User talk:Courcelles/Archive 82

Archive 75

←

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Stephen Curry (basketball)

When you protected this page did you take in to consideration that the last IP edit reverted as vandalism was not only in good faith, but 100% accurate?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It was neither. He was not born in Slovakia. Courcelles 19:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't the last edit, the last edit was the announcement of his marriage. Verified by press release posted on the reverters talk page. The slovakia comment seems to be the only vandalism for several weeks. 3 month semi seems way overkill.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The unsourced stuff is no more acceptable than the Slovakia vandalism, given it is a BLP. 3 months was largely based on the history, the last one was a year, but the expiration was actually a year ago, not 3 months... hmm, I'll reset it to a week, though I expect it'll be semi'ed quickly when (and if) the NBA season starts. Courcelles 19:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Very possible but we'll see. Strongly disagree with the first line. There's a big difference in the way we treat edits (and ip editors) that are bad faith vandalism and good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Calling them equivelant is the very definition of bitey.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that I can't find anything besides a puffy press release that confirms the wedding after several minutes of looking, I'm not sure it even bears mentioning at this point, without a reliable source. Unsourced edits to BLP's and vandalism aren't equivalent, and I never said such a thing. However, they both need to be either reverted or fixed in double-quick time, and neither is acceptable. One is far worse than the other, however. Courcelles 20:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I read 'no more acceptable' as equivalent. Apparently I read these words to literally. Adding the context of your follow up we probably agree more than not. I too would have removed it, however it should have been done as 'unsourced' not 'vandalism'. I looked at sources and found the press release, and also a couple blog entries. It's enough for me to be convinced it happened but not enough for me to be comfortable adding any as a source. That's why I didn't actually put the info back in myself.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Trivial question about a recent close

Recently I've been paying more attention to AfD procedures. You closed a recent AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riley Kawānanakoa. I have no difficulty with your evaluation or your process except this: it's still listing as an open discussion on the AfD main page. I can't see a problem myself, and I was wondering, should a bot have completed some routine step? (btw, I cleared my cache...) What's the hitch? BusterD (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No idea either. I've "re-closed" it, in case there was some glitch, but I didn't see one. Might want to talk to the bot's operator, as those listings are generated by bot, not by the software. Courcelles 22:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! BusterD (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creevedonnell Cricket Club

Is a second re-list really needed, know one has expressed that the page should be kept and given the precedent of other clubs at the same level ? Mtking ^(edits) 01:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is, because it's a one !voter, where neither the nominator or the other participant makes much of an argument besides stare decisis which isn't a great argument in our deletion processes. Courcelles 12:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Jones

Hi there! You relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Jones, but the nomination was withdrawn on 26th, so not sure if you want to close it, or let it run. Cheers. GedUK  11:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I'm kind of indifferent to it because the IP did !vote delete, but, it's long in the tooth at 16 days old, and a delete consensus isn't going to emerge at this late date, so, I've shut it down. Courcelles 12:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Starnbar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For explaining stuff to a fool such as I, above and beyond the call of duty. Thank you for taking the time to help.  Chzz  ►  18:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, but it wasn't a problem at all, and you're no fool. :) Courcelles 18:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed interaction restrictions between Users Roscelese and Haymaker

Please find below the proposed wording of the interaction ban between the above parties. I am copying Haymaker and Roscelese for their comments, and asking Haymaker for their nomination for an uninvolved administrator. While admitting my own tardiness, I should be grateful for your prompt observations so this can be put in place in short order.

++ Restrictions on interactions between Roscelese (talk · contribs), and Haymaker (talk · contribs) ++
Important Notice These restrictions are agreed by the above named editors, and are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

• Roscelese and Haymaker, as the parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia, and editing any article to the effect of undoing or manifestly altering a contribution by the other party - except on the talk pages of the "involved administrators", Arbitration Committee Request/case pages where either (or both) are an involved party, Requests for Comment/User where either or both are a party, or similar pages where their comments are requested. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. The ban is indefinite, but for not less than 1 year - after which either party may request review or both may agree to request the lifting or suspension of the ban.
• A relaxation of the restrictions may be agreed, at a neutral venue such as one of the involved admins talkpages, by the parties in regard to certain topics from time to time but otherwise the above restrictions apply.

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and - (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

++

If you know of a third admin who you think may be acceptable to Haymaker, please feel free to suggest it to them. If you have any suggestions otherwise in regard to the above, I would be pleased to hear them.

Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the wording. I'll see if I can think of another admin, and get back to you tomorrow. Courcelles 03:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Anything? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've asked three, and gotten replies that can be summed up with "Are you crazy?" so far. Courcelles 20:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You've been asking the sensible sysops...!? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thanks for deleting that article I nominated, Tyrone Noling. That was the first article I ever nominated, and I'd planned to do it since before I had created my account, so it means something to me. Thank you! Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 21:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no pleasure in deleting it, but thank you for the kind words. Courcelles 15:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Can use help with...

This edit filter. I noticed that you've done a bit of emergency response (especially regarding suicide notes), so I was wondering if you could give me a hand on making that better. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Might want to run this one by the Foundation, as the filter as designed is only going to catch signed notes, a more complete word list is going to have a far number of false positives, and the logs of the filter's hits could be used for other purposes than pure ones. Limiting it to non-autoconfirmed users would likely reduce the false positive list significantly, while occasionally letting something slip through the cracks. Courcelles 16:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It should ideally catch certain word patterns, not just a set of word lists. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 19:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail regarding "Interactive Media Awards"

I sent you an e-mail regarding "Interactive Media Awards" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamford347 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Another thanks

Hello C. Just wanted to drop you a note saying thanks for the protection on Rod's talk page. If you saw my edit summaries you know that I felt that it was rubbing salt in the wounds to post deletion/discussion messages there. I am wondering if you would consider doing the same at KnowIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is a blocked and banned user who has been a prolific sock puppetter on more than one wiki. I think that messages there give that person impetus to sock again. If you feel that protection is not correct for that page I will respect that decision. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, the deletion notices aren't helping anything, and with no talk page access, there's very little legitimate that would ever be posted there. Done. Courcelles 15:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I hope that you have an enjoyable weekend and continued happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 16:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Help | Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management

The page "Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management" that I created, has been deleted because of notability issue. But when I search Google, I can view the page as follows: "This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference...................................." Could you please delete the above information (with double quotes) because it seems awkward? Thanks in advance. --Aubaskar (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be a Google problem, not ours. Google should drop it from their results list within a couple weeks, or perhaps faster. The creation of a deletion log, and its display when a page is viewed, however, is not something we, as admins, can avoid, the software does that automatically. Courcelles 16:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for explaining. There is no problem with Google or displaying deletion log under "Other reasons this message may be displayed" but the wiki page is showing "This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference...." at start of this page. I like to know whether this info box can be deleted.

--Aubaskar (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, it cannot be removed/deleted. It can be hidden from usual view if you come up with a logical place to redirect the title, however. Courcelles 05:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• I suggest to redirect to: List of environmental journals. Please advise.

--Aubaskar (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey

You think your recent blocks were Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D62943 too? --Rschen7754 04:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I know they were ---  Confirmed. Courcelles 04:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sol D' Menta pictures/articles

Hi, just asking about the recent messages you sent me about Sol D' Menta related pics (this one, this one, and about other two). Just wondering if you could check if the articles that had those images (Sol D'Menta (album), Insomnio, and about 2-3 more) and the article about Sol D'Menta itself was recently deleted. I don't know if you can do that, so I'm just asking. It's just that I contributed a lot to those articles, creating most of them I think, but never received any notification that they were about to be deleted. Thanks! Thief12 (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The article on the band was a WP:PROD, which made the albums deletable under A9. If someone, perhaps you, objects to the band's article being deleted, they can all come back, just let me know. Courcelles 19:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if possible. I know I worked with those articles a long time ago, but I think I can improve them now. Thanks! Thief12 (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Restored the lot. Keep in mind, that if the band's article is deleted at a potential AFD, the albums go again automatically under A9. Courcelles 01:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, man! Thief12 (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Braniel

Courcelles, Braniel did have a list of references but Satori Son deleted them all, Can I have permission to re-create page Braniel, and could you please send me a copy of the page, Many Thanks TheLittleMann (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The references were deleted because they were added by a sockpuppet of User:EastBelfastBoy. As, indeed, are you. Courcelles 19:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD oversight

There was an oversight in the group TFD nomination and there is a stray template remaining: Template:Time 100s footer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, deleted. Courcelles 19:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey

You think your recent blocks were Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D62943 too? --Rschen7754 04:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I know they were ---  Confirmed. Courcelles 04:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sol D' Menta pictures/articles

Hi, just asking about the recent messages you sent me about Sol D' Menta related pics (this one, this one, and about other two). Just wondering if you could check if the articles that had those images (Sol D'Menta (album), Insomnio, and about 2-3 more) and the article about Sol D'Menta itself was recently deleted. I don't know if you can do that, so I'm just asking. It's just that I contributed a lot to those articles, creating most of them I think, but never received any notification that they were about to be deleted. Thanks! Thief12 (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The article on the band was a WP:PROD, which made the albums deletable under A9. If someone, perhaps you, objects to the band's article being deleted, they can all come back, just let me know. Courcelles 19:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if possible. I know I worked with those articles a long time ago, but I think I can improve them now. Thanks! Thief12 (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Restored the lot. Keep in mind, that if the band's article is deleted at a potential AFD, the albums go again automatically under A9. Courcelles 01:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, man! Thief12 (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Braniel

Courcelles, Braniel did have a list of references but Satori Son deleted them all, Can I have permission to re-create page Braniel, and could you please send me a copy of the page, Many Thanks TheLittleMann (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The references were deleted because they were added by a sockpuppet of User:EastBelfastBoy. As, indeed, are you. Courcelles 19:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD oversight

There was an oversight in the group TFD nomination and there is a stray template remaining: Template:Time 100s footer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, deleted. Courcelles 19:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

David Johansen's "Shaker (album)"

I'm okay with David Johansen's "Shaker (album)" page being deleted, but I was under the impression that references were needed from Intoronto1125. Therefore, references were added from both AllMusic Guide and the album company's offiical website. Could you please let me know why the references were not valid? Thanks...Docob5 (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The page was deleted by WP:PROD, all you had to do to stop the deletion was remove the tag on the top of the page. If you would like to contest the deletion, it will be restored, as a proposed deletion, is by definition, only done if noone objects to the deletion. Courcelles 03:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...makes sense and sounds simple.Docob5 (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Restored as a contested PROD. Courcelles 14:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again.Docob5 (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)