User talk:Courcelles/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

Right-wing politcs

Thank you for protecting Right-wing politics. Could you please protect Talk:Right-wing politics as well. TFD (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We generally don't protect both the article and the associated talk page without extraordinary reasons, which don't appear to exist here. Courcelles 12:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

WKC Webpage restoration

I am coming back to our last discussion. IOC - despite karate is not an olympic sport, IOC does also officialy recognizes some other sports - e.g. those which apply for the membership on Olypmpic - I am not going to explain the whole story it can be easily found on IOC webpage. Important think IOC does officialy recognize karate and WKC as well. Plus notability - a number of notable people ( the list has been provided] are mentioned in independent resources...not going to repeat myself. Notability of WKC was proved by citing independent media. Ho is it possible other karate federations - even those I have never heard about - like WUKF - may have its site....notability is the same... In my country we say:"who wants to beat the dog fidns a wip easily" This is your case.... Kodyzak (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRV or don't. I'm not discussing this any further since you've resorted to insults. Courcelles 12:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You deleted the redirect for Abdul Razzaq Hekmati. I request userification of the base article. IMO, there is no way the base article merited deletion. He was the first Guantanamo captive to be die of natural causes while in US custody. His death was extensively covered in the press. That coverage revealed rather shocking failures on the part of Guantanamo intelligence staff, who never learned Hekmati's true name, didn't learn the Taliban had a $1,000,000 bounty on information leading to his capture or death, and got the only true thing on the allegations justifying his detention backwards. He was accused of plotting to rescue Taliban leaders from a Northern Alliance prison. That was backwards. In 1999 he actually rescued three Northern Alliance leaders from a Taliban prison. Geo Swan (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page too please. Geo Swan (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan/Abdul Razzak Hekmati. Courcelles 14:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid userification.

As closing administrator I request your opinion as to what changes you think are required prior to restoration of this article back to article space. Geo Swan (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also be grateful for the userification of Mohammed Nasim (Guantanamo captive 849) Mohammed Hashim Nasrullah (Guantanamo detainee 886) Rahmatullah Sangaryar Abdul Ghani (Guantanamo detainee 934) Abdul Bagi (detainee) Bismullah (Guantanamo detainee 968) Norullah Noori Could you please userify them, and their talk pages, to User:Geo Swan/Userified 2011-01/Mohammed Nasim (Guantanamo captive 849) User:Geo Swan/Userified 2011-01/Mohammed Hashim User:Geo Swan/Userified 2011-01/Nasrullah (Guantanamo detainee 886) User:Geo Swan/Userified 2011-01/Rahmatullah Sangaryar User:Geo Swan/Userified 2011-01/Abdul Ghani (Guantanamo detainee 934) User:Geo Swan/Userified 2011-01/Abdul Bagi (detainee) User:Geo Swan/Userified 2011-01/Bismullah (Guantanamo detainee 968) User:Geo Swan/Userified 2011-01/Norullah Noori.

Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I can place the {{userspace draft}} and blank out the categories. You don't have to do that yourself. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Those are all BLP's. 99% of the time I will not userify those articles, and these are falling within that portion. You're welcome to ask at WP:REFUND to see if another admin will be willing to do so, but I am not. Courcelles 17:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the role of a closing administrator in an {{afd}} is that they have an obligation to do more than count opinions -- that they have an obligation to rule on how the arguments stated comply with existing policy. It is my understanding that they have an obligation to look at the stated arguments and discount those those do not comply with existing policy.

It is my understanding of policy that good faith contributors who have questions about the closing decisions first step should be to ask the closing administrator for a good faith explanation. As I see it deleted articles fall into three groups:

1. Articles that the administrator thinks do not comply with policy, and could never be made to comply with policy, because they are out of project scope, or some other policy based reason. Sometimes these article names are salted.
2. Articles where the administrator thinks the concerns stated by those who voiced a delete opinion were significant enough that the material should be deleted, but that if those concerns could be addressed an article on that topic could be restored -- examples would be articles where there were not sufficient sources offered at the time of the {{afd}}. If someone finds more good references no one would object to restoring the article to article space, with the new good references added.
3. Even Homer nods -- occasionally there will be instances when, after reading the post-{{afd}} questions a good faith administrator will decided their closing decision was a mistake, and they will restore the deleted material.

If you think some or all of these articles fall into the first group I would appreciate you saying so, and explaining why.

If you think they fall into the second group, I would appreciate your explanation of your reasoning.

As I wrote in the {{afd}} Noorullah Noori was a former governor. I would appreciate an explanation as to why WP:POLITICIAN did not apply to this article. As I wrote above Hekmati was the subject of extensive coverage. Even Homer nods -- I think it is possible that upon further consideration you may decide these two articles did not merit deletion after all. Guantanamo held three or four individuals named Bismullah. One of them was quietly released in the last days of the Bush administration as a 39th individual who was a NLEC -- an innocent man detained in error. This was covered in the legal press, and if Bismullah (Guantanamo detainee 968) was the 39th NLEC I think it is possible this was also an instance when Homer nodded. Geo Swan (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

8 articles I haven't so much as thought about for a month? This... isn't going to happen tonight. Courcelles 23:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Your assistance please

Could you please email me the last version of User:Geo Swan/Hamesh Gul that I edited?

Could you please also email me the talk page, if it had any human comments?

Could you remind me whether this was a previously deleted userified page, or a new draft?

Could you tell me when it was started, and when I last edited it?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It was always at the title it was deleted at. You made only two edits, both on 10 March of last year, 20 minutes apart. The later revision, of 0151 20 March 2010, should be in your inbox. Courcelles 17:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. WRT WP:FAKEARTICLE, is it your opinion that it applies to pages protected from web search engines by a {{userspace draft}}? Geo Swan (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. As it says, "Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template {{userspace draft}} can be added to the top of the page to identify these)." The community quite clearly felt this was under FAKEARTICLE. Courcelles 23:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Arthur F Carmazzi's Wikipedia page...

I was really surprised to find, that Arthur Carmazzi's Wikipedia page was taken down. I recently attended his workshop,and it was awesome. It had a huge impact on me. And when I thought of getting more relavant information about him, I found his page is deleted. Is there any reason why his page got taken down? I really rely on Wikipedia to find information about things and people,so would request you to put it back.

Thanking you in anticipation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.84.125 (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Restored as a contested WP:PROD... but nominated for deletion via discussion. Courcelles 18:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the "Autopatrolled" designation. «Marylandstater» ^«reply» 01:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No problems. Happy editing. Courcelles 01:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Edward A. Flynn

Could you please explain your locking of Edward A. Flynn after said article had relevant information removed from said article. Per User:SummerPhd the content was discussed in the Discussion section of said article and the conclusion reached, with much citation, was to include the relevant information. Your claim the information is "dirt" doesn't seem applicable as all participants to the affair admitted it, and the included information is only two very short sentences. The affair occured between two public personalities (one a political official, the other a talk show host who also wrote a newspaper column). Both admitted to the indiscretions as cited in the Discussion section. And there are tons of citations to the topic from a while ago so it's not a short-term, long-ago news item but a long-term story. Thank you. 72.128.198.226 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC).

You were committing a severe BLP violation. One source says something happened doesn't mean you can present it as absolute fact in a BLP- there have been WP:OTRS complaints, so I can't say much more than that. You will not be allowed to use Wikipedia to tar and feather a living person. Courcelles 20:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPGOSSIP is especially relevant to what you were doing... Courcelles 20:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, me challenging your repeated addition on the talk page and you responding with more of the same is not a "conclusion reached". - SummerPhD (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You're claiming one source but I've provided tons of sources on the talk page. I just didn't think it was appropriate to spam the article page with dozens of sources. I have read the gossip section of BLPs and it doesn't apply here: "Avoid repeating gossip." Gossip is defined as idle talk or rumor. This was no longer a rumor when both participants admitted to the indiscretions. This was no longer idle talk when both participants were public figures (ie just like Bill and Hillary). Again from Gossip: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." We have dozens of sources including the participants themselves admitting to the indiscretions as listed on the talk page. Now, I will admit that there are rumors concerning the length of the affair, whether it continues to this day, and to the nature of the affair. However, I don't think there is one single source that denies the affair, and dozens that support it as fact. A disinterested article about the subject would include this just as the Lewinsky scandal was included in Bill Clinton's article - public figures, affairs while married, the possibilities of using government resources to support and/or cover up the affair. Same stuff here, except we're reporting less because the article is smaller as a whole (weight), the public officials involved are "less public" than the president, etc. But two sentences does not a mountain make. Gossip: "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." Sources used include the participants in the affair including the words of Edward A. Flynn himself, as well as the other participant in the affair. And again, if one or two of the sources provided use weasel words, well then use the other 30 that don't. Gossip: "Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit." Not applicable here. As to the concept that the talk page is where to discuss things: multiple individuals appear to have posted this information to have it removed again and again by Sirbobbypeel. Sirbobbypeel is an admitted representative of Edward A. Flynn - and therefore extremely biased in his reporting on this topic Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thanks for your time. 72.128.198.226 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC).

I can't discuss the content of OTRS tickets, so I'm going to be cautious. In the source, I see absolutely no admission that these two people admitted to any relationship with each other. Even if they did, such trivial dirt doesn't belong in a biography. We are NOT A GOSSIP RAG. Clinton/Lewinsky affected the entire U.S... this effects no one. 23:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I did provide links - multiple links - that had the two admitting the affair was with each other. I even provided links where Flynn admits it on video and the video link is embedded: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/midwest/view/2009_06_19_Ex-Springfield__now_Milwaukee_police_chief_admits_to_affair/ http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/49018451.html?t=a&video=YHI http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-090619-chief-flynn-affair,0,6918099.story http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/49018451.html http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/currentIssue/full_feature_story.asp?NewMessageID=24642 http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/former_springfield_police_chie.html http://www.zadanews.com/2009/06/19/jessica-mcbride-milwaukee-columnist-affair-with-edward-flynn/ http://www.zimbio.com/Edward+A.+Flynn http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/49018546.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/19/jessica-mcbride-with-milw_n_217904.html http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-090626-flynn-adultery-charge-citizens,0,4421262.story http://www.cnqn.com/jessica-mcbride-and-edward-flynn-affair/ http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2009/06/bruce-murphy-responds-mcbride-flynn.html http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/49018511.html http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin/ci_12652636?nclick_check=1 http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/70588242.html Clinton/Lewinsky affected the US - Flynn/McBride affected Southeastern Wisconsin. A prominent talk show host lost her job and the police chief was disgraced. This was stuff that was lead-stories on the broadcast news, not relegated to Page 6. Yes, when there were updates to the story they were relegated to less prominent portions of the paper, but the breaking story and then when McBride admitted the affair with Flynn http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/mcbridestatementonflynn.pdf and later when Flynn finally admitted he did have an affair with her http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/midwest/view/2009_06_19_Ex-Springfield__now_Milwaukee_police_chief_admits_to_affair/ http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/49018451.html?t=a&video=YHI http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-090619-chief-flynn-affair,0,6918099.story http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/49018451.html http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/former_springfield_police_chie.html (there are more, just check the many, many links provided in the discussion of the article page). I do believe I understand the nature of the OTRS mail, but that is coming from a official government source. It is heinously unethical for police officers to spend their paid government time to protect the reputation of their boss who admitted the indiscretions they're trying to cover up. It's patented government suppression of speach. And this case is not libel because of all the links where Flynn admitted to the affair! As far as gossip, well in addition to what I've already said, that's only an opinion (admittedly, from both of us). Let the discussion page and the Wiki community decide that. At some point an affair goes from gossip to legitimate news and I would argue some of those factors include public officials, an affair that lasts years even after it's exposed, admission by both parties to the affair on television - all of which happened here. 72.128.200.56 (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

Hello! I'm not sure how extensive the deleted article Ageel bin Muhammad al-Badr was, but I would like to recreate an article for him. I normally contribute under WP:ROYALTY, so I'm familiar with WP:BLP and WP:BIO. I will of course reference the content to reliable sources, which will also show the notability of the subject. Are you able to undelete? Nightw 21:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Restored as contested PROD. It's an unreferenced BLP, so don't let it sit that way for long, but there's nothing contentious there. Courcelles 23:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! I'll fix it up right away. Nightw 02:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Aaron Savvy Page

Hi Courcelles, it looks like my Aaron Savvy page was deleted due to lack of notable resources. I understand that there are reasons for this. However if I wanted to create a page about his show "Zero to Savvy" are there any recommendations you have assuming that it does not meet the notable biography requirements?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zen51buzz (talk • contribs) 03:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll need multiple reliable sources, and you'll want to take a read of WP:WEB before you embark. Those two pages plus WP:GNG will tell you all you really need to know to determine if a web content project meets notability guidelines. Courcelles 03:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Buddhist monks image

Hi, thanks for finding that. You're quite right - I wasn't sure how to remove it once I decided I wasn't going to use it immediately. User:Laurence Cox —Preceding undated comment added 07:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

No problem; if you ever decide you do need it again, and it is already deleted, just come ask me and I'll restore it. Courcelles 13:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)