User talk:Courcelles/Archive 78

The Signpost: 20 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Script
Hey, where did you get the script that did this? -- Selket Talk 22:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's CSD Helper, see User:Ale jrb/Scripts. Courcelles 22:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Selket Talk 22:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletions
Hello. Firstly, being a member of a league notable enough for an article is not always enough to have an article, take a look at some of the lower leagues of the English football league system for example. Secondly, for me, simply linking to a notable league is not an indication of notability, but I can see where you're coming from (po-tay-to, po-tah-to), so I will stop CSDing these articles, and will PROD and/or AfD instead. Regards, GiantSnowman 21:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You've made a common mistake here, A7 has nothing at all to do with notability. The A7 standard is does the article make any credible assertion of significance or importance, which is a significantly lower bar than notability. AFD and PROD are the right solutions if you think these articles should go. Courcelles 22:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've opened a thread at WT:FOOTY just to double-check that my view of the club notability in Serbia is actually correct (based on specifications at WP:FOOTYN) and for any that are shown to be non-notable, I'll PROD/AfD; those that are notable I'll have a go at improving. Thanks and regards, GiantSnowman 22:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, just confirmed that they're not notable, PROD it is then! Regards, GiantSnowman 22:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

File:TBM Avenger Plain, Maritime Heritage Trail, Tanapag lagoon, Saipan Site Ships of Discovery Compressed.jpg
Hello


 * this picture will be used soon on the site Maritime Heritage Trail - Battle of Saipan and should not be deleted, thank you Legr0004 (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that image is replaceable, I'm not sure how you're going to satisfy the NFCC, but, should the image come into use, a bot will remove the deletion tag for being orphaned. Courcelles 06:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

James Maslow
Hello! You semi-protected for one year. That is a very long term to prevent our anonymous friends from editing. Do you think it could be shortened? --causa sui (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The other choice was actually an indef, because of the history and the lack of any decent IP editing on the article, which given its subejct, is not a surprising situation. Courcelles 19:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
MarB4  •ɯɒɹ• 00:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete new uploads
Hi you can delete the 4 pics I uploaded, there where to be used to full explain all "ITV night time" branding in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Network Someone complained there were to many. HOW you suppose to fully explain all services is beyond me!
 * FYI, they appear to be back in use now, so the F5 deletion tags have been removed. Courcelles 08:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

St. Bridget Catholic Church
Thanks for stopping the speedy deletion. I was using Google Earth street view today and I see something that looks like a historical marker right in front of the church! (I hope it's not just about Casey Jones). --  Kenatipo   speak! 04:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. Something about this feels notable, even though I couldn't find the sources online. I hope someone is close enough they can find some offline ones before the article ends up at AFD. Courcelles 11:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he's back.
The mass tennis deletionist: see. X X X antiuser eh? 09:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's come to my attention this may be actually be a banned user (indicated via a relevant rangeblock I found). Given the level he's jumping around, I'm going to apply some semi-protections to see if we can stop this. Courcelles 09:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm unaware of that case I guess. I just want to point out that I never reverted any of their edits as vandalism - but I saw unexplained blanking with sometimes disruptive edit summaries and reverted as such. X X X antiuser eh? 09:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
MarB4  •ɯɒɹ• 10:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

KnowIG info
My account is blocked yes. But it is also locked. I do everything that I am ment to do in an unblock request and user kuru declines. I have appealed on meta no joy there. So therefore I need another account. And I cannot do anything with it due to zelous admins. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.16.142 (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll never get to keep a new account active unless you get unblocked locally, at the very least. Even if the global block was gone, the local indef would still apply, and you would still be sockpuppeting to abuse the encyclopaedia.  Per your admission, this IP is blocked two weeks. The only way you'll ever be unblocked starts with you stopping the sockpuppeting. Courcelles 11:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, could you please check out user ENCRYPTMATRON IP in a possible connection with some blocked vandal. The user shows that he is quite aware of how Wikipedia works so im quite confident that the user has had a previous account/s. The user is very aggressive has reported him/her so check it out. Can be completely wrong but I feel im right on this one as Anton Abele has been the subject of vandalism/heavy editing before. Thanks!--BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like you've worked out a resolution, and I see no way that a CU would be other than fishing without some evidence. Regards. Courcelles 02:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Horacio Gutiérrez
When you get a moment, would you mind taking a look at Horacio Gutiérrez? An editor who we had some trouble with there earlier this month appears to have come back to continue some of the same behavior. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Spider-Man Film-1.jpg
Hey you mind deleting the previous upload history of this file. There is too many of them I wish for them to be deleted quickly. Thank you. :) Jhenderson  7 7 7  18:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Courcelles 21:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Miss USA, Miss Teen USA and Miss America titleholders who have appeared on reality television
The nominator of this article was a sockpuppet of banned Otto4711. As such, there remained only one (lone and unopposed) delete !voter. I suggest this be reopened and relisted--what do you think? Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see this list surviving another week, but there's no real harm in sending it through the spin cycle, either. Courcelles 07:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me either, but there's a bit of WP:DENY in my checking out what he's been up to. Maybe he'll eventually give up and go away if we undo everything he "accomplishes". Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia&. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! avs5221(t&#124;c) 12:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, why are you telling me this? At any rate, I think you're completely wrong, and that this is a small sign of AFC becoming a place where reviewers want near-perfect articles before accepting them, but that's another rant. Courcelles 12:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Revdelete request
This edit on Malaysia is grossly offensive with no encyclopedic value. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 16:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Gone, and, while I was there, page protected for a while. Courcelles 16:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 16:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Prunesqualer topic ban clarification
Hello, Courcelles. May I ask you to clarify and/or adjust the scope of Prunesqualer's topic ban? WP:ARBPIA says "the entire area of conflict", which usually includes the arbitration enforcement board, but your notice on his talk page says "every article reasonably related to Israeli-Palestianian conflict". In particular, does this comment on the arbitration enforcement request under ARBPIA sanctions violate the ban? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. The topic ban was meant to apply to article space, without much tolerance for arguments over whether a particular article is related or not. I'll clarify the logs. Courcelles 12:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Federica Pellegrini
Hi, I agree with removing the unsourced information, but I just wanted to mention I didn't put it there, I re-ordered information already present in the article (though admittedly my edit summary was confusing). Gap9551 (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew it wasn't you :) It was actually put in by an IP a while ago, with this edit. Courcelles 12:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Subcommittee audit request
Hi, would it be possible to contact you through on-site instead? If possible, I'd like to avoid using my e-mail. (christ, must seem like I'm REALLY trying to escape scrutiny here. but so be it!) You would do me the biggest favour if you could pass it on to the mailing list. ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already sent the entire text onto the mailing list. Just to be clear, if you had posted on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee I would have left it there, but the Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee page is not designed to handle those types of postings, as it is informational, not transactional.  We'll see what the rest of my colleagues think about an on-wiki system.  Since you don't desire to communicate by e-mail, I'll ask one of the standard questions here; do you have any objection to sharing the text of your complaint with Amalthea? Courcelles 14:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. No, I have no objections whatsoever (I mean, all I hope for is Amalthea to agree she/he had no grounds for doing a checkuser, and shouldn't have, and let that influence his/her/other admins usage of it in the future). ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've forwarded the text of your complaint to both the AUSC list and Amalthea, requesting that they comment on their side of the incident. Courcelles 15:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification request
Hi. Sorry to bother you again. You have said that I may discuss A/I issues outside of the "article-space". When you say "article space" are you including article discussion pages? Eg can I contribute to this page provided I don’t touch the actual article page? Prunesqualor  billets_doux  00:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say yes. With the note that when you eventually want the ban reassessed, your related talk page comments will be very important, should you choose to make any. Courcelles 00:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I shall keep that in mind when editing. Cheers Prunesqualor   billets_doux  00:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

3 days
Hi, Please check that in 3 days or make it a 3 day protect, as in User_talk:Ponyo. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a number of editors ad admins watching the article, it will be unprotected once a source is presented to verify his death Courcelles 20:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How did it get so many watchers with so few hits a month? History2007 (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I heard about it in a conversation with another admin. Courcelles 23:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So word of mouth travels fast on Wikipedia. Anyway we will wait and see... History2007 (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

GA nominee
Hi Courcelles. Would you mind reviewing the GA nominee Willamette River, if you're interested? It's also listed here. Thanks for your help! Jsayre64  (talk)  00:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never done a river, could be interesting. Will try and do it before the weekend is out. Courcelles 01:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mail!
--5 albert square (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied. Courcelles 01:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Early DRV closures
Hi Courcelles. You've been closing DRV discussions early. You closed Deletion review/Log/2011 June 23 on 04:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC) when the discussion was started on 14:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC). You closed Deletion review/Log/2011 June 21 on 04:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC) when the discussion was started on 17:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC). I raised the same issue with The ed17 at User:The ed17/Archives/37. I wrote: "Although I do not disagree with any of your DRV closures, I ask that you let them run for the full seven days unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as the discussions at Deletion review/Log/2011 February 14 (where WP:SNOW was applicable), or uncontroversial requests, such as the restoration of a contested prod. Deletion review/Log/2011 February 10 should have run for the full seven days and been closed no earlier than 19:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC) since it was initiated on 19:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC). DRV is the final court of appeal, so to prevent potential controversy, it is best to let the DRV discussions run the full seven days. This also allows more admins to close DRVs and guards against admins' closing earlier and earlier than the set 7 days (see DGG's comment at User talk:Spartaz/Archive9 in September 2009). Cunard (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)" In May, I raised the issue of early closures with Cirt at User talk:Cirt/Archive 16. An example of an early closure causing controversy is at User:The ed17/Archives/37. The discussions you closed were not contentious but it's best to let them run the full seven days. Early closures aside, thank you for closing the DRV discussions. As you're used to closing difficult AfDs, it'll be good to have you close difficult DRVs that become overdue for nearly a week. For example, Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13, Deletion review/Valhalla Vineyards, and more recently Deletion review/Log/2011 June 6. Cunard (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 23 June to 30 June is seven days, as is 21 June to the 28th, both were open for a week, and were obvious closes. Counting hours strikes me as nothing more than process for the sake of process, and we are not a bureaucracy. Of all the various timed processes, only PROD and RFA have fixed, to the minute, ending times. Courcelles 22:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The first closure was 10 hours early and the second was 12 hours early. I see no reason to close these DRVs half a day early. The community has been against admins' closing AfDs early when there are no special circumstances, so I believe the same would apply to early DRV closures. If you disagree with my assumption, I can start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review. Normal DRVs should be closed after the full 7 days. Otherwise, admins will close earlier and earlier to be faster than the other DRV closers. wrote to Spartaz: "please please wait the full 7 X 24 hours. Even a few hours early tend to drift, as other people go to 6, 12, etc. This is one place where it matters." I have seen this occur before, so  I ask you respect the community consensus that DRVs should not be closed until the full seven days have elapsed. Cunard (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)