User talk:Courcelles/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Re speedy delete tags

Heh, I just sent a message to User:Fastily about this as I was certain I had tagged it wrong, but I was also certain it warranted a speedy delete and not just a tag for deletion. I did go through that page, but I couldn't figure out which tag to use. :-( Before tagging in the future, I will make sure I use the appropriate one and if I'm not sure, I'll just leave it to someone else. ~dee 06:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1992 College Baseball All-America Team/archive1

I have responded to your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1992 College Baseball All-America Team/archive1. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to get your support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, there's not. Courcelles 08:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion, redirection?

Can you please see about reidrecting the Transformers articles with lots of links to those pages instead of deleting them? If anything just so the links have some place to go? It's recomended into WP:PRESERVE. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I can unlink them with a script, or you can find logical redirect targets and recreate them as redirects only. Either one works for me. Courcelles 10:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I will make sure to suggest a redirect in the nomination debate, so you know where to redirect them if you need a good spot. ThanksMathewignash (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I just nominated an article that you have contributed to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America. Wolfview (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I'm not entirely sure that reverting vandalism twice is anything important. Probably won't have time to look at it enough to form an opinion. Courcelles 23:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

followup

I checked to see if we have interacted before, and found this exchange, and realize I missed your last response.

Thanks for your review of the deleted talk pages.

It seems to me that the key thing hidden from those of us who are not administrators is whether the claims that McCoy's family requested the article be deleted had a hint of substantiation on the deleted talk pages. Several senior contributors seemed to be asserting that a request for the article to be deleted, apparently from his family, had been received, and had vaguely implied that this claim had been substantiated.

I continue to feel strongly that the assertion that his family had requested deletion should be completely discounted if no OTRS ticket substantiated this request. Geo Swan (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Null edit. That was two+ months ago, so I've forgotten a lot of the details. Will review. Courcelles 23:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You!

Hi Courcelles, I saw some of your contributions on an article that falls within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Extra signatures in AFD closes.

Just noticed this. You're not alone. The same thing happened to me when I closed this AFD as redirect. Time to ping Mr Z man. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been resolved; Thesevenseas made an ill-advised change to the template involved. sonia♫ 11:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Good, good. At least good that it is resolved now. Courcelles 12:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Oops! I didn't realise there was script using the template! I feel the shame! Set Sail For The Seven Seas 315° 34' 15" NET 21:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

009 Sound System

Would like to know exactly what pages a page fit under A7 or not. Take for example the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakito, which is pretty much in similarity to the deleted artist project. Any comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danibo (talk • contribs) 12:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pakito is listed as charting a single at #1 on a national chart. It's unsourced, but merely being there is enough of a claim of importance to pass A7 criteria. If true and verifiable, the article would survive an Articles for Deletion debate. The only thing close to a claim of importance your article had was "The project is best know for the songs "With a Spirit", "Dreamscape" and "Trinity"." That's not a claim of importance at all. Courcelles 12:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for Assistance

Would you please go to the John Berry page and explain copyright issues to a Hammer (I know you are good at this ;-) Also there seems to be a war cooking and I am not going to play, esp. over one word: Irony! Both Hammer and admin Dragonfly don't seem to understand the irony of having One's First number one hit song the day you have brain surgery. Also, On my talk page,Hammer displays some ownership issues. HELP> TY. Namaste--DocOfSoc (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC) [1] THIS john Berry, sorry. DocOfSoc (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC) I left this on Will's page, but no response, are you available..I hope..I hope ;-) TY Namaste--DocOfSoc (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look, looks like Will is helping out. In the spirit of "too many cooks..." and such, I'll stay away for now, but feel free to come back if things deteriorate. Courcelles 08:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BANNED user using IP to disrupt WP again

The range 218.186.8.224/27 is already hardblocked until December. That catches all the IP's from that discussion, are there any more being problematic? Courcelles 08:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Two Knotty Boys article

Hello Courcelles,

You seem to have deleted the article "The Two Knotty Boy" as being of no particular interest. However, the Two Knotty Boys are not only famous educators in the BDSM- and Rope Bondage scene, with multiple video's and officially published books, they are also one of the few examples that expand on westerns rope bondage techniques (as opposed to Japanese techniques). I therefore recommend you restore the article to its previous state. --Guilty^ (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This was deleted after a full and complete deletion debate- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Knotty Boys. If you have sources to establish notability, you'll have to present them at deletion review, as I couldn't have closed that discussion any other way, as consensus was crystal clear there. Courcelles 06:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously those who were making arguments for deletion weren't very knowlegable concerning BDSM and rope bondage. Deleting the Two Knotty Boys article was akin to bulldozing a house when the notice was up at city hall for two weeks. Only those who are doing nothing but checking those postings and notices are aware of the ongoing notification. Did anybody even bother to let the unregistered know of this? Of course not, but they are the ones affected. Thank you for affirming my belief to not rely on wiki for any reliable information. KaffeKnot (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I just went and checked the deleted edits to be sure, and indeed, there was a big red box on the article for a week advertising the deletion debate. How else would you like us to advertise such things when there are nearly a hundred AFD's a day? Courcelles 05:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

followup

I checked to see if we have interacted before, and found this exchange, and realize I missed your last response.

Thanks for your review of the deleted talk pages.

It seems to me that the key thing hidden from those of us who are not administrators is whether the claims that McCoy's family requested the article be deleted had a hint of substantiation on the deleted talk pages. Several senior contributors seemed to be asserting that a request for the article to be deleted, apparently from his family, had been received, and had vaguely implied that this claim had been substantiated.

I continue to feel strongly that the assertion that his family had requested deletion should be completely discounted if no OTRS ticket substantiated this request. Geo Swan (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Null edit. That was two+ months ago, so I've forgotten a lot of the details. Will review. Courcelles 23:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Pulled back from Archive 17. Courcelles 14:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Remember that this was from four years ago. Though OTRS was in use back in 2006, it wasn't the major WMF organ it is now. Without pulling exact sentences out of the talk archives, I think it is at least probable it was a legitimate request for deletion, from McCoy and his daughter. (For the record, I have no OTRS access, so anything put there would be invisible to me as well.) Courcelles 17:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet in Afd

Hi, Courcelles. I noticed a possible sockpuppet violation in an Afd you recently closed and I'm wondering what action needs to be taken, if any. I noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sedley Alley (2nd nomination) that Martylunsford and Sam1174 both recommended keep. Sam1174 has only made nine edits [2], however, all but one of those are in articles that Martylunsford (who also does not have an extensive edit history [3]) has edited: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sedley Alley (2nd nomination), Percy Flowers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mancs (2nd nomination), and Mancs (dog). It seems as though someone in 2006 picked-up on this in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mancs (2nd nomination) and Talk:Mancs (dog), but nothing was done. I have no objection to the manner if which you closed the Afd, btw. Cheers! Location (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I promise you I'm not trying to blow you off here, but this is not something that should be handled on a user's talk page, even if that user is an admin. With the evidence presented here, all I can really tell you is that an WP:SPI could be logical, because I'm suspicious... but suspicious isn't enough to do anything about it. The folks at SPI are much better at sock-spotting than I am, I promise. Courcelles 18:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
No problems. Didn't know where to go with it. Thanks! Location (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I hate to rake someone over the coals if they weren't aware of the policy, so I'll just start with a friendly notice. Location (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

AN discussion notification

A general discussion at WP:AN#AfD's generally closed too soon also involves some of your edits. You are invited to give your view on this as well. Fram (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

R&U. Courcelles 07:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my first time being taken to ANI. What did I do? Courcelles 17:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
You abusively and criminally declined an unblock request from an edit warrior who, upon the expiry of his block, called another admin an "abusive criminal" and continued his edit war! ;) He's indef'd without his talk page now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Wowzer. Well, no need for my comments at ANI, this looks done and dusted... and it's all ArbCom's problem at this point, anyway. All this over a 24-hours block... Courcelles 17:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Way to blow a short edit-warring block massively out of proportion. Talk about WP:BOOMERANG! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I think they probably deserve a barnstar of boomerangery for that. Alternatively, an entry in WP:LAMEST. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Penrose

I thought the CSD was a long shot and I considered removing it. I do think the article lacks notability—as the tag I just added indicates—would you recommend I PROD it or should I just leave it?Supertouch (talk)

Honestly, I think an AFD would be better. There's enough there that a discussion would be more useful, I think you're likely to be frustrated with a removed PROD if you go that way, and end up at AFD anyway. Courcelles 19:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I just AFD'd it. Also, the article is not new otherwise I would have added a PROD template as it is an unreferenced BLP. Supertouch (talk)

Hi Courcelles

I was wondering if it was a breach of userspace policy if I, say, replace the Wikipedia Logo on my userpage? I know placing flags there is fine but I'm not sure about replacing the logo. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 20:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only do I have no idea, I've got no clue where to go to find the answer. Wow, I'm stumped... this doesn't happen often. (Then again, look at my userpage. Do I look like someone who spends much time thinking about them? ;) ) Courcelles 20:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I believe that's fine: I've seen it done before without complaint, and there are also some neat images which modify the logo (I'll try to find an example, hang on). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Note the "copyrighted by WMF" notice. I believe the links in that notice should tell you what you need to know about the logo's copyright status etc. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the copyright policy says don't use "wikipedia" or the globe logo unless it's attributed to WMF (as it would be in the file info), and could not be confused for an original WMF work or other logo. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh ok, so I can replace the logo? From what I gather this is what you are telling me. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 21:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Lol Courcelles, sometimes simple is best :) —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 21:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
If you mean replace it with something else, yeah I see no reason why not. If you mean replace it with an altered version, you'll have to be careful to abide by the copyright policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Giftig :) —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 00:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_17&oldid=1171650449"