to be an important dSLR. Note for example this comment from an early review:

"Indeed, the launch of the Pentax K-7 could be a defining moment for Pentax, whose camera business dates back to 1952."

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K7/K7A.HTM#AFsystem

Or this one:

"The Pentax K-7 is a game changer. The era of in-camera HDR begins today."

http://www.adorama.com/alc/blogarticle/11608

Matthew Miller (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Altenmann has restored it already. Cheers, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Shane Fitzgerald (hoaxer)

I saw that you redirected Shane Fitzgerald (hoaxer) to Reliability of Wikipedia per AFD. Except never was it recommended that the article be "redirected", a few people suggested that it be "merged" which is not the same thing. You actions mean that there is less information available than was before. Please consider cleaning up your actions or revert the page back. You essentially deleted the (might I add) well sourced article. Kevin Rector (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the "delete" arguments were quite convincing. There was also support for a merge, and hence what I said: "Some of the information may be selectively merged." Eventually, a successful merge will be turned into a redirect, and I haven't deleted the history, so it won't matter in the end. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Hay

Hi, now that Jonathan Hay (Footballer) is the only Jonathan Hay, could you delete the latter which is a redirect to the former so it can be moved back? It was moved by the person who created the Jonathan Hay (songwriter) article that was deleted and most pages intended for Jonathan Hay (Footballer) are still linking to Jonathan Hay. If I didn't explain this very well, let me know. Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done - I have completed the move. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't expect you to actually make the move, thanks very much! Drawn Some (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Kenny Rogers

I listed those ones separately since they were varying degrees of non-notability at least to me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 11:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Philip Morrow

Hi King of Hearts,

I'm still learning the ropes over at AfD so I'd be grateful if you could let me know your thought-processes in keeping Philip Morrow. Many thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In many AfD's, one user might offer a particularly compelling argument or insightful discovery. In this case, FlyingToaster found a variety of sources in support of notability. There was less support for "delete" or "merge" than "keep," so the article was kept. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to have a go, I'm just trying to understand, so apologies if I keep asking questions. All of thoses sources listed except the Director Magazine, aren't about him, the subject is something he's involved with, so doesn't that make it trivial coverage, notability is not inherited, etc? Thanks for your time. Bigger digger (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not the closer's duty to evaluate sources; participants in the debate do that. I only evaluate the consensus among the participants based on what they say. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for taking the time to explain. I wonder why anyone closes AfDs when they get all the conversations that show up here! Bigger digger (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? (re:List of celebrities on South Park)

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrities on South Park there actually was a bit of a split there and non-primary sources were pointed out that suggests they may exist for every item. To me this was a no-consensus to delete. -- Banjeboi 23:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It is especially important on such controversial AfD's to provide concrete evidence. Just because sources may exist is inconsequential; if you can provide some actual examples of secondary sources, I will be happy to discuss the matter with you and relist it if necessary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

They were posted on the AfD. -- Banjeboi 00:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

... only to be revealed as primary sources. I'll clarify myself: no actual secondary sources have been presented, though the possibility of their existence has been mentioned. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I missed that, and still do. In fact all five seem to be spot on with the first two even stating that so-and-so was the latest of a long line of celebrities paradied by the series. Indeed it shows that secondary sources exist and comment both on the volume of celebrities appropriated and controversies that using celebrities has generated, as in the Steve Irwin case. I don't think any og those sources were suggested as primary sources but I may have missed that. I think it was pointed out that everything could be sourced to primary sources but non-primary sources would be more helpful. -- Banjeboi 08:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, as closer, I do not evaluate whether the sources are valid; participants in the debate do that. I interpreted the consensus among the participants to be that the sources were not. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I hear what your saying however no one seemed to suggest those sources cited on the AfD didn't disprove the allegation that no sources exist. Instead it suggests that had the discussion gone on or, if pressed, even more sources would easily be found. It was the core issue which was addressed. That non-primary sources existed, they do and examples were proevided and no one suggested that those weren't valid sources. Perhaps a stay of execution to no consensus with a closing note that if non-primary sources aren't added it's likely a return to AfD will occur. -- Banjeboi 01:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess you could take it to WP:DRV for more opinions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I may have to leave well enough alone here but your reasoning was off in my opinion and your statement that the sources provided were shown to be primary ones doesn't seem to bear out. As was pointed out on the AfD we have examples of that type of list that have been shown to work so I feel we are doing our readers a disservice by simply deleting something that simply should have been improved instead. I have little doubt that the entire list will be restored soon enough so wanted to understand your thinking on this. Thank you for your time. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to work on it, I can userfy it to your subpage. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer but I have way too much backlogged already and would hate for someone to think I was actually doing something with it when I simply don't have the energy. But thank you. Hopefully someone else will be inspired enough to do so. -- Banjeboi 01:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages of redirects

Hi KoH. Since you're active at AfD, I thought I would ask a question about discussion closures (I've only been sysopped for two weeks, so this would be a newbie admin inquiry ;-)). According to Admin instructions, it's implied that the talkpages AfD'd articles that were redirected need to be tagged with {{oldafdfull}}, like any other non-delete case. At first I deleted this talk page because it served no purpose. I remembered something in those instructions, and decided to apply the oldafdfull tag, per instructions. Is this the norm/proper action to take with redirects? Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 00:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I generally tag it with oldafdfull. Cheers, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 00:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. Please keep in mind that, in general, AfDs should remain open for the full seven days. I noticed that you've been closing some nearly a day early. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we all take some leeway, right? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was clear in those cases, so in theory WP:SNOW applies. But fair enough. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, our current discussion is moot anyways already. We'll leave it at here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Functional states index

Hi King,

I archived the above-named article and the talk page I created for it in case they got deleted, as I expected they would. Now that you have deleted them, I wanted to know if there were any additional changes to either page in the two remaining days before the deletion took place. I checked the policy for accessing deleted pages and it said to start by checking with the administrator who deleted the page, so that's what I'm asking for. In addition to the basic content of the two pages, I hope what you do will allow me to also access their history pages so I can see what changes might have been made up until deletion.

Of the procedures possible, I think the one that makes sense is to restore those pages to my namespace. If you do that, tell me if it is okay to keep them there or if I must remove them after a certain period of time. If I can leave them there, that would allow me to (a) get around at some point to following through on the alternative I suggested, (b) contact the article author to see if he wants to do it, and/or (c) link to them from my user page to invite others to think about doing it.

Please ping me in some fashion to let me know to check back here when you have replied.

Thank you, WagePeace (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done - User:WagePeace/Functional states index. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. WagePeace (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DRV closure

Hi King of Hearts. According to Aymatth2 who participated in Articles for deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg relations, he merged the content of Estonia–Luxembourg relations into Foreign_relations_of_Luxembourg#Relations_by_country. Thus, for GFDL compliance, the article can't be deleted. It should either be redirected or kept. I'd be glad if you would review this. -- User:Docu 07:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, per Wikipedia:Merge and delete, it would need to be undeleted and redirected. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is in fact one of my biggest concerns. It's all a Catch-22. If you delete it, you violate GFDL. If you redirect it, you violate NPOV since it implies preference for one country over the other. I started an RfD on Malta–Moldova relations a few days ago; perhaps you would like to comment on it, and we'll see how to go about it from there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There can be two redirects, one Estonia–Luxembourg relations to Foreign_relations_of_Luxembourg and Luxembourg-Estonia relations to Foreign_relations_of_Estonia. In any case, this shouldn't prevent you from complying with GFDL. -- User:Docu 17:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

We'll see how to go about it after the RfD closes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's really just a courtesy that I bring this up here before opening a DRV. Please make up your mind today. -- User:Docu

I still don't like the idea of redirecting; I turned it into a disambiguation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for listening. I updated the outcome accordingly. Hopefully everybody is happy now. 02:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC) -- User:Docu

BTW could you restore the talk page as well? 03:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC) -- User:Docu

Honestly, I do not see the validity of this request. The Estonian section of Foreign_relations_of_Luxembourg#Relations_by_country is a simple bullet list of factual information, which is not copyrightable. What original material in the old article was merged into the new? Tarc (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you could all concentrate your discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force#Merge and delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Userfied Document of Reza Faezi

Hello King of Hearts,

Please may I have the document "Reza Faezi" to be userfied to my name gbirley. The document has already been deleted as of May 27, 2009 11:30 UTC.

It is a shame that the wikipedia document was deleted. I disagree that my argument based on the crystball theory - as I do know he will make an international appearance, but I cannot publish such information yet due to copyright issues that may occur.

Many thanks for moderating the deletion of the document,

Regards, George

--Gbirley (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Andy Horning

Heh, yeah, just noticed that. :)  Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Estonia-Luxembourg relations

I noticed this page has been recreated after it was deleted following deletion review. Could you please delete except the disambiguation...the previous history still appears [15]. Actually where is the consensus and precedent for doing this ie creating disambiguation page? some deleted articles have had consensus for redirect. but in this case, clear consensus to delete not "create disambiguation page for redirect purposes". In the 150 odd bilateral articles deleted the last 2 months this has never been done. thanks LibStar (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am more concerned about it existing as a disambiguation page since it isn't even disambiguating anything--the two articles listed aren't ambiguous. I'm not sure what it is, but it's not a disambiguation page. Drawn Some (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To LibStar and Drawn Some, see a few threads above for why this fair and reasonable compromise was made. Best,--A Nobody^{My talk} 03:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

shouldn't greater community consensus to achieved before doing this? as this relates to at least 150 deleted articles? LibStar (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel like a politician now. Can't satisfy anybody ... Understand that the disambiguation is tentative; I'm playing safe for legal reasons, and besides, the issue will be resolved eventually. I've taken the first step by bringing Malta/Moldova to RfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to compromise here.  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This is actually turning out to be a pretty serious issue. I've put it up for RfC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

yes I agree that is serious, that's why I do not support creating a disambiguation page in the interim as there is no wider community consensus for this. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If anything has been merged, then per the GFDL, we must have the attribution history public somewhere/somehow. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

For everyone's information, I have relisted as I think this specific Estonia Luxembourg needs clear consensus for its existence as a disambig page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg relations (2nd nomination).LibStar (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, if any of it has been merged anywhere, the edit history cannot be deleted per the GFDL. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It does not appear that any material was actually merged, as what is in the present article does not match what was in the old article. Taking factual info from one and rewording it in another is not a merge. Tarc (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If information has been taken from another, it has been merged, even if reworked in the new article. We should err on the side of caution here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That is, frankly, ridiculous. Tarc (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is for better or worse that attribution history agreement we are bound by. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you could all concentrate your discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force#Merge and delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(Untitled)

hi and what do you mean by (Last Message) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.254.90 (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistook your edits for vandalism. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Friendly Problem

I having a problem with the Gadget Friendly. What should I do about it? It won't let me welcome new users. --Abce2|AccessDenied 02:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't used it, so try asking someone else. I was going to say Ioeth (who created Friendly), but since he's not been active recently, you could go to Wikipedia talk:Friendly, and (if no one replies) WP:VPT. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, for WP:VPT: The page says, "Problems with user scripts should not be reported here, but rather to their developers (unless the bug needs immediate attention)." But since the script's developer can't be contacted, I guess you're fine. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations has been restored to article form again

Sorry to keep running to you with issues over this article, but as you have been involved in previous decisions... It is my understanding from the discussions in the above sections that the singular reason that your restoration was to satisfy potential GFDl concerns, and that it was not to override community consensus. I'm not sure that was ever necessary, but that's what is being hashed out at the current AfD. However, I find it highly inappropriate that an involved user has seen fit to restore it to article form. If I revert that it'll just lead to ore edit-warring, so I am making a request that you return the article to the state that you set it to initially. Tarc (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I restored it. I finally seem to have cleared the issue in my head. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, belatedly. :) Tarc (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, another user is now trying to restore the article. [16]. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)