User talk:Courcelles/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 → Archive 45

blp prod vs prod

You seem to have just deleted after 7 days a number of articles as expired prods, when they were actually BLP prods & should have waited for 10, but the BLP prod template had not been used, e.g. David Kerr (comedian). It's obviously the fault of the person using the wrong template, but we need to watch for it. This matters, because I and the few others who specialize in trying to source these articles normally wait till near the end, in the hope someone else will source at least some of them--and they do, sometimes. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that was a normal PROD, and a perfectly acceptable normal PROD. The article was created in May 2006, four years too old to be BLP prod eligible, which requires a creation date of (sometime) in Spring of 2010 or later. Courcelles 01:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
apologies, I missed the date, my only excuse is that I'm doing so many of them. I'll know to watch out for them, because in fact I think I could have sourced most of this batch. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Difference problem: Crash bandicoot (series)

At the Crash Bandicoot (Series) page, look at the differences between the past and the current revision. Whats the difference between (2008) and (2008-)? (Don't forget to warn me if (2008-) is vandalism!) 74.12.126.46 (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

2008 means in the year 2008. 2008– means from 2008 to the present day. Courcelles 19:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I get it. 74.12.126.46 (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Article: Peter Baldrachi

I am surprised, given the references I listed, his popularity in the genre of powerpop, and the fact that he has some pretty well known people playing on his next record, that this artist would be deleted. I only started doing this recently so maybe my page was not up to par with others, I would, however, suggest taking another look if at all possible. I hope my next pages on The Gladhands and The Beatifics don't face a similar fate. [User talk:powerpopgirl| talk ]]) 10:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerpopgirl (talk • contribs)

We had a deletion discussion, and after fourteen days, no one other than the nominator commented. I'll typically close these as delete, but will restore the article upon request, which seeing as you have now made, I have done. Anyone may start a fresh deletion discussion though, so if more sources are out there, I suggest you add them sooner rather than later. Courcelles 03:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Internationalsecurity.jpg

I requested that the file be deleted one week ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_December_12

Maybe I missed something in my description? I'm still learning. :-) Shoplifter (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you made one mistake... you sent something to an obscure deletion process ;) (No, you really were fine. However, a simple {{db-g7}} would have been much easier than sending it to FFD. Author requests deletion without other users making substantial contributions is one of the easiest speedy deletions to process. Courcelles 04:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for letting me know. Shoplifter (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Underneath the Stars listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Underneath the Stars. Since you had some involvement with the Underneath the Stars redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

File:RipOffReview.jpeg

Hi Corcelles, I won't be using this image in the article. It was suggested that I put them up individually, which I did. Please delete.Thank you!Thisandthem (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

G7'ed the image. Thanks. Courcelles 13:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism warning: User talk:Di3h4rd

Courcelles, the page in the title is vandalized by the main user. A user already blocked 2 other users and The main user keeps vandalizing the talk page. Is it possible to block the user for an extended period of time since the user is unblocked? 74.12.126.46 (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC) (Thomas)

Everyone involved was already indef blocked before I got there. Protected the talk page to prevent more sockpuppetry. Courcelles 14:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well good. I just want to see how big was the vandalism. 74.12.126.46 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Zamora (musician) now at (pianist)

Greetings! You protected Zamora (musician) as repeatedly recreated. Angel2021 (talk · contribs) has created a new article at Zamora (pianist). It doesn't look to be the same article that was last deleted as spam, and there's a new claim of notability (Grammy nomination), so I don't think A7 or G4 apply for speedy deletion. On the flip side, Angel2021 is probably another account created by Angelamuziotti (talk · contribs), who had been the proponent for the article during the most recent AfD. What's your take on the situation? —C.Fred (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think a single Grammy nomination is enough to keep the article around, but is might be just enough to avoid the G4. (That said, if someone hit the G4 button, I wouldn't complain) All that said, we seriously need an SPI into this mess; there is something rotten going on here with the socks; we see these folks every so often that won't give up until they finally manage to either get banned or get their article to stick. Courcelles 22:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned non-free image File:Viacom V of Doom logo.svg

Oh, that's okay. I already uploaded an EPS version of the logo at AllFreeLogo.com. :)
~~LDEJRuff~~(see what I have contributed) December 19, 2010, 22:15 (EDT)

It'll get deleted in a week if it doesn't get added back into any articles; and it can be undeleted after that if there is ever a need. (Or are you trying to say we can go right ahead and delete this now?) Courcelles 03:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Courcelles, please check the revision history of this article if someone is blanking the page. Warn me if its vandalism or if its proper clean up. 74.12.126.46 (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC) (Thomas) (Link)

I don't see anything untoward going on there. The article needs work, but that's par for the course around here. Courcelles 19:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Warning for the page, User talk:67.52.216.253

Hello, courcelles. The link in the title is vandalized. 74.12.126.46 (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC) (Thomas) (talk)

Yes, it has been. Did you know that you can revert the vandalism yourself? When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Courcelles 23:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles, I have reverted the vandalism. If he continues, you might me able to extend the block. But he's already blocked for 2 years. 74.12.126.46 (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Favor

If you see "the late" in the Katie and orbie article, warn me. But to see the vandalism easier, Check the current revision and the previous revision. 74.12.126.46 (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC) (Thomas)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Article: Novak Druce + Quigg LLP

"Spam. None of the references are to Independent Reliable Sources. "

The Novak Druce + Quigg LLP page was linked to multiple independent reliable sources reporting on activities of the firm, especially in regards to the firm's relationship with Oxford University and the infamous infringement case of NTP v. Research in Motion Limited (RIM) (both of which recieved extensive press coverage).

"Likely a non-notable law firm under our inclusion policy"

Many similar firms are included in Wikipedia including 'Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner' and 'Kenyon & Kenyon' are allowed in Wikipedia with fewer external links and references than our site provided.

Please advise as to how we can improve our page and why our references (third party publications) were not deemed independent reliable sources. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.148.121 (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the last sentence really shows the problem. We have a guideline on editing with a conflict of interest for just this exact reason. The problem is that you can't establish notability by putting a lot of external links in an article, the coverage has to be significant. Press releases never help matters. If you have intellectually independent sources, please, let's see them. (And, should we reach an impasse, deletion review is your final option.) Courcelles 19:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


Here are several intellectually independent sources:

Fish, Novak Druce Pick Up Darby & Darby Attys-Law 360

Emcore Infringes Avago Fiber Optics Patent: ITC

Ahead of the Herd-Sarah Barrell Talks to Alumnus Greg Novak, CEO of Novak Druce + Quigg, About Patent Prosecution and his Passion for Water Buffalo. Page 6.

ITC Bars Emcore From Selling Infringing Optoelectronics

Five Join Novak Druce After Stevens Davis Breakup

Novak Druce Opens New IP Office with Akerman Attys- Law 360

IP Today Top Patent Firms

IP Today Top Trademark Firms

WORLDleaders 2007

WORLDleaders 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.148.121 (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

And every last one of them is from the firm's own website. That's not independence. Courcelles 15:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

These are links to pdfs of articles by independent sources that are housed on the firm's page. Some of the articles require a login and password to read the entire text so I linked to the pdf instead of the webpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.4.188 (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

May I please have an update on the status of this request and if I can proceed with a deletion review? Thank you.

Nedzmin Kozlo

Sorry to be stroppy again, but did the irony not strike you that in removing backlinks to Nedzmin Kozlo because "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nedzmin Kozlo" had knocked off NK you were actually handling the evidence that "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nedzmin Kozlo" had found missing. The pictures show NK as a member of the (multiple) national championship winning team. That's not further sourced but of course that might just be because Bosnian volleyball supporters may not have the Wikipedia/internet savviness and resources that Americans are able to devote to eg Operation Big Bear. The relentless pursuit of unsourced/undersourced foreigners reminds me of the fundamental finding of the MacPherson Inquiry - that institutional processes carried out fairly and diligently by those working within the institution can yield biased outcomes which the individuals involved find difficult to recognise as such - the bias is structural, not locatedd within individuals. Your conscientiousness in carrying out this minor tidying up exercise is part of this unacknowledged "cleansing of the inadequates" that seems to be an inherent part of the way Wikipedia works. Opbeith (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay... if you can source the biography, it can always be brought back. In some ways your point is well taken, we are biased towards things from the Commonwealth and the US, because so many of us speak English and little else. The thing is, someone wrote the Nedzmin Kozlo article in 2008. A fair amount of info was there... yet where did that come from? Did they have English sources in front of them that we can't find now? Do they speak Bosnian? Was the entire thing written based off what they remembered? The best person to source things is the person that wrote it in the first place. Otherwise we may well end up where we did with Kozlo; deletion as an unsourced BLP. (Not that I'm convinced by any stretch that playing volleyball at any level lower than the Olympics/World Championships is notable. That athlete articles stick easier than most any other kind of BLP is another discussion entirely.) Courcelles 23:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately I only came across the Nedzmin Kozlo deletion because by chance I came across the Sanjin Bezdrob AfD (national team captain) and in finding a couple of references for him found that OK Kakanj was unreferenced (and the national league as well), found a hopefully prophylactic reference for that and while adding that bumped into your removal of the Kozlo links.
Kozlo's deletion roused my suspicions and led me to do some more investigation and find Almir Aganovic's AfD, where I spotted a purger I've come across before. In fact I've now had a message back from Wizardman reassuring me that there isn't a targeted purge going on, although the systemic issues remain.
Now that Kozlo's gone I can't tell who the article's originator was. However the major contributors at OK Kakanj who I guess are the prime candidates don't seem contactable. I haven't a clue what information was already in their or where it came from. As I'm sure you know, researching often means coming sideways at information, looking for what you know ought to be there. Unfortunately as I have Bosnian friends I know that quite often after bumping into conflict on Wikipedia they just give up. So I assume I will have to try and put together what I can find and come up with some sort of new stub when I can. Perhaps once I've done that you can see whether the blocked information tallies and leads anywhere else. I have only a recognition level of Bosnian myself and my contacts with Bosnian friends tend to be about more serious subjects than volleyball so it'll probably be limited to what I can dig up without much reliance on Bosnian sources.
I'm not desperately worried about the volleyball issue itself, though this episode has reminded me about volleyball at school and how it was actually one of the few sports I really enjoyed. But sport's a cultural phenomenon that's as deserving of a place in a comprehensive encyclopedia as anything, regardless of volleyball's relative popularity (and BiH's 72nd world ranking). And less prominent sports are often important in (usually less prosperous) countries where sport is as much a force for community cohesion as a commercial or political enterprise. So there's a wider danger of communicating the impression of "cultural denial" when any group of contributors is encouraged to feel disrespected. That should be an issue of sensitivity for Wikipedia, particularly given its dominance by nationals of countries whose awareness of their own experience of dealing with discrimination in its more and less obvious forms is not always evident. That's why I'm bothered about Bosnian volleyball however low it may be on the list of global priorities, even/particularly in Bosnia itself.Opbeith (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing BLP harmful in the article, so I'll quote it for you. "Nedzmin Kozlo is a Bosnian volleyball player.

With OK Kakanj he won for Premier League of Volleyball of Bosnia and Herzegovina 5 times (2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005), and National CUP of Bosnia and Herzegovina 5 times (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006).

He played as middle-blocker/hitter, Nedzmin played for OK Kakanj, Bosnia (1992-1995) (1997-2006)." Hopefully that'll help you sourcing it by knowing what you're looking for. Courcelles 13:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's pretty straightforward stuff, hopefully it shouldn't be too hard.Opbeith (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_41&oldid=1171650466"