User talk:Courcelles/Archive 40
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Courcelles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Can you just let this category be until 2011? I created it in advance so that it's ready and available for use when the first blizzard of 2011 rolls in, and I don't think it would do much harm to let it sit until then. We know that it will be used within the first 3 months of 2011 (whether from blizzard or tornado outbreak), so it's not as if the category will be sitting empty on and on forever, and it's pointless to have it deleted now (whether empty or not) only to have it recreated in a month or two. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 04:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Some sort of reply to this, whether positive or negative, would be nice. I have the distinct feeling this message is being/was ignored since the ones below it were responded to. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 22:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- We do not keep empty categories around in thought that they might soon fill up, that is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Please refrain from ever creating a category unless you can immediately populate it with at least one article. Courcelles 04:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Request for "Account Creator" privilege to do Edit Notice work
Courcelles: I'm working with User:Jayen466 on some BLP issues in lists, and Jayan466 suggested that I contact you to obtain "Account Creator" privilege, so I could help with some EditNotices. I have read, and understand, Wikipedia:Account creator. My immediate goal is to assist Jayen466 with EditNotice work, and so the "account creation" aspect of the privilege is not relevant, but in any case, I give my assurances that it would not be abused in any way. Would you consider giving me that privilege? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Done. Let me know when you're done. Courcelles 04:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Request for information regarding inCOMMON Community Development's deletion.
I am contacting you to find out what were the reasons for deletion and any suggestions you may have for getting the page onto wikipedia. Thanks for your time. Smothersc (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InCOMMON Community Development for another week of discussion. There may be notability here, but you do have a COI with the article's subject. Oh, and I missed your original comment- comment on the AFD page directly, not on the talk page. AFD talk pages are used... as close to never as to be indistinguishable. Courcelles 04:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
SoftArtisans: Explanation for Deletion
Hello, I'm just curious to know the reason why SoftArtisans was deleted? I couldn't find one in the deletion log. I know it initially received a speedy delete tag, but I thought I'd taken care of the initial complaints and after notifying the flaggers on the proposed deletion page of my doing so, I received no further complaints or feedback. Did the initial complaints (promotional language and not enough notable references) still stand? Cdulaney (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Cdulaney
- It wasn't a speedy. The deletion log points to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SoftArtisans. In it's final form, the article was barely anything more than a description of the company's products, with no indication of why they are important. The article indicated little beyond that the company and its products exist. I can place the article somewhere in your userspace if you believe with further work you can rectify that. Courcelles 04:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I see. If you wouldn't mind moving it to my user space so I can give one final go at it, I'd be so greatful!
Cdulaney (talk) 9:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Cdulaney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.237.181.100 (talk)
Hi Courcelles. Please help me understand why Celler Scene was deleted without my being notified as the creator of the article. Why is it not notable? Can I retrieve the text and add it to the Celle article if it is not allowed to stand alone? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- As a contested proposed deletion, the page has been restored on request. The prodder ought to have notified you, actually. Courcelles 04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Courcelles. I've put it on my watchlist. If it gets prodded again and the consensus is against a separate article I will move the content to the Celle page. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Article you deleted
It looks as if you didn't read all the comments or you consider all ip addressees as unreliable opinions. There was a user UBOT16 that was intimidated by a RGTRAYNOR and caused him to withdraw his vote, others felt there was sufficient coverage (including me though I am too late to voice my opinions) and that engineers professional work with his musicians are relevant as a threshold for Wikipedia inclusion. There were individuals that just needed to see verification of the award nominations to vote keep and that was also proven on the thread but it looks like they had no time to vote. Maybe extend the nomination to delete article? I will open up an account on Wikipedia if you require me to. Thanks for your attention96.232.13.107 (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've deleted something like 15,000 pages. I'm going to need the title of the deleted page to have an intelligent conversation on this matter. Courcelles 04:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- The anon user might be referring to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Vinatea_(3rd_nomination). EdJohnston (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if that's the one at issue, the keep side there pretty much had no argument. We don't keep BLP's around that don't have the coverage necessary, and that one did not. Courcelles 13:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- The anon user might be referring to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Vinatea_(3rd_nomination). EdJohnston (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Read. Timestamp for the bot. 13:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether you can also blank User_talk:Javid1981 as it still contains a spam link at the top. I can blank it, but it will still be in the history. I understand that admins have better magic than us mere mortals and can make it totally disappear! Regards Velella Velella Talk 15:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing to do, just edited it out. If he wasn't a proven sock, I'd just give ti a day and delete the talk page, but... since he is, nothing else to do. Courcelles 15:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, missed the relisting + new comments, it was still linked from the "old discussions" page. I've reverted the closing. LFaraone 18:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Probably. Mathbot does it every few hours, but it hasn't touched it since 3am: [1]. LFaraone 18:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Logos of defunct companies
How can a logo of a defunct company not be in the public domain??? Weiterbewegung (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Images entering the public domain is a very complicated process tat varies by country, but in no case does it depend on whether the company is still in business or not. The copyright doesn't expire just because the author dies (though it may start a 50, 75 , or 100 year PMA clock), which is the closet analogy to a company going out of business. Courcelles 19:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello Courcelles, I noticed you closed all the discussions for all the articles listed above. I don't understand why you decided to relist Little Thatch, but not the others. As all of the above articles are related (they are all Grade 2 listed buildings in Round Maple), I would have thought it would have been better to relist them into one discussion, or if not to have merged them into Round Maple. Would the best solution not to undelete the other three articles and merge the discussions. Thankyou for your time. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 16:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- The Little Thatch discussion looks a bit different than the the others, or at least it did a few days ago. I absolutely despise batch nominations at AFD, they have a nasty tendency to produce horrible decisions regarding at least some of their included articles, so I would never merge discussions that were started separately. They just never work when you're discussing something nuanced where there may be something that distinguishes articles that appear similar. Courcelles 18:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- The Little Thatch discussion is no different to the others, it's just that the editers posting Keep didn't find the other discussions. Could we not relist them separatelly. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 16:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Also I think it makes more sence to keep the article's histiory rather than re-creating a redirect to Round Maple. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 15:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I see little point in having redirects of unlikely search terms to a highly obscure settlement. I am concerned that Crouch, Swale has a misaligned sense of perspective - these subjects are barely notable at a local level. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- But the redirects are plausible and I thought deletion is supposed to be used at last resort. There is clearly a solution here. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 21:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- You're proposing; and creating; redirects to a tiny village that are no more plausible than redirecting the street address of my house to my city would be. This sea of redirects does little but clutter the search box. Courcelles 22:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- But the redirects are plausible and I thought deletion is supposed to be used at last resort. There is clearly a solution here. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 21:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- I see little point in having redirects of unlikely search terms to a highly obscure settlement. I am concerned that Crouch, Swale has a misaligned sense of perspective - these subjects are barely notable at a local level. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Also I think it makes more sence to keep the article's histiory rather than re-creating a redirect to Round Maple. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 15:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- The Little Thatch discussion is no different to the others, it's just that the editers posting Keep didn't find the other discussions. Could we not relist them separatelly. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 16:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Administrative action on Political prisoner
Hello. As you recently semi-protected Political prisoner, I'm letting you know that I just gave warnings to the two established editors over their reverts.
I had chosen not to semi the page as this was to me essentially a content issue, and I felt that protection would give one set of editors advantage. Which it did. The SPAs were using the talk page (poorly) and providing sources (again, not good ones, but) and I'd rather have had everyone demonstrate good collaborative editing to reward the effort rather than have them locked out of discussion and shown that established editors can just force their way. Which is what that IP now thinks.
But I'm rambling, sorry.
brenneman 04:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- The SPA's were tarring and feathering numerous BLP's with a controversial label, pushing a WP:FRINGE view. You just don't label a BLP as anything controversial without an ironclad source, and nothing being presented was any better than opinion "journalism". I considered the reverts the established users were making to be fully complaint with the BLP exemption to the 3RR, "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)"(emphasis mine). Seeing as how you've agreed here and on the talk page that the material was poorly sourced, what is the issue? Also note the protection is far longer than the period it will take these users to reach autoconfirmed. Courcelles 10:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ahhh... I'm not sure if we're having the same conversation? The article Political prisoner is not a biography of a living person? And I'm sorry to say I don't understand your point about autoconfirmed at all. - brenneman 10:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, but the claims the SPA's were putting into the article were about living people. BLP policy does not apply just on articles that are actual biographies; BLP impacts just about every article that is not historical or about fictional subjects. Autoconfirmed- the ability to edit through semi protection- takes ten edits and four days. The protection is a month. Therefore, the protection won't stop this crop of SPA's, just slow them down enough to hopefully have a read through our relevant policies of verifiability and BLP. Courcelles 10:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, that's what you meant. I find jargon and acronyms quite difficult to parse out, so forgive me if your meaning took a while to get through to me.
- In particular, I'm still not sure why you're telling me this with respect to the "living person's" hot button? I have warned the editors over failure to use the talk page when making repeated identical edits, and for using inaccurate edit summaries. These aren't optional. If asked, I'll dig up ArbCom rulings.
- I'm surprised that we're having this long discussion, and I'm still not feeling like we're having the same discussion. For example, I know what autoconfirmed is I'm just not understanding why you felt the need to tell me about it? I way more concerned about making the more established editors understand why the way they handled this was slightly sub-optimal.
- Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Are you telling me that you can't see how applying labels to living people without absolutely perfect sourcing is a BLP violation? Especially derogatory ones like "political prisoner". The established users behaviour wasn't perfect, but it was within the letter of the 3RR. No, somehow we're not having the same conversation; you appear to have decided that the established users were in the wrong here. I'm noticing you've just returned from a nearly two-year break; I don't think you understand just how seriously and rigorously BLP policy is enforced these days. And, after looking, I see User:Bidgee and User:Stepopen were indeed using the talk page before and after the protection. For you to have threatened these users with a block for enforcing BLP standards is quite inexplicable. Courcelles 11:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Argh, I'm about to back away slowly. Since when is "political prisoner" derogatory? Waving the "BLP" flag does not trump all other expectations that are placed upon editors. And yes, using the talk page to say that they would continue the same behaviors. But I think that this conversation has well and truly outlived the point where it is productive, but I don't have to get the last word or anything, and thank you for being so courteous.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Argh, I'm about to back away slowly. Since when is "political prisoner" derogatory? Waving the "BLP" flag does not trump all other expectations that are placed upon editors. And yes, using the talk page to say that they would continue the same behaviors. But I think that this conversation has well and truly outlived the point where it is productive, but I don't have to get the last word or anything, and thank you for being so courteous.
- Are you telling me that you can't see how applying labels to living people without absolutely perfect sourcing is a BLP violation? Especially derogatory ones like "political prisoner". The established users behaviour wasn't perfect, but it was within the letter of the 3RR. No, somehow we're not having the same conversation; you appear to have decided that the established users were in the wrong here. I'm noticing you've just returned from a nearly two-year break; I don't think you understand just how seriously and rigorously BLP policy is enforced these days. And, after looking, I see User:Bidgee and User:Stepopen were indeed using the talk page before and after the protection. For you to have threatened these users with a block for enforcing BLP standards is quite inexplicable. Courcelles 11:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, but the claims the SPA's were putting into the article were about living people. BLP policy does not apply just on articles that are actual biographies; BLP impacts just about every article that is not historical or about fictional subjects. Autoconfirmed- the ability to edit through semi protection- takes ten edits and four days. The protection is a month. Therefore, the protection won't stop this crop of SPA's, just slow them down enough to hopefully have a read through our relevant policies of verifiability and BLP. Courcelles 10:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ahhh... I'm not sure if we're having the same conversation? The article Political prisoner is not a biography of a living person? And I'm sorry to say I don't understand your point about autoconfirmed at all. - brenneman 10:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Warning: Vandalism
Courcelles, there is vandalism in the Yo gabba gabba! page. The vandalism name is "MY NAME IS ARTHUR" in the edit box. 74.12.126.46 (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. That article is getting hit fairly hard, so I've given it a period of semi-protection. Courcelles 13:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Good news.
Good. I'll keep looking for vandalized pages. I'll let you know which page is vandalized. 74.12.126.46 (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted article: Rollovers as Business Start-Ups
Concern was: no evidence of notability within the USA and of about zero notability elsewhere)
I recall posting on the talk page, after the article was nominated for PROD, that the article was definitely a notable article in the USA. The person nominating the article for deletion was in the UK, which would explain their unfamiliarity with the article due to it being the USA IRS agency, and not a UK agency.
The article is definitely notable in the USA because it addresses a topic millions of Americans may be exposed to if they used their retirement savings to invest in a start-up business, what the USA tax collection agency (the IRS) calls "Rollovers as Business Start-Ups".
I am sorry I was not timely in the talk time during the deletion discussion. I have been busy with the Christmas season.
I did not have the time after the PROD notice to research an international impact of the article topic. I can research articles on the impact of USA citizens using ROBS to invest in internationals buisiness ventires, if that will help restore the wikipedia article.
The article is definitely of notability in the USA. The source of the material for the article was from the USA IRS (tax agency) website: http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=231594,00.html I thought I had posted several newspaper references in the article. Since the article has been deleted, I can't recall how many I had posted.
The citation was the USA's IRS website, with has a Public domain copyright. The copyright notice can be found here: http://www.irs.gov/help/article/0,,id=152693,00.html "Copyright Notice Content on this web site that was created or maintained by Federal employees in the course of their duties is not subject to copyright and may be freely copied. "
Please advise what I would need to change or add to the article to make it noteworthy, and undeleted.DozenAttempts 19:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DozenAttempts (talk • contribs)
- I don't know if Rollovers as Business Start-Ups would have a chance at WP:AFD, but PROD's get restored on anyone's request, so I have restored the article. Courcelles 19:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)