User talk:Courcelles/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 → Archive 50

Lemaire page

Hello, I noticed that you deleted B.Lemaire's page. He's a client of mine and I'm kinda surprised of the reasons : a hoax. Why should it be a hoax. He's actually not a famous director, but this page were created in 2005 (I don't know who created it, by the way) and he directed movies and musicvideos, is an influent blogger in France, wrote a book, so I don't think it's really a hoax Thanks for your explainations, jD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.90.21.8 (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

B. Lemaire does not exist, and has never existed. Can you specify, exactly, the page we are discussing? Thanks. --Courcelles 00:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Lemaire sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.90.21.8 (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The main concern was that the content of the article was not supported by the sources. The guy exists, but without the sources to establish notability, we can't have an article. Interesting to note is that the French Wikipedia article has been deleted four times. Technically, this deletion was a WP:PROD, so it can be restored on request, but I would immediately start an WP:AFD discussion for a binding decision on this case. Courcelles 02:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we have a few things in common

Both of us are doing AFD stuff on Christmas, both of us are sick and both of us tried to relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EasyHDR Pro. When I tried to relist it the script showed that you already had done so but apparently reverted yourself. (but only the relist tag in the AFD, I moved it back to the log for the 19th) Do you think a CSD criteria applies to this article? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I got an error message, so I was reverting the parts that went through, and before I could relist it properly, you had been through. Readignt eh article, I wouldn't have complained one bit about a G11 for that article, so seeing as how we've had an AFD open for a week without comment, I killed it. Courcelles 01:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee

Offensive repeated vandalism on the user page indeed - hope the floating IP is blockable too? SatuSuro 04:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Courcelles wow thats fast - cheers - trust your christmas was a good one SatuSuro 04:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

6 individual blocks, and two range blocks (a /27 and a /29). Somewhere in that mess I think I got all the problems. I also added the image they were using to the naughty image list with no exceptions. Christmas was... well, another day when you're sick and no one wants to be around you as a result ;) Courcelles 04:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
how unfortunate - sickness is not the issue in the far flung outpost in western australia - but heat and drying winds can actually bring on symptoms of lethargy that some take as sickness - commiserations SatuSuro 04:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi,Courcelles

--92.0.29.134 (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Please could you allow me to edit the article on Alison Weir article as I need to edit it so I can remove incorrect information.Love,Anymous

Michael (album)

Hi Courcelles. You protected our article on Michael Jackson's new posthumous album[1] after it was reported to you that the article was suffering from excessive vandalism. However, I've been watching that article all weekend, and there hasn't been any vandalism, certainly not excessive. I started a thread on the article talk page here and no one's been able to provide any diffs of any actual vandalism. Can you please unprotect the article or direct me to where I should make such a request? Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not true vandalism, but there was gracious plenty IP disruption and bad edits. I'm going to decline to unprotect this one. RFPP takes unprotection requests, but I would strenuously disagree with anyone unprotecting this one; the history of problems across all Michael Jackson articles (including this one) is apparent. Courcelles 23:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Indigenous Studies

Hi, hope you're flu is getting better... Just a question about the AfD of the Journal of Indigenous Studies that you just closed: what do you think of the arguments? I know that all !votes were to "keep" the article, but I feel that none of those votes addressed the notability issue adequately (and AfD is not a vote...). The strongest argument is that it's the only journal publishing stuff in Cree, but without anybody writing about that, I still don't think that makes it notable (unique does not equal notable). I'm not trying to "win" an argument here (as Dr. Blofeld is arguing). I think this is a larger point about the notability of academic journals. If these arguments are accepted as being sufficient to keep this article, then I don't see how we'll ever again be able in good faith to delete any article on any academic journal at all. In principle, that's fine with me, but I would like to have this issue clear and in the open. Thanks for your thoughts! --Crusio (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually didn't think the arguments were very good at all. If you wanted to nominate it again in a few months I wouldn't mind at all. This falls into the nasty truth of AFD... any admin who closed this any other way than a keep would be laughed off the stage at DRV. Then again, I think Wikipedia:NJournals is right there with WP:ATHLETE as being overly lax- though I view Athlete as being a bigger problem since it authorises so, so many BLP's. WT:NJournals would probably be a better place to continue the discussion, as something a little more concrete there could make these AFD's much easier to handle; vague essays rarely make for high quality discussions. Courcelles 01:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Revert of your own Afd relist

I'm confused by the edit you made reverting your own relist of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDR PhotoStudio. The article was listed on December 19 and appears to have been relisted yesterday, December 26.

Get well soon! --Pnm (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

My script failed completely; I had an error message on both the old log and today's log... so I thought I could just revert my edit on the actual AFD and let someone else press the relist button. At this point, I'm not really sure which way is up with that one, though... I think it might be both relisted and not relisted. Hmm... Courcelles 07:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I did this the complete backwards way, but the discussion is now on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 27 and I think no other day. Courcelles 08:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! --Pnm (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Damir Bjelopoljak

Thanks very much for declining that application, and particularly for taking the trouble to be on the alert while you're down with the flu - hope it decides to go away quickly. I'd got to DB and a couple of the otheres last night him last night in my attempt to go round all the OK Kladanj league & cup winners and do a bit more buttressing and then this morning I find he's been dive-bombed in spite of me putting a message on the Talk page asking for notification if someone was going to delete. What can you do? Anyway I hope the flu's not too miserable. Without having any personal conflict of interest I can honestly say that in the past LemSip has helped. Good luck. Opbeith (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, which article was actually deleted? I can't tell you how to proceed without knowing under what process it was deleted. Courcelles 20:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Pearl Jam image

Used on Pearl Jam history, under "Ten and the grunge explosion:1991-1992". Thank you,
—AOC25 (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It must stay in use, or it will be deleted. Courcelles 20:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reponse to speedy deletion of File:5 eurocent mo series1.gif

You can go ahead and delete that now. I didn't understand the requirements at that time, and it's not really needed in any article anyway. Thanks. --Brandon5485 21:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

G7'ed, thanks. Courcelles 21:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

AFD Closures

Hi,

I have a question for you. Scrolling through the AFD nominations that were made on 20 December 2010 (Scheduled to be closed on 28 December), I saw you closed many of them a day early. I am not questioning your judgment in any of them, they were deletes, but we are apparently not supposed to to that, and if you remember the ANI discussion about me, I was yelled at for it. Why are you closing them one day early? Especially the ones with only one vote or so, and have never been re-listed. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't read ANI much, so I have no idea what you are referring to there. Looking at the log, I see I did close one about 90 minutes early, as an AFD is supposed to be open 7 x 24 hours; the calendar day is totally meaningless. Courcelles 21:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This is just one of the 10 or so I saw, this was closed 23 Hours and 56 Minutes early. 7 Days after 20 Dec. 2010=28 Dec. 2010, or 7 full days. You closed that one at 00:04 on 27 December 2010. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
First, it's a relist. Relisted debates can be closed at any time. Second, your math is poor. 7 days after 00:20 20 December 2010 is 00:20 27 December 2010. Even if relisted debates had to remain open another seven days, which they most determinately do not, this was 14 minutes early, not 23 hours. Courcelles 22:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is a better example, not a relist. Seven FULL days after 00:20 20 Dec. 2010 is 00:20 28 Dec. 2010; 00:20 27 Dec. 2010 is 6 full days, the start of the seventh day, that is not the full day. Example, 7 days after Monday at midnight (12:00am) is not Sunday at midnight, it is the next Monday at midnight. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, you're here quibbling over a single hour. 0023 20 December 2010. 24 hours later it is 21 Dec, 24 more it is 22 Dec, 24 more it is 23 Dec, 24 more is 24 Dec, 24 more is 25 Dec, 24 more is 26 Dec, 24 more is 0023 27 Dec. That is seven 24 hour periods. Count it out and you'll see that you are wrong. Courcelles 22:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Look, I am not here trying to argue with you. I was yelled at for doing exactly what you are doing. Your exactly right. I'm sorry, I was yelled at by Cirt for the same thing, and made the same argument as you did, but I lost. I'm very sorry -- I shall go advise Cirt now. Thanks, Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Urgent Computing

Hi Courcelles - I know you delete stuff so I wondered what you think of Urgent Computing - I hope I tagged it right. Regards. MarkDask 22:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I declined the speedy. I really can't imagine anything that has lasted three years would fall under G1- G1 is a very, very strict criteria. "fuhfborh8hw80ebfw" is patent nonsense. Anything too much more coherent isn't. Courcelles 22:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Orashmatash

Hello Courcelles. I would like to report User:Beach drifter. He has been picking on my since I made my account, and I have decided that I need to put a stop to it. I ask that you do something about his somewhat childish behaviour. Orashmatash (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have diffs of specific violations? Courcelles 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
He is just simply picking on me. Someone had tagged one of my articles for deletion because I forgot one of the policies, and Beach Drifter added a second one, so that if I contested, which I didn't, it would have no chance of not being deleted. That is just mean. Orashmatash (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I just replaced the tag you removed. I've been nothing but polite and have been trying to keep you informed about why your edits are being undone. Beach drifter (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
If there's an issue here, please take it to ANI. I really don't feel like investigating tonight. Courcelles 00:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Urgent Computing Update

Wow was Iee wrong - I researched it and added 3 good refs - thanks for the edu. MarkDask 23:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work! Speedy deletion is quite the conundrum. You only become good at it by doing it poorly, yet poor speedy deletion is the fastest known way to torpedo a future RFA. I'm going to give you some homework because bad CSD tags tend to follow you around too much here.

After that, you will be a much better speedy deleter! Courcelles 00:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I've bookmarked all three for closer study. MarkDask 21:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Online?

I see (via the AFC RC feed) that you're online. Can I enlist your help? Dusti*poke* 08:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, what do you need? Courcelles 08:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/One Over, the author, the warning issued, the ignore, and the number of times they have unsuccessfully resubmitted the article. Thoughts? Dusti*poke* 08:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what can be done about this one. There's nothing terribly wrong with the page, ie BLP or copyvio. They might be legitimately working towards meeting requirements, so I'm not inclined to drop the banhammer on them. Courcelles 09:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
They've been requested numerous times to cease adding the page. Each time it has been readded, hardly anything has changed. It's believed that they are the artist, or affiliated with the artist due to their name (discography Shalashian Warrior (2008) (Single)). I'm not necessarily requesting a ban, but maybe a salted page? Dusti*poke* 09:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Salted six months. Courcelles 09:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You're awesome. Got rid of the flu yet? Dusti*poke* 09:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Nope. Stopped up, can't breathe much... really, really tired of this. Courcelles 09:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Do some vandal patrol and take your frustrations out on them. Should make you feel better. (no... no subliminal messages there ;) Dusti*poke* 09:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Meh. Doing AWB deletions of old G12's. Fairly easy and not something I have to use too much brainpower on. And it keeps me out of the wine that I couldn't really taste anyhow. Courcelles 09:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sterling Bancshares

Image file pages have been wrongfully deleted. All uploaded files are owned by Sterling Bank and have been released to me (Smgriffin0815) for use.

Please allow use for the following pages that you have deleted: File:UpperKirby1996.jpg, File:Sterling Building.jpg, File:MBM logo with tag.jpg, File:HBJ Celebrate Enterprise.jpg, File:Bank of Hills and MBM logo.jpg

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smgriffin0815 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

They were deleted for having no source information, as well as no copyright information. What is the source and copyright status of these files? Are they compatibly licensed with Wikipedia, or are you claiming fair-use for these images? Courcelles 21:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Very new to Wikipedia entries, although we are in charge of building the Sterling Bancshares page. Claiming fair-use for the images would be correct.

If we have uploaded the images incorrectly, please instruct how it is done properly. Thank you. Smgriffin0815 (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Where are the images coming from? We need a reliable source for who created the images, what their copyright status is, and what thait fair-use rationale would be before restoring them. Courcelles 22:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The images (photos and logos) we want used on the Sterling Bancshares Wikipedia page were commissioned by Sterling Bank and Sterling Bancshares and are the property of Sterling Bank and Sterling Bancshares. The copyrights for the images are held by Sterling Bank and Sterling Bancshares. Smgriffin0815 (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the images, but I've also freshly nominated them for deletion. This means the problems must be resolved in seven days, or the images will be deleted yet again, and the next admin you encounter may not be so willing to give you a third week to fix the problems. Courcelles 00:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for releasing the images.

Since we would like to maintain the status of pages we are preparing for the Sterling Bancshares wiki page, how exactly can we solve the problems so that they are not deleted again? What proof is needed to show that I am from Sterling Bank and Sterling Bancshares, building the information?

I appreciate your help with this. Smgriffin0815 (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles: I am Susannah Griffin, Vice President of Corporate Communications, for Sterling Bank. Sterling Bancshares is our holding company. I'm sorry for the confusion we have caused in trying to properly display images to accompany our Wikipedia page. The images were commissioned by and are owned by Sterling Bank and Sterling Bancshares. I set up the page and wrote the text, and asked our marketing agency to assist with the images because my knowledge of Photoshop is rudimentary. Please tell me what documentation Wikipedia needs to prove that Sterling owns those images and how they should be uploaded so we can avoid taking up any more of your time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smgriffin0815 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_44&oldid=1171650485"