User talk:Courcelles/Archive 62

Category help
Can you help I proposed these categories (Mafia group, Italian-American Mafia gangs, and Mafia gangs) for deletion.


 * Category:Mafia groups – should be deleted, there is a similar category titled Category:Mafia (it should be the main category)


 * Both Category:Italian-American Mafia gangs, Category:Mafia gangs, Category:American Mafia gangs and Category:Italian American gangs (this one is good and should be kept as the main category) all there categories have articles about Italian American gangs, that worked with the mafia. --Vic49 (talk)  15:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't WP:PROD categories. Please follow instructions and list them at WP:CFD for discussion.   The instructions you'll need are all under the "Procedure" section, or twinkle can do it all automatically. Courcelles 20:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You've Got Mail!
--5 albert square (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * replied. Courcelles 01:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

unblock requests
Hi. There are two others and an rfar post. This was really intended as an alert to the admins. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's the most recent discussion- and it's the most recent I was aware of- then the problem remains that the restriction is still "on the books", which means we can't unblock an account whose use would violate the remedy. Rather pointless at this point, but the AC didn't actually do anything in that discussion, so User:Gold Hat and any other accounts would technically be outside the letter of that restriction. Personally, I think ArbCom needs to rescind that restriction by motion since no-one blocked Gold Hat, and a restriction no one, even the Arbs, feels the need to press a button and enforce is a poor indication on the whole system. Courcelles 06:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya, and we agreed to put lifting them off a bit. Now I'm doing John's hand-ball thing; I didn't look at whatever else the AC might be up to this week. Part of the problem is that the committee is a rolling thing, the AC changes and ends are left loose. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is at WP:ARA. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Poor Man's Talkback
See here. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 06:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Olympic categories and Norman Livermore
Hello, I wrote an article about Norman Livermore and one of his many accomplishments was playing baseball as a demonstration sport at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. I categorized him as an Olympic athlete, but as a result of a recent recategorization, he's now categorized as a track and field athlete. You were the closing admin on that recategorization. Baseball isn't track and field, is it? How should he be categirized with regards to his participation in the 1936 Olympics? Cullen328 (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The category he needed to be in; Category:Baseball players at the 1936 Summer Olympics, didn't exist, now it does, and he has been recategorised. (This is why the Athletes categories were moved, confusion like this!) Courcelles 07:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike‎ & 3RR
I don't think that User:DeknMike‎ violated 3RR. If you look again at the history, xe only has 3 reverts (not counting, of course, when he edits more than once in a row) today. The first revert came at 01:12 UTC; before that, his last revert was 02:10 UTC yesterday; prior to that, xe hadn't edited at all since 25 January. Now, one could argue that 4 reverts within about 30 hours still constitutes edit warning, but it certainly doesn't cross the bright-line of 3RR. Note, too, that DeknMike did not edit the article again after being told he had hit 3 reverts (last edit at 05:21, my warning was at 5:55). Yes, Seb had warned him/her with a general edit warning template, but, if xe read that template exactly as it was written, xe might have gotten the impression that 1 more revert was acceptable. Furthermore, if you look into the history of this topic (I myself only came to it a few hours ago, because of mistakenly place "edit semi-protected" template), I can certainly understand why DeknMike is frustrated. The discussion to redirect this article was done on an entirely different article talk page; allegedly xe was aware, but it was quite odd. I'm worried that if xe is blocked out of process, that xe is going to become even more convinced that xe's the victim of a group of POV warriors. I personally believe xe should be unblocked, but told firmly that the time for edit-warring is over and xe needs to bring this up on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4 reverts in less than 28 hours is still highly disruptive, and 3RR is about edit warring, not counting hours, and if you look in his talk page archives, he's already been warned about edit warring in the past. You're right he didn't technically cross 3RR- I misread the first revert's date, though in my experience, adding an entry to a block log for a semantic correction would actually be conter-productive and would look as if the user had been blocked twice, instead of just once (block logs are often not read with extreme caution!) Courcelles 07:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I left a note on DeknMike's page requesting that, whenever xe comes back, it's to the article talk page to discuss this issue, rather than back to revert-o-rama.  I'm also interested to hear more from the other editors who made the redirect decision; we'll see what happens.  Qwyrxian (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not really fair, is it? No, it's not.  Unblocked, with clear and unmistakable warning that one more revert in the next 24 hours would not be in his best interest. Courcelles 08:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your consideration of this matter. The community on the Messianic Judaism page decided this content did not belong in that article, but I saw that it also did not belong in the Jewish Christian article, which dealt with the founding of Christianity. Therefore, I collected information and sources that dealt with a specific time in history and created the [Hebrew Christian] article.  Members of the MJ page followed me and undid the writing with a redirect.  I have since learned they discussed it on the MJ page, which I no longer edit. (The consensus there did not recognize any source from within the movement or from a Christian source to be valid, although lightly sourced articles attacking the movement seem sacrosanct). I rarely log onto Wikipedia except during vacations, and as I said, I no longer edit the MJ page.  For a while, it seemed that each time I came back I found someone (usually Jayjg) had undone my work to redirect to the JC site.  Although it looks like an edit war, what I have done is to assure the information remains available to researchers, having attached a long list of sources and related journals.  (Note also this community not only does not discuss the merits on the Hebrew Christian talk page, but routinely also redirects that page to the JC talk page.)--DeknMike (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * DeknMike, your creation of this POVFORK has been reverted by 3 different editors, after the clear consensus favoring this. I've opened a discussion on the issue at Talk:Jewish_Christians. Rather than continuing to revert, please express your views there. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, Jayjg continues to ignore differences in the subject material and chooses to discuss the issue on some other page, rather than addressing it on the page in question. This article is more a spinout, having been declared not applicable to Messianic Judaism nor incorporated by him into the Jewish Christians article.  There is no POV expressed on Hebrew Christian, no theology, no judgment of right or wrong, but only a listing of development of the movement.  But apparently it will remain buried (because of POV opinion?) if I am not able to restore and continue to edit the page.--DeknMike (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Libya
Thanks for sorting out the semi-protection. I love your optimism that all will be sorted out within three weeks! Hope you're right! Skinsmoke (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if it isn't, come talk to me, and I can put the protection back in three clicks. For a rather controversial topic, I was surprised to see this was the first editing protection in over four years. (And it still stuns me that 2007 was four years ago.  Where'd the time go?) Courcelles 09:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion
You deleted the articles in Articles for deletion/Henri Anier. So the data got lost and I would like a copy of those. Thanks. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They all are BLP's, and rather poorly sourced at that. As a general rule, I always decline to userify biographies, as they tend to end up sitting in userspace abandoned and forgotten about. Courcelles 14:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They main reason for deletion was that they have not played in fully professional leagues. Anyway if they will play in fully professional league, then I can add some info from the previous article (no point for double work). I have the right to own a copy, because I wasn't warned about the deletion. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Gary J. Aguirre
11:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

New article
So I've created an article where apparently there was a previous deletion. This is my first time trying to do something like this, but I guess I'm supposed to tak to the deleting admin (you) about it first? Anyway, it looks like the reason the previous article was deleted was because of notability problems, however, I think that has changed in the interim. Here's a link to the new article I wrote in my userspace:User:Jazzcat2283/instructure. Let me know if that looks ok or what I need to do. - Jazzcat2283 10:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put it back in mainspace, as it is different enough to avoid death by G4. The only source in the original version that is actually reliable and you didn't find is, you may want to include it. Courcelles 11:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll get that article included on the page and get the page in for feedback. Jazzcat2283 (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This should be the last batch
File:MAC-Uniform-AKZ.PNG to File:MAC-Uniform-UA.png, File:MAC-Uniform-BSU.PNG to File:MAC-Uniform-BSU.png, File:MAC-Uniform-BUF.PNG to File:MAC-Uniform-UB.png, File:MAC-Uniform-CENTMICH.PNG to File:MAC-Uniform-CMU.png, File:MAC-Uniform-EAMICH.PNG to File:MAC-Uniform-EMU.png, File:MAC-Uniform-KENT.PNG to File:MAC-Uniform-KSU.png, File:MAC-Uniform-MIA.PNG to File:MAC-Uniform-MU.png, File:MAC-Uniform-NIU.PNG to File:MAC-Uniform-NIU.png, File:MAC-Uniform-OHB.PNG to File:MAC-Uniform-UO.png and File:MAC-Uniform-WMU.PNG to File:MAC-Uniform-WMU.png. Thank you. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 00:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All done. There's talk about a file mover right being created, hopefully that will come to pass, you could really use the flag. Courcelles 11:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be absolutely fantastic, though I certainly wouldn't mind being an admin as well! :) Thanks again! --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 19:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sabbo (musician)
Dear editor, I would like to refute your decision to delete the article about Sabbo (Musician), an established musician that has received international recognition, toured internationally and has released several albums and singles. He has worked with other established artists, including Damien and Stephan Marley, Lyrics Born and, more. Please re-post the article and I will make the adjustments necessary.

Thank you.
 * restored as a contested WP:PROD, but nominated for a more permanent deletion, see Articles for deletion/Sabbo (Musician). Courcelles 11:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Prime Minister's term
Please see Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The current formulation is imprecise and unhelpful to readers. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

List of New England Patriots seasons
I've looked at the list and it looks great. I'll post a few small comments on the article's talk page, but it is very likely to pass at FLC if nominated.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 20:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!
03:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of McTimoney College of Chiropractic
Is there anyway to recover the content of this article? I'd put some effort into it but I've been away and hadn't noticed that it'd been nominated for deletion. The McTimoney chiropractors are a sizable proportion of chiropractors in the UK and I was hoping to provide some information that provided a more balanced summary than is currently easily available (which is mostly in publications by the college or it's members and graduates). If I could have the content back I'd be happy to include more references and a better justification of why it's notable (it's one of the few places in the UK still offering unscientific (and in my opinion dodgy) MSc degrees in CAM for a start). Pishmishy (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * restored as a contested WP:PROD. Courcelles 21:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

American sportspeople of [European] descent
Would you please consider restoring all of these and relisting and publicizing this for a wider discussion? This seems to be an improper flock nomination that didn't get sufficient commentary or consideration. Although I can't categorically state that every single ethnicity or nationality is notable with respect to American sports, some clearly are. The role of Irish-Americans in American sports is well-known and the subject of a vast amount of popular and serious literature, not as trivia but as a cultural phenomenon. The deletion discussion got very sparse commentary, and none that specifically addressed the issue of notability. The nominator has been on a tear through Wikipedia trying to do away with ethnic categorization. Most of their attempts are unsuccessful but sometimes, as here, it sneaks by without adequate discussion. Other times it spills over onto noticeboards and AN/I. Something like this needs to be handled in a more systematic way. Further, should I take this to deletion review, it would be very difficult to notify all of the editors involved (likely hundreds, none of whom were notified of the CfD as far as I know). Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Six participants is an incredibly large number for a CFD, where many categories are lucky to get someone to comment on the nomination, as a general rule, we put through unopposed nominations after seven days, unlike AFD. Further, the categories were tagged, at least some got put on the article alerts template of a WikiProject, Denmark, for example, and the consensus at the discussion was incredibly clear. We aren't in the habit of relisting heavily trafficked discussions that go entirely one way, there's simply no other way to close these. If there's a policy-based case for keeping these, lets hear it, if something truly critical got missed, we can relist it, but that "Italian-American athletes are notable" isn't a strong reason in policy for keeping a category, we already have such a list. Courcelles 12:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I chime in and note that there is no policy that states I have to "open up a wikipedia-wide RfC" before nominating a clear case of WP:OCAT. Also the statement "Most of their attempts are unsuccessful" is only true when the same batch of users wikihound my contribution history and vote-stack the XfDs into no consensus. When they abstain from !voting or miss the nomination (such as here), the decisions are often unanimous. The same wikihounding technique is now being instigated in this CfD. Stuff like this is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have no problem with Wikidemon participating in the CfD if he has legitimate documentation to show that these intersections are not WP:OCAT violations... but that he has some type of "personal issue" with me nominating all these categories in sequence is not relevant. Bull dog123 11:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bulldog is broadly correct here, CFD is the process for these decisions, not RFC or WikiProjects. Unless I hear back by tonight, I'll complete the deletions and it will be DRV's ball-game, if you chose to go there. Courcelles 15:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)