User talk:Courcelles/Archive 84

Deleted article - The Energy Detective - restore to user space for merge?
I have been away from Wikipedia for a while, and I see that the article The Energy Detective was deleted a while back Articles for deletion/The Energy Detective. Could you restore a copy of the article to my user space so I can check to see if there was anything in it worth merging into Home energy monitor? No objection to the article going away, but I might have voted for merge rather than strait delete.

Thanks. Zodon (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, the article is now at User:Zodon/The Energy Detective. If you emrge anything in, let me know, and I'll move stuff around for CC-BY-SA purposes. Courcelles 08:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

File:The Present Keith Gustin.png
Hi, you deleted which I was using for a userspace draft. Could you please restore it?  Tom  US  A   00:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NFCC criteria nine, it'll just be deleted again, as non-free content is never allowed in userspace. How long do you think it'll take to have your draft ready to go live? Courcelles 00:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Alice offley
Thanks for taking care of the AfD for Alice offley. One of the editors, User:Rubywine, has requested that the article be userfied into their account, so they can do some maintenance if the musicians impending release raises her notability; as the person who prompted the AfD, I have no objection to doing so, if you care to do it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a personal policy against userifying BLP's, for reasons that I could write a nice, long essay about. Someone at WP:REFUND might be willing to do it. Courcelles 01:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have userfied it after a request at REFUND - I didn't see the above until I came here to tell you what I had done, and it seemed to me a reasonable request since the nominator agreed. I have told Rubywine to bring it to you as closing admin when s/he thinks it's ready, or failing your agreement take it to DRV. Regards, JohnCD (talk)

Deleted articles about sports (cont'd)
Hello again,

My apolgies, I was not able to reply your comment. Well, the article is Mr Gökhan Töre playing for HSV in Bundesliga. He already made his senior league debut on match day 1, which I was following. I believe that I made a comprehensive search in multiple languages for him and created a fine level of stub. Could you check the content here and help me in order to create his article. I follow this lad for long while and I'm keen to do this.

Could you help me for this one, please?

Many thanks, Umi1903 (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good enough to me. I've unprotected Gökhan Töre, feel free to move your sandbox to there whenever you are ready.  I can't promise no one will send it to AFD, but the facts surrounding the 2009 AFD have clearly materially changed. Courcelles 09:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the help, indeed. Well, I'm not quite informed about AFD, but; I hope the article will stand there for forever. Thanks for help again. Best regards, Umi1903 (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kokondō
Hello Courcelles. In regards to Articles for deletion/Kokondō, which you just closed as delete, I noticed that it was listed on the log for August 5, when it was in fact nominated on August 11 instead. I left a note to the nominator (Astudent0), but I got no response from them, and I thought of correcting it later that day but then I forgot all about it. Since the AfD only ran for two days, I'm wondering whether it would be possible for you to reconsider your close and relist it instead. It might just be that it gets deleted either way, but I think it should run for at least one week. Best regards - frankie (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh... that's a new one to me. I wonder if the error was script or human in putting it on that log.  Either way, yeah, that's a fairly big procedural problem, so restored and relisted under today's log. Courcelles 13:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - frankie (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Logo of FC Bashinformsvyaz-Dynamo Ufa.gif
Hi, you properly deleted this image, as an orphan, on 6 August 2011. This image was orphaned as a result of some bad editing; the sorry saga can be read at Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 29. Now that FC Bashinformsvyaz-Dynamo Ufa has been recreated, I'd like to re-add this image. Would you please undelete this file? Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, done. Courcelles 16:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Mail
- JuneGloom    Talk  18:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation requested, please!
I don't necessarily understand how to request proper mediation, as there is A LOT of technical jargon listed... but I am having an issue with another user in the Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) article. The user "Toddst1" keeps reverting edits that I have made in that article and, while I don't have a problem with someone legitimately reverting edits, I have a problem with users reverting edits I have made when those same edits are found in other Wikipedia articles that have been classified as Featured Articles. Toddst1 keeps deleting the Course Offerings section and a similar section is found in the Stuyvesant High School Wikipedia article. The user Toddst1 then threatened to try and find someone to ban me from making further edits. As anyone can see, I don't make B.S. edits in Wikipedia. I have made A LOT of solid, legitimate edits. And when someone has deleted an edit I have made and it has been legit, I have either thanked them for correcting an erroneous edit I have made or have have just let it be. Can you provide some mediation or point me in the right direction? I originally posted this same request in the talk section of "LonelyBeacon", but found out after the fact that Toddst1 also contacted the same user. I want to avoid a conflict of interest as I have no idea if they are friends or what not. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you in advance. --Maryland Pride ... a Wikipedia contributor (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to butt in, but given the ongoing discussion at Talk:Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland), consensus appears to be that your edits are not appropriate, and reasonable explanations have been provided as near as I can tell. I saw that you chimed in there, but even so...unless you can find other editors who support your feelings on the matter I think you should let the matter rest. I'm also not certain how asking for mediation is the proper course in this matter, no pun intended. I'm sorry if that's not the feedback you were hoping for. Doniago (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doniago. Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks broadly solved, however, formal mediation, if needed, can be sought from the Mediation Committee. (This dispute looks much more like it was the at the level of the third opinion process however.) Courcelles 21:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

[[File:Slenderman-2.jpg]]
Where can I get a copy of this back? It is needed, so please resurrect it. - Another n00b (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Given it was deleted as orphaned, if you have an article to use it in, it can be restored. However, it's a blurry mess, and the FUR was lousy, so even if restored, it's going to need some work. Courcelles 13:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is needed for this article: User:Cougar Draven/Slender Man. And also, it's SUPPOSED to be a blurry mess. That's the whole point of the image, it isn't supposed to be viewed in high definition. This is because it's trying to mimick shakey-handed paranormal photography. - Another n00b (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that you can never use non-free content in userspace, let me know when the article is ready to go live, and I'll restore it. Until then, the cycle is likely to continue every seven days. Courcelles 13:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Remove this edit, won't you?
This is quite offensive and I hope you will remove it. Thanks--TM 21:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gone. Might be better to drop things like this in my e-mail box than publicly, in the future. Courcelles 21:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability: Idle industry gossip.
There is a wikipedia written every second of everyday on this planet, or there should be, but here unless someone of some stature has said something about your subject, you cannot pass the gates, no matter how informative, unbiased, equally handed and educational your encyclopedic description may have been. Until you can prove it was gawked at by some two bit #$%*#$ who themselves are less worthy of comment than the period at the end of this rant, it cannot pass the mighty gates of wikipedia, and even if it does, it may be ripped down and torn up at any later date.

I wash my hands of you wikipedia. I will contribute no more. I will step over spelling errors, and misfacts, i will ignore all your faults and go on my selfish way. I will leeech and never give back to you so long as i live.

64.40.60.169 (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If I had some idea what you were complaining about, I might be able to help, but I really do not. Courcelles 18:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Waray-Waray Wikipedia
Hi, I disagree with your result, though this AFD result is not important for me. :) It seems me strange to ignore notability rules, I don't see reasons to ignore them in the case. Also there is trivial info only in the article. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at the article. Looks like the consensus was keep.  What count did you see for delete that you disagreed with the administrative closer?  As I understand AfDs, it isn't an issue of the weight of the arguments made, but rather on the consensus decision. --LauraHale (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 7 users for keep, 2 - delete, but deletion arguments are weighty, there is no consensus. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also it's strange for me that bad article quality is not a valid reason for deletion, in Ru-Wiki - where I have worked mostly - rules are different. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR can trump WP:N, and here we had the unusual case of people arguing that it should. We do not count votes, we weigh consensus, but ultimately the community is the sovereign here, and the will of the community here was both that the topic failed notability, yet should be kept. Strangest AFD I've ever seen in that, but there's not much I, as the closer, can do, as ignoring the rules is one of our pillars.  You can always open a WP:DRV if you disagree. Courcelles 21:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, let's consider the question closed, it isn't so important for wikiwars. :) --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Kingsway Christian School (Orrville, Ohio)
Ok. I have tried to follow the instructions on wikipedia for deletion but I seem to be doing the wrong thing. The school board has asked me to ensure this page is deleted. Can you please tell me how I can accomplish this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmaglott (talk • contribs)
 * There really isn't any way. Your school is notable per our policies, and we do not delete articles at the request of their subjects. I really can't see any way this article will be deleted from our encyclopaedia.  If you share your concerns, I might be able to help in some other way than deletion, however. Courcelles 04:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks for the response.  I will share this with the school board.

Recent discussion you closed
A discussion you closed, Articles for deletion/ING Commercial America Building (Tijuana), was marked with consensus to merge. However, it appears by the discussion that there was no consensus and thus the article should have been closed as "no consensus to delete". Is there a Wikipedia policy that advocates merging in the absence of complete consensus? 08OceanBeach S.D. 06:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The arguments were clearly that it should not remain as its own separate article, and the keep comments were almost entirely without grounding in rules towards retention as a separate article. The first keep comment was almost meaningless and was discarded, the second one argued process, and not the topic, and as the nominator in fact did make an argument for deletion, was mostly considered off base.  That leaves you with a split between merge and delete, and merger was better argued, and more in line with policy, that deletion would have been. Courcelles 16:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for explaining! 08OceanBeach S.D.  17:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Zach Stone
I appreciate your concern on the matter but as you can see in his current status it is disallowed signalling that he has been banned and he was disqualified from the competition as a result of his marijuana use. Where it reads DSQ. There are no longer any references on the matter because of its age. If you are disqualifying the use of this the entire page should be deleted because it would violate WP:BLP as a sports person because his results as a national competitor were disqualified. Krazytea ( talk ) 21:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Excuse me who are you? You spend 10 seconds on this matter without any discussion? I would like to appeal your actions. Where do I file the complaint? Krazytea ( talk ) 21:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * facepalm* I always wonder how it is so impossible to have a civil discussion on Wikipedia. It has been harder to have vandals warned for me then this short discussion have and I am really disappointed in your actions here. A.) This was the original source here from the belgian source page that is now no longer found as many news media sources no longer carry the page. This was the original link found on FIS World Snowboard Championships 2011 which is now a dead link. This is why there is no link on the article yet the same source remains on the page for the FIS Championships. Why? Unfortunately material of this matter of a mionr athlete that occurred 4 months after the reveals little and the only source at the time was from Belgium which celebrated the ascension of their athlete to bronze and yes it highlighted that Stone was banned for marijuana. Again I find your reactions on this matter a little overzealous and quite disappointing. The only thing worse then vandals are trigger happy "admins" such as yourself and I am disappointed in the lack of diplomacy on your part to a long standing member and editor such as myself. I would also appreciate a serious discussion on this matter. Thank you Krazytea ( talk ) 21:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A further discussion with the user who originally added the material but also be useful. Intoronto1125 (talk) Krazytea ( talk ) 21:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Who added the unsourced information first, Krazytea. I'll respond to the rest on your talk page.  Courcelles 21:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * responded. Courcelles 21:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Krazytea, let me try to explain here. While I (and I would assume Courcelles) appreciate that you may not have been the originator of the content on that article, we have extremely firm policies on citing content in biographies of living people. Really, really firm. So firm that BLP is one of the few exemptions to edit warring policy, even - if information is negative and unsourced in a biography of a living person, it can't be there. Period, end of story. It's unfortunate if sources existed but don't now, or if you know something to be true but can't source it, but the fact remains that negative content about a living person, if unsourced, is required to be removed, no ifs, ands, or buts. Especially if, as in this case, an OTRS ticket was filed protesting the unsourced content in question. This isn't a matter where we can even add a tag to the content. We must remove it on sight unless and until you or someone else can prove, with a reliable source, that that content is explictly true, and (in this case) show why the information needs to be mentioned such a short biography (my position would be that it's relevant to the biography that he's suspended/disqualified/whatever, but less so why).

The bottom line is that our BLP policy is extremely strict, and we're required to hold out for impeccable sourcing and, in cases of ambiguity, give the benefit of the doubt to the biography subject and leave out possibly-irrelevant information. Unless you can provide a reliable source and demonstrate why a two-line biography of an athlete must mention recreational drug use, the content is of no use to the article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a second source and I would appreciate if you would return my rights, good evening. Krazytea ( talk ) 04:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, then, honest question, why didn't you find that source and cite it, as policy requires, when you inserted the information into the article? Courcelles 04:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A search was made several times on my part for this article for which it was not found, I had the original source from the Belgium media cited by Intoronto, but had not added it at the time as I was hoping to find an English language source. This source took some looking for and the right keywords had to be found as Zach Stone aside from his silver medal was quite difficult to find. Unsure why there were not more immediately reachable sources available. Krazytea ( talk ) 04:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That and I just got back from work. You have to understand that I have never once added material that was not true to any page secondly the attention I pay to adding references especially from media sources that are readily available is most impeccable. I was a little unhappy that as someone who takes this quite seriously was not even given a few shakes to clarify the matter. I believe that wikipedia should speak the truth and the fact that a person would win a silver medal and be disqualified for a positive cannabis test was important to add. It would not have been reverted and an attempt to hide the fact would of be revisionist in my opinion. Krazytea ( talk ) 04:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You're convincing me more and more that you should not hold the autopatrolled flag, and that removing it was the completely right thing to do. Just so I understand, you knew the material was negative (this part is obvious), and the only source you had was from Belgium. Unable to find an English source, you decided to accuse someone of a criminal offence in their biography with no source at all?  Our policy on the biographies of living persons is not negotiable, and every thing you did leading up to the flag's removal was a clear violation of it.  There's an important essay, Verifiability, not truth.  That something is true doesn't really matter if it is not cited, without a clear citation to a reliable source, negative material may never be inserted into, or especially put back into, a biography. Being stripped of a silver medal at the world championships?  I agree, that's suitable material for inclusion in his biography.  Perhaps even why.  But none of it can be there until there was a reliable source next to it, because that's the requirement of BLP policy. Courcelles 04:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A.) "you knew the material was negative" the material was to state why he no longer held the silver medal. having an article that cites a person won a silver medal at a world championships but when you go to the official world championship page and the wiki pages it shows that he no longer won the silver medal was misinformation. the material was included to inform the reader of why it was removed.


 * B.) nobody was accused of a criminal offence, it is not criminally illegal to have tested positive for cannabis than it is to test positive for steroids. however under the laws of the FIS testing positive for these substances would negate your results and would subject you to a ban under the sporting federation based on the substance and type of violation. accusing me on the basis that "i decided to accuse someone of a criminal offence in a clear violation of it" is entirely false. when questioned on it I added the nearest source signalling his disqualification from both the event and his profile page for his ban, at which point you revoked me with no warning or further inquiry after a single warning (which was not really required in my opinion), on my return from work I spent a good amount of time and found an additional source. These whole shenanigans could of been solved a lot earlier and with less antagonization by simply adding


 * C. "Being stripped of a silver medal at the world championships? I agree, that's suitable material for inclusion in his biography.  Perhaps even why." I would say especially why. Someone being suspended a year instantly raises more questions for the reader than answers.  But none of it can be there until there was a reliable source next to it, because that's the requirement of BLP policy. Which was done as the material was made available. ~ Cource
 * We must remove it on sight unless and until you or someone else can prove, with a reliable source, that that content is explicitly true, and (in this case) show why the information needs to be mentioned such a short biography (my position would be that it's relevant to the biography that he's suspended/disqualified/whatever, but less so why). ~fluffer. Which was shown and was explained why it was added.


 * listen i understand the people and stuff you have to deal with on a continual basis but the fact remains that you would have blocked me from editing based on a revert and a revert with what was deemed an unsuitable source. after 6,500+ edits and nearly four years of editing this one circumstance has come up without any of the questions fluffer asked were given a chance to be explained. its this kind of heavy handed response (and understandable I suppose) that scares editors AWAY from wikipedia. the fact you would of blocked me from editing only expands on this. in the opinion of this editor that is really quite ludicrous in addition to the falsehoods you are accusing me of and there is really nothing further to add on the matter. Krazytea</b> ( talk ) 17:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)