User talk:Courcelles/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Carl Johann Freudenberg

{{Carl Johann Freudenberg }} This was an orphaned image which was uploaded by me. It was deleted. I would like you to undo the delete as I need to use the image now in my article. I have tried again uploading it but I am getting an error message. Please help --Shonkho 06:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, for our convenience, the correct link is File:Carl Johann Freudenberg.png, not the template namespace link above. Second, this can be done very easily. One question first- what is the source of the file? (That is why it was deleted, because it sat for a week with no source information. Though it will also have to be used in an article, and have a fair-use rationale written to remain, it cannot be restored without the source known.)) Courcelles 16:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense :) The source of the file is Freudenberg IT website. Here is the link http://www.freudenberg-it.com/en/unternehmensgruppe/. Mr Carl Johann Freudenberg is the founder of Freudenberg Group over 160 years ago. The article is Freudenberg IT --Shonkho 14:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. For procedural purposes- so it won't fall it through the cracks, I've retagged it for deletion a week from today if matters are not fixed. When you fix things, please remove the {{di-no source|date=1 January 2011|non-free=yes}} tag. Courcelles 19:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have made the changes & have included the source information. Would request you to review the same if you find time. Thanks & Happy new Year :) --Shonkho 04:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Transformers: Timelines

I just added a magazine source that did a COVER STORY on the line, and you deleted less than 5 minutes later - before there was a chance for anyone to provide feedback. Can you see if people like this source? Mathewignash (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No. First, you took this to DRV giving me all of three minutes to respond. Never mind I went to watch the game, so you kind of cut me off at the knees there, a breach of etiquette. Since it is there we'll let that forum decide, since you seem determined to take any result that doesn't go your way there. Second, trying to save an article by linking to a fan site isn't something likely to work well. Have you read this source? Or has it just been read by folks who are on a mission to promote this product line in some forum? Courcelles 02:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to offend. I thought you cut me by closing the review 4 minutes after i added the source, so we are even. I read the site and ordered the magazine on ebay. Hopefully I'll have it soon. Mathewignash (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I was a little abrupt, sorry. We do seem to be on a cycle with this article, so let's let the DRV run and see if this article can find some closure one way or another. Courcelles 04:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the main objection to the article as it stands is a lack of notable sources, I'd think I was in the right to at least try to get more sources for the article. I don't want to war with anyone, I want to make the article have enough sources that people will endorse keeping it. If it's okay I'll keep finding sources, and hopefully it will be enough for people. Mathewignash (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ergun Caner

Hey Courcelles, I think there's a little bit more there than edit warring over one little thing--the editor's history shows that unexplained, complete blanking is their MO. You can also see in the history that I've looked at and deleted a bunch of totally unacceptable stuff--but such deletions, in my opinion, have to be accompanied by an explanation and should not lead to an almost complete blanking of the article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've replied at the AIV as well. All the best,--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 05:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course the problems kept happening! When you just rolled him back so many times without a word of personal explanation, what did you really expect? This could have been averted so many times with something that wasn't a template, yet no one ever really tried. A good bit of the stuff I saw removed needed to go, and yet rollback was used to keep it in, including links to a website set up to defame this person. This whole incident was frankly unbelievable. Sometimes the best approach really is to start over, and this thing was bad enough this is a perfect candidate for that treatment. Courcelles 05:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Your right....perhaps a direct approach rather than revert-report is a better idea. With that in mind, would WP:AGF apply here in light of the editor's actions?--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 05:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've responded at AIV again...--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 06:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There were no edit summaries, no explanations, not even the barest of attempts to communicate. I did leave a non-templated note on the editor's talk page, and while they were blanking, I looked at the article and its sources, which was made almost impossible since every time I looked at a reference the information was deleted by the time I got back to the article. You have noted, I hope, that every time I did get a chance to verify the information and the claims made in the article, I removed improperly verified and derogatory information. But such rapid blankings make normal editing impossible. If you want to remove rollback for those edits, fine, that's your call. Just about everything you say content-wise is correct (though in my opinion uncommunicative editing and blanking in such a disruptive manner constitutes vandalism), but if the editor had given us even a moment's worth of explanation there would have been no escalation--but White Shadows and I were only the last in line here, since ClueBot and one other editor preceded us. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said on WS's talk page, I'm not going to mess with user rights over this incident. It was messy, and no one handled things exactly right, not you, not WS, not Jbolsec, and not me either. We can all learn from this one. Courcelles 06:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What a happy ending. I'll be more careful in the future when using huggle.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 06:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Trout, anyone?

Let us all have a bite of this tasty fish then and move on. The next problem, though, is what to do when the protection clock runs out (whether artificially or not). I've started a note on the talk page, but the recent history (not the last 50 or so edits, but the ones just before) shows that this is a tendentious article, involving many editors. If JBolsec remains incommunicado, and/or if the anti-Caner folks remain active, this problem is not going to go away. Drmies (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I could not care less about Ergun Caner or his article. I have no clue who he is nor want to know. I only acted after viewing the page for about 15 seconds and saw that there was a past history. I'll be moving on with my life now, learning a valuable lesson from this encounter though.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 06:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's my gameplan, as best as I can sketch it out tonight. First, this BLP minefield will go on indef semi after the full protection expires. Clearly there's enough going on in the history that letting every IP and sock in here is just not working, we all saw the unacceptable versions that were produced. Second... well, this looks as if it should be covered, so someone needs to try to write a version using real sources. Then, if that gets removed, things change. Courcelles 07:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Courcelles, how about this--User:Drmies/caner? I believe all the sources count as RS; I believe it is pretty neutral even in its incompleteness (though I admit that a defense of Caner is possibly missing); I believe it does not have excessive detail. Sure it needs to be expanded--certainly the lead needs expansion (but I'm pretty tired of this guy and of summarizing and organizing newspaper articles--I hate biographies!). Oh, I copied the books and the ELs from the original, but removed a few of the links that I deemed not reliable. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There we go! Fair, balanced, and not an attack site in sight. Great work. Courcelles 00:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but if my friends see that I'm accused of being "fair and balanced" I might lose my Party membership. I saw the version proposed on the talk page, by the way. What's next? Do I paste the entire thing on the talk page with a request to have it pasted into the article? Or do I wait for God to pronounce a verdict on the talk page version? Who is God, in this case? Drmies (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

God might just be KrakatoaKatie ;) Yeah, posting a second version on the talk page would work, but I think what you have done, linking to your sandbox is actually optimal... I will just now go over there and correct your link. Courcelles 07:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

LIDIA VIANU

2 January 2011, 14:22 h Happy New Year! before everything else... I am writing to you as the consequence of a particularly vicious message I receieved yesterday morning - from one of the deleters, apparently.

The message is included below, and - since you probably do not know Romanian - I shall take the liberty of putting it in English for you, if I may. I feel I am being discriminated against on grounds that I am Romanian - and, on top of that, the discriminator is a proud Romanian himself. There is one more reason for discrimination, which I am aware of, but will refrain from naming it till I have proof of that.

I must add that my books are being used as External Links in at least 10 entries in Wikipedia - which proves they are reliabale enough, I expect.

Lidia Vianu

Prof. Dr. LIDIA VIANU, Professor of Contemporary British Literature, English Department, Bucharest University Director of the online publishing house Editura pentru Literatura Contemporana/Contemporary Literature Press, http://mttlc.ro Director of the online translation review Translation Cafe, http://revista.mttlc.ro/ Director of the MA Programme for the Translation of the Contemporary Literary Text, http://mttlc.ro Website: http://lidiavianu.scriptmania.com

THE MESSAGE I RECEIVED: On Sat, 1/1/11, Chris S. <redacted> wrote:

From: Chris S. <redacted> Subject: Biografia de pe Wikipedia To: <redacted> Date: Saturday, January 1, 2011, 3:16 AM

Stimata Doamna Vianu, / Mrs Vianu,

Ei, am avut un moment de panica cand unul a zis sa fie pastrata biografia dvs. de pe Wikipedia in engleza, dar a trecut / Well, I panicked for a minute there when one person said your biography should be kept on English Wikipedia, but it's over now: a fost stearsa dupa o discutie pentru a doua oara, ca sa nu zicem nimic de cele patru ori cand a fost stearsa automat./ it was deleted after discussion, for the second time, to say nothing of the four times it was deleted automatically. Ha ha! / Ha! Ha! Oare va potoliti acum, sau iar incepeti cu autopromovarea? / Have you had enough at last, or will you begin self-promoting again?

Oricum, la multi ani! /Happy New Year anyway!

Cu respect, / Respectfully Cristian Sinescu — Preceding lidiavianu comment added by Lidiavianu (talk • contribs) 12:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There's very little I can do about this- I'm thinking a checkuser would be helpful to examine e-mail logs, but I'm really not sure. Which account sent you this e-mail? Courcelles 00:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. Here is his address, as shown in the message he sent:

Chris S." <redacted, Courcelles 13:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)>

Would it be possible for you to take a look at the entry and let me know the reason why it was deleted? I am a philologist. My computer knowledge has everything to do with my profession and no more. I am not over-proud. I can live without many things, and I do have a sense of humour. But I feel the decision was not based on content... Thanks again, Lidia lidiavianu —Preceding undated comment added 08:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

Hello again, Lidia. The e-mail is going to have to be investigated by a Checkuser, please contact functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org. Despite the title of "administrator" here, I don't have access to much more information than anyone else does- deleted pages are about it. Now, as to the article, since there's no way to discuss something I can see and that you can't, I've moved the article to User:Lidiavianu/Lidia Vianu for now so we can examine it. It was deleted by discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lidia Vianu (2nd nomination). Here's what the situation boils down too- I think there's actually a decent enough chance that you are notable enough for an article here; the big problem is the sourcing, it just wasn't presented in the article. What we need are sources that you don't have any involvement with, that discuss you in depth. Making matters more difficult is that such sources are mostly going to be in Romanian, which is not a common language among English Wikipedia users. Courcelles 13:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again. I see what you mean. I do have a long list of places (English and American - so all in English) where my books are, my essays, bios of me as a contributor, editor, prize-winner, etc. But I am not supposed to do that mysef - so how do I go about it? I can send a list - if you could have a look, and, if I don't qualify, it won't be the end of the world. I'll have tried, anyway. And I'll have annihilated this feeling that we still have fanatics around us, who can discriminate... If I am any good as a professor, it is because I feel all my students are my equals and respect them thoroughly. It was a really depressing experience, I must say. Best, Lidia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidiavianu (talk • contribs) 15:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Unprotection request

Ergun Caner did need protection, but not before restoring the version previous to vandalisms (i.e. this one). By protecting the current version, you have, involuntarily I assume, convalidated a vandal and possible socketpuppet (Jbolsec) who repetedly blanked large portions of the page. Among other things that have been completely erased are: references like Washington Post, [Liberty Students News http://www.libertystudentnews.com/?p=520] (yes, this is a valid source indeed, and it's just reproducing the University's official statement), Baptist page SBC Today and Q&A section of Ergun Caner's official webpage. You have maintained the sites I added in defense of Caner, but supressed the criticism ones, so now Caner looks like defended against nothing. Not only the references, but the very fact that officially drove to his demotion as dean (anounced by Liberty University), has been suppressed. Even Caner's statements about his own place of birth, and his own explanations have been deleted, along with Liberty University's statement. With the current text you can't even know where this person was born or claims to have been born. I urge you to restore the last version previous to vandalisms (i.e. [1]). From there, we should discuss the sources. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• This discussion really should take place on the article talk page--but let me note that the version you refer to, this one, is completely unacceptable. I don't agree with Jbolsec's way of editing, but they had a point: the info in the article was derogatory and in some cases based on ridiculous sources (that "fakeexmuslim" site, for instance). Courcelles, maybe you'd like to copy all of this to the article talk so that we can have one central discussion that does not suggest a focus on an individual administrator. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • See this. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
    • There is not any "Jbolsec's way of editing". Jbolsec is a vandal and should've been blocked. He doesn't have any activity in Wikipedia except for repeatedly blanking a single page, and was correctly spotted as a vandal by an anti-vandal bot. His vandalism was convalidated by protecting his version. This is the right place to discuss it, because it envolves the use of admin privileges. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Are you really defending a version with citations to fakeexmuslims.com? Jbolsec was not a vandal- very uncommunicative, but in absolutely no way were their edits vandalism, which is defined as a bad-faith attempt to damage Wikipedia. If this is how you believe BLP's should be edited, with citations to flagrant attack sites, then you really need to re-read WP:BLP or face a very short career here, because that is an insane BLP violation. All Jbolsec did was draw some attention to an abhorrent article, good for him. Courcelles 00:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
        • • • • • • My career here is longer than yours I think (2005) so don't worry. When a citation is wrong, you remove it instead of blanking most of a page, and there are templates for "Verification needed", "citation needed" and so on. I understand your pain, believe me, but what can I do? What Mr. Caner did is abhorrent indeed, that's the correct word. And I'm not a Baptist, otherwise I do think I'd be plain furious. I do have a reasonable command of Arabic, so the "mowtara" things made me LOL (I tried to find out if it was Turkish, but we have many Turkish speakers in Wikipedia, ask anyone of them and see). But I do suffer for the feelings of many persons who have been literally scammed. Nothing of this is in my project. I promise I won't write in an article that Caner is a blatant, unrepentant liar, that's what I believe but I'll keep transcribing impersonal newspaper notes, even when they sound edulcorated. I have supressed all Muslim sources in my project and tried to favour Christian, particullarly Baptist ones, but that's even worse for Mr. Caner: Muslims are too interested in the religious aspects of the discussion, while Christians focus on Mr. Caner's lies! --Filius Rosadis (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)