User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2013/08

Latest comment: 10 years ago by EdwardsBot in topic The Signpost: 28 August 2013

DYK RfC edit

  • As a listed DYK participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions00:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

DYK RfC edit

  • As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions02:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

UTRS edit

Hi KoH - I responded to your CU query for UTRS #8373; for some reason it would not allow me to kick it back to you so you likely won't receive email notification.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Tricentis, cont. edit

As much as I'd like to debate significant coverage, sigcov is a notability argument, and the problem here allows neither an article nor a redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid I don't understand you. How does your current statement bolster your argument that the article should be restored? -- King of ♠ 03:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I am not here to argue for restoration of the article, that is incorrect, I am here to restore the article, as per the consensus of editors discussing the matter on the talk page of the article, which in this case is just me.  If as an editor you don't agree with that consensus, there are things that you can do as an editor, but avoiding the use of your administrative tools should not be one of them.  If you don't want to deal with the technical issue, then please leave me to identify the source of the problem elsewhere.  Given that you have an editorial opinion on the matter, what I would suggest that you do is to restore the article and its talk page from the incubator and then boldly redirect the article to Tosca (software), and then make your case on one of the two talk pages.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's not really a technical thing, though. You shouldn't be restoring the article without either the consent of the deleting admin or consensus at WP:DRV. -- King of ♠ 05:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but I've never heard of such a process.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 July 2013 edit

The Signpost: 07 August 2013 edit

Courtesy notice edit

This is a courtesy notice that an article in which you were involved as an administrator is being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/ITablet (2nd nomination)Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Unblock discussion edit

Hello! I want to remind you of the unblock discussion you opened here. I believe there is a consensus in favor of unblocking Morts623. Heymid (contribs) 17:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Let's wait a bit, I would prefer if someone else closed the discussion. -- King of ♠ 04:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
The discussion has now been archived. The discussion should be unarchived, or somebody needs to make a decision regarding the discussion. Heymid (contribs) 15:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Nobody should ever have an unblock request fail due to going stale IMO, so I have unblocked the user, though admittedly there is only weak consensus in favor of unblock. -- King of ♠ 02:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 14 August 2013 edit

Why dual-protect Raspberry Pi? edit

Hello. I don't think it's wise to use pending changes protection and semi-protect together on Raspberry Pi. PC is designed to give unregistered users limited edit access to a page while protecting it from vandalism, but using semi-protection breaks that advantage. Please considering disabling one of them, thanks. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 09:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

My intention was to semi-protect it for 3 months (because it did indeed need semi), and have it automatically fall back to PC for the remaining 9 months. -- King of ♠ 02:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Abusefilter/201? edit

While doing research for an ANI, I came across this comment of yours, which lead me to wonder what exactly is Abusefilter/201, and does it work? (The rangeblock you mention doesn't appear in the block logs of any of the suspect IP's) If so, would using it be appropriate in this case? Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

201 is my personal test filter. Once I made sure it was functional, I moved it to Special:AbuseFilter/539, but later disabled it due to no hits. I have reenabled it and augmented the ranges. -- King of ♠ 02:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Talkback edit

 
Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at Kauffner's talk page.
Message added 05:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

Can we please get him talk page banned, too? He's being hurtful  . Helperbot won't let me report him to AIV, again, and you're the banning admin. Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Done King of ♠ 20:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

19:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013 edit

The Signpost: 28 August 2013 edit