This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks :), never seen my edits get reverted so quickly! Somehow I don't think that this is the end of the vandalism so I'm adding the page to my watchlist :) --5 albert square (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yeah, that was keeping me busy on Huggle too. Thanks for the protection! I'll put it on my watchlist... dffgd [messages·edits] 22:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I just realized that IP hasn't been blocked yet! dffgd [messages·edits] 22:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the second IP hasn't because they haven't vandalised Wikipedia since I issued the final warning so they haven't been reported. The IPs though seemed to have some sort of vendetta against Jurassic Bark though so I wouldn't be surprised if, in a little over 24 hours, the vandalism started again :( --5 albert square (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
If vandalism returns the next protection will be longer. 24 hours was an attempt at a "knock it off", we'll see if it works. Courcelles (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for blocking that userpage vandal! ;) I'd probably have done it myself, but I'm using this account for Igloo-assisted vandal whacking. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 00:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
You recently closed an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jen friel; an article on this person has been created at Jen Friel. Would you be willing to evaluate if there have been any substantial changes to the article? I did not nominate it for a G4 speedy since the AfD mentioned no sources, and it appears to have some trivial ones now. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Identical in every respect, actually. Three trivial "sources" were added during the AFD. G4 and salted. --Courcelles (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the followup! VQuakr (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Your offer
Once again thank you, it was a total surprise! I've decided to take you up on it. But since you said you weren't going anywhere, can I be a pain and defer for a month or so? Just that things are rather hectic for me in real life at the moment mainly because of a project at work – probably not good to have two potentially stressful things going on at once! Hope thats OK. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Attention
Hi there COURCELLES, VASCO from Portugal here,
Regarding your reply here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Appreciation_-_Warning), yes i am fully aware of what i wrote in the message, and am also fully aware that the obnoxious user is indef blocked. But please read (in case you didn't) the message in its entirety - i noticed he was blocked as i was writing the original text (had several windows opened in my computer), then proceeded to warn about his anon IP - that one is not blocked, as far as i can see...
Hopefully, just a simple misunderstanding between us two, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Oops. I really needed sleep last night. (Conicidentally, I'm falling face-in-keyboard again tonight!) Sorry about that. Courcelles (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Note
Sorry, I was unaware of that rule. In my defence, I was only restoring my own edit, which had been reverted within five minutes after I'd spent two hours adding information. Skteosk (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, WP:RFPP is always a good option rather than making another revert. 3RR is also one of those things that you may never learn about until you run into it, so no harm done. Discuss and find a solution, and all will be well. Courcelles (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hi Courcelles. Thanks for the Reviewer userright! It will be very helpful to me. And I'll use it in good conscience! Cheers, ask123 (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Happy editing. :) Courcelles (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Courcelles - can you pls post here your reasoning for deleting Paul V. Kane - - the article was sourced reliably by a published third-party source(s) / and / it was notable as it related to an individual who received a national award involving Pres. Obama and the U.S. military / and / all these reasons aside, the debate on it as an AfD did not have a consensus since the article was edits last weekend after being nominated for deletion. // Why would this not rate an article? Thanks! 72.83.107.120 (talk)Chen —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC).
Exactly, in a week of discussion, no one managed to demonstrate notability- or even sources that were written about Kane. Not one policy-based !vote to keep the article was made, against several strng delete opinions, making a strong consensus towards deletion. Courcelles (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The Marine Corps Times, a national publication, article of May 18, 2009 (the whole article was about Kane) that verified events and was quoted as an embedded piece within the article was not a reliable source about a national award from the US President? Allowing for what is discussed in a AfD debate (and it seemed several of those making the case for deletion had not read the revised article), this was the actual content being debated. Is that not notable and sourced? Thanks for your above reply and consideration.72.83.107.120 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC).
Notability through military awards requires the Medal of Honor for U.S. soldiers, several steps above the Navy and Marine Corps Medal- see WP:MILPEOPLE. It's a national award, but getting even the Distinguished Service Cross, the medal right below the Medal of Honor, has many times been held to not confer notability. Courcelles (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and thoughts. Fair enough, but the NMCM is the de facto highest non-combat "heroism award" given, essentially, the only non-combat heroism award given to soldiers today. These medals are rarely given. One example in Wikipedia now, BRAD KASAL, a recipient of a single Navy Cross Medal. My point, "heroism medals" are rare and really encompass seven medals, in order, MoH, Navy Cross, Silver Star, Navy and Marine Corps Medal, Bronze Star w/ V, Navy Commendation w/ V, Navy Achievement w/ V. The Top four medals require the individual to have put their life at risk for others AND in so doing demonstrate some high degree of heroism and initiative. You don't write the WP:MILPEOPLE guidelines I know, but don't individuals like this one who received a rarely given national award (recipients of heroism awards number in the hundreds), cut the mustard for distinction and and hence sufficient notability? Thanks C for your thoughts, it seems like a hole in the guidelines though the provisions after #1 for Medal of Honor seem to leave an opening for addressing this. 72.83.107.120 (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
If someone were to nominate Bradley Kasal at AfD, I really don't know what would happen. Odds are about even it would be deleted, I'd guess. I'd actually be fine with the Navy Cross (and other service/Commonwealth equivalents) being good enough for notability- with the Medal of Honor almost having a "Died in the act" clause the last twenty years, but I don't write the rules. I vaguely remember seeing a Silver Star being kept once- because of the flurry of attention the recipient received for being a woman; but I really can't think of any way a NMCM is going to be enough without the recipient reaching flag rank. Courcelles (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Courcelles - One last further point, under WP:Notability for People, general standards for people aside from anyone necessarily in the military state: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subj of published secondary source material which is reliable..." and as an additional criteria of relevance here, "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following...WP:ANYBIO // 1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor..." Any award given by the U.S. President for merit or special actions, a national award, in this instance for heroism, would seem to meet this standard of being well-known and hence qualify using the reasonable man standard under law, as being a significant award or honor. Thanks!72.83.107.120 (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Courcelles, when you have a chance on those last points I raise. Much appreciated.72.83.107.120 (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The NMCM isn't considered "significant" enough- it is an eighth level medal, as seen on Awards and decorations of the United States military. This can be listed at DRV, but that's the bottom line- the NMCM doesn't confer notability, the fact that the president issues it- he ultimately issues all military awards- doesn't matter. Courcelles (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
CFD Templates
Hey there - Since my return to CFD discussions a month ago I've been seeing your name among the handful of admins who have joined the hardy band of CFD closers. I just noticed your relisting of those Communist parties categories, and it occurred to me that you might like to do a Template Swap. If you're interested, I'd like to trade you a handy-dandy CFD Relisting Template, and in return I'd really love to replace those CFD Closing Templates I lost track of during my absence from CFD. :)
- Matter of fact, I'll give you that Relisting Template right now: it's {{Relist|~~~~}}. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll admit I don't even know the templates- there's a script, User:The wub/CloseCFD.js, that I think msot of the regular CFD closers are using to put the templates on discussions these days. Courcelles (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Since you closed the AfD on a close call where you exercised your judgment on the weight of the arguments related to BLP 1-E and not news, this woman and her case have continued to receive a great deal of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources [1]. I would like to see the article restored so that it can be expanded with the additional coverage and sources it has received. If it was a close call before, I don't see how it can still be considered so now. Thanks for your consideration. Freakshownerd (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
BLP1E still applies- her firing and reaction to it are all one long event. Unless she ever does anything else notable, I don't see how a good biography on her could be written. Courcelles (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Email
Probably not very important or interesting, but you have mail. sonia♫♪ 05:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The possibility that he may return does not give you the prerogative to keep commenting on it. sonia♫♪ 06:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Sonia is right, further, I've raised this at User talk:Xeno, since he's the bureaucrat that did the rename- let's leave it alone until-at least- we get his opinion. Courcelles (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't even look at the timing- the discussion had been open for 12 days; five more than a CFD is supposed to last. There's no easy way to close a 2-1 discussion, but at CFD that is a fairly decent consensus towards a rename considering we will rename with just the nominator expressing an opinion. Courcelles (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I thought it was a strong opposing argument to which the nominator had not replied. I had not seen the last comment as it came so late and would have liked to reply to it. I would have thought the onus was on there being a clear consensus in order to make a change and 2-1 does not seem much of a consensus. Cjc13 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, CFD's don't require a comment other than the nominator in order to close in favour of the nominator's suggestion. You could always renominate it to try and get it moved back, and see what happens... Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a rough consensus to post, but no one bothered to write the blurb... Courcelles (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Courcelles. You have new messages at WP:ITN/C. Message added 23:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
For the bot... 00:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer vs rollback
I'm definitely interested, but I'm wondering what the main differences are?Pectoretalk 00:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer is a flagged revisions thing- see Help:Reviewing, and compare with WP:ROLLBACK. Reviewer only does anything for you on less than 2,000 pages, whereas rollback works everywhere. Courcelles (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I've seen rollback used before, so I understood that right. I'm assuming reviewer is more for high visibility pages to keep unencyclopedic edits from hitting main page? Anyways, I applied at the request for rollback page, because I didn't know that they were granting non-admins with that responsibility when I saw the reviewer tag.Pectoretalk 01:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer is only useful on pages placed under WP:Pending changes protection, fairly few at the moment. Rollback has been given to non-admins for a while now, and, so, done. Courcelles (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've just discovered you've nominated this list/article for DYK. Thanks for that. Concentrating on FLC for it, I'd not "bothered" to nominate it myself. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I just happened to check the DYK check gadget while looking at it. This is the best we get for FL's, sadly, six hours on the main page before being promoted. Courcelles (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Just in case you're not watching my page. -ArcticNight 09:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!!!
Okay thanks! I didn't recall requesting it. I should have realized though since I have been able to see the "Pending Review" link on the Recent Changes page! --*Kat* (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Why was I granted the right to be the reviewer? I like this honour but I would like to know the reasons. Igor Skoglund
As old as your receiving this right is, I'm pretty sure it was based on a database report, though I honestly don't remember, it was a month ago, when I flagged a couple thousand editors. Courcelles (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Can I get some medal for it or some other decoration? Igor Skoglund
Archived, I see. (Archived at RFPP simply means 'erased') You totally misunderstood- no one needed to be blocked for that incident, but you weren't clearly in the right, either. If SlimVirgin had decided to hand out blocks instead of protect the page, it would have been reasonable for her to at least consider giving you one. In this case, no one broke 3RR, so no blocks, but the edit warring was stopped by the protection. Courcelles (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I see you're on
So would you be so kind as to update the article on the golf? We're over 30 hours without an update and I'm near certain that if I go to bed now and leave it, the timer will still be red and ITN will be even more stale when I check my watchlist in the morning. It seems nobody else can be bothered to do it- it just need a bit of prose (or you could stick a paragraph in the golfer's bio if it's in decent shape). Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
I'll work on Louis Oosthuizen. 2010 Open Championship is just in too poor shape. There's got to be a way to write about these majors and make GA's out of them, but no one has figured it out as of yet... Courcelles (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
On 19 July 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Louis Oosthuizen, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
--Thanks for that, now I'm going to bed! Damn golf, keeping up til 4am. *grumble*HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Spelling of Laboratory
Hi. If you're going to create any more articles on minor planets, please note that the word "Labratory" in your citation should be changed to "Laboratory". I think I've gotten all of the existing instances cleaned up. Nick Number (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Whoops. (Could have just told me, I could have fixed it in 30 seconds with AWB.) Courcelles (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum
May I ask for your comment on his actions then?
I created a paragraph that linked items on Manchester trnsport. He decided to move it to a seperate file. No problem. However the filename is not descriptive to its content. I renamed to a proper descriptive title and corrected links.
He decides to revert all.
--Keith 22:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Quite frankly, that's not my job to decide who is right in a dispute. (Further, I don't know enough about the subject to offer an informed opinion) You may want to consider dispute resolution, or even just discussing it with Malleus without the personal attacks. Calm, rational discussion will get you somewhere; calling someone pathetic puts them on the defensive, and prevents logical discussion. Courcelles (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Courcelles. Malleus is reasonable. I suggest apologizing for the approach on his talk page and asking him why he did what he did. Present why you did what you did. Talk it out and come to a compromise. --Moni3 (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
waste of time - all I got was more sarcasm - he obviously doesnt understand --Keith 23:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand perfectly well, and I am quite reasonable, believe it or not. Present your case and I will listen to it. MalleusFatuorum 23:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
For the sake of anyone who may bother to check edits (and times), by the time the above comment was written, I had already tried, recieved verbal and sarcasm, twice and gave up. The article will remain with a incorrect descriptive title. I no longer care. --Keith 23:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Which article are you talking about? The one you tried to lumber with the history of public transport in Manchester, or another one? MalleusFatuorum 23:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Coming the innocent doesnt work for me - you know exactly what article - if you dont what have you been complaining and renaming this evening? --Keith 23:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Keith, I would not be very receptive had you come to my talk page alluding that my actions were pathetic. Take a deep breath and try again. --Moni3 (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
As a word of general advice, when you come to someone with a problem or complaint, a link or diffs is very helpful. As a semi-active admin I deal with literally dozens of things each day here, and others deal with far more. Further, Wikipedia has people called talk-page stalkers that can see problems on their watchlists and often provide help quicker than the person whose talk page you posted on, though only if you give them a direction to where your problem lies. Further, Moni is right (when is she not?), come to someone else's talk page with the assumption that maybe, just maybe, they might be correct. You'll get more productive discussion that way. Courcelles (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I proved a point, when, at 2010-07-21T14:05:52 User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum was edited by Malleus_Fatuorum to remove a comment which is diametrically different from the edit on here at 23:32, 20 July 2010, and resisted attempts to restore it. How can one even try to acheive a resolution under such circumstance. --Keith 14:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Perhaps removing the comment seemed bad, but you shouldn't have restored it. See the guideline subsection WP:BLANKING and the essay WP:DRRC. dffgdtalk·edits 15:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
to this comment - why try and hide it in the first place? - I am now aware that he is entitled to do so, but I beleive that since the initial comment and the end comment are grossly different, the comment should be made. It was done, so I dont expect, or desire a response to this. --Keith 18:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Keith is perfectly well aware of that, but like many others here appears to believe that different standards should be applied to others than he applies to himself.[2]MalleusFatuorum 16:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Moni3 and the suggestion that Keith takes a radically different approach if he wants to get anywhere. Aiken♫ 16:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Keith, may I suggest that if you can't play nicely with Malleus, you simply avoid him? It seems to me that you're determined to make a bigger issue out of this than it really is, but I can't quite see what resolution you're hoping for. You've continued to argue with and bitch about Malleus against the advice of what's now 5 editors, including 3 administrators. That should give you a pretty clear impression that continuing the way you are will get you nowhere fast. Play nicely or move on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
to this comment - First line - avoid - agreed. ~ No, not trying to make a bigger issue. Not trying for any resolution, as given his attitude and actions, I dont think one is possible, and have stated this previously. The matter had ended, until the "permissable" editing to remove derogatory comments was made. Given that change, and the comment made on here previously, I felt it should be noted!
Generally, before anyone posts further, would they kindly take note of the lines 2 and 3 at the top of this page. (the file is currently History of public transport authorities in Manchester). Then think of the actions and posts made subsequently. As far as I am concerned, THE MATTER IS CLOSED --Keith 18:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you thought about opening up an SPI and letting those folks handle it? If his original account is blocked for sock-puppetry, it leaves me wondering what on Earth is going on, and I find his whole explanations shaky. At the very least, I think you need to communicate with a checkuser. Courcelles (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I
see your point but RN already closed it. Once it is closed, it stays closed. Deletion review is for disputes, I read. MVOO (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Up in the Air
The table is done and I've changed the infobox over and added all the awards to it, so you can get on with the references (I made it a little easier for you by copying some of them from the Hurt Locker list). :) - JuneGloom07Talk? 19:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. Will do while you ignore the place this weekend. Courcelles (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I might be on here tomorrow evening sometime, but on Sunday I'll be spending all day here. - JuneGloom07Talk? 22:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, geeky ;) I also realised that if we work at it, this can easily be expanded enough to hit DYK before it goes to FLC- it would only need around 2,500 characters of total prose to be eligible. You go geek out for a day... and think of me cursing the name of humanity as I go car shopping. You'll be having far, far more fun. Courcelles (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll think of you and your car shopping when I meet the captain of the Starship Enterprise. :P The prose shouldn't be too tricky, we just need to add some more info on the film's release and box office total. Then we have to sort the nominations info out. Will you double check the totals in the infobox for me? Maths is not one of my strong points. - JuneGloom07Talk? 00:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Considering we have the free File:Robert Altman Cannes.jpg, the image you linked would be a good candidate to be sent straight to FFD- even though he's dead, we have a free image, so we can't really justify the non-free content. Further, List of accolades received by Gosford Park looks like it might be long enough for FLC, but it would take a ton of work. I'll get on Up in the Air while watching the boring part of the golf today :) Courcelles (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Courcelles and JuneGloom07, thank you for bringing List of accolades received by Up in the Air closer to the quality of List of accolades received by The Hurt Locker. I have been unable to find a fair use picture suitable for the article. All of the awards related pictures I found for Up in the Air are copyrighted. Unfortunately, people have copied some of these copyrighted pictures to Flickr disguising their origin. --Dan Dassow (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
In the end, it'll be a picture of Clooney, Kendrick, or Farmgia as the lede image, since we have free images of all three. (And a dress as ridiculous as File:Vera Farmiga @ 2010 Academy Awards (cropped).jpg has to be used somewhere on WP!) Non-free content only exceedingly rarely gets through FLC, so this won't even be one to bother trying- the posters are a no-go by precedent. Dan, I've got two lists at FLC right now, so this can't be nominated until one of mine closes, though it can probably be ready be the time 1980 Winter Olympics medal table closes, but I think it is only fair as much work as you've put into it that the three of us nominate it when the time comes. (And that is the longest sentence I've written in months... yikes.) Courcelles (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Vera's dress is not ridiculous, it's gorgeous! Anyway, we're gonna have to write a nice long lead, so the table doesn't look squashed against the infobox. Has FLC had three nominators for one list before? - JuneGloom07Talk? 18:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Prose. That's this evening's project :) There's been three+ nominators before, sure, found quite a few in the archives. I like the colour of Vera's dress, though the design made me think of curtains more than a wearable dress, but that's not all that uncommon on these award show dresses, I guess. Courcelles (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
She definitely chose a good colour and she even managed to match her lipstick to the dress. In my habit of taking on more than one project at the same time, I'm currently trying to source and sort the Gosford Park list. Plus, I'm wondering whether to move the awards list from An Education to a seperate page. What do you think? I have some prose written and I've got some sources and more awards to add to it. - JuneGloom07Talk? 21:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Education would have problems at FLC for not being long enough, unless you've got quite a bit more to add. Mainly that's because the article is so short as it stands, it might be easier to push the film's article to GA, and then think about a split/FLC if warranted; the longer the article on the firm is, the less the awards table really fits in there. Courcelles (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Some prose produced. Will write more after some sleep and doing some of that stuff that produces actual paychecks. Courcelles (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I haven't finished adding all the prose yet, but Gosford Park is looking a lot better. Finding references for a film released eight/nine years ago was quite difficult. Nice prose work with Up in the air. - JuneGloom07Talk? 20:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Gosford Park will be interesting, as the shortest of these lists to ever hit FLC, it may very well be a defining candidacy for the future of the format. That said, there's still 50+ items on it, so I'd not be inclined to oppose on 3b grounds. Courcelles (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Hurrah, I've managed to source a few more awards for Gosford Park. It now has three more nominations than Ratatouille, which is the shortest featured film accolades list. I think I've finished the prose, so now I need an image. I'll take a look at Up in the Air a bit later. - JuneGloom07Talk? 14:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you think the image I've used for Gosford Park is okay? It was the only one I could find that fitted well in the infobox. - JuneGloom07Talk? 22:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Any chance to use a picture of Dame Helen is fine with me. She looks so regal in that photo, is it any wonder she was cast to play Her Majesty? You've got a good list there, are you ready to send it to FLC- it's ready, while Up in the Air still needs some work. Be sure to send Gosford Park to DYK- I just ran the numbers and it qualifies. (Sorry about Up in the Air, I keep getting distracted with otherandvariousprojects.
She even manages to look great when she's holding a machine gun. I think I am ready to send it to FLC, but I'm not sure about a hook for DYK. - JuneGloom07Talk? 23:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You're going to need to put an in-line citation for it, but "...that the 2001 film Gosford Park received seven Academy Award nominations?" You have a small tendency to over-think your DYK hooks, any even mildly interesting fact can be used. Courcelles (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
An in-line citation is so going to ruin my nice perfect prose. ;) I over think a lot of things, I worry that my hooks will get turned away for being boring. - JuneGloom07Talk? 00:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Replied to your email. sonia♫♪ 05:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
1980 Olympics table
Thanks for the fix. Evidently, I am slowly forgetting how to read. Next to go will be my typing ability, my vision and my common sense. You better watch out! Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, easy mistake to make. Just watch out, I plan to send up some more of these over the next few weeks! Courcelles (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, while we're here I have a request for you: The Signpost's "Features and admins" page now includes a "Choice of the week" for featured articles, featured lists and featured pictures. Each week, The Signpost invites a different delegate, reviewer or nominator from each process to select what they think is the best, or their favourite, item, and to give their reasons. These reasons can be technical (e.g., related to the Criteria) or subjective, or both. I wonder whether you'd be willing to do this for featured lists for next week's edition. If you agree, promotions from Monday 19 to Saturday 24 July will be eligible (only six days this week because the publication deadline has come forward). They will be listed here by Saturday UTC, and we would need your text by Sunday UTC. Examples from previous weeks are accessible by clicking on "← PREVIOUS Features and admins" at the bottom. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I can do that. Courcelles (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am considering making a Wikiproject for darts, have a look at the proposal for one here Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Darts. I am not experienced in making Wikiprojects and seen that you have lots of achievements so I was wondering if you would help me make one. Mr.Kennedy1 (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You've now got more experience making WikiProjects than I do- which is none. I do think the idea of a taskforce under WPSports is a good idea, as there aren't tons and tons of darts related articles. Courcelles (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
DYK nomination of List of Chicago Cubs first-round draft picks
Over a thousand edits to a page? Yikes. You edit count is also over 25,000 now, so when are you going to convince Candlewicke to let us nominate her for sysop? Courcelles (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. That means that, on average, every 25th edit I make is to that page! I see you just crossed 71,000, though Huggle helped you there! ;) I mentioned it to Cargoking a while ago and what he said was about right- you can leave a horse to water, but you can't make it drink! Speaking of RfA candidates, check your inbox in a minute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Courcelles. Can you please explain the reasoning behind deleting Jeff Halevy? It meets WP:BIO as was illustrated in this person's explanation:
"By the very definition of "notable" here, "worthy of notice," certainly any fitness personality garnering this degree of media coverage (ALL media: TV, Radio, Print) for his expert opinion, speaking internationally (forget whether it was "motivational" -- semantics!), has himself authored articles, and been named by more than one large international news source as "America's Expert" (Woman's World, 7/16/10) or "Fitness Guru" (The New York Daily News 5/4/09), trained professional athletes and received coverage because of it (NASCAR), and is the ambassador for a major national brand, Energy Kitchen (created by vitaminwater's founders) is certainly notable.
There have been arguments made here that Halevy is just 'another in the field' to which I counter, as has been stated before in this debate, walk into any neighborhood gym and ask by show of hands how many of the trainers there are also "notable" in such a way. I would be shocked, just as your better judgment, or any sensible person reading this, if there was even a single hand raised.
On these grounds notability has been fully satisfied.
So, once again, whether the source here is questionable by you, Ronz, e.g. in the BVI News reference, it still legitimizes the noteworthiness of its subject. Such is the same for the others where Halevy may have been a contributor to, or the expert opinion of, any given piece.
That being said, Ronz, I do agree that this entry needs editorial revision, as someone has already offered to do. But to so forcefully push for the chopping block as you have here, and did before, is unreasonable and ruins the sense of a community that should be aimed at inclusion, development, and refinement of collected data.
This alone is a defense in toto of the WP:BIO notability requirements. There shouldn't be any further destructive pseudo-debate from this point onwards, but rather an effort to refine the entry and move onward. I have been fair and sensible in this matter and appreciate that courtesy in return. -Shawn Hayes ([email protected]) 69.127.117.243 (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)"
(talk page stalker) Please add new messages at the bottom of talk pages. I've moved this there. dffgdtalk·edits 15:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
@ Courcelles: Is it OK for me to move new sections to the bottom here in the future? dffgdtalk·edits 15:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem moving comments, Dffgd :). Chad, I see this has now been listed at DRV, so, I think it would be best if we let the commentators there judge the merits of my decision in that AFD. I'll put some comments there tonight to save everyone some time talking to two places. Courcelles (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Courcelles. I too still haven't seen any sound reasoning based on WP:BIO requirements for notability. Halevy is WAY more notable - and documented as such - than MANY other entries on this site.
I really don't understand this either, as this entry was not an issue for 2 years and all of the sudden is, despite ample examples of coverage being provided. Can you please tell me why the BETTER TV and SELF refs for example were no good? And what specific criteria made Halevy lack notability according to this site's requirements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad hermanson (talk • contribs) 18:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You're both making at this point an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Like I said at the DRV- and I really don't care for this discussion going on in two places- you're making an excellent case for nominating some other junk for deletion, not retaining a BLP who meets none of the criteria for inclusion. Courcelles (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
But Halevy does meet criteria for inclusion (see latest DRV) and is definitely notable in his field. What is not notable/ok as a ref from: links to one of Halevy's international speaking appearances, a six-page spread in SELF dedicated to his work with one of his celebrity clients, a link to a nationally syndicated piece that aired on CBS, NBC and ABC regarding his NASCAR athelete trainig (Better), many other articles where he was quoted as the only expert, an article Halevy wrote himself (Exercise for Men, an international publication), his being featured on an expert panel for the New York Daily News, being nominated as one of 'America's Ultimate Experts' by Woman's World (highest readership amongst women), and other articles where he was either a contributing editor or the expert opinion of the piece. ??? Thanks for clarifying (either here or on DRV). - Chad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad hermanson (talk • contribs) 18:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I see that you have deleted the article Tom Krieglstein. This deletion debate was only open for a mere 6 days, hardly enough time for editors to review it. I ask that you undo your deletion on the following grounds:
First: due to the failure of process for deletion, it should at least be reinstated to follow proper deletion protocol: Per Wikipedia:Notability#Inclusion criteria "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:"
Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources.
Put the {notability} tag on the article to alert other editors.
Six days and 4 editors hardly suggests a "last resort". No inclusion of the article's author or a posting of the Notability warning also fail this guideline. Even a CoI creator like myself should be notified and included, though my contribution should be viewed with CoI caution.
Second: The notability of this article has been reviewed by many editors during two other deletion reviews. They agreed that the media references for multiple events constituted the significant coverage requirement of notability, even thought no single event may have. The fact that two other deletion attempts failed should have called for caution and a longer review process for this deletion attempt. In addition, Tom's 'First in line for the Obama election night' event was reviewed by a few editors for notability by itself when it was nominated and included in the Did you know? section of Wikipedia. The notability events for biographies is not dependent on the event being an "accomplishment", as suggested by the editor who requested the deletion. This relatively moderate event combined with the media coverage from the other events was found to constitute "significant coverage" by many other editors than the 4 involved in this proceeding. For this I ask that you reconsider your hasty deletion.
Thank you for taking the time to review this: Dkriegls (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Krieglstein when I did because itwas linked from the 8 July log- it is common practice to close AFD's on the log page from the same day of the week, a week ago. Exact timing doesn't matter much. Four editors is actually pretty good participation for an average AFD, and the consensus was pretty clear. Though, I am curious, what deletion reviews? The page was never before deleted or nominated for deletion, and I can't find any evidence it was ever listed at deletion review, either. If there were other AFD/DRV's, please show them to me. Courcelles (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the number of editors involved because both efforts were for speedy deletion. You can see the speedy deletion notifications still on my talk page. Deletion discussions where held on the two administrator's talk pages who were involved with the two deletion attempts (now archived). I guess I have not been through a AFD deletion discussion. The two administrators were User:Shovon76 and User:Gonzonoir. I ask that you include them in your decision due to their previous recognition of this article's notability, being that both previous deletion attempts were on grounds of notability. Additionally, administrator User:BorgQueen successfully nominated Tom's First Person in Line event for notability worthy of Did you know?. Not suggesting that Did you know? is qualification of notability, only that notability qualifications were reviewed for this process.
Due to CoI, I do not want to push the point beyond a reasonable consideration, however, my concern is that this most recent deletion attempt did not take into consideration the argument for notability that swayed two previous editors: "that the media references for multiple events constituted the significant coverage requirement of notability, even thought no single event may have." Especially given the significant media coverage surrounding the First Person in Line event. User:Shovon76 explained to me the CoI stuff during that Deletion attempt, and since I have tried to stay within its guidelines. I thank you again for taking the time Dkriegls (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I really don't make decisions- it's not my job- I just implement the consensus found in the discussions. Speedy deletion is a special case, because deletion under A7 is a far, far lower bar than what will be deleted at AFD. An article only has to make a "credible claim of significance" to avoid A7 speedy. That's a lower standard than notability. As someone who sometimes reviews DYK nominations, it's pretty much an assembly line process. Glance at article, check hook, check source, if they match and nothing really glaring sticks out at you, tick it and move on *It's what has to be done on a process that uses 32+ articles a day, and never has enough reviewers.) Also, BorgQueen almost certainly didn't nominate it. When an admin loads eight hooks in a queue, and the bot runs to put them on the main page, the bot signs the admin's name with the notifications. AFD isn't a vote, but there's simply no other way I could have closed that discussion without being taken to WP:DRV and overturned, most likely summarily. Courcelles (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
So if you do not consider yourself as part of the consensus to delete this article, then that means only 3 editors were involved in the consensus. Now in the morning with a clear head, I see that Tom's first person in line event alone meets Wikipedia notability criterion, including follow-up coverage (here is the Chicago Tribune following up on his story.
Deletion review suggests I first "discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review." I ask that you please identify which of the General notability guidelines are violated by Tom's first person in line even so that I know what I am appealing. Thank you Dkriegls (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) If I may butt in, I am a pretty fervent inclusionist, but the deletion of this article did reflect the consensus of the discussion, and had I been forced to !vote, I would have admitted that the article was primarily a puff piece which masked the actual lack of notability of the subject (i looked at the google cache[3] copy of the article). Tom Krieglstein has done some neat things, and is fairly media savvy, but they don't add up to notability here. The fact that Tom was first in line at the Obama election night speech is not by itself grounds for having a wikipedia article!! Holy moly, us folks at the ARS could rescue every article if that was the case. Kudos for the savviness demonstrated by getting Tom into DYK, but complete hoaxes[4] have also made DYK. When you are closely related to the subject of the article, I believe its impossible to be unbiased about a deletion discussion, so I wanted to weigh in as a disinterested observer. Cheers.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm not part of making consensus, only determining whether it exists- and every sysop I know will close a discussion of 3 rational delete !votes against nothing as a delete. The Tribune article does nothing to showing Krieglstein's notability, it is a "faces in the crowd" type story, not the kind of thing that allows the creation of a balanced, accurate biography. The main problem, as I see it, is the lack of significant coverage, and the existence of sources that actually are about the subject. Courcelles (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm just trying to understand, how does coverage by MTV, Chicago Tribune, Boston news, ABC Chicago nightly news and several others credible sources not constitute "significant coverage" about him specifically? The MTV article is entitled "Meet Tom Krieglstein First Person In Line For Barack Obama's Chicago Rally" and is only about his story (to me, this seams to be "more than a trivial mention" by a significant media source). The MTV article was also picked up by several other sites. It feels to me like the deletion discussion was more about a value judgment of the significance of being the first in line than it was about the event meeting Wikipedia:Notability, as evidenced by the initiating editor's suggestion that it was not notable because it was not an "accomplishment". Thank you for taking the time to help me understand this before I move to WP:DRV. I know I am CoI on this, but I am trying to stick to the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines and I just don't see how the MTV article is not actually about him, or that there isn't significant coverage? Dkriegls (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
That was NBC News coverage, not ABC. Also, specifically about him and not about the event in general. Dkriegls (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You do have sources, but as the guideline says, "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." What has he accomplished that makes him notable? Other than sleeping in Grant Park for a night, what has he done? None of it is of actual encyclopaedic merit. Courcelles (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) Helllooo, you cannot be unbiased about an article about your brother! How many articles do we have about people who were 1st in line for something other than succession to the crown? I daresay none. If you want wikipedia to reflect that he was first in line, I suppose it might merit coverage in Grant Park Victory Speech, 2008. Moving this to DrV isn't going to go anywhere, but that option is open to you.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Nailed it. Thank you both for being patient with me. Milowent, I know I am CoI on this, I have stated it many times. But that doesn't prevent me from wanting to understand the exact nature of the Notability violation. You might admit that all previous explanations failed based on the points I made, however...Courcelles and Milowent's last posts nailed it. I know it was probably clear to you all along, but I now see the exact rule violation thanks to those last two posts. This event is significant, per the points I made, but it does not merit its own article. Minor mention of it belongs in the Grant Park Victory Speech, 2008. I wish I had thought of that initially, would have saved me a lot of time (CoI desires blinded me for sure). I guess I will have to take solace in the fact that I learned a lot of Wikipedia rules and style in building and then debating that article. Of course I will not add mention of my brother to the article because since making this article about my brother I've learned about CoI and have been following those guidelines. I would appreciate it if one of you took the time to add mention of it, but I know you most likely just want to move on from this topic. Again, I really appreciate you both being patient and taking the time to work with me on nailing down where I went wrong. Dkriegls (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
If Milowent wants to add a sentence or two to the Grant Park article, his name could be created and protected as a redirect to the article about the speech. That would seem a fair solution to the matter- let what content that we should have about the fellow be findable, without having a full biography. Courcelles (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I truly appreciate the diplomatic nature with which you handled this matter Dkriegls (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Hello! Your submission of List of Chicago Cubs first-round draft picks at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
