User talk:Courcelles/Archive 87

Notice of 6 month Interaction ban between User:Haymaker and User:Roscelese
Important Notice These restrictions are agreed by the above named editors, and are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".


 * and, as the parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia, and editing any article to the effect of undoing or manifestly altering a contribution by the other party - except on the talk pages of the "involved administrators", Arbitration Committee Request/case pages where either (or both) are an involved party, Requests for Comment/User where either or both are a party, or similar pages where their comments are requested. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. The ban is indefinite, but for not less than 6 months - after which either party may request review or both may agree to request the lifting or suspension of the ban.
 * A relaxation of the restrictions may be agreed, at a neutral venue such as one of the involved admins talkpages, by the parties in regard to certain topics from time to time but otherwise the above restrictions apply.

Involved administrators are, , and who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

A copy of the above restrictions will be placed on the talkpages of both parties and WP:RESTRICT, and notices added to the talkpage of each "involved administrator".

LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC) on behalf of the involved administrators.
 * Noted, thanks for handling the paperwork. Everyone involved's talk pages are on my watchlist now. Courcelles 15:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Help??
Hello Courcelles !! I need your help in this revert ... I've reverted this edit as unexplained data entry.. and s/he reverted the data again claiming that '' "HkCaGu's revert was also unexplained, so why didn't you revert his edit but you reverted mine?" '' ( you can watch conversation here..If I'm wrong please let me know... thank you !!!  Roh G ??   &middot; &#32; 07:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've warned 7D HMS for edit warring, as that's what he's doing. If he reverts again, I'll block him.  (This is done explicitly without taking a position on the actual dispute, but with 3 reverts already, one more from him will cross the 3RR.)  You should be careful yourself, as you're getting within sniffing range of 3RR, though you're not as close as 7D HMS. Courcelles 08:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah! I've reverted it as unexplained removal/revert and if I have any queries regarding 3rr I'll post here. Thanks for your advice...Regards  Roh G ??   &middot; &#32; 08:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I just added info to George's Humanitarian section - last para.
Hi, I was asked by The Enough Project to add the information about George and SSP. I edit Enough's wiki pages. As you can see, George works with John Prendergast, the co-founder of Enough. Let me know, please, if you have any questions. Many thanks, Nell --Jespah 00:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It sure looks like you're promoting some organisation there. Either way, why are you telling me this? Courcelles 06:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/Dan Brown (YouTube) (2nd nomination)
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the article was kept, but considering that the three initial supporters of deletion were unaware of the latter sources, I'm not sure this merited a "no consensus." I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It didn't merit a keep, either, even after the sources were brought out, we had someone that wasn't convinced, and another person who was very, very unsure about keeping. It's not like there's any functional difference between keep and no consensus, but there really was no solid consensus to keep. Courcelles 06:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mail
I'd like your opinion on something. - JuneGloom    Talk  15:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied. Courcelles 15:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Restore request
Could you please restore File:University of North Texas wordmark with lettermark.png, it was replaced by an image wth copyright that was uploaded at Commons. Thank you. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  02:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon closer inspection, that image is actually PD-text, so restored, and I hope someone will move it to Commons. Courcelles 12:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

poke.
You're clearly online, so if you don't mind.. sonia ♫ 08:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kokondō
I would like to request the undeletion of the Kokondo page. To address the concerns that this is an irrelevant or defunct martial art, this is indeed a legitimate marital art practiced at a number of schools nationwide. Official website is http://www.kokondo.org and is referenced in the article. I do not have a comprehensive list of dojos, but I know they at least exist in Connecticut, Florida, Washington, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Idaho, Missouri, and Ohio. The reviewer who indicated that it was clustered around a city in Connecticut is incorrect. There are no notable competition successes from students because the art discourages competition and instead focuses on real-world self-defense. It was founded around 50 years ago, which I would argue doesn't qualify as a recent splinter, and has been continuously practiced since. There are at least a dozen other websites on this art. See example links at http://www.kokondomartialarts.com/links.htm.

I apologize that I am not a terribly proficient user of Wikipedia and it has taken a lot of poking around just to figure out how to make this request, but if there are ways the page can be improved to prevent future deletion, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.66.77 (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jeannette Sears
Hi, note that her husband is Pete Sears, not Peter Sears. One of the two voters referred to the incorrect target article for the merge. I've corrected the merge templates, but don't wish to modify your closing statement. Would you be so kind as to do so? Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, embarrassing of me! Thanks, and fixed. Courcelles 05:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

SPI
As you're around now, could you take a look at the Bugnot SPI? It's a monumental CCI clean-up, and now socks are back creating the same problem, would rather nip it in the bud. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, since I can't sleep, you get a CU. ;)  Results on the SPI. Courcelles 08:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, almost every open CCI related to WP:India now has a set of socks. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A sockmaster experience
Hello sir. Sorry for hoping in like this, but I'm just not familiar much about the proper procedures. This SPI is currently closed, so do I need to dig more evidence to get more attention? The point is that the alleged sockmaster has plenty of experience, so I'm sure he's taking good care of hiding his tracks. I don't think it's possible for a newcorner, Irvinga04, to have a totally organized 63k article on his userpage as his first draft. Especially that the same article was previously created by Misconceptions2's sock. What do you think I should do? No template, please. Thanks... ~AdvertAdam 23:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no technical connection between the three accounts. And that's all the checkuser tool can tell us.  Checkuser can't tell us who was actually sitting at the computer.  I'll decline to go further under WP:BEANS into the technical limitations of CU.  CU, however, does not prove innocence, so an admin may still block if you make a compelling enough case.  Courcelles 08:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair enough. Thanks for the info :) ~AdvertAdam 09:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.135.86 (talk)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Cuenca
(Note: I just cut and pasted this from Archive 86)

Hi there. I understand completely why the article on Isaac Cuenca was deleted, however since he's going to qualify rather soon (when the player strike ends), I'd like to inquire on when and how to get it restored when he plays his first game (I'm not even going to ask about userfication, since I read your notice). Would I just hop onto the IRC and ask you to put it back, or is more of a process needed since it was an AfD?

 S ven M anguard  Wha?  08:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If he plays at a sufficient level, and you can source it, just flag me down on IRC, I'll be around most of the weekend. If I'm not, and given the reasons for deletion, let any other admin know, they can restore it. (Just link them to this edit, as reverting an AFD close like this isn't normal practice, but we hardly need a DRV here) Courcelles 20:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The 'worst case' scenario appears to have happened; Cuenca now meets the threshold, so someone built a new article for him under the old name, making simple restoration impossible. What are your thoughts on how to proceed?  S ven M anguard   Wha?  08:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No big deal, I'll just restore the old history under the new, so you can merge in anything from the old you think is warranted. Courcelles 08:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

bs"d u deleted my pic of r' noygershel saying there's a copyright prob. well i have HIS consent. the person IN the pic HIMSELF so stop deleting it and if i need to change something in the info that i've put in let me know otherwise DON'T MESS WITH A JEW! especially a RAGING BULL jewish person... — Preceding unsigned comment added by חיים.ט (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are we discussing this here and not on Commons or hewiki? You uploaded an image, with a link that claimed "all rights reserved".  If that is not correct, the licence on Flickr needs to be changed, or permission sent to Commons:Commons:OTRS.  Without either of those being done, we are required to treat it as a copyright violation.  Also, in copyright law, the rights to the photo belong to the photographer, not the subject, so you may well not have suitable permission to use the image. Courcelles 06:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Cloud Engineering" page
Deletion record: 23:57, 30 July 2011 Courcelles (talk | contribs) deleted "Cloud Engineering" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)

The "Cloud engineering" page was restored a few weeks ago after contest. Please undelete this page "Cloud Engineering", which is a redirect to facilitate users' search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.218.40 (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Cloud engineering? Frank  &#124;  talk  00:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he really did mean "Engineering", and was wanting the redirect that I G8'ed put back. Done, though it's fairly useless. Courcelles 06:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrator Assistance Needed
Since you are an administrator who has previously provided assistance to me, I would like to ask you about how to respond to some questionable comments posted at Talk:Nassau County Police Department by a new user User:Pdjn1234 in which he/she is attempting to file a complaint with the the Nassaua County Police Department through the article talk page despite Wikipedia's lack of affiliation with the police other than creating that article. I am not sure which Wikipedia policies and procedures are applicable to my question, or which noticeboard to ask for assistance in responding to the user's comments, but any assistance you can provide would be most appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed it, and left him a note. Courcelles 20:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Anna Kournikova
Please attempt a more constructive edit of Anna Kournikova. You removed a lot of content that should be WP:PRESERVEd.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You restored a copyright violation, I'm stunned a tenured editor like yourself would do such a thing. I could have justified removing that crap under WP:BLP, too. Some random poker commentator takes a shot at a tennis player?  And this needs to be reported in an encyclopaedia?  No chance. It's even worse that such a "commentator" didn't even get his facts straight, Kournikova won two Grand Slam titles in her career, making the shot utterly ridiculous.  Even if it wasn't a straight copvio, it would have no place there.  Courcelles 12:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be reading the source and considering the encyclopedic content. Please meet me at Talk:Anna Kournikova.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have done a partial revert. Please commment there not here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please come discuss on the talk page so we can avert an edit war. I have stated reasons why I intend to do a full revert unless you express objection to them in say your next 200 edits or so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming by to hash this out. I have responded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have acknowledged that she had 2 grand slam wins, but that they don't really count in this regard, you have not acknowledged that this nickname has a 13.7 million g-test and insist it is minor cruft. Since you have not responded and I expect you will ignore the 13.7 million g-test, I propose a formal WP:RFC. Any thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like mountains out of a molehill for a formal RFC here! You've been here long enough to know what g-hits means ... zilch. WP:GHITS.  Everyone that closes AFD's knows how much weight any argument that rests on the google test deserves, almost none, because you're searching non-reliable sources. And then asking for advertisement in the Signpost of this little discussion?  Tony, you're taking this thing, this very minor insignificant thing, and treating it as if it were the Ireland naming dispute. Every last one of your arguments has been a classic "argument to avoid".  As to "not responded"  It's been 12 hours, for pete's sake. En is not the only project I deal with here, and the WM projects are not the only thing I do on a Friday.  Things do not happen around here in real time, discussions often take days between rounds.  Things get missed on a 4,000 item watchlist with over 500 edits just for yesterday. A more reasonable solution would be to ask for a third opinion at WT:TENNIS, not try to start a site-wide issue via the signpost.  (And your request for the signpost was anything but neutral. Courcelles 05:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please help me count the number of foreign languages that the Anna Kournikova poker Google books search yields.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just don't think relying on a WikiProject is appropriate for this type of subject. We are talking about one of if not the most googled person in the history of Google. We should get broad opinions on the content of her article. Let's do an RFC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You know what, have it your way. I'm leaving town tomorrow, and will be out of commission next week, and I don't feel like spending my weekend talking with a vexatious litigant and argue this down. Your arguments are classic arguments to avoid, the problem is I just don't really give a damn at this point. I'm unwatching this mess, two sentences aren't worth this level of disharmony and time sink.  You obviously care a lot more than I do, and it's just not worth my time.  Just rewrite it before you put it back in to get rid of the close paraphrasing issues! Courcelles 06:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)