User talk:Courcelles/Archive 35

Haley Cope or Haley Clark?
I believe it's Haley Clark. She married in 2002 so she shouldn't be associated with Cope (except for competitions before her marriage). The reason I'm contacting you is because I can't move the article. Could you help me out?Philipmj24 (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's Cope, per WP:COMMONNAME; as her entire career, and hence the reason for her notability, was before her marriage. Also see MOSBIO which says, "A woman, like all other biographical entrants, should be referred to by her most common name, and that would not necessarily involve using her husband's surname." Courcelles 05:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Never seen
In over 5 years I have never seen categories assessed for importance - viz - what is going on here? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk%3ATelevision_stations_in_Indonesia&action=history - please explain SatuSuro 10:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea why AWB did that, actually. I might could have told you a month ago, but it's been so long I barely even remember that run, much less that edit. Courcelles 22:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ok sorry to havebothered SatuSuro 23:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't bother me at all. Courcelles 23:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

question
Why did you delete the page I created about the Catholich church from Boian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danagrad (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted the article because of a community consensus that the church was not notable at Articles for deletion/The Romanian Church United with Rome,Greek-Catholic from Boian. Courcelles 20:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

A Jungle Book of Regulations
So your summary of the reasons is totally wrong.Xx236 (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus.
 * The article quoted IMDB. The movie is known under two titles, the Polish one and this one.
 * The Polish article quoted a number of Polish data bases of the IMDB type.
 * Um, I just deleted this, the summary was written by User:JeepdaySock. Strangely enough, this was a WP:PROD, a deletion nomination that can be removed by anyone.  Even though the tag said that, you edited this article twice after the PROD tag was placed, without removing it.  Removing the PROD tag would have stopped the deletion... even now, a simple statement that you contest the deletion will be sufficient to restore the article; though that will not stop a more permanent process like AFD. Courcelles 08:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanki you very much, I don't know the deletion procedures here.Xx236 (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Restored, though a user may take it to a community discussion at WP:AFD. Courcelles 09:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Help needed
Hi Courcelles, hope you're doing fine. Quick question for you. If there already is an existing article on an actor (Ali Hasanov) and one more article was created on a politician with the same name (Ali Hasanov (politician)), what would be a proper article title for another politician with the same name? Is it Ali Hasanov (politician)-2, Ali Hasanov (politician-2) or Ali Hasanov (politician)-II? I'd really appreciate if you could help. Thanks!  Tuscumbia  (talk ) 20:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be likely to move the existing article to Ali Hasanov (Azerbaijani politician), and create the new article at Ali Hasanov (X politician). Now, if they're BOTH Azerbaijani... that gets a good deal more complicated. Courcelles 20:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They are both Azerbaijani politicians :) That's the main issue.  Tuscumbia  (talk ) 20:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The only comparable situation I know of- and it's not a very good one- are two figure skaters from the Republic of Korea, that is handled with titles Shin Yea-Ji (figure skater born 1988) and Shin Yea-Ji (figure skater born 1984). Another option would be to use a more complete name until you find a difference, though Azerbajani naming customs are not something I know anything about, so that may not actually be a valid option. Courcelles 20:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no information on the birthdate of the first Ali Hasanov (politician), I don't even know if there will be any dates available for the second one. I'll look for more examples and ask editors who have had any experience in biography articles. Thanks for looking into this!  Tuscumbia  (talk ) 20:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me some details of the other politician you want to create?♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure Dr. Blofeld. Here is the second guy (in Azeri). First politician Ali Hasanov is a chairman of a committee, second one is the Presidential Advisor and head of a department at Presidential Administration.  Tuscumbia   (talk ) 20:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that for active politicians, the title they hold can change somewhat often, and not be a good disambiguator as pages have to be moved with every election. Courcelles 20:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've previously seen in other language Wikipedia biography articles titled with Roman -I, -II, etc. Never came across any standards in English Wikipedia though.  Tuscumbia  (talk ) 21:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

See Ali Hasanov (disambiguation). As long as you are certain they are different politicians. PLease expand the 1960 birth politician stub I created. thanks. See Maiden Tower (Baku) and Cotton production in Azerbaijan BTW,♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am certain they are two different politicians. Thanks for creating it, I will expand the newly created one. I guess if the first one is removed from his current position, we'll have to move the article. Great job on those two articles. Maiden Tower I have seen but Cotton production one is quite new and looks great. Great job! Thank you both for your help!  Tuscumbia  (talk ) 21:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Contact centre links
Could you put them back please? The article was retitled as part of a pagemove and history merge this evening. Please give people a chance to check and fix the links before removing them from articles! DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Twinkle screwed up the G8'ing of the broken redirects.  Hmm... I shall have to find a way to stop it from doing that. Courcelles 21:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Theo Chino was deleted as expired ProD
Hello! User:Theochino claiming to be Theo Chino is contesting the deletion by ProD of this article. I will leave a note asking him to contact you. Is the current venue WP:Refund? In my review of the deleted article, I see it to be an unsourced BLP about a NN politico. User:Gogo Dodo attempted a rescue, but was unsuccessful. I will advise him of this as well. Cheers,  Dloh cierekim'''  00:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, since the PROD is implicitly contested, the old revisions should be restored, and the thing (since I agree there's n notability here) sent straight to AFD. Courcelles 00:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my first thought. Refund is new to me. Wanted to confer first. Thanks,  Dloh <font color="#bb00bb">cierekim'''  01:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

MfD backlog
Courcelles, thank you for dealing with massive backlog at MfD (especially with the numerous history merges that no admin wanted to deal with). I read your note at the top of your talk page about how you "have a tendency to forget what made this place fun" and about the "pesky articles". Would you consider copyediting/reviewing the pesky article have a nice day before I nominate it at GAN or FAC? Cunard (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not much of a copyeditor, but I'll have a read. Courcelles 10:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I hope you'll enjoy the article. Because several of your articles have passed at FAC, I hope you can provide advice as to whether there are any glaring problems with the article in terms of the FA criteria. Cunard (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of my stars were earned at FLC, actually. I've only got two FA's, and I'm not really certain I deserve either much credit for those, other than... well, long story. Courcelles 04:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you initiated Featured article candidates/The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/archive1, so you have more experience than I in FAC. I haven't started any FACs yet. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

FLRC
nominated List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
 * Oh, good lord. Courcelles 20:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And, not content with that, he goes on after the FLRC is closed and does this. I'm sorry, that's just simply trolling now. I left a message for him at User talk:Jeepday. StrPby (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your support, both at my first RfA and at this one. It means a lot to have that level of trust. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever want someone else to help whilst you're on admin-vacation please feel free to drop me a line! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck, Panyd. Now, there's some huge admin backlogs... get to work! Courcelles 02:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Back a few months ago (in August) you made a comment on my talk page about my second RfA, and gave some guidelines for when to make my next one. Since I don't want to rush into another one without planning more carefully, I'd like to receive some help. I am considering running in a couple of weeks (maybe around the middle of December), but I'd like some input as to whether or not I should try one again at that time, and what I could do now to make my chances higher. --Slon02 (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd advise you to wait. I can see the comments; your most edited article only has 24 edits, no FA/FL/GA's created, and of your 10,000 edits, 62% are automated. Whether it should be this way or not, frequent Hugglers without audited content have a very hard time getting through RFA- I think four have passed in the last 13 months. (GorillaWarfare, TideRolls, RonhJones, and Favonian.) Gorilla is the outlier, the other three had around 40,000+ edits- Tide had 100,000. Produce a few GA's and you might have a chance, but as it stands, I think there's a better than even chance it's another snowball.  I don't really agree with the prevailing mood at RFA, but I spend enough time there to know what it is.  Sorry, but I believe in being honest when asked these questions. Courcelles 04:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advise, I will take it into consideration. I'll ask a few other Wikipedians for their opinions as well, but I think that I'll wait. --Slon02 (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional companies as a redirect and transwikied
I learned several weeks ago that List of fictional companies had been deleted (snaps fingers and shakes head) and made it a point to check and see if it had somehow returned as a redirect or been transwikied somewhere. Still not a redirect, and if it has been transwikied, it hasn't been to WikiLists, so I was wondering if you could bring it back as a redirect to fictional companies (Such redirects seem to be standard operating procedure here and I find it a bit odd it wasn't done this time.) There was an attempt by someone to get it undeleted at Requests for undeletion/Archive 21, but that user failed to even consider a request for a (harmless) redirect and the final deletion discussion didn't even mention a redirect or transwiki option once. If you're concerned about folks undoing the redirect, then I suggest making it a protected redirect, thereby making the last revision accessible for those who might want to read and allowing the people at WikiLists to export/import the list and its history to its new, appropriate home off Wikipedia. Should you grant my request, I'll try to export/import the article to WikiLists or get with someone who can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.192 (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion?
Hello.

I was wondering if I could get your opinion on this, as I noticed you were another administrator on the same page. I already asked for consideration from the administrator who deleted the image, but he declined my request without reason, and I opened a. I'm hoping to have the file restored at this time, based on the fact that it was carelessly deleted, it's not copyrighted in the US, and I'm using the appropriate trademark template for the image.

Any help would be appreciated. Editor182 (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing I can do for you. I don't have any basis for ever overturning another admin's closure of a deletion discussion other than when I close something at deletion review. Since you're already at DRV, there's little to do for to wait a week and monitor the discussion. Courcelles 10:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought maybe you could add your opinion on the review board in favor of overturning the decision, rather than restoring the image yourself, and your opinion would be valuable for the outcome. It may be that you don't have an opinion at this time, but if you look at the archived discussion, and dispute, you can see that they don't have any valid claims to keep from restoring the file. There has been one administrator who has replied on the review board, and his responses have been beating around the bush, questioning little things which obviously don't need to be questioned, trying to create reasonable doubt, when in actual fact, there is extremely unreasonable doubt. Anyway, if that's all, then no problem. Thanks for the reply. Editor182 (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See, what you've done is called WP:Canvassing... so even if I had an opinion, propriety would be against me giving it. Courcelles 12:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I just wanted the opinion of another administrator, end of story. I've also contacted the user who had taken part in the original archived discussion, but that's it. If you go to this admins talk page who removed the image, you will see a heated message that came in right after mine from another user who was upset about this administrators callous deletions of what was fair use contact, with no consideration for others or their work, and furthermore, he is not willing to listen to requests for reconsideration. I don't intend on contacting any other administrators or users, you were on the deletion page and I wanted your opinion, as this other administrators responses on the deletion review page have been utterly useless.

Tell me though, with this fancy "Canvassing" article you have, what do you call it when administration is reluctant to revert another administrators decisions because they don't want to upset other members of administration, even though they know they made a careless, wrong, unjustified decision? This administrator on the review board seems to be playing that game, instead of taking a stand for one decision or the other, and knowing that he doesn't have a leg to stand on if he wanted to make a decision to support the deletion of the image, he decides to sit on the bench, and attempts to create doubt, although no reasonable doubt exists. I thought perhaps I'd ask another administrator because they could be different, but maybe you should come up with a name and article for that kind of behavior from administration, you can call it whatever you like, but I'd say "propriety" has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't take a person with half a brain to see that this person is wrong for deleting the image, but nobody can stand up in administration and do what's right. When users have a dispute, the admins are there to shut it down based on the community consensus, but when an admin deletes an image or article without speaking to anyone first, well, no matter how wrong they are, good luck trying to get administrators to do anything for you. Go ahead and support the wrong decisions to keep peace within the team, but you're only hurting the articles at the end of the day. Editor182 (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to be pressing for my opinion, here it is. The deletion was valid.  We don't keep things around that are questionable in copyright status; we quite literally follow a better safe that sorry policy. Take a look at File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg where we have explicit permission from the copyright holder to use the image... and we still take the care to provide a fair-use rationale.  Copyright is one of those things we just don't take any chances on. Courcelles 10:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)