User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2008.03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Indian Invasion Comedy 2 Deletion Review for MileyWorld 3 WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter 4 vand from a school 5 Twinking 6 Thank you 7 Thanks for your support! 8 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Konica Minolta.svg) 9 Happy First Day of Spring! 10 Image:Beijing 2008.svg listed for deletion 11 Re your post on the 3RR noticeboard 12 Thank you 13 Stalin picture

[edit] Indian Invasion Comedy

Hi there, I've restored the article Indian Invasion Comedy which was speedy deleted as a copyright violation. In fact, the page it was copied from (http://www.indianinvasioncomedy.com/clips.htm) was released under the GFDL, and can be freely copied into Wikipedia. I suspect the GFDL release is probably for promotional reasons, but that will probably come out in the AfD discussion. Regards, Canley (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Review for MileyWorld

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MileyWorld. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 5 - March 2008 February issue | April issue Project News There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Ian Browne (cyclist), Tony Marchant, Reginald fitz Jocelin, Annie Russell, Brodie Croyle, and Jimmy Moore. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 13 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues". During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: Blnguyen (talk · contribs) David Fuchs (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Calbear22 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Jackturner3 (talk · contribs) TimVickers (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 185 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 9 new members that joined during the month of February: Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) Canyouhearmenow (talk · contribs) Chrisisinchrist (talk · contribs) Ed! (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Kakofonous (talk · contribs) LOTRrules (talk · contribs) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs) Did You Know... ...that the shortest timespan for a GA to be listed and subsequently delisted is 8 minutes? (The article is Project Chanology and currently listed on WP:GAR) ...that the current nominations system started on March 10, 2006? ...that in May 2006, number of GA surpassed number of FA? This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! One GA Requirement - The Lead Section By Geometry guy In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help? The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new. This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings. Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points. The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't. So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions: Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article? Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph? Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting. Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead? If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section. Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons. Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion! From the Editors Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Geometry guy (News Correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Sphinx Head • Fort Jackson (Virginia) • The Great American Bash (2007) • Jenny (Doctor Who) • No Such Thing as Vampires Reassessment: Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 216 articles (42 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 15 June 2008 | edit

[edit] vand from a school

Here you wrote "one vand from a school is not enough, since it's different people, so they might not have received the final warning before".

Please look here and here. Different IP addresses, but both from schools in Riverside, CA, and identical vandalism. Obviously the same person. Both talk pages littered with warning after warning.

Based upon your logic, it seems to me that v3 and v4 warnings are never appropriate for shared IPs, since there's no way to know if anyone vandalising from that IP has ever seen a warning. Please pardon me if I quit wasting my time warning them. --Art Smart (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, the IP address are too far apart (138. & 204.), so I can't do a range block on them. Since the IP is shared, the users are constantly rotated. If I block one user, he'll probably be on another IP by that time, and an innocent user will end up getting blocked while the vandal isn't. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You have taught me to never again waste my time issuing any warning to a shared IP. I feel stupid having already posted multiple "final warnings" that can never be enforced under your logic. I will now retract all such warnings that I've posted, but I'll leave behind the reason why I'm retracting them.

Obviously, the only solution is semi-protection for the repeatedly vandalized pages. How do I initiate that process, specifically for Garrison Keillor‎, Lake Wobegon, A Prairie Home Companion‎, and A Prairie Home Companion (film) (all of which have been repeatedly vandalized by 204.69.4.82)? Is it something I can do myself? Please advise. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not implying that final warnings for shared IP's are not enforceable. For example, 204.69.4.82 was rightfully blocked in late January because it deterred him from further vandalism. Per the blocking policy, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." So when an IP just comes around and vandalizes once in a while, you could revert their edits easily without the need to block. In fact, blocking an infrequent vandal is often ineffective because the block expires before the user even returns to see it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made my peace with this issue, discussed extensively at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#For_shared_IP_addresses.2C_vandalism_warnings_appear_to_be_unenforceable and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_user_warnings#For_shared_IP_addresses.2C_vandalism_warnings_appear_to_be_unenforceable. I won't be issuing any more v3 or v4 warnings unless I'm virtually certain the block that I'm threatening will be enforced. That means I won't be issuing any warnings to shared IP addresses, because what's the point of a v1 or v2 if there won't be a v3 or v4 to follow if necessary? If in the future the wording of templates v3 and v4 gets changed from "you will be blocked" to "steps will be taken to block you", then I'll once again feel comfortable issuing that threat. I refuse to issue a threat that I lack the authority to enforce. I can't block, but I can takes steps to block. I'm done talking about this issue. Thanks anyway. --Art Smart (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have anything more to say, please do so on my talk page. I'm unwatching this page. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Twinking

Thanks for adding the protection tag... I couldn't connect to the server to do it for some reason. :) Jmlk17 06:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for catching that vandalism to my userpage. He has some a vendetta against me for blocking him...Thanks again, Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support!

Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Konica Minolta.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Konica Minolta.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy First Day of Spring!

[edit] Image:Beijing 2008.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Beijing 2008.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Guest9999 (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re your post on the 3RR noticeboard

I added more information to the report at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:70.129.197.15 reported by User:Tool2Die4 (Result: No action). I provided a new list of diffs, as well as a list of diffs by the reporting user. It appears to me that both have violated 3RR. I'm wondering whether it would be OK for me to change the header in this sort of situation so it no longer says "No action". --Coppertwig (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that TheTutor and ScienceApologist are edit warring and not discussing things at the Talk page [1] I wish things were so Pollyanna, however, to due respect, I wouldn't call this situation as simply as you would like it to be. To me, TheTutor has played an active role on the talk page and seems to have a lot of knowledge, RS references, and civility, while SA undoes his work in various places on WP, seemingly just to edit war. I'm also a bit confused that there is clear evidence that SA has exceeded the 3RR, and yet, you and others are silent. Did I miss something? DanaUllman^Talk 03:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for unblocking my account. I am much obliged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irish614 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin picture

Curious, how does a picture of Stalin qualify as "nonsense"? I love how admins nowadays give the bare minimum of explanations before deleting things. How am I supposed to follow another person's train of thought if all I get is: "CSD nonsense & blank" All that tells me is, "I'm too lazy to type more than two words so I'll just copy and paste a template so Wikipedia won't whine at me." I think it's now obvious that I hate it when admins do that. Why am I ranting to you? I just happened to see your deletion log entry. Unfortunately, you are not even close to the only one that does this. All you have to type is "copyvio" or "on Commons" or "duplicate". Most of you are at least deep into high school, I think you can handle that. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you tell me which image in specific it is? It's likely that the image description page existed, but did not have an actual image to go along with it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)