User talk:Courcelles/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Courcelles. 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.

Hi, could you please replace the pending protection at George Galloway it was removed when it was working well there, thanks. I have asked the admin:TFOWR that removed it for the comment of trial over and he is referring me to RFPP, will you replace it for me or is it an issue? Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It sure doesn't look like we need protection there, considering your recent revert of the IP was actually dead wrong in a BLP. Courcelles 21:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I know that the FAC has been closed, but I was wondering if I had managed to address most of your concerns for No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural)? Thanks. Ωphois 21:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it this way... nominate that at GAN and I would pass it summarily. It's fully GA quality. There are some nitpicky citation things I would fix, but there are no barriers to it receiving a cross. A star is another matter, but with a copyeditor who really knows how to produce featured articles, it should sail through next time. Getting him to do it can be an art form, but Malleus Fatuorum did wonders for The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) between its GAN and FAC. Courcelles 21:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Ωphois 21:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Your reply is requested at my talk page --Lexein (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vipin_Gopal in error. Could you please explain rationale? Were the references in the page reviewed before deletion? The page has been in existence for about three years with multiple contributors, and no concern about relevance so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keraleeyan1 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Your argument for retention seemed to be longevity. That is not a criteria for keeping anything. (It wasn't all that long ago I deleted an article with 2,400 contributions that had been here since 2003). Wikipedia's inclusion standards have been steadily rising over the recent years, and some long-standing articles no longer qualify. Courcelles 03:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Courcelles. You have new messages at Minimac's talk page.
Message added 06:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

lol thanks, I like to put it. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 17:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Please let me know if there are any additional concerns that need to be addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate it that you have put MLG under indefinite protection. I honestly still think the MLG article should be banished. Treyvo (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. I didn't see that you put the article under indefinite protection when I put the article up for deletion.

It won't happen. The thing's notable, and with semi, there's no grounds for an IAR deletion. Send it back to AFD if you want, but I'd wager good money you'd be wasting your time. Courcelles 10:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I plan on putting Taare Zameen Par up for FAC soon. Do you mind taking a glance on it regarding the prose quality? Thanks. Ωphois 22:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Busy, though. Courcelles 10:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide me a copy of the List of Pixar film references page as it stood before you deleted it? thank you SpikeJones (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, if you'll give me your e-mail address or enable e-mail in your preferences. Courcelles 10:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please try again. Thx. SpikeJones (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Not knowing what you want to do with it, I sent it to you as wikicode. Courcelles 22:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As an admin who was willing to enact a consensus from the relevant thread, I'd appreciate it if you could look at what I wrote here. Cheers! Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking user Vrenatorsgirlfriend and removing content from my page Vrenator (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've seen the fake-wife/girlfriend impersonation trick before, but that's the first time I've seen it pulled on a female editor! ;) Trolls are like leopards, never change their spots, and we've seen all their tricks before. Courcelles 10:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Lerdthenerd has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks. Just doing my "job". Courcelles 10:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you take another look at this? I'd like to establish a consensus a bit more firmly one way or another and without a response regarding Nergaal's changes, I'm not sure if you still oppose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Courcelles, I'm wondering if you would reconsider your closing of this discussion. Your statement that WP:NOTNEWS, not WP:EVENT, controls the article strikes me as a position which leaves no possible meaning for WP:EVENT. I believe WP:EVENT was written to clarify how to apply WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS, which are fairly vague and somewhat at odds with each other, to events. If so, the only question would be whether the article passes WP:EVENT; you seem to imply that you think the discussion established that it does (and I would agree). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:EVENT is such a weak guideline and as written is almost useless, but I would completely disagree that the consensus there determined that the article met that standard. Rather the consensus was that the EVENT "standard" was totally irrelevant, because a higher ranking policy covered the article rather nicely. Courcelles 22:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you briefly explain to me how you interpret the discussion as reaching a consensus that the EVENT standard is totally irrelevant? I've read the discussion carefully and noted that four participants argued that the article passes WP:EVENT and shouuld be kept, while two particpants argued that it doesn't pass it and should be deleted. I didn't see any participant in the discussion argue or raise the possibility that the EVENT standard is irrelevant here. Did you catch something that I missed? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously building a case for a 2nd DRV? It's been deleted twice now, and hopefully the other one will follow suit. Filing another one is going to be seen as highly disruptive, an act which may necessitate an AN/I discussion if it happens. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Drv#June_2010_West_Bank_shooting. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Courcelles. Just to let you know the reasons behind this removal appear to be genuine. This user has been in touch with OTRS about a certain Facebook campaign that is pooling content from Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Meleniumshane90, which is why he was removing the content from pages. I've deleted the category anyway, citing privacy issues; hopefully that should clear the matter up. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what good deleting the category did, as categories work whether there is actually a page there or not... Courcelles 23:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again!

Thanks for locking this one. I can't believe that people would vandalise the page of someone like that but especially when the poor blokes just died!

I had to report someone the other day for adding unreferenced libelous stuff to Wikipedia. Haha I don't think the editor was counting on coming across me who's so strict on stuff like that! They looked like they'd added references but I checked every single one and found them all to be fake haha! More than four times of doing that and it was off to WP:AIV --5 albert square (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm quickly getting tired of these vandals. I may have hit the protection for a bit too long, but after seeing some of those diffs, I really don't give a damn. Courcelles 23:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'm also getting tired of them. Never mind, I've tidied the page up now, added some refs, re-worded stuff that was blatantly copied and pasted from a newspaper, corrected grammar and spelling and given him a brand new infobox! As for the protection, I think it's about right, if someone wants it unlocked before then they can always request it.

Seeing as the person is now dead, can we use images from Google in his infobox? Or is that definitely not allowed? --5 albert square (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, IUP, how I hate you. Bottom line, agency photos are almost never allowed, but if you can find a photo that you can claim under fair-use, and not by an agency, you should be fine. However, given the recent nature of his death, you may be able to secure a free replacement by asking folks on Flickr. Courcelles 23:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have a look later :) --5 albert square (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello sorry to bother you. I was wondering if you knew why I was neither informed of the consideration to delete of my article entitled: "Debate over Oral Torah" nor of it's speedy deletion. I believe that the problems could have worked out. I feel deprived of the oppuntunity to offer a defense for this article. --Anaccuratesource (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debate over oral Torah, and for whatever reason, contributors are not notified when articles are sent for AFD, only the page creator. The page was deleted after a week of unanimous discussion, but I can userify the page for you, if you desire. However, we cannot hold original research in the main namespace. Courcelles 01:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I admit I broke the 3 revert rule, I was unaware of this (ignorance being no defence I guess). I am unclear, though, why it is one rule for a new member, and another one for the aggressive existing member. Tiiischiii (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tiiischiii, this was the first edit made by your current account. It suggests to me that "Tiiischiii" is not your first account. TFOWR 13:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And no one engaged in a fourth revert, besides you. MarnetteD only did two reverts today, before that, their most recent revert was back n 29 September, a ways too long ago to consider an edit-warring action. Courcelles 13:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

hi Courcelles, you mentioned at the DRV discussion something about "strong evidence" of canvassing by a banned user. can you please elaborate on this "strong evidence"? As far as i can see, this banned user claim is just something some editor just said at the afd. do you have any other evidence besides for the claims by one clearly unreliable source? Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this time my referencing abilities will be spot on! :p --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Will take a look within the next couple days. Courcelles 04:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for acting against this disruptive IP. Not sure what I did exactly to warrant the spam, nevermind. I see he got you too. Thanks again. gonads³ 19:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I'm the source of all evil ;) I did nothing... looks like TFOWR (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) did the hard work, with Eagles247 batting cleanup this time. Who knows what he was on about. Courcelles 04:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How is it possible that in about 12 hrs so many with the same opinion got so soon in one tone? Does it look to you innocent or genuineSalamaat (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the article because after seven days of discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazism in Arab Palestine there failed to be a single keep vote that made sense aligned with Wikipedia policies. AFD's are widely advertised, being listed in daily log pages, and making a good deal of noise on watchlists, so unless you have evidence anything improper happened here, I have to view each contributor as acting in good faith, just some obviously less familiar with WP norms than others. Courcelles 18:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)  ::What "delete" vote made sense? I actually think that user "Historianism" made the most sense to keep it. I was about to comment to post material contesting one item there but not to delete it, and oops I saw it's gone. Is teaming up to attack an article OK in wiki rules? Did you see the first 12 logs? I hope you will reconsider it. I tend, want to believe that wikipedia is not biased.

--- Please reconsider it, and if you can point to me what "delete" vote exactly made sense in your POV.Salamaat (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NOR. This article failed three things that are not negotiable on Wikipedia. Courcelles 04:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What "3" things? And why can't it be edited to comply with the rules?Lawsmass (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

-The so called "OR" issue raised by Nableezy (who has a history of editwars, inserting OR and RS "issues" on any subject not according to his POV) failed to show one item that was OR and not supported by sources.

-The so called "POV" was maybe, just maybe applicable to current affairs relating to Mahmoud Abbas, but the sources claiming for his holocaust denial are RS.

-One tiny line was sourced to "Walid Shoebat" which some claimed as "unreliable source."

So, Why was it deleted? BTW I can't find any "deletion review" link on this.Trendsies (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm absolutely baffled as to why you believed this page even needed a lock. No Vandalism was taking place, only one thing. Wolfman and a random IP were having a difference of opinion and were reverting each others edits. Now could you explain how it's fair that you have now blocked random IP members from making changes and CONTRIBUTING to wikipedia on this page because of 2 editors argueing essentially because they didn't agree with what each other wrote? I find it difficult to like believe that you couldn't of just warned the users and if they continued locked the page. I took the time to read back on the revisions page and these 2 users were the only ones making a fuss. Now WolfmanSF is able to edit the page after being involved in said edit war and IPs can't? Unprotect this page please. You had no concrete grounds to protect in the first place. 82.15.11.231 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection has expired. Yes, there was a need to protect the page, as IP's were being disruptive, however, hopefully that need has now passed. Courcelles 04:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vipin_Gopal in error. Could you please explain rationale? Were the references in the page reviewed before deletion? The page has been in existence for about three years with multiple contributors, and no concern about relevance so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keraleeyan1 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Your argument for retention seemed to be longevity. That is not a criteria for keeping anything. (It wasn't all that long ago I deleted an article with 2,400 contributions that had been here since 2003). Wikipedia's inclusion standards have been steadily rising over the recent years, and some long-standing articles no longer qualify. Courcelles 03:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. I was just pointing out that the page has been around for a long time, not necessarily as the argument for retention. Perhaps, if you could identify which among the criteria listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion was the reason for the deletion of this page, I could provide you with further information.

"Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" In this case, WP:PROF was controlling. Courcelles 04:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)