User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2014/05

Latest comment: 10 years ago by King of Hearts in topic Reference desk trolling

The Signpost: 30 April 2014 edit

Edit filter 596 edit

Thanks for the tweak to the filter a few weeks ago (I've been on a long break). I made another tweak since there is no regex used that should make execution faster. At least one would think so. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

07:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Filter 39 edit

[15]. Unsure why this has tripped it? Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The article originally contained the word "rape," and the added lines still contain the word. The filter used to exempt cases where the article already had a match, but zzuuzz removed the exemption with the reason that the articles are likely to contain existing problems, and since the filter is not set to disallow, it is more important to catch BLP violations (i.e. prevent false negatives). -- King of ♠ 21:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. The main problem here is that it is not a school article. There are some words in school articles which indicate that any edits surrounding them will always require some review. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wil Wheaton photo discussion edit

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Decision requires revision edit

Good evening. There is the article about one person. None of the administrators does not want to understand it. It's obvious that the article was created on commercial basis. There is no useful information in the article except insults and black PR. References, such as 3, 4 and 6, do not contain any information about Sergei Vasiliev. Have you read the sources? They are not authoritative. Freelancer wrote an article and we should believe him (reference 9)? Since when, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for a lie?

No one paid any attention to the arguments in favor of deletion. arguments

Please, revise the decision. Article should be deleted. You are an intelligent man. Why do you protect provocateurs who create these articles specifically for spoilage reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VolgaCamper (talkcontribs) 19:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I closed it as WP:NPASR, which means that you can feel free to renominate the article for deletion ASAP. -- King of ♠ 21:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
When? After 24 May? VolgaCamper (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Immediately. -- King of ♠ 11:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 07 May 2014 edit

06:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Your unblock of Ranjan.phantom edit

An unambiguous violation of the unblocking terms. [34] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque RB.jpg edit

File:Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque RB.jpg, a picture of a building, was deleted on Commons for lack of FOP in Oman. Could you upload it locally? Armbrust The Homunculus 13:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

TINO Page edit

Dear Sirs, i have noticed that TINO Methodology has been deleted. i don't understand why, mainly when similar pages such http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-creation are active , will appreciate your respond , advice , Best regards , Haim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.194.205.42 (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you wish to have Co-creation deleted, then feel free to open an AfD. -- King of ♠ 08:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Abuse filter 613 – Signing in article edit

Hey KoH! I'm new to edit filter management. I see you've made quite a few. Anyway you could help me with filter 613? Detailed description of my issue at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter#613 - Signing in article. Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 20:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 14 May 2014 edit

07:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014 edit

Ruby Yadav edit

Regarding User talk:Salvidrim!#Ruby Yadav, I'm very sorry. It just didn't occur to me to check with you first. I do make mistakes from time to time, and this is certainly one of those times. Again, I'm terribly sorry. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

No problem. -- King of ♠ 22:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

08:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Afd' link edit

I think there was a minor error from you when you were adding Afd link to Talk:Tim Jonze.[72] But I have fixed it for you.[73] OccultZone (Talk) 05:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, the script always puts the AfD box at the top of the talk page. -- King of ♠ 17:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Script called? It was also about "Tim Jonze" and "Tim Jonze 2nd nomination", but your link was another "Tim Jonze", yes both Afd. OccultZone (Talk) 17:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js. -- King of ♠ 18:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

You've got mail! edit

 
Hello, King of Hearts/Archive/2014. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stuartzs.
Message added 02:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

LGA talkedits 02:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Request for comment edit

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Unilateral unblock edit

I'm a bit irritated you unblocked Momanogilgiti (talk · contribs) without consultation. I obviously don't know what the CU found or didn't find, but my block was based on behavioral criteria, which I still think were more than obvious. Momanogilgilti's edits had several quite evident and apparently independent intersections with those of Jackolanternstrikes (talk · contribs), who I had blocked just hours earlier, and other earlier socks (both were editing Total Siyapaa, both were harassing User:Darkness Shines, both were not only campaigning for an unblock of ZORDANLIGHTER but claiming themselves to be that user (Jackolanternstrikes by listing his own account on the SPI page, Momanogilgiti by shouting "UNBLOCK ME" on that page), and Momanogilgiti was also inserting himself into the discussion at Talk:2002 Gujarat riots, which had been another of ZORDANLIGHTER's points of interest. How much more obvious does it get? I don't care if checkuser can confirm they actually are that Zordan sockmaster; if they aren't, they are just an obvious troll. Fut.Perf. 07:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Pending changes protection for The 1975 edit

Article has suffered some persistent vandalism over the past few weeks. A pending changes (protection (level 1) for The 1975 will hopefully reduce it. Thanks. Karst 08:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  Done King of ♠ 20:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Articles for deletion/Sergei Ivanovich Vasiliev (2nd nomination) edit

Hello! The discussion continues too long. There is a consensus for deletion of the article. Another user, who had not previously participated in the discussion, spoke in favor of delete. And those users, who had offered to keep the article, still did not respond to my and others counter arguments more than a week! After extending the period of discussion and setting "Relist", no one spoke in favor of keep the article. VolgaCamper (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

As the closer of the previous discussion, I would prefer to allow someone else to close this one. -- King of ♠ 11:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

SPI closure edit

You closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paleolibrairan after having warned the user about editing while logged out. If you have a look at the history of David I Orenstein and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David I Orenstein, you'll note that the user has not taken heed of your warning and continues to edit from IP addresses, in a likely attempt to avoid detection of his self-promotion. Can you consider re-opening the SPI so sterner action can be taken? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have semi-protected both articles. Hopefully that should be enough. -- King of ♠ 02:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Reference desk trolling edit

Hi KoH,

These all came to my attention by hits on edit filter 527 -- in each, there is a group of 4-6 accounts created within minutes, each of which then proceeds to post one stupid refdesk question. There are a bunch more new ones this morning. When blocked, they all show on the block log as autoblocking the same IP. And I seem to remember that there was a "reference desk troll" vandal earlier. Unless you strongly object, I think these all need to be blocked. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you point me to a page describing the reference desk troll? (If one doesn't exist, perhaps list some recent socks?) -- King of ♠ 14:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
(tps) Oh, we're being trolled alright. I blocked some more accounts and reblocked the ones at the SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
OK, thanks for clarifying everything. -- King of ♠ 23:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply