User talk:Courcelles/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Block

cheers - just left a welcome based on AGF - didnt follow later edits - cheers - happy new year anyways SatuSuro 07:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, AIV and UAA are well accustomed to blocked welcomed users- it often takes a couple edits to figure out what their intentions are. Courcelles 07:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphanded images

It has been brought to my attention that both File:Lib Arab.jpg and File:Lib Arab.jpg may have copyright issues. I therefore removed them from the article. Please delete them. Thank you very much, I will not cause anymore problems of this sort. Bahavd Gita (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No problems, done. They can always be restored if they are needed again, happy editing. Courcelles 13:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Bahavd Gita (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

PROD deletion of deprodded article

Hi Courcelles, I notice you have just deleted by PROD Banarsi Prasad Saxena... an article I had dePRODded just before your deletion! I guess it was an honest mistake. Would you put it back please? Thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 15:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, yes, I usually open a few off the list at a time when clearing the PROD's out, so this happens once every couple months or so. Sorry. Courcelles 23:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem and thanks a lot. --Cyclopia^talk 23:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Keith Jolie page

Hi there,

I'm Keith Jolie - my page was recently deleted. I read the wikipedia article that describes how articles must be sourced - I am confident that I can support the article with 3rd party sources and would ask that you undelete the article to give me an opportunity to revise the page to better meet the requirements.

Thanks,

Keith Jolie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.177.68 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, as a WP:PROD this has been restored on request. Courcelles 00:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

deletion of my files

hi there, instead of deleting them, why did you not just put them back in the article where they belong? thanks James Michael DuPont (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't reinsert fair-use media after they are removed. I only tag them when they are removed- whoever readds them to the article takes personal responsibility for them meeting requirements, and even if I knew where they were removed from, I'd not be willing to do that. (Also, they were not deleted, they were tagged for deletion in seven days time, an entirely different matter.) Courcelles 00:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

• 2010 in review: Review of the year

• News and notes: Record fundraiser celebrated and debated; Board-appointed Trustees; brief news

• In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux

• Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year

• Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case

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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Article taken to AfD without awareness

Hello! I just took a look at my watchlist, and found out that you had deleted the article Andreas Dahlström, after an AfD. However, I was never informed by anyone, not even the nominator, that the article had been nominated. OK, you've create-protected the BLP article for three weeks, that's OK – but articles shouldn't be deleted without notifying the author. HeyMid (contribs) 14:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you have challenged the argument for deletion? If so, we can talk about restoration, though I'm not going to restore it purely on the argument that you weren't notified, seeing as how you've demonstrated you had it on your watchlist, and had contested the PROD earlier. If he's became notable, then I'll unsalt it. Courcelles 00:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I've no reason to contest the nomination nor the closure, but thought it was a bit scary that an article I created was deleted without notification. Anyway, not a big deal. HeyMid (contribs) 12:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that really should have been done. I have vague memories of a bot going through and notifying significant contributors, but I may be imagining it. If you want it userified, just ask- like someone mentioned at the AFD, it might not be too long before he does warrant an article. Courcelles 12:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't need it userfied – the article was short anyway, so it is an easily-recreateable article. :) Best wishes, HeyMid (contribs) 12:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Ergun Caner

Hey Courcelles, please have a look at the proposal I made, and at the latest version in my sandbox, User:Drmies/caner. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If your sandbox had been the article the whole way, this mess never would have happened. Give yourself a barnstar for that one. Courcelles 10:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have a COI with myself so I can't do that, but thanks for the thought. Feel free to pass one on to Filius. You know, in the end I'm glad Jbolsec directed my attention to the article. I still don't condone their actions, and I know you and I disagree on that topic, but the article will be better as a result, no doubt, and I think Filius is on board as well (and they are part of the reason the sandbox version is OK). If only Mo Khan would see the importance of WP:RS and the injunction against Original Research, we'd be a lot further along. So, once we're done with this, I got another job for you: Clan of Xymox.

I feel like Hotspur sometimes, of whom Falstaff said, "Rebellion lay in his way, and he found it." I keep finding rebellion, so to speak. Well, thanks for your help--it's been nice disagreeing and working with you. Please drop me a line when you get to moving/shifting/messing with the Caner article; I got a few other things to do, uncontroversial things, hopefully. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesse Prince deletion

I would like you to reopen the AfD for Jesse Prince for another week.

In this case, the people concerned with the article didn't find out about it until it was too late.

I asked Tone to undelete it and made a comment. There are a number of other people who certainly would have commented on the AfD if they had the chance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tone#Jesse_Prince_deletion

I did ask Jeese about it and he says he is fine with the article being up (though he didn't ask for it). He is notable in being one of the top dozen or two of the people involved with this business. There is a considerable trove of newspaper articles about him.

Much appreciate your help.

Keith Henson (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to reopen this one, consensus was incredibly clear, and it should have been left closed the first time, really. Feel free tot ake it to WP:DRV if you want, but folks had eight days to show up; AFD's are not an indefinite exercise. The article was tagged for the entire length, surely anyone who cared had the article on their watchlists? Courcelles 00:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently not. It looks like the people who care about such topics and history are going to have to put put a large number of articles on their watch list. Could you send me the history of that article so I can see who should have been watching it?

On an entirely different topic, you might be amused if you found out who one of the people is who has been rumored to be editing the Caner page.Keith Henson (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Singles

I just thought since the Red singles were deleted you can start deleting the Breaking Benjamin singles, the Deftones singles, the Anberlin singles, then the Thousand Foot Krutch singles. All those pages look exactly the same. I just thought I'd let you know. ChauffWiki (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to either contest the Red deletions or nominate other articles for deletion. What I can't do anything with is the sarcasm. Courcelles 02:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, as I don't want to get banned. I'm simply letting you know about the other articles that don't deserve they're own page(s).(ChauffWiki (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

No one is interested in banning you. These deletions were done under the proposed deletion process. You can state which articles deletion you are contesting, and I will restore them- that's how PROD's work- if someone objects the process is reverted, and WP:AFD is used if anyone wants to peruse it. (I would not, I was just the admin cleaning out the PROD backlog, not the person who proposed the deletions.) Your other option is you can nominate articles you believe to be of equal or lesser notability for deletion. Courcelles 22:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Hey, I'm not using this, would you please delete it? Saw you were active and figured it would be faster than tagging it! Also, thanks again for assistance on my talk page the other day! PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 03:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done How's that for fast service? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, HJ. No worries, Llyr, it was fairly easy cleanup- and it has all been oversighted now, so the cleanup is complete. Courcelles 03:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That was terrifically fast service, thanks! PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 03:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Maybe apply full protection to VK's user page and talk page, as nothing good is liable to arrive there anytime soon, if you get my meaning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, done. The next folks to deal with this are the Arbs. Courcelles 04:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm a bit irritated and a bit sad about the situation. But that's how things go sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for closing a particularly nasty AfD with a consensus of Delete. CJ Environmental was a promotion-only article anyway. I'm glad you were able to see through the socks' evil plans. Phearson (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I also blocked the two last socks, after getting another CU ran. Further, I salted it- I normally don't waste time salting non BLP's on a first creation, but given what Alison said about the underlying IP's of this sock army, it seems prudent. Courcelles 05:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hi got you from Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests and you seem to be active. Do you need to RevDel any of The Dragon of Angur's history, from which I've just removed a copyvio of http://www.cdwow.co.nz/books/sinclair-forrest-dragon-of-angur/dp/2200467 from (this edit)? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, had to RD1 pretty much the entire history. Thanks for letting me know! Courcelles 08:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries :) Thanks for doing it so quickly. Jenks24 (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Vintagekits

What was the provoking edit/exchange?--Tznkai (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

He was trolling other editors again and again- see his posts of 1916 and 2000 on 3 January for perfect examples, and his last two unblock requests were identical. At this point he is just abusing the process, and no admin would unblock without an AN discussion, which we had barely a week ago and saw no consensus to unblock- actually the exact opposite, a consensus against lifting the block was apparent. Instead of doing the identical request, waste everyone's time, insult folks in the meantime; dance again, he either needs to appeal to the Committee or forget about Wikipedia for a while. Courcelles 08:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats an interesting opinion, and I see your reasoning for it, but I think you've missed the mark. Copy and pasting an unblock request could easily have been an accident, or simple frustration - and I don't know how much you know about the history here, but Kittybrewster and Vintagekits have an acrimonious history, in which neither of them have clean hands.

That is really besides the point though - the user talk page is a centralized location for discussion and Vintagekits' participation in that discussion. That the discussion will also happen on AN or ANI is besides the point, the solution is pointing with links between the two sections. So long as the ball is, or even can move forward, you shouldn't cut off any debate or discussion: and by blocking and protecting the page, you've done so, and punting to BASC is no solution at all. Revoking talk page access is the nuclear option - acrimonious interactions don't rise to that level. Threats and obvious vandals sure, but Vintagekits is, or at least has been the otherkind of troublemaker, one who actually wants to help out. In sum, I urge you to reconsider.--Tznkai (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Punting to BASC", as you put it, actually is the solution, and is really the only option that offers this user any real hope. Those three Arbs are designated as the body to hear such matters, and they are above the drama of AN/ANI. There was and is no onwiki discussion towards unblocking this user, the discussion was archived several days ago into ANI archive 660, so nothing was ended by my action except for an exercise in bickering that tore through WP:CIVIL. If you want to unlock the talk page and go through the exercise, be my guest, but the only three users on the 'pedia who could unblock this user without stirring up a class five hurricane are the three users Vintagekits has been directed towards. (Or ANI going through the very same exercise they just completed, but there have to be limits to how much of the community's time a user that is de facto banned is allowed to consume without any glimmer of hope towards a resolution.) Courcelles 20:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Callme vandal

Resolved

 – Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Aha, you're online. Please block that idiot ASAP. Thank you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I blocked the sock that he registered after that account got blocked. I blocked a ton of accounts of this guy on December 20th last year. --Bsadowski1 08:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I hid the one you blocked for reasons relating to what the other account was posting, and did a ton of revision deletions, and forwarded the whole mess off to Oversight. That was a lot of work... (Sorry, Baseball for the delay in getting back here, every time I thought I was done, I found three roe buttons I needed to mash.) Courcelles 08:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your efforts. I had wondered if you could simply go back to a point in time and delete everything since that point? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

An oversighter could have, by hiding the username. Me, I had to press RevDel 50 or so times and make an absolute mess of the logs and watchlists! Courcelles 09:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel sorry for you! Know what its like has I've had to use RevDel on Commons due to vandals. Bidgee (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I always get a kick when I do something in the wrong order- like protecting before reverting, that means I have to trash one of my own edits. RevDel is a very useful tool, I just wish it were somewhat easier to use in the field when you're tying to do twenty things at once and the vandal can rotate IP's faster than you can block. Having to do revisions one at a time is also a hassle... Oh well, sure is better than the delete and selective restore method! Courcelles 09:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Accounts

Hi Courcelles. How have you been? Can you please take a look at this case and see if it smells like meatpuppetry and quacking or abuse of multiple accounts? Thanks! Tuscumbia (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anyone acting on this that isn't a CU themselves- as it's complicated, and the strength of the technical as well as behavioural evidence will greatly influence the next course of action. If I had to bet, I'd wager there is discussion into this where the functionaries talk right now. Courcelles 15:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the Captain Cutthroat page

Not sure why you felt the need to delete our band page. Just because you are unfamiliar with us does not entitle you to have us removed. There are plenty of resources that confirm our identity and bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseytrombley (talk • contribs) 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The most recent deletion, and the one you will need to contest, was done by User:PMDrive1061. I only delete things within established process, in this case WP:PROD; there are 3.5 million articles in Wikipedia, I assure you I am not going around and deleting things I am unfamiliar with for no other reason; in this case the process was followed by the article being nominated for seven full days without anyone raising an objection. Since there has been a A7 speedy as significance not asserted deletion after mine, though, that is a stronger form of deletion, and the one you should be discussing with that administrator, as even a deleted PROD can be restored on request, but not after a further A7 deletion. Courcelles 18:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)