User talk:Courcelles/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Reconfirmation diff to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe

Hello. This is a message to inform you that your name has been removed from from the list of Wikipedia Signpost subscribers. Do not worry; this is simply a method of reforming the Signpost so that automated bots do not fill up retired users' talk pages with Signpost subscriptions (see discussion here) and to make life easier for the Signpost. If you wish to re-receive subscriptions, please send a reconfirmation edit to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe by signing with

1. MessageDeliveryBot [you can also use a user talk subpage (like
2. MessageDeliveryBot, replacing SUBPAGE with the subpage for the delivery), but this won't trigger your "New messages" bar.] Thank you for understanding.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of TeleComNasSprVen (talk) at 06:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

User talk:K.O.K Kev

This user has once again violated our fair use policies by uploading an image just for use outside of the article space, but this time the talk space. My two messages to him were met with extreme vitriol. Killiondude has blocked for half a day, but I'm not sure if this will solve anything. Would you mind telling him what he has done is wrong? He has made it clear that he will ignore me in the future.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I declare. I would have blocked for longer, but since it was done, all I can do is warn him again. Courcelles 22:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Chris Giles

Congratulations on deleting this page. Hope you feel better now. [[[Special:Contributions/92.251.245.125|92.251.245.125]] (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)]

I think you have the wrong page. Chris Giles has not been deleted, and as far as I can tell, never has been deleted. Courcelles 21:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: The "T" shortcuts

Just wanted to double check and get your thoughts on WP:R#DELETE, rule#6 and your decision after this discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_6#T:. I thought the pseudo-namespaces were an exception to Redirect deletions. Since the debate appears to be ongoing, does this mean that consensus has been reached?
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  08:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, main namespace to "Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal:" namespaces are exemptions to being speedied WP:R2, but are not exemptions to being deleted at RFD. Courcelles 13:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

My concern is for the possible broken links this deletion may have caused. For example, we're having a discussion right now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 15#T:AH, which is what brought me here to your Talk page. In this particular case, the shortcut had not been added to the /doc page of the target template. Nobody knew about it, so it went unused. That shortcut does have a "linked to" history, so those links will break if that template is deleted. If any of the ones you deleted had important history links going to them, they are now broken, as well as any {{shortcut}} links on their target pages. Have these links been repaired?

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  04:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

PS To be completely honest with you, Courcelles, I do have another concern, which has to do with the ongoing discussion about CNRs. That discussion is summarized here, and shows that present consensus is to hold on to the pseudo-namespace CNRs and to use them freely. So maybe ensuring they were all shown as shortcuts on their target pages would have been a better alternative to deleting them? If you agree, then perhaps you won't mind if I begin a Deletion Review to get them restored?

Check the links to redirect link at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 6. You'll find that only three or so of them have any links other than RFD, and the four total broken links are all in response to an RFA question, not in actual use. Citing an essay such as Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects as consensus is almost always a logical fallacy, and I really don't see how else the relevant RFD discussion could be closed. A nomination and two other deletes among three participants is always a delete close. Courcelles 15:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that your decision based upon the 3/3 delete inputs was good based upon the facts at hand. I'm just saying that more input might be needed to come to final choice. The recently added Keep at the above-referenced discussion might apply to more of these shortcuts. There might be one or two or more shortcuts in that group you deleted that are worth saving. Perhaps a deletion review would help determine which ones are no longer needed, and which are still good redirect shortcuts.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  18:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, take it to DRV, I don't mind. Though, how does the keep !vote referenced, "Keep—this is one of the few "T:" cross-namespace redirects I'd favor keeping," related to these other seven redirects? T:AH seems to be actually used, unlike the other seven. Courcelles 19:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

After reflection, it's better for me to respect your delete decision on these shortcuts. After all, if anybody really wants one back, all they have to do is recreate it. I don't use any of them, and apparently few or no others do, either. So here's wishing you the Happiest of holidays this season!

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

PS I do hope you get to feelin' better!

Peter T. King

I'm new to the BLP, looks to me as if its being tightly controled by Editors loyal to the Subject and that the request for full protection, done 3 minutes after the Requester made the page the way he wanted it, 16:07, 20 December 2010 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (Requesting full protection of Peter T. King. (TW)) 16:04, 20 December 2010 (diff | hist) Peter T. King (Undid revision 403364488 by 128.253.237.77 (talk)---Please discuss on talk page.)

Request for page protection was apparently part of that pov effort. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This was an edit war over a BLP. Controversial material always stays out of a BLP when it is disputed. Logging out to use an IP sockpuppet was an especially bad move; you discuss and then re-add the material when you have consensus, you do not get into a revert war. Tht gets pages locked or editors blocked. Courcelles 22:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you would say that but please feel free to use Wikipedia:CheckUser if you seriously are thinking I might be that Anon. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please attend to the request at Talk:Peter T. King#Page Protection Apparently for POV Retention when you get a chance? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't handle that. I protected the page, someone else should rule on editprotected requests. Courcelles 22:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Rather than posting here, Mr.Grantevans2, demanding an end to page protection, why don't you address the points raised at Talk:Peter T. King#Various edits reverted? As Courcelles has said contentious material always stays out of BLPs until there is consensus for inclusion. I would be happy to see the page unprotected, on the proviso that anyone adding controversial material against consensus be blocked. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

SoftArtisans Revision

Hi Courcelles, Thanks so much for letting me try for a rewrite. If you have a moment, would you mind telling me what you think of the revision? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cdulaney/SoftArtisans Cdulaney (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Cdulaney

Looks like good progress. I'd recommend a listing at WP:DRV for feedback and discussion towards a return to the articlespace. Courcelles 23:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! Cdulaney (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Cdulaney

Deletion review for User:Cdulaney/SoftArtisans

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Cdulaney/SoftArtisans. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cdulaney (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Cdulaney

Semi-protect request

Hello, it was suggested that I contact a protecting admin while I list an article for protection. The article was On the Run (novel series). Request here. Thanks, Glimmer721 ^talk 02:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

14 days semi. Courcelles 02:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

CIPSEA

Hi -- I had a perfect record, with no contributions deleted, till just now when I posted the redirect first before the content page. Is there a way for you to revert the deletion of CIPSEA? I'll accept any criticism but would love to have my clean record back. -- Econterms (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted edits are part of life on Wikipedia; I've never had any of my creations deleted, yet have nearly 3,000 of the things. So, don't expect this to be a record you'll keep for long. ;) That said, since the target now exists, redirect restored. Please don't create redirects before you write the article in the future, or the same thing will happen- several admins have a page bookmarked that shows broken redirects every 30 minutes. Courcelles 13:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Understood. Will do. Thank you. I recognize it won't last and can handle it.

Gentle opinion though: Thinking systemwide, it seems on net more costly to delete a broken redirect immediately after it appears than to just wait an hour to see if somebody's work in progress will rectify it. A rapid deletion like this of a redirect to which there are links can (a) create a new interpersonal interaction (since the deleted page instructed me unambiguously to write to you not just fix the problem), (b) leave broken links hanging around while participants sync up, and (c) prevent an enthusiast from completing a complex activity, and distract/worry them instead. So the cure may on average be worse than the diagnosed problem. (I can imagine an economic model of what threshhold of delay in deletion minimizes the overall time spent by readers, writers and admins ... that threshhold wouldn't be zero, regardless of any official speedy-del policy.) So perhaps the monitoring page/admins could highlight hour-old broken redirects, not every last one. All this is minor and I recognize that you are a world class expert in deletion issues. Econterms (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Peter T. King

Please consider semi protection. There was no 3RR nor much of an edit war except perhaps 1 edit by an Anon after obviously pov Editors,RepublicanJacobite and 303 , reverted RS content once each. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but before you go around making such unfounded accusations, you really should know what you are talking about. You are straying very close to making personal attacks here. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm not going to unprotect a BLP during a dispute. I'm not certain at all that you and User:128.253.237.77 aren't the same person, anyway. There needs to be a lot less trying to change the page as it sits at the moment, and a lot more discussion towards what the stable version of this content- if it goes in at all- is going to look like. Courcelles 23:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you would say that but please feel free to use Wikipedia:CheckUser if you seriously are thinking I might be that Anon. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, though you've probably seen it, this was raised and declined at RPP. GedUK  13:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know I extended the protection on the article one day to avoid having it expire when few editors would be available to monitor. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Makes good sense, that does. Courcelles 16:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Get well soon treat!

Get well soon, Courcelles. Hope you feel better. 74.12.126.46 (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC) (Thomas)

Thanks. Couldn't this have waited until after Christmas? Courcelles 17:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(sees wikiholic at work) I second the IP. You should get some rest and maybe chicken soup and not let Wiki addiction get the better of you. Try to get better...:)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The thing about being sick people forget when they're well... there's only so much lying down you can do. Well, actually, about as soon as I get comfortable, the dog decides he wants to go outside and comes and jumps on me. So, I'll see if I can get anything productive done before going back to bed. :| Thanks, guys. Courcelles 16:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

NerdyScienceDude has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Wiki-cookies always make people feel better. Hopefully this one brightens up your day. Get well soon. ~NerdyScienceDude 16:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Charles G. Koch

Thanks for protecting the page. Can I request that you please restore the NPOV tags that were improperly removed by edit-warring? WP:ANI agreed that the tags were appropriately placed. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#Drive-by_tagging_and_false_accusations_of_vandalism. THF (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't revert to one side's version in a dispute- that places the admin in the judge's chair to decide who "wins" the edit war, and that's a bad thing all the way around. Courcelles 03:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a tag that says there's a dispute. There was already consensus that Dylan shouldn't remove the tags. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#Drive-by_tagging_and_false_accusations_of_vandalism. The tag removal is especially problematic given that this is a BLP. THF (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding non-free image

I have a reply for you, on my talk page, here. Thanks.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

All good, someone has G7'ed it, I see. Courcelles 16:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Cristina Spinei

Hi. It would have been polite to notify me that you had proposed Christina Spineli for deletion. I agree that her notability is marginal, but she is a successful composer and musician and has won the following honors:

• Winner of the Juilliard orchestral composition contest
• Composition Award of the Arts Recognition and Talent Search
• Pia Gilbert Scholarship
• Marvin Hamlisch Scholarship in Composition
• Finalist for the Sackler Composition Prize
• Finalist Sundance Composers Lab

Could we re-open the discussion? Pkeets (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it, but I didn't propose it for deletion. User:Triads4ever did that. Anyway, it's moot. PROD's are restored on request, so, done. If you have more sources, I'd advise you add them fast, if another admin decided to A7 that article, I wouldn't really disagree with them. Courcelles 16:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! She a little tough to find material on, but I'll see what I can do. Pkeets (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)