User talk:Courcelles/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

Spirit 88.9 Logo

Read the description page. This does not need to be deleted. Just needed the right website, which is on there now. (JoeCool950 (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC))

Actually, it does need to be deleted unless we are going to use it somewhere in the articlespace, per WP:NFCC. Courcelles 07:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Just needs to be bigger. Got someone from the station doing that, or fixing the logo on the website. It's being used right now on KDUV (JoeCool950 (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC))

If the person I'm in contact with, because he edits on wikipedia also, and works for the station, if he doesn't like it at all, then I won't delete it, but know what to do, if he doesn't like it in the article. Just trying to get it a little bit bigger, so it's not so small on the KDUV wikipedia site. (JoeCool950 (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC))

Actually, it needs to be smaller, not bigger. Non-free images typically should be 300 pixels on the longer side. Courcelles 08:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What I meant about a little bit bigger, is the image on KDUV that I've got on there now. The image that's on there right now is at 300 pixels. It doesn't need to go bigger than that, because it makes the info page look too big, if that's what your saying about Non-free images. The previous image on KDUV, I was able to click on it, and then upload it, this new image, they don't have it like that yet. I'm going to see if they can fix that on the website, then I'll upload a new image on there, that will be the same logo, and bring down the pixel, if that makes since, so that it will be the size of the previous logo. Hopefully, you can see what I'm talking about now. (JoeCool950 (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

Question

Was just wondering if it's o.k. for me to blank my own user page, if I want to fix it up. Not sure what if can fix it up too much, but let me know. (JoeCool950 (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC))

Of course you can. I can even delete the old version of it and give you a blank canvass to work with if you like! Courcelles 08:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I guess. (JoeCool950 (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

But, what if I like it the way it is right now, then could I go into my sandbox and put it back up? Don't delete though, unless I know for sure. (JoeCool950 (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

If you want, just the userpage (JoeCool950 (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC))

SoftArtisans relist

Hi Courcelles. I relisted the SoftArtisans article in its old space and added an Afd tag--but now I'm thinking that was an admin-only duty? If so I apologize, and I can take it down and wait for one of you to relist it (or not). Cdulaney (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Cdulaney

I fixed things for you; we do not need another AFD at this point in time, though someone else is free to start one, you do not need to. I merged the history of your sandbox- which included the original article from 2008- under the SoftArtisans title in mainspace. Good work! Courcelles 21:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Also closed off the Drv. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Cdulaney (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Cdulaney

Alison Weir

Hi. Just got another message from "Alison" on my talk page. I don't know if you remember: an article on Alison Weir is constantly being edited by a person claiming to be "Alison", working under a number of IP addresses. After you blocked the previous one yesterday, the impersonator obviously got a new one. Now, I wonder if there'd be any point in reporting this kind of behavior somewhere. In any case, I see his actions as a kind of block evasion. However, as you've protected the article, he/she can't edit it anymore, so it's not really "direct". Thus, I'm kind of confused on the course of action that should be taken, if any - WP:Impersonation is of no use, I'm not sure if it would fall under IP abuse since the IP address changes and it's obviously not for WP:AIV. Sorry if this message sounds a bit incoherent, I'm writing in a hurry. Thanks. Peasantwarrior (talk) 09:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't respond to her as I didn't want to feed her. Of course, it is obvious your course of action (deletion and protection) on Alison Weir was clearly legitimate and sensible. Peasantwarrior (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a revert, block, ignore situation at this point. I've done the first two steps of this on this incarnation. This person is not Alison Weir, and it is pure vandalism. That said, the ranges are so large I've not been able to find an enact-able rangeblock, but I remain hopeful to find something. Revert, block, ignore. Don't feed the trolls by responding to them. Courcelles 10:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said, I didn't respond (well, not for the second time - I wasn't up to date with the situation yesterday, when "she" was still using the old IP) as I didn't want to feed "her". Anyway, thanks for blocking - this has been going on for a year and a half now, so I'm almost certain it will continue, but at least it will slow "her" down (since we don't have any other options, as you said). Peasantwarrior (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

question about deleted wiki subjects

dear Courcelles,

please excuse me if this is not the right place to write you. I could not find your email address.

the dance company, Palindrome Inter.media Performance Group was deleted from wikipedia. why? it is an important and recognized international company.

thank you!

regards, robert wechsler director palindrome impg Wech7 (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Palindrome intermedia performance group was deleted because it was a WP:REDIRECT to a deleted page. Redirects whose target has been deleted are useless, so several times a day someone cleans out a database report we have of them. The actual deletion you'll need to contest is Palindrome Intermedia Performance Group, which was deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) under the spam criteria for speedy deletion. You'll have to raise that matter with him. Courcelles 21:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me...

Hi! I don't mean to be rude, so if I come off that way, I apologize. I was looking through my watchlist and discovered that you reverted my edit at Stoyanka Kurbatova‎‎. I can understand removing the PROD template, I often use it for just that: to prod people into action over a neglected article. I can't help but notice, however, that you allowed the source I deleted to stay on the page after the revert, when it doesn't meet WP:RS, WP:BLP, or WP:NOR.

That the site is created by Olympic Historians, I am not disputing, though it has an inordinate amount of ads for an historical committee and is partnered with the marketing conglomerate, Fantasy Sports Ventures, thus making the site suspect. However, if you had perused the site's sources, you would have seen that the entire site is composed entirely of original research and is a primary source that cannot be used in any Biography of a Living Person. This is, currently, one of the few Wikilaws that is more or less set in stone. The only books mentioned on the site are those that have been written by the site's contributors; there is no bibliography of published sources for their statistics. Their research stands unsupported. I'm deleting the source again, and also including this on the talk page, so everyone can benefit from it. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that source has widely been accepted at both featured article and featured list candidacies, and has been discussed multiple times on the reliable source noticeboard and has been ruled acceptable. See RSN tread, Second RSN thread, and FAC. Courcelles 21:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's my mistake then. Still, it seems kind of shady that no justification, that I can see, has been given to support this site's authenticity, other than the credentials of the site's authors, in which case, it is still a self-published source and unacceptable as per WP:BLP, and a single quote from Sports Illustrated, which gave their opinion on the site as a short comment, rather than vetting the site. Shouldn't there be an independent source to confirm SR's authenticity, perhaps one that is qualified to vet statistical analysts, as opposed to a source that is qualified to vet hockey players?

...and the argument that it has been used before is hardly watertight. It has not been 'widely' accepted, either; It's only been used in a handful of featured articles, few of which came to verbal conclusion about the site. Most of the [...]-reference.com sites come from the same 2-3 people, and they are all self-published sources and original research. You have been unable to provide me with sufficient data to convince me that this site, and its affiliates, are acceptable in a BLP.

As per WP:SPS:

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Is it possible for this series of sites to be re-evaluated on a grander scale? Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to raise it on RSN again, though given I only gave three out of the couple dozen of discussions I could have, I suspect you will be wasting your time. This has been so well established for years (see links on User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet (and if you've never faced Victoria's grilling of your sources, I envy you.)) that no one who works or reviews sports articles at the FAC/FLC level even questions it anymore. Courcelles 22:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You could have just said "The Cabal supports it", from the start, and I would have believed you! :-D Eh, I'm a twerp; I just make these arguments for fun (and to improve WP's consistency on its own rules) to see how much logic and reference to the rules will actually change Wikipedia. So far, it hasn't. Ever. ...which solidifies my opinion that Wikipedia is hypocritical, because I will get the same damn argument if I use a self-published source in a BLP, and my reference won't stick. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience with me! I tend to be blind to something unless it's right in front of me, and, even then, I've been bitten by a snake or two, in my life. ...literally. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: Daniel Kine page

Hello, i work at the publishing office that released Daniel Kine's book. We are asking that you remove the solicitation to delete the entry, for the reason that we receive several letters and emails every day inquiring about the author's personal life. I added the answers to all the questions on the page, and fixed the references. any further questions can be sent to paul at smallhandpress@gmail.com we can answer and verify any questions. thanks a lot, Jaime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimecooper (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jamie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please review the following articles to see our policies on what constitutes acceptable sources of information on Wikipedia: Reliable Sources policy, No Original Research policy, Verifiability policy. Unfortunately, blogs are not acceptable sources of information to support your claims about the author's life, and any experiences you have with him are considered original research. The presence of e-mails on your web server is insufficient data to support this article. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no way I can shut down an active (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Kine) deletion debate that is trending such towards delete without deleting the article. I don't particularly want to do that, so what we need, and fast, is third-party, reliable, intellectually-independent sources that discuss this author. Per our policies, until people not connected with the subject have written about it, we can not do so either. Courcelles 21:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Man Cave, LLC

Hi Courcelles, Man Cave, LLC was deleted even after I removed all of the "product listings" and whatnot. Am I competing with a industry stereotype that's preventing Man Cave from having a page? Or should there actually be nothing about the company listed? Or are adjectives just not allowed? Thanks! Brandon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mill2020 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man Cave, LLC leads me to say there really shouldn't be an article on this company- even with the product list gone, the article was still spammy, and the general consensus was that the company is not notable under WP:CORP, no matter how the article was written. Courcelles 21:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Barcade

Courcelles,

I see that you had removed the page for Barcade. Barcade is a bar/arcade that opened in 2004 in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, NYC. Over the years it has garnered a lot of attention for its combination of vintage video games and craft beer and has become one of those places people must visit when coming to New York. I think this page should be restored to Wikipedia. The page was well cited with references. Why was it removed? Thank you. Janellegunther (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)janellegunther

AS a contested WP:PROD the article has been restored on request- the article was nominated for deletion for seven days with no objection. However, I do not believe this company is complaint with notability guidelines for companies, so I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barcade that may lead to a permanent deletion. Courcelles 21:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janellegunther (talk • contribs) 21:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles, I'd like to point out that the 2 people that nominated the page to be deleted, did so anonymously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barcade. They also did it with mis-information, claiming the references were for general articles about video games. If you check the references, they are in fact about Barcade specifically (even the general articles about video games reference Barcade specificlly) and are from well established publications like the NY Times, Fox News, MSNBC and Yahoo. I went on the Barcade page and added even more, newer references as well. Anonymous people should not be able to suggest deletions like this, especially on grounds like "It is simply not notable, or even worth going to". That is someone's opinion about the bar, not a reason for deletion. Thank you again for the restoration and the opportunity to have this corrected. Janellegunther (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your fast and resolute actions to stop sockpuppetry and vandalism, especially the anti-fluoridation socks of User:Freedom5000 / User:Wikidrips. Long semi-protection of the relevant articles is a very effective tool. Thanks! -- Brangifer (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks! Semi-protecting articles over one person doesn't make me very happy, but no other choices are available here. Courcelles 02:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but it's one person in many guises. We can't stop the IPs before they attack, but we can safeguard their targets. Personally I believe all controversial and featured articles should enjoy permanent semi-protection status. We have nothing to lose by so doing. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Admin-Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Great job deleting all those blanked AFCs. Keep up the good work! →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Personally, I'd liek to get rid of all AFC submissions after six months or so, as there is likely to be a fair amount of crap in the unwatched mess... but it'll never happen. Courcelles 03:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bling!

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		For deleting all of those blanked AfC submissions, and saving me the trouble of sorting through 17,000 declined AfCs looking for things that needed CSD tags, I give you this star. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 03:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The method I used to make the list means there may well be more back there if they weren't blanked by the reviewer. I got the list of 1,100 by querying transclusions of {{Afc cleared}}. That's why I'd really like to see a six month clearing of all the old stuff. But, like I said above, I doubt there would be consensus for it. Courcelles 03:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you're on right now, I figure I might as well let you know that we all conspired to shower you with barnstars at the IRC wikipedia-en-help. Come join the party, guest of honor. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)