User talk:Courcelles/Archive 43

File:ScottShafer.jpg
Courcelles, File:ScottShafer.jpg has been restored to the infobox of Scott Shafer. A user had replaced it there with another image that has since been deleted. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the orphan tag isn't right, it's an NFCC 1 problem as we can't use non-free images of living people. Actually, I see it is out of the article again, anyway. Courcelles 16:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

LGBT articles of Brazil
Hello! I am Brazilian and I need of you to correct my translation edits, because you are from an english speaking-country, please help me in the Same-sex adoption in Brazil, Changing legal gender assignment in Brazil, LGBT rights in Brazil, Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil, Age of consent in Brazil, Prejudice in the Brazilian LGBT community, and Criminalization of homophobia in Brazil. 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seven articles that you've spammed at least ten people about? You hit at least one skilled copy-editor in that run, and it isn't me.  Probably won't be able to help you- too busy already. Courcelles 16:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

EarthLink logo
The logo I uploaded was in .PNG. It was replaced by an .SVG one.

What is the correct format to be uploaded?

And by the way, the logo is offered in higher sizes, I believe that is not allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepguilherme (talk • contribs) 23:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The SVG is preferred, deleting the PNG is really just housekeeping. For the SVG's, size control is done on the article, instead of by uploading smaller files. Courcelles 23:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa infobox image
I noticed you removed the image File:Burj Khalifa building.jpg. Was this the result of a deletion discussion, a notification by someone of a copyright violation, or did you simply decide for yourself that it met the conditions of "CSD F7; Replaceable fair-use"? If so, could you explain why you deleted this image. Many thanks, Astronaut (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was an invalid fair-use claim. It was tagged  on 20 December by User:Chrishmt0423, which I deleted 48 hours after the tagging. Courcelles 01:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to (temporarily) restore the image so I can work on improving the fair use claim? Astronaut (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, sure. Just do not put it back in a gallery; non-free images are never permissible in galleries. Courcelles 02:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I never realised it was in so many articles and I'm sure it can be left out of quite a few of them.  Whilst I dispute that "non-free images are never permissible in galleries", in the case of this particular image, it never was in a gallery anyway; so I am curious why you emphasised that particular point.  Astronaut (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was in a gallery in the Dubai article, see . Courcelles 03:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! A use which did not appear in the list of Non-free image rationales attached to the image. Surely deleting the image was a big step to take with a wide impact, when removing it just from that gallery would have been quicker... or were you going on Chrishmt0423's unexplained tagging?  Astronaut (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the tagging makes sense to me... why do we need a fair-use image of a building that exists? NFCC1 appears to apply. Courcelles 03:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because, as the rationales say, there is no freedom of panorama in UAE. All the free images of Burj Khalifa were deleted from Commons earlier this year because of that.  Fair use seems to be the only way to show what the tallest building in the worlds looks like.  This image is also tagged with  which explains further.  Astronaut (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove by adding to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.

-- The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 02:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Tidings to you, good food and good company. Courcelles 04:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

39 hours
Thanks for speedily blocking the IP. But why 39 hours? This is a very nasty vandal. 37 edits since June 2010, all vandalism.

It took me 10 min to track down his handywork and revert, some of which stood for quite a while as it was buried under bot edits. Wouldn't indef be better? Best, 03:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * hi, Anna... we don't indef IP addresses, except for open proxies, as they are frequently reassigned to other people by their ISP's. That one belongs to an ISP called Stellar Association, LLC in Minnesota, and I don't know anything about them to indicate how static their IP's are.  If the vandalism resumes, though, flag me down and I'll block the IP for longer without doing the four warning song and dance that AIV likes to see. Courcelles 03:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No indefs for IPs. I didn't know that. Fair enough. I'll lurk in the shadows and let you know if he comes back. Many thanks. Happy holidays. Sorry about the flu. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!


5 albert square (talk) has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove by adding to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.

--5 albert square (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are now more Christmas trees on this page than in my house! Merry tidings to you and yours, Albie. Courcelles 04:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Liberation (film poster 1970).jpg
The image was needed to illustrate the article Liberation (film series); It is an anachronistic promotional film poster that will not harm the copyright holders' rights. For reasons of format, it cannot be used currently. I will upload another version again when I would be able to. If it is possible, please delete the two versions I uploaded. Thank you. Bahavd Gita (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * G7 deleted. Feel free to come track me down to restore it when you need it, or just upload the version you need. Courcelles 15:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. Bahavd Gita (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The Park Country Club
Hi, you recently deleted The Park Country Club via proposed deletion. However since this club hosted a major tournament, the 1934 PGA Championship, I believe it may in fact be notable and deletion may not be uncontrovertial. As such can you please restore the article. Thanks. wjematherbigissue 13:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Courcelles 15:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. wjematherbigissue 15:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page Hell's Kitchen (U.S. Season 9)
I would like to request that the talk page be restored. As the article itself cannot be created yet, I wanted to start discussion (and setting down some concensus) before the season starts up. Hence that is why I created the talk page. The article page is already pointed at by 2 articles. I know that this would normally be a CSD:G8 deletion (which you acted upon) however because we know that Season 9 is going to occur and that good faith edits have occurred to begin the process of pointing at the article I would like to start the discussion on for the season so as to give people who might disagree the opportunity to raise their concerns. Hasteur (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When do you think you might get around to creating the article? As absolutely nothing points to the talk page other than the database report of G8-able talk pages, I dont think you've found a good place to have a discussion- no one is going to see it. (For what it is worth, the way to keep a page like that off the report is to tag it with .) Courcelles 15:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)



Sorry
Sorry I left my computer and my niece thought she was helping me sorry I have turned off AWB sorry I hope I didn't cause any damage TucsonDavid GOD BLESS THE U . S . A . 21:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks I will be more careful in the future and I will never leave the computer on when she is around also thanks for your help. TucsonDavid GOD BLESS THE U . S . A . 21:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hassan Massoudy
That was quick! Happy holidays, Racconish  Tk 23:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Bot to delink images
You are invited to join the discussion at Category talk:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC) (Using )

Merry Christmas!


JuneGloom   Talk  has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove by adding to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.

I hope you have a great day and get plenty of presents! :) - JuneGloom    Talk  00:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

rollback help?
I see you're here on Christmas Eve too - wanna help me rollback some of this? I've got about half of it but it's slow going. Thanks. :-:  K rakatoa    K atie   02:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rollback All is your friend, Katie! One button clean up for vandalism of all kinds. Courcelles 02:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have all the subtlety of a hydrogen bomb, my friend - thanks! -  K rakatoa    K atie   02:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I can be subtle. When dealing with a BLP vandal, I tend to drop the hammer sure and fast, though.... and I have an affinity for using Special:Nuke when it is warranted, too.  So, what are you doing stuck here after 9 on Christmas Eve?  Courcelles 02:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

K.O.K Kev
He's recently uploaded this, despite the fact that we have warned him multiple times to not upload images unless he knows the policies.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh. Not great practice, and far, far too large, and needs a source... but he's getting closer to compliant.  If it could be sourced, and tagged  it might even fly, if the rationale were improved. It's bad, but it is also progress, as perverse as that sounds, so I think your comment is sufficient, and don't think using the blockhammer is necessary at the moment. Courcelles 03:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Eydie Gormé's "Blame it on the Bossa Nova" image
According to article history, it seems a bot had changed the infobox template from Infobox Single to Info/Single and so making an orphan of the infobox image at Eydie Gormé's "Blame it on the Bossa Nova". Since its a bot it may have done the same to other infoboxes: I'll let you contact the bot's owner to follow this up.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Found the problem, and blocked the bot. Courcelles

Mercury poisoning
Hi Courcelles. I notice you protected this page so I can't edit it and the discussion page doesn't look very well used so I thought I'd contact you here instead. Could you possibly correct a very small, rather irritating typo? Quicksliver -> Quicksilver in a reference in the History section. Many thanks. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! I also went ahead and unprotected it, hoping whoever was making a real nuisance of themselves has moved on by now. Courcelles 16:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy belated 100,000+ edits
Wow, did I miss that day? Congrats ... you're officially obsessed. Hope your cold is going away! / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It came and went pretty fast. I didn't notice until I had blown past 100k to something around 102,000... seems a lot of the chores I do lately involve making quite a lot of edits fairly rapidly.  So much for keeping my edit count at a reasonable level! Courcelles 23:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect protection for Landshark and Heatwave
Now that the article they redirected to has returned, the redirects for Landshark and Heatwave should probably be restores right? Mathewignash (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? The discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 18 indicates things should be exactly as they are, that these pages were redirects to pages that did not contain anything about the topic of the redirect, not anything to do with a deletion. Courcelles 23:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the confusuion. The Landshark and Heatwave pages originally had content, but there were nominated for deletion because they lacked notability. Once they were blanked they were redirected to a page that had a list of the characters in their story (Transformers: Timelines), which did mention them. Then THAT page was nominated for deletion, and after much back and forth it was saved, then deleted, then saved again! The redirects changed several times to other pages, but as of RIGHT NOW, the page for Transformers: Timelines exists and is DOES have the characters of Heatwave and Landshark mentioned on the page. So the redirects should probably exist and go to that page. If you turn the protection off I will redirect them to pages that do mention them properly. Mathewignash (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie
Hi Courcelles, I noticed that you blocked one of the two users involved in edit warring over this article, but that seems a little inconsistent. Both User:Catinthehat93 and User:Gimmetoo had exceeded the 3RR, and despite Gimmetoo's claims that Cat's edits were vandalism or BLP violations, it seemed to simply be a content dispute (it may have been a BLP violation if it was an unreferenced contentious statement, and thus Gimmetoo would not have broken 3RR, but dispute over which ethnicity is correct doesn't appear to be contentious. Would it not have been fairer to either protect the article or block both parties involved?  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  22:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. One user was putting unsourced stuff in BLP's. Keeping unsourced, made-up crap out of BLP's is an exemption to the 3RR, especially when one side is blatantly misrepresenting the source- read the Independent article. Courcelles 22:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Only unsourced contentious material, per policy; I'm not seeing a BLP violation, and without one there's no 3RR exemption. The correct action to take if it's believed that the argument of an opponent in an edit war is invalid is to stop reverting and get a third opinion or other consensus, is it not?  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And when you make up sources, it's also fairly close to vandalism, which is yet another 3RR exemption. I think you're reading contentious as "libelious", which it doesn't mean. It means controversial, which this clearly was. If you want to file an ANEW report on Gimmetoo, go right ahead, but I am not going to block him. Courcelles 23:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really concerned enough to file a posthumous EW report on this; I've seen enough of the argument and the previous problems on the article to be aware that Gimmetoo's was likely the "right" version and I also see no benefit to the project to blocking Gimmetoo for the sake of "justice" after the editwar has ceased, but I do think it sends the wrong message if only one of two participants in an edit war is blocked because an admin agreed that the other's version was the "right" one, especially when I specifically avoided asking blocks to be dished out on either participant by requesting page protection instead, despite the fact that both parties had reverted >3 times in 24 hours and hadn't been discussing. If you're not going to block, so be it; I won't push the issue but I won't be jumping to Gimmetoo's defence if Catinthehat complains that only one of the two were blocked, either.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The more I look at this, the more the block should have been logged as a pure vandalism block. (When one side is clearly lying about their source, it is reasonable for the admin to weigh that in a decision.) Going back further, this BLP mess started with a flat-out lie in an edit summary. If that's fixing a "grammer error" them I'm the bloody Queen of England. {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abbotsford,_British_Columbia&diff=prev&oldid=403949914 Pure vandalism]. I'm really not finding any reason at all to keep Cat in the Hat around another hour. Courcelles 23:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh; whether you want to call it edit-warring, vandalism, or whatever, it seems the user hasn't gotten the message.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  10:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I can't find any hits at all claiming that Jolie has any chinese ancestry, so even my perhaps slightly suicidal AGF is starting to think the source was completely fictitious and this is a vandal.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  10:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Having given him enough WP:ROPE... indeffed. Courcelles 17:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)