User talk:Courcelles/Archive 30

Armenian language
Can you please explain the reason for your locking this article? Both for the lock and how you got involved? Is there some discussion of this on some notice board? Your reasoning is unclear. My next step after Aryamahasattva's last edit was going to be to report him for edit warring. He has not once explained himself on the talk page. His edits are simple reverts of rather bland and uncontested and referenced material with accusations of POV which make no sense to me. I object to the article's being frozen without some noticeboard judgment. I will look for your answer here. Thanks.μηδείς (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that this is apparently part of a long-standing issue. I have my explanation.  Thanks.μηδείς (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this mess is at least three years old- I see you found the ANI thread. Courcelles 05:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Whenever you're free
Could you take a gander at List of 1952 Winter Olympics medal winners and make any copyedits you see necessary? Thanks! Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 11:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, will do. Courcelles 12:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've looked enough to know what I want to do with it... and managed to find myself with so many chores my last hour in the office today there's no way I get to this today. Tomorrow. Courcelles 20:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, thanks! And looks like 1936 got promoted, too. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for settlin Amir Rizvi article so quickly. I was just wondering how did it survuved so long despite flagged for deletion previously.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 11:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Who really knows how many non-notable articles are slipping under the radar out there? Some obscure articles go a year or more without anything other than a passing bot, vandal, or AWB run! Courcelles 12:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please check your email
SmartSE (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Handled Courcelles 14:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks SmartSE (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you (Protection).
Thanks for protecting the Seven Storey Mountain page. Vandalism started again on the page yesterday and I was wondering if you could protect it again. The offending user is also guilty of a BLP violation/impersonation, likely a past member pretending to be a current member of the band judging from the post history (mainly blanking or altering the members section and writing contentious claims about current band members). Is it possible to have the vandal's account deleted with the BLP violating name, or have the account renamed? Thank you very much for your help with this.
 * Done. Protected for two months this time. Would you liek me to hide your IP from your first post? Courcelles 16:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electronado (talk • contribs) 19:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! Courcelles 19:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply
- S ophie  ( Talk ) 18:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Family Guy (season 8)
Hey Courcelles. It looks like your initial comments were addressed a few days back. If you get the time, would you go back and check to see how that list is going please? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

wookie block
hi Courcelles, i was wondering if i might be able to ask for some guidance from you; not trying to drag you into any dispute or asking you to defend me. you may recall you recently commented on my arbitration appeal. while my appeal was unsuccessful in the 24 hours or so before my block expired, i still believe my disagreement with the block has merit. i've attempted to work out the differences over my block with the two administrators who were involved in both the AE discussion which led to my block and my appeal; PhilKnight and GeorgeWilliamHerbert. GWH was around briefly but hasn't replied to anything, while philknight and i have failed to come to an understanding. phil insists my block was justified under WP:ARBPIA, neglecting/ignoring requests to cite any specific part of the ARBCOM decision to support his position as was established here. maybe my comments were unecessary as he claims, i will certainly avoid repeating such things in the future after all this hoopla. but i wasn't blocked for "unecessary comments", rather i was blocked for a personal attack based on a statement i did not make. this point has been all but avoided by those who supported my block.

i won't bother stating my concerns here; if you care though, i believe my post on GWH's talk page adddresses them most thoroughly and concisely. i am simply wondering if you might be able to point me in a direction which could help me in resolving this dispute, seeing as the admins involved in my block appear to be unwilling to address the actual issues surrounding it (assuming that GWH doesn't do so when he is around, going to wait a couple more days for a response from him). ideally i'd like to either have the block struck from my block log, pending community consensus or an ARBCOM vote. or if that is not possible, at the very least have a diff to point to from GWH supporting the idea that he misunderstood my comment and may have acted rashly in blocking me. i'm just not sure what my next step should be, do you have any advice for someone in my position? cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I made my opinion of the block known during the appeal... but, at this point, what can be done? No one is going to delete or suppress the block log entry, because it needs to remain visible.  The only actual outcome available would be to have your name removed from the log of blocks coming from the case... and seeing Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, the block was never actually recorded anyway.  This whole situation was a disaster, but attempting to get any form of satisfaction is likely to be so much more trouble than it could possibly be worth at this point. Courcelles 19:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * i really do wish to push on, but ultimately i know you're right. it is just frustrating to know that nableezy -- who has arguably been one of the most uncivil participants in this topic area lately, while i maybe had a momentary lapse of reason -- is going to be able to turn around and say "who was blocked for 48 hours" whenever i try to point out uncivil behaviour in the future. regardless, thanks for your response Courcelles, much appreciated. WookieInHeat (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Cf. yr deletion of "Talk:World Currency"
Hi Courcelles, I stumbled upon "World Currency" 2 days ago in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_reserves_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China I think I saw it red and wanted to start developing in using the talk page. But now I remember this is not the right way to start. I should have used the start new article button or something, isn't it? I'd like to copy/paste what I had on the talk page you deleted. Is that still available? Thx.--SvenAERTS (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As it's just a scratchpad, and nothing really that looks like an article, I've copied the text to your talk page. Courcelles 20:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

SPI
Hello Courcelles, sorry to bother you again. I am requesting you to look at this case Sockpuppet investigations/Quantum666 as soon as you have time. This time it's me who's being reported or checked, whatever the reporting party wants to find out. I just really eager to see the results :)  Tuscumbia  (talk ) 20:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This should be interesting. Nothing I can do, but I wonder if the clerks will even endorse a check on such evidence. Courcelles 20:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

World Figure Skating Hall of Fame - list or article?
It looks like a list, but it's rated on the talk page as a stub article. It started out with just the brief prose and the table was added a couple of years later. Can it be reclassified as a list? January  (talk)  22:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a list, much like ICC Cricket Hall of Fame, a current FLC. Some halls of fame warrant a separate article on the hall and a list of members, but those are so few and far between. Most of them are better suited to the format of a list. Courcelles 22:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Mp3nity
No worries - when I first looked at the article, the only thing there was a "do not delete" template, but no content. It looks like whoever posted the article came up with plenty of content to flesh it out. --mhking (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That happens a good bit with G1/A1/A3, actually. The tag was perfectly correct when applied, but by the time an admin gets around to cleaning out CAT:SD the tag looks absurd at first glance.  Nothing to worry about. Courcelles 22:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: AFD on Quantas Flight 32
Hi. I noticed that you closed the AFD debate on Quantas Flight 32 as a "No Consensus" - I wasn't sure why this was done, since reading the top of the debate, the nominator withdrew, and my understanding is that if the nomination of an AFD is withdrawn, the AFD itself is rendered invalid and closed as "Withdrawn". Could you please clarify why it was closed in this way, since I'm curious as to the reasoning behind it. Please reply here, since your talk page will be on my watchlist. Thanks for your help. Barking Fish  12:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's only done if there are no outstanding delete opinions. If anyone else is arguing delete- and lots were- then the nominator's change of mind is no more important than anyone else's. Oh, and no U in Qantas ;) Not that you're alone in that, I've seen employees of other Oneworld airlines not be able to spell that one! Courcelles 13:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles, teach me the ways of Wikipedia. The Qantas Flight 32 article can very well be merged with the Airbus A380 article. However, the Incident section is so specific that it doesn't belong to the Airbus A380 article.

Does this mean that if there is sufficient coverage on an obscure subject, there can be an article? For example, there are probably volumes and volumes about the cockpit of the Airbus A380 and things you need to know to fly it (or diagnosis and treatment of a particular variant of a certain kind of cancer or Borg Warner automatic transmissions or something else). The problem with that is if you work hard on such an article, someone is going to try to delete it. Yet if you start with a stub and wait for general acceptance before writing more, some wiseguy is going to say the stub says very little. Advice? பின்லாந்துF (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

'''The courtesy of reply or acknowledging message is requested. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)'''
 * Missed this. Too much traffic here lately.  I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at.  The WP:GNG contains the best guidance available on this matter, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."  How to fly an A380 or treat cancer, however, would fall afoul of WP:NOTHOWTO and be deleted on those grounds.  Surprisingly to me, we do have articles on various kinds of transmissions, see Borg-Warner 35 transmission... but you've hit a field where hypotheticals are darn near impossible to discuss with any assurances.  If it doesn't fit any of the subject-specific guidelines, sometimes you have to just take your chances at AFD. Courcelles 00:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Relisting?
I noticed that you relisted Articles for deletion/Down the Block There's a Riot after less than 3 days. Would you un-relist it so that the AfD can be closed after the original 7 days without needing this unnecessary extension? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I relisted it because I reverted an improper NAC that had left the AFD closed for over 48 hours. Courcelles 14:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of Balwin Hoar Sherman family article
Re:Articles_for_deletion/Baldwin,_Hoar_and_Sherman_family

I see it was deleted yesterday, November 12. I did not have the opportunity to take a copy of the article, as I had not logged in for a couple of weeks. I'm not interested in revisiting the discussion, which is a fair assessment of the contents.

There is some usefully organized, if inadequately cited information in the now deleted article. Is it possible for you to place a copy of the article, or perhaps a copy complete with history in my own user space?

Many thanks Yellowdesk (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've moved the article and history over to User:Yellowdesk/Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family. Courcelles 07:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for your help. Yellowdesk (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of TFcon article
Can you please help me understand why this was deleted once proof of notability was provided which included links to coverage of the event on Television, Radio and Newspaper? Comment: Breakfast Television is the most watched morning show in Canada. The Toronto Star is the largest paper in Toronto. The Space channel is the Canadian Sci Fi channel. Super Megatron (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Extensive coverage on Television
 * TFcon segment from The Circuit on Space Channel
 * Electric Playground Television Feature
 * City TV Breakfast Television Guest Spot
 * Televised YTV Shorts
 * 1) Extensive coverage on Radio
 * 680 News article about TFcon
 * 1) Extensive coverage in print media
 * TFcon Article in the Toronto Star
 * Toyfare Magazine Mention
 * The great majority of those links are worthless, as they link to Youtube, which isn't acceptable as sourcing. Another is an internet forum, and even the Toronto Star article is barely more than an "It's happening" puff piece. The AFD result, quite frankly, wasn't even particularly close as to strength of arguments, which is how we decide AFD's here. Courcelles 11:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I can understand that the article wasn't up to par when the initial deletion request was made. But the additions and sources provided should have added to its notability - when compared to multiple "Fan Convention" articles of a similar nature TFCon had more referencing. Look at pages like "Ai-kon" or "Auto Assembly" or "Anime North" or "The Central Canada Comic Con". These are all allowed their inclusion, why? In the case of Auto Assembly it seems to be because of a link to a short "It's happening" BBC story - which the unbiased folks at Wikipedia feel is sufficient to make it notable. The TFcon article had multiple identicle links like the Toronto Star and Mississauga articles, as well as a link to televised speical done by Electric Playground which was not a link to "recored material" from Youtube.(Material which aired on TV anyway, which Youtube proves).

All in all the TFCon article ended up being treated in a manner inconsistant with dozens upon dozens of other similar Fan Convention articles. To me that is representive of poor management, and if the other articles are allowed to stay, a double standard. If the wikipedia really desires revelancy and accuracy its going to need to find a way to get past hang ups such as deciding what media outlets are legitimate and which are not.. I personally will not be returning to this website ever agan. You can delete my account.Tanath1138 (talk) 1:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're missing one major point- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS- somewhere in the 3.4 million articles we have, we have a decent number that need to go. The problem is that non-notable stuff gets added as fast as it can be deleted, and that there are other poor articles out there only proves that no one has felt like doing the due diligence and nominating them for deletion.  Courcelles 00:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Who I am
Since my article and my talk page are now semi protected,I cannot edit them.So I am leaving a comment on your talk page.I also left a comment on another user's talk page,but the user did not respond.I do hope you will respond to my comment.However,if you choose to ignore me,I have other options.After all I am Alison Weir.Love,Alison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.82.77 (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My note on your talk page explains the best practice going forward. This is not to be a pain, but to protect real subjects from any drive-by IP from claiming to be any living person. It's a pain if you're really the subject, but it really is for the best. Courcelles 16:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently there's been personal attacks going on, see here. I have submitted a sockpuppet report here but it looks like that there are too many ranges and a rangeblock may not be possible.  Momo san  Talk 20:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's an 11 range, so unless we can identify smaller ranges for more tactical strikes, that idea is a non-starter. Not sure what an SPI will do- the connection is obvious, there's nothing at all to CU unless smaller ranges are calculated for a collateral damage check.  Despite the "request" there, I think I'm going to banish myself now... to the couch, to watch some football. Courcelles 20:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if at least the first two numbers were constant you might have something. I don't know a lot about rangeblocks, but I do know, the more constant numbers there are, the better. Half  Shadow  21:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)