User talk:Courcelles/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners

JeepdaySock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), pretty disruptively without any prior warning or discussion, has added a bunch of {{unrefsect}} templates to the article to each individual sport's section. This is unacceptable behaviour imo. Revert? StrPby (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted on the justification that the second general reference covers all the medal winners. StrPby (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Good revert. I like folks using inline citations as much as the next guy, that those tags were, as someone said on WT:FL?, nonsense. Courcelles 17:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe some of the absolute tosh I'm reading from an adin no less who can't begin to see he has no support for his position. Yeesh. StrPby (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Meatball:DefendEachOther is about personal attacks, but it applies here too. The nominators of a list of course agree it is fine, that the other commentators at FL? think it is fine is much more significant than our commentary would be. (In other words, I'm following, but don't plan to enter, the discussion.) Inline citations are not decorative, one shouldn't use ten of them when the general ref meets WP:V just as well. Courcelles 00:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Trolling vandal

Hi Courcelles, I don't know if you can help with this, or if a rangeblock is possible, but a single user is changing IPs rapidly, within the 115 range, and appears to be following [1] today undoing their edits. Several incarnations have already been blocked, but all belong to this user [2]. To catalog the IPS and submit a sockpuppet report would kill my afternoon, and I'm off for a while. Thanks for any help you can offer. Cheers, JNW (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The narrowest range I can find is an /18, which would block 20,000 IP's. And that wouldn't even catch them all, I had to throw out some to keep it from being a /14 that is so wide it is not technically performable. Sorry. Courcelles 18:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

• News and notes: No further Bundesarchiv image donations; Dutch and German awards; anniversary preparations

• In the news: Jimbo Wales interviewed and parodied; Wikipedia in politics

• Book review: The Myth of the Britannica, by Harvey Einbinder

• WikiProject report: WikiProject College Football

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: Candidates still stepping forward

• Arbitration report: Brews ohare site-banned; climate change topic-ban broadened

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

PinPointsX

I don't understand how the PinPointsX article is classified as advertising when I followed the guidelines and used other companies as an example. I wrote about what the company is and what the software does, wrote about the owner and when it was launched and wrote about the application. How is this advertising? It was written in neutral language and did not consist of any words to promote the company. Please respond with feedback as to what information was considered invalid for a Wikipedia article. Thank you. Billtechguy (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billtechguy (talk • contribs) 08:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See the deletion log, I did not delete this as advertising, rather as having no credible assertion of significance or importance. The last version wasn't spam, I concur- whoever slapped the G11 spam tag on was wrong. Courcelles 17:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't you have just warned me instead of deleting the whole article? If I rewrite it and add information about the company's significance to modern technology, would that be sufficient? Thanks for responding. Billtechguy (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

See what you can do with User:Billtechguy/Pinpointsx. Let me know when you're done. Courcelles 18:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

100% Music

hello - why has my page been deleted ? i saw a reviewer on here calling it 'spam'. the label had a top 10 album in 2010 and is hugely involved with the biggest free festival in the uk. weird. and interesting..... as.... i actually put a complaint in about the article.. as it was edited maliciously (which is under investigation). since then.. i've had problems with the page - paranoid.. me !? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labeladder (talk • contribs) 23:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This was deleted following community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100% Music as being non-notable. What d you mean it was edited maliciously? Wikipedia attracts a fair amount of vandalism, usually best handled by reverting, warning, and ignoring the vandal. Basically, though, the label does not acquire notability by releasing a charting album; the band tends to, but it is not inherited by the label. I would be willing to stick the article in your userspace for further work, however. Courcelles 23:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your prompt response... there are stacks and stacks of UK labels listed on wiki... and i've just had a look at the discussion about this - there doesnt seem to be a discussion at all ?? just a wiki person sending it as a speedy for deletion - that being declined - and then - it disappeared ? there is a list of independent uk record labels on wiki - mine has sold more than over half those entries.. i dont understand what criteria you have made your decision on ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labeladder (talk • contribs) 03:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was open for a full fortnight- seven days longer than is standard. And, really, your comment kind of reveals the problem, if you own this label, you have an inherent conflict of interest in the matter. (As I tend to say, though, that X got deleted and Y remains is almost always a better argument for nominating Y for deletion, than for restoring X.) Courcelles 03:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Matt Lackey

Hello Why did you delete the article on "Matt Lackey". Matt is a notable sportsman and deserves an article. Can you please reconsider your deletion and reply to this post. I am aware that there were a lack of references/links in the article however i have a bunch of reliable references which qualify Matt Lackey as a notable person. Can you please restore the page Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlync81 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't restore this one, the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Lackey was crystal clear. If you have the references, the correct course of action would be to work on a draft in your userspace, and then take it to deletion review for checking when you believe it fulfils standards. The deleted article is clean of real BLP problems, so I can place it somewhere in your userspace for a starting point, if you would like. Courcelles 03:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Codendi-v2

Hi again Courcelles, I'm sorry to come back again about the Codendi article we talked about in a previous message and my aim it not to beleague you, I just would like something fair. As I mentioned, I suggested a new version of the Codendi article that has been approved by Alpha Quadrant here after several improvements. With all the additional information I gave, could you change your mind and restore the codendi article ? Thanks ManonM 9.56, 24 November

Quite frankly, Alpha Quadrant, who is not an administrator and cannot see deleted content, should not have approved a subject twice deleted by AFD. After two AFD's—now three—a sourced draft should be shown to deletion review before being reinstated into article-space. I can move the deleted article into your userspace for you to work on and take to DRV when ready; or you can go to DRV now and try to appeal the third AFD. The second option is very unlikely to work with no keep opinions in any of the three discussions. I've got the feeling you're working on a non-notable subject, and that's something that is going to be difficult to fix without more, real independent coverage. Courcelles 18:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cartoon sexuality

I'm hoping you can help me. There's a reference used again and again in many cartoon wiki pages discussing the possible homosexuality of the characters. I have nothing against this, but the reference itself seems completely unreliable. It's one 'paper' written by one author (Jeffery P. Dennis) whose only publication I can find is his own website; the article contains nothing but his own opinions. Other references from the Animation World Network (AWN) are just quotes from that article. Any other references and URLs regarding this one article that I've followed up have turned up blank. The wiki editors adding these references could be Dennis for all I know.

I believe these sections and references place undo weight on the subject; anyone could be the subject of potential homosexuality, that doesn't mean all biographies deserve a section regarding it. I don't believe that what basically amounts to one man's blog is a valid reference. I believe these edits contain material that is heavily POV, contains original research, and places undue weight on the subject in these articles: Scooby-Doo (character)‎, Shaggy Rogers, Daphne Blake, Velma Dinkley‎, SpongeBob SquarePants, Pinky and the Brain‎, Heffer Wolfe‎ and Yogi Bear.

How do I go about some kind of arbitration or consensus process to dismiss this reference for these and any other articles? Thanks. Judgeking (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Try the reliable sources noticeboard or the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Courcelles 20:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Having some trouble with a user who is showing some hostility, 'taking it personally'

Hi, thanks for approving me. I am a new user and I feel this user Tbhotch has been responding to me in a somewhat hostile matter. I have posted the to the etiquette board but any advice or help? Aleskr (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael album, swearing while undoing edit

• Tbhotch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• /Michael_(album)#Controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't believe that there should be cursing like the below, in the Revision History (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Michael_(album)&action=history)

20:03, 23 November 2010 Tbhotch (talk | contribs) (21,225 bytes) (Undid revision 398496461 by Aleskr (talk) and continue with this shit

I acted in a civil manner as you can see in my comments. I was acting in "good faith". Aleskr (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Tbhotch also appears to show aggravation in the talkpage

As was said on your talkpage self-published sources or links where people beside the "responsable of the account" have contact are not reliables. Stop with this. TbhotchTalk C. 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The people I quoted on twitter are responsible for their postings. As stated, they can be verified, linked to official websites. Randy Jackson & TJ Jackson have both been previously quoted from their twitter in the media and there are other cases. If you are really aggravated by this discussion, you can leave it alone. I'm not here to get personal. I have been sharing my info in an impersonal manner. Aleskr (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

And now we have canvassing. This is going to somewhere? Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Tbhotch, you are biting the newcomers. Aleskr, you are edit-warring. Neither of these are acceptable behaviour. Discuss the matter civilly, ask for a third opinion, take it to a WikiProject talk page, etc. The past actions, continuing forward will not lead to anywhere either of you wants to go. Courcelles 21:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I, unlike you, cannot assume good faith on people, wikirule, not a personal rule. This "newbie" is not as a "newbie could be seen". Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you try that again? The second part didn't make a lot of sense. Courcelles 21:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

His edits are not from a "newbie". He registered a few days, yes, it's obvious, but according to his first edit, he started as an IP, only he know how many IPs had used in the past, not a newbie at all. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Courcelle. If you read my comments to my edits, my User talk, I did not intend to do "edit warring". Actually I felt like I was the one being attacked. I asked if we could discuss rather than just it seemed like deleting everything for arbitrary reason. I feel this person is getting personal again (maybe retaliatory) and that is not my intention. My IP address was not changed by me, I think it is 'dynamic'. And I don't want to answer anymore of these personal comments. As I have noted on the etiquette section:

More than swearing, the tone should not get personal and judgmental. I had other info for a different perspective, but am encountering someone who swears and says "Stop with this" (because I created a discussion section) and "this is Wikipedia if you forgot it" and 'prescriptive' tone, like on my User page

This is NOT the Seattle Times, this is Wikipedia if you forgot it. Twitter is not and won't be a reliable source. TbhotchTalk C. 19:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel I acted in "good faith" the post here, so people can be aware of the underlying attitude to keep discussion civil and I don't feel completely safe carrying on with this person e.g. to let them know of this "report" from my impression of them. It would seem better to just report this to a third party.

---

Also, any advice for dealing with bullies?

Aleskr (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Advice: do not act as a "victim" of "bulling" when you are not one. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am allowed to ask for information, whether you think I am "act as a "victim" of bulling" or not. From my experience above, it is a good time to ask. Similarly,

And stop moving this to many talkpages, involving users than haven't be involved. TbhotchTalk C. 21:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I contacted Courcelle who said I could ask for help, the etiquette page to deal with the etiquette issue, and started a discussion section as advised by another user as there was a need for discussion on the Twitter issue. These are all good (and reasonable) sources of feedback.

22:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleskr (talk • contribs)

What I Think Wikipedia Needs

I think Wikipedia needs a modified version of this added to the default Vector skin. I created it myself and it would eliminate the need for people to have to scroll all the way up to the top of an article to search something else. Please tell me what you think about this, or refer me to another admin that would be able to help me push this through if you are unwilling/unable to. Thanks. A Word Of Advice From A Beast: Don't Be Silly, Wrap Your Willy! 22:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what to do with this one. I can't stand the Vector skin and switched away from it the day it became the default! My best guess would be to post to one of the village pumps, though. Not sure I like the idea of a floating anything, though... it strikes me as a hallmark of bat HTML. Courcelles 22:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea. We could all switch back to monobook! ;) I hate vector! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Where do they even come up with these names? (Actually, my main problem with Vector is how it takes an extra click to get to so many functions, especially the ones added by Twinkle.) Courcelles 22:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Seconded Mitchell's plan GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Courcelles. You have new messages at Jsfouche's talk page.
Message added 22:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.