User talk:Courcelles/Archive 83

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80 Archive 81 Archive 82 Archive 83 Archive 84 Archive 85 → Archive 90

Zompenguin (talk · contribs)

You blocked this user, and Hersfold made him the WP:SECONDCHANCE offer. He posted a revised version of an article, and then posted about a thousand (literally) duplicate unblock requests. I removed all but one and declined that, but having cleaned up that mess I do not feel motivated to check his revised article: I have notified his adopter, Bernstein2291 (talk) (to whom I wish the best of luck, it looks as though he'll need it) and let you know in case you want to look at it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not impressed with this display, either. He posted so many {{ublock}} he exceeded the page's template limit... II'll monitorthe situation. Courcelles 13:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock for FAIZGUEVARRA

Please see my suggestion here. This could be made as a hardblock if you have reason to think that would help. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Leuven Cricket Club

Hi, thanks for your message but I didn't nominate the article, I just reverted the removal of the template. Zarcadia (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am contesting the speedy deletion of Leuven Cricket Club, and request you to restore it kindly. The page is for an official cricket club affiliated to the Belgian Cricket Federation. There is no personal propaganda material there. Just because somebody else had made a not so notable page earlier, does not mean the current page was also bad. I was expecting feedback to improve it and in any case, I see that it is better than many other club pages. Many such club pages already exist on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lancashire_League_cricket_clubs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accrington_Cricket_Club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Cricket_Club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todmorden_Cricket_Club

Kindly restore Leuven Cricket Club.

  • As my deletion was a G4, you need to talk to the closer of the underlying AFD, User:JohnCD. Courcelles 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Leuven Cricket Club

Think you misread the CSD on this one, it was deleted about a week ago at AfD, go was up for G4 and not A7. Mtking (edits) 08:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. G4'ed and salted. My mistake. Courcelles 08:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Mtking (edits) 09:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Cybaris delete

You recently deleted the article on Cybaris because "New journal, too young yet to have become notable. No independent sources, apparently not indexed in any selective major database." I respectfully disagree with each reason for deletion, and request that you un-delete the article.

There is no minimum age requirement for a new journal to be listed, and Cybaris is an established and active journal. If there is an age requirement, the "List of Intellectual Property Journals" article should be amended to "List of Intellectual Property Journals greater than [x] years old." Current events are frequently listed on Wikipedia's pages.

Furthermore, the assertion that Cybaris is not indexed in any selective major database is incorrect. Cybaris is indexed in multiple databases, for example it is indexed on Westlaw's website under JLR and TP-ALL.

In addition, while the article as it was may have lacked cites to independent sources, such sources are not unavailable. For example, there is a Bench and Bar of Minnesota article which describes Cybaris, 67-JUL Bench & B. Minn. 11, 11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Univremonster (talk • contribs) 13:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I will put in references to the Bar & Bench article to improve the article. Univremonster (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

From Myke4

Feel free to delete anything under my name. No need for notification.

Okay, though since this was posted as an IP, I'm not going to G7 anything. Courcelles 14:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned Images

Hi Courcelles, I see you've been tagging quite a few orphaned fair use images. That's great! But just so you know, my bot DASHBot does twice daily runs doing exactly that. I'm letting you know just so you aren't wasting your time/effort: Your time is much more valuable than my stupid bot's. :) Thanks so much! Tim1357 talk 02:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

oh, is the bot back up? I had started doing this in a period where DASHbot wasn't doing anything, and the backlog had grown to over a thousand. If the bot's abck, I can stop worrying about that half-hour of work a night. :D Courcelles 02:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

RevDelete request

Saw this on ANI, which should go. — Yk ʏк yƙ  talk ~ contrib 03:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles 03:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Enquiry

I have an enquiry as you are administrator. Is it true that screenshots can not be used on the pages of living people and only on character pages? --Editor2205 (talk) 08:26pm, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  • That's almost always correct. There are a few exceptions, but as a general rule you can't use any non-free images on an article about a living person. There are some cases where you can, for example, the same image now on J. D. Salinger was there before he died, as there was almost no chance of producing a free one, due to his reclusive nature. Courcelles 10:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank-You Very Much. --Editor2205 (talk) 8:39am, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted articles about sports

Hello,

I hope you are fine. I've got a question. How can I recreate a deleted article which does not allow me to do so (since no option for editing the page following the deletion discussions), but; having validation to be recreated now. In football, leagues are on, thus many youngsters debutants around. I'd like create some of them but there is no option given for the deleted ones, to practice the recreation.

Could you inform me a little bit, please? Any help will be very much appreciated.

Very best, Umi1903 (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Without knowing what pages we are discussing, I have no idea if they were deleted by PROD, AFD, or speedy, or if the pages are salted or not. Can you give me some links? Thanks. Courcelles 13:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Interactive Media Awards deletion

I am writing because I feel the deletion of the 'Interactive Media Awards' article was unwarranted.

A comment used in support of the deletion went as follows:

"The award itself appears to be built to allow people to self-congratulate and decorate their website with medals and ribbons attesting to their web design prowess. The awards appear to be given out like candy based on the 2010 results."

This information is factually incorrect.

I can attest to the fact that all entrants to the IMA program undergo a serious and comprehensive evaluation that involves analysis of content, design, usability, standards, accessibility, privacy best practices, and other criteria. All entrants receive useful feedback on their work.

To say that the program is "built" for such superficial purposes is, again, false, and to delete this page for this reason serves Wikipedia poorly. The purpose of IMA is to "increase the standards of excellence on the internet", not provide medals and ribbons per se. IMA work has been recognized by media and businesses throughout the world (over 60 countries in 2010) since 2005.

Also, with regards to the "awards appear to be given out like candy", once again, not true. This comment stems from a cursory review of award listings, but without knowledge of our system of judging or total entries. I won't burden you with the details of the IMA judging system, but regardless of the total number of award winners appearing on the site, this number is still a fraction of total entries.

By simply googling the IMA awards program it is easy to discern the impact and influence IMA is having in the advertising, PR and web development communities. It is a worthy candidate for an informative, non-commercial article in Wikipedia.

Would you consider re-activating this page?

Stamford347 (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Big Wolfly Hugz :D

WolfHugz
from the founder WikiWolfcub for your help with my Pesky username usurpation! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Happy I could be of help! Courcelles 01:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kwon Hyi-ro

First nominated on July 21, and relisted on July 28,[1] you relisted on August 4th. For that, I thank you, for on August 9 I discovered the discussion and through the 9th and 10th gave the article some cleanup, expansion and (most importantly) sourcing. Happily, the sole delete !vote reversed himself on the 9th,[2] the nominator withdrew his nomination,[3] and the two "weak keep"s modified to more solid keeps.[4] That's the kind of thing that makes an editor feel preety good. :) As their concerns have been adressed, and as you we4re the last "re-lister", shall we keep it open until the 11th or, as there are no outstanding opinions for delete, might a speedy keep/close now be worth considering? Thanks Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Works for me, closed as keep. Courcelles 14:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you. Glad to help. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Warring?

Am I so unknown to you that opening a requested move is not sufficient to remove worry that "warring" would continue? Then, on WP:RFPP, I indicated that I didn't think it was necessary (which Fastily later agreed with). No biggie (and definitely don't think about undoing anything), but...I did wonder...  Frank  |  talk  01:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I never saw the RFPP, the page has been on my watchlist over BLP rpoblems and the move skirmish was lighting it up last night. Really, you are known to me, enough so that I was very surprised you started it, when a failed RM was still on the talk page, and closed as no consensus for the very move you decided to go and make, a move which you required admin tools to complete. And then, when reverted because this same proposal has failed a handful of times before, you did the whole thing yet again. If a page is as popular as you claim in your RM, no one needs to be moving it without a discussion, anyway. Who you are, or who anyone is, really makes no difference, we all play by the same rules. Courcelles 14:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I didn't see (or look for, honestly) evidence of a failed RM; it was a no-brainer move to me. But I'm definitely not going to be warring over such a thing; no worries on that front. Twice is enough to understand there is an objection. And, while I appreciate, understand, and fully endorse your statement that who you are makes no difference, I had thought that knowing how one has behaved in the past might. Indeed, the requested move (linked above) preceded your protection by more than one hour. But, to reiterate, this was a point of interest, not a request for any action.  Frank  |  talk  18:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Spam for admin recently working at WP:PERM/C

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 3#Accept/decline template. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Hmm, noted. Courcelles 14:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Help | Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management

The page "Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management" that I created, has been deleted because of notability issue. But when I search Google, I can view the page as follows: "This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference...................................." Could you please delete the above information (with double quotes) because it seems awkward? Thanks in advance. --Aubaskar (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be a Google problem, not ours. Google should drop it from their results list within a couple weeks, or perhaps faster. The creation of a deletion log, and its display when a page is viewed, however, is not something we, as admins, can avoid, the software does that automatically. Courcelles 16:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for explaining. There is no problem with Google or displaying deletion log under "Other reasons this message may be displayed" but the wiki page is showing "This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference...." at start of this page. I like to know whether this info box can be deleted.

--Aubaskar (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, it cannot be removed/deleted. It can be hidden from usual view if you come up with a logical place to redirect the title, however. Courcelles 05:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I suggest to redirect to: List of environmental journals. Please advise.

--Aubaskar (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

  • A better place might be the publisher of that journal, should it have an article. Courcelles 13:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I have redirected to the publisher article which has info about the journal.

--Aubaskar (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Priya Cooper

Hey. If you have time, can you read through Priya Cooper and try to fix it some? At the moment, it is a lot of disjointed sentences. It lacks transitions. It is pretty much a whole bunch of random facts. :( On IRC, some one said if I added a few sources outside of the Olympics, it should be ready to B so I attempted to do that. It would be really nice to get one of the articles on Book talk:Australian Paralympians‎ up to B. I just don't want to give it that level myself. --LauraHale (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Will do tomorrow, I'm too far gone to do anything that isn't basic gnoming around tonight. Courcelles 02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

TheLoverofLove Deleting Active Block Notice

Please be advised that User:TheLoverofLove has deleted the block notice that you left on their Talk page despite my advisory to them not to do so. Not sure what they're thinking, but they certainly aren't making things any easier for themselves. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

really, doing anything about this would likely just antagonise him further. THanks for the heads up, though. Courcelles 15:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem, and given their recent interactions with other editors I'd tend to agree. If that keeps up I suspect they'll end up with their Talk page permissions revoked in any case. Doniago (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

National Association as a major league

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/National_Association_as_a_major_league

Do you know how this page should look after cleanup? About half of the links are from articles. I know they should get some attention. --P64 (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea. Might be interesting to ask the baseball Wikiproject, but old time baseball is not my subject at all. I can restore the article, or userify it, if you'd like, however, at it was a WP:PROD. Courcelles 15:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_83&oldid=1171650531"