Jump to content

User talk:Courcelles/Archive 90

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85←Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90Archive 91Archive 92→Archive 95

Need a hand

I think I screwed something up trying to move the new article Hitting for the cycle. I thought what I did would merge the edit histories but it didn't. Could use a hand, as you've done this for me before. Please advise. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 13:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oop, I think I figured it out. Sorry to bother. — KV5 • Talk • 14:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
History merges. Less fun than a linebacker coming right at you. Glad you got it sorted. Courcelles 03:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you closed the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German collective guilt (2nd nomination), but the link in "The result of the discussion was keep" from the banner at the top of Talk:German collective guilt goes to the previous AfD discussion (2007). Could you fix this, please? Thanks. PamD 10:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so the script that does the "paperwork" was smart enough to link the right nomination in the edit summary, but not the edit. Strange. Fixed now. Courcelles 18:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. (Should there also be a link to the earlier AfD, I wonder?). PamD 22:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2011 CUOS appointments

Your candidate subpages have been created and transcluded to the above-noted location.

Please answer the standard questions and also keep watch for additional questions that may be posted by the community.

Thank you again for your offer to serve as a functionary. –xenotalk 12:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SandyHillPittman.jpg

Hello Courcelles (I trouble you too much lately). Do you think you can delete the photo I linked to as I made an error and uploaded the wrong image. I don't have permission to use that one and would like to upload the correct image using the same file name. Many thanks. ~dee(talk?) 12:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

José Eduardo dos Santos

Hello Courcelles: here I am once more, calling your attention to renewed persistent vanadalism in the article on JES. This time it is again User:Gabirro whose edits are partisan and/or go against proven facts. Couldn't you try and resolve this case once and for all? -- Aflis (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've locked the article for a week, really, it is time this entire article had more eyes and attention on it. The constant issues might be worth a flyer at WP:BLPN to get some more eyes on it. Courcelles 10:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and let me take the occasion to sum up how I see the situation: As it stands, the article is not at all bad. It is, of course, never finished, as (a) it is about a living person, so that info about new developments have to be added, and (b) additional sources about his biography may turn up. For both reasons, self-confirmed editors should in principle always have access to it. The problem are two kinds of snipers. On the one hand those who cling to the official (MPLA) party line and eliminate anything which diverges from it; as JES has become (in Angola) the target of violent (verbal) political protest comparable to that against Mubarak, this category of snipers is in particular bent on not letting personal criticisms of JES appear in the article. On the other hand there are those who, for a variety of reasons, are against the MPLA regime and its key representative, and introduce partisan texts and references critical of JES; one example is User:Gabirro. The few of us who follow a neutral line have thus to "fight on two opposite fronts", so to speak. Mobilizing some more people who are neutral and familiar with the subject matter is certainly a good idea - but don't you think that, in the end, the only solution consists in spotting & blocking the snipers? After all, they are not legion.... Best -- Aflis (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Minnesota@vikings.50th anniversarylogo.gif

Could you please undelete this file? I can provide a valid fair use rationale for its use on 2010 Minnesota Vikings season. – PeeJay 15:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

restored. Courcelles 20:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A favour?

Hey, could you merge this with Kyle Canning for me, please? - JuneGloom Talk 20:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles 20:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! - JuneGloom Talk 20:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


FTC for 1952 Winter Olympics

Hey I think you and I are the only ones responding from the contributors. There's a comment by Headbomb about the exclusion of Bids for the 1952 Winter Olympics. He may have a point there it seems like an article that should be included. Can you think of a reason why it should be excluded? Thanks! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 23:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Dawn Xiana Moon

Wondering why you deleted that page? I was using it as a reference in a paper about her, and now all the other pages on Wikipedia that linked to her (39 pages) have a dead link. 174.252.226.20 (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Brookefraserlifeline.JPG

Hi Courcelles, I just logged in for the first time in some months and am somewhat perplexed at the aforementioned file being deleted. I can, of course, understand orphans being removed (sounds like a horrible simile, no?), however the picture in question, which I no longer have a copy of to re-load, was a crucial part of the infobox and ought to be restored. The only reason the file was an orphan is clearly that someone was unaware of the file's relevance to the subject matter (which perhaps is the most perplexing part). Can you please undelete and I'll restore the link within the appropriate article, as, as with any music release, the album art is something of a critical inclusion. --rm 'w avu 22:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Per our non-free content rules, non-free files we're not using have to be deleted. The good thing, is that either asking the deleting admin, or WP:REFUND will almost always get them brought back. Restored, happy editing. Courcelles 22:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Roger James Hamilton

Hello Courcelles. I noticed you were the deleting admin of this article and wondered if it was possible I could have a go at writing an unbiased article? If you agree, it'd help if I had the deleted article to look through. Some of my Australian friends were talking about him yesterday and I guess my curiosity was piqued. I have over 15 newspaper articles on him, along with all the controversy surrounding his company. I think I can easily prove notability, although the article will have a section about the fraud he's involved in and currently under investigation about. Look forward to hearing back from you. All the best, ~dee(talk?) 13:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, per the edit notice, see your e-mail for the final version before deletion. Courcelles 19:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Newbridge Yachts

Hi, That deletion was a bit quick! I am sorry that I didn't drive down to Bridport & over to Ireland in order dedicate a few days in each to research the article, but some of us have lives to lead outside of Wikipedia. Are you not being a bit heavy handed?

It appears the final decision was based upon (a) the fact that a quick google by SwisterTwister couldn't find references and (b) Topher385 thought that it read like an advert. In answer to (a) I would point out that the internet holds only a very small portion of the published output over only the past ~15yrs. Is this not akin to my saying that the Spitfire fighter was not significant because I looked up into the skys above me and didn't see one? This subject is having to be researched offline (other than email) and that is a slow process, especially when a person has much higher priorities to life than a wikipedia article. As to (b) I can only apologise that I am not a trained writer able to instantly turn out polished prose. As requested before, give me time.

What I do have though is leads to several articles in the yachting press & the regional paper, but my sources have been unable to give the the exact year, never mind the exact date, of the publication. A few days ago, after I'd tracked down an article in 'Boat' magazine to the August 1977 edition, I visited Newbridge Yachts only to find you'd already deleted it. In a fortnights time I should get the chance to trawl through 10yrs (i.e. the 90s, get the picture?) of 'Yachts & Yachting' in order to find another article I have been referred to.

Also, clicking around on List_of_sailboat_designers_and_manufacturers in order to understand what is required raises further issues. Applying the criteria as strictly as has been done in this case would almost totally wipeout boatbuilding from wikipedia.

More to come but life decrees I leave this for now. kimdino (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It was a 3 to 0 !vote for deletion, with all three having solid arguments in a one-week deletion discussion. Nothing was fast here, a week is the normal timeframe for deletion discussions here. I've placed the former article at User:Kimdino/Newbridge Yachts 2 incase you are able to fix it to address the concerns that led to the deletion. Once it is ready, you may ask WP:DRV for a review. Courcelles 02:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Stomach

My apologies if you are not the correct person to contact. I'm writing in relation to the deletion of the page relating to The Stomach, a Palmerston North Music Venue and Community facility. I am Craig Black the manager of this facility. I think it may have been deleted as it failed the 'notable' aspect of Wikipedia. The Stomach has been written about and referred too, many times during its existence. Often in the Manawatu Evening Standard (local Newspaper) and NZ Musician Magazine, a bimonthly, nationwide music magazine. The Stomach serves the local music community and I would like to see the page un-deleted, Is there something else i need to do? Many thanks

Craig Black Manager CSSI adminatcreativesounds.org.nz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.199.125 (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If you'll create an account, I can put the page somewhere for you to work on. As it was deleted via AFD, the barrier to getting the page back as an article is going to be high, but not impossible, but we will need to see a decent bit of independent coverage of your venue, WP:CORP might be the closest written guideline to what it will take for an article to be here on your venue. Courcelles 08:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Image moving problem

Had intended to move this file File:Македонска Алијанса.png to "Macedonian Party logo.png" but when I tried doing that, I was told the file name is blacklisted. Not sure if it's just a problem with the file name I chose or if there are some issues with the image itself. We hope (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Hmm... only thing that comes immediately to mind is did you try moving the file to File:Macedonian Party logo.png or to Macedonian Party logo.png? The latter would, of course, fail on namespace grounds. If you were trying the former, I'm stumped, there's no corresponding file on Commons that would block the move... I tried it as a test, and it went right through. (Which I'm an idiot for doing, I should have tried from my non-admin sock, as it only hits me now that, if it IS a title blacklist issue, admins override it without being told they're doing so!) Courcelles 02:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Know that I was moving it with the "File" prefix, as I'd just taken care of some other issues with it and thought I'd move/rename it last. When I hit the blacklist message, my first thought was that there may have been some type of copyvio issues with a previous file with that name and this was why the file name was blacklisted. First time I've had this happen when moving/renaming a file. Thanks! We hope (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
If it was blacklisted, then the name will be listed on the the title blacklist; if not, then I'm stumped, too. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

José Eduardo dos Santos

I am deadly sorry I have to bother you once again. It so happens that User:MSGJ (admin?) changed the template you had put in the JES article. It now says that the article will be blocked until the dispute is settled. Now, as you know, there is no dispute, as the snipers just appear and open fire, and no discussion is possible. So, where do we go from here??? -- Aflis (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The template really doesn't matter, as he didn't actually change the length of the protection. Looking at the raw code, he used the standard full protection template without an expiry parameter in the template. (The templates are ultimately meaningless, you have to use a separate screen to change the protection level or duration, and MSGJ did not do so.) Unless someone actually changes the protection, it'll expire on 4 Oct. (remind me to re-instate semi on Tuesday if I forget.) Courcelles 21:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the explanation. In the meantime, Gabirro has re-appeared in his usual vein on the talk page of the JES article, and we can be pretty sure he is ready for vandalising the very moment the protection expires. In cases like his the only option seems to be to block the person - or is there an alternative? I suppose you have seen Gabirro's talk page? -- Aflis (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dawn Xiana Moon

Hello, I had a discussion about Dawn Xiana Moon earlier today and decided to look her up here, but it looks like you're the admin that deleted the page? Looks like it may not have been cited very well, but she's important to the Chinese/Asian community in the US/Canada. Not sure what would need to happen to request that the page be reinstated - I haven't been super active on Wiki, sorry. (Marie in Quebec) 69.171.142.182 (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Xiana Moon sums up the problems pretty well in "wiki-speak", not only was it not cited well, it didn't indicate in the slightest why she was important under our guidelines for musicians. To exist, a biography has to be both verifiable and notable, and the article, and the research conducted by the AFD participants, indicated that she was neither at this point in her career. If you have or create an account, I can e-mail you the contents of the deleted article. To put it back up, we're going to need independent, reliable sources, and no one has yet produced any (there was another IP here questioning this deletion just last week.) Courcelles 09:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wind power

I just noticed that Wind power has been semi-protected for almost a year. Time to try again? Dualus (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I really don't think so, the protection log is extensive, and the article attracted every IP with a view on the broader climate change debate, making ordinary editing quite difficult. I don't see any benefit into bringing IP's back into that arena. Courcelles 22:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Just wonderin'

Did you get the email I sent you the other day? I've been having some problems with my email lately. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Tfd: Facepalm

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_90&oldid=1171650527"