User talk:Courcelles

Deleted Wikipedia entry

Dear Courcelles,

I am a chess fan and small contibutor to Wikipedia. A few months ago I made a major update to an article about a chess master and teacher who is very famous in my country, but because of different reasons, his Wikipedia page didn't exist and it has been deleted repeteadly. I was provided with a copy of the article in question which I reformatted and submitted for review. After that, the article was approved by Wikipedia contributors and put live on Wikipedia. Now, a few months later I received a message saying that since the article was previously deleted, it has been deleted again. My question is: Is there any way for this article to go Live again and who I may turn to, in order to request the article to be reviewed and reforematted even more if needed. Here is the link for the article in question - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeri_%22Tiger%22_Lilov. I am asking you, since you were the one who closed the 2nd deletion review and I hope you can help. Thank you for your time!

Sincerely,

Dejan Stoynov --Chesszorro (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesszorro (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

MfD backlog

Courcelles, thank you for dealing with massive backlog at MfD (especially with the numerous history merges that no admin wanted to deal with). I read your note at the top of your talk page about how you "have a tendency to forget what made this place fun" and about the "pesky articles". Would you consider copyediting/reviewing the pesky article have a nice day before I nominate it at GAN or FAC? Cunard (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not much of a copyeditor, but I'll have a read. Courcelles 10:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope you'll enjoy the article. Because several of your articles have passed at FAC, I hope you can provide advice as to whether there are any glaring problems with the article in terms of the FA criteria. Cunard (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of my stars were earned at FLC, actually. I've only got two FA's, and I'm not really certain I deserve either much credit for those, other than... well, long story. Courcelles 04:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you initiated Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/archive1, so you have more experience than I in FAC. I haven't started any FACs yet. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Oh, good lord. Courcelles 20:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

And, not content with that, he goes on after the FLRC is closed and does this. I'm sorry, that's just simply trolling now. I left a message for him at User talk:Jeepday#1936 medal winners. StrPby (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support, both at my first RfA and at this one. It means a lot to have that level of trust. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever want someone else to help whilst you're on admin-vacation please feel free to drop me a line! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Good luck, Panyd. Now, there's some huge admin backlogs... get to work! Courcelles 02:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion?

Hello.

I was wondering if I could get your opinion on this unjustified file deletion, as I noticed you were another administrator on the same page. I already asked for consideration from the administrator who deleted the image, but he declined my request without reason, and I opened a deletion review. I'm hoping to have the file restored at this time, based on the fact that it was carelessly deleted, it's not copyrighted in the US, and I'm using the appropriate trademark template for the image.

Any help would be appreciated. Editor182 (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do for you. I don't have any basis for ever overturning another admin's closure of a deletion discussion other than when I close something at deletion review. Since you're already at DRV, there's little to do for to wait a week and monitor the discussion. Courcelles 10:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought maybe you could add your opinion on the review board in favor of overturning the decision, rather than restoring the image yourself, and your opinion would be valuable for the outcome. It may be that you don't have an opinion at this time, but if you look at the archived discussion, and dispute, you can see that they don't have any valid claims to keep from restoring the file. There has been one administrator who has replied on the review board, and his responses have been beating around the bush, questioning little things which obviously don't need to be questioned, trying to create reasonable doubt, when in actual fact, there is extremely unreasonable doubt. Anyway, if that's all, then no problem. Thanks for the reply. Editor182 (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

See, what you've done is called WP:Canvassing... so even if I had an opinion, propriety would be against me giving it. Courcelles 12:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I just wanted the opinion of another administrator, end of story. I've also contacted the user who had taken part in the original archived discussion, but that's it. If you go to this admins talk page who removed the image, you will see a heated message that came in right after mine from another user who was upset about this administrators callous deletions of what was fair use contact, with no consideration for others or their work, and furthermore, he is not willing to listen to requests for reconsideration. I don't intend on contacting any other administrators or users, you were on the deletion page and I wanted your opinion, as this other administrators responses on the deletion review page have been utterly useless.

Tell me though, with this fancy "Canvassing" article you have, what do you call it when administration is reluctant to revert another administrators decisions because they don't want to upset other members of administration, even though they know they made a careless, wrong, unjustified decision? This administrator on the review board seems to be playing that game, instead of taking a stand for one decision or the other, and knowing that he doesn't have a leg to stand on if he wanted to make a decision to support the deletion of the image, he decides to sit on the bench, and attempts to create doubt, although no reasonable doubt exists. I thought perhaps I'd ask another administrator because they could be different, but maybe you should come up with a name and article for that kind of behavior from administration, you can call it whatever you like, but I'd say "propriety" has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't take a person with half a brain to see that this person is wrong for deleting the image, but nobody can stand up in administration and do what's right. When users have a dispute, the admins are there to shut it down based on the community consensus, but when an admin deletes an image or article without speaking to anyone first, well, no matter how wrong they are, good luck trying to get administrators to do anything for you. Go ahead and support the wrong decisions to keep peace within the team, but you're only hurting the articles at the end of the day. Editor182 (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to be pressing for my opinion, here it is. The deletion was valid. We don't keep things around that are questionable in copyright status; we quite literally follow a better safe that sorry policy. Take a look at File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg where we have explicit permission from the copyright holder to use the image... and we still take the care to provide a fair-use rationale. Copyright is one of those things we just don't take any chances on. Courcelles 10:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Back a few months ago (in August) you made a comment on my talk page about my second RfA, and gave some guidelines for when to make my next one. Since I don't want to rush into another one without planning more carefully, I'd like to receive some help. I am considering running in a couple of weeks (maybe around the middle of December), but I'd like some input as to whether or not I should try one again at that time, and what I could do now to make my chances higher. --Slon02 (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise you to wait. I can see the comments; your most edited article only has 24 edits, no FA/FL/GA's created, and of your 10,000 edits, 62% are automated. Whether it should be this way or not, frequent Hugglers without audited content have a very hard time getting through RFA- I think four have passed in the last 13 months. (GorillaWarfare, TideRolls, RonhJones, and Favonian.) Gorilla is the outlier, the other three had around 40,000+ edits- Tide had 100,000. Produce a few GA's and you might have a chance, but as it stands, I think there's a better than even chance it's another snowball. I don't really agree with the prevailing mood at RFA, but I spend enough time there to know what it is. Sorry, but I believe in being honest when asked these questions. Courcelles 04:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advise, I will take it into consideration. I'll ask a few other Wikipedians for their opinions as well, but I think that I'll wait. --Slon02 (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional companies as a redirect and transwikied

I learned several weeks ago that List of fictional companies had been deleted (snaps fingers and shakes head) and made it a point to check and see if it had somehow returned as a redirect or been transwikied somewhere. Still not a redirect, and if it has been transwikied, it hasn't been to WikiLists [1], so I was wondering if you could bring it back as a redirect to fictional companies (Such redirects seem to be standard operating procedure here and I find it a bit odd it wasn't done this time.) There was an attempt by someone to get it undeleted at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 21#List of Fictional Companies, but that user failed to even consider a request for a (harmless) redirect and the final deletion discussion didn't even mention a redirect or transwiki option once. If you're concerned about folks undoing the redirect, then I suggest making it a protected redirect, thereby making the last revision accessible for those who might want to read and allowing the people at WikiLists to export/import the list and its history to its new, appropriate home off Wikipedia. Should you grant my request, I'll try to export/import the article to WikiLists or get with someone who can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.192 (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Some Concerns, Please Help

I was looking to update a wiki I created last year and see it as recently deleted in a matter of days without any chance to defend it (I'm surprised there is not at least an email sent to a creator's account as not all of us can be regular active members). I understand that you have proven processes that work most the time however I really do believe a mistake was made here and I would like the chance to provide a defense. The deletion notes don't even make the reason for deletion clear....as it is indicated that it should be part of another wiki that is not the same at all. This is why I would like the chance to address this as I believe the deletion was done quickly with predisposed ideas driving the process.

I am talking about "Secure Digital Forensic Imaging" deleted on September 27th, 2010 (this entry was also previously approved). One deletion reviewer somewhat correctly identified this as being relevant to sexual assault but then everyone seemed to agree that it was part of forensic photography and deleted it. This is not correct at all....a lot of forensic photography does not have to take privacy laws into consideration. When privacy laws become relevant (Examples: sexual assault, domestic violence or anything related to medical), a whole new process is necessary for the secure storage and lawful handling/sharing of information. Secure Digital Forensic Imaging is driven by legal requirements and privacy laws, it is definitely its own entity. Forensic photography in Wikipedia is even incorrectly defined as a alternate term for crime scene photography (only relevant to law enforcement), in fact, crime scene photography is a specific type of forensic photography which is much more limited in scope than secure digital forensic photography is. Not only is "Secure Digital Forensic Imaging" valid, it is very clear that there are serious problems with the "Forensic Photography" wiki (this was obviously written by a law enforcement officer from that perspective only, not including a medical perspective involving privacy laws). Also, the two wikis were very different for the already stated reasons, not to be rude but I have to really ask if the reviewers read the two wikis before deciding they were so closely related or if the words "forensic photography" in both led to a rash decision.

I am a novice as far as wiki coding and policies so I hope I am posting this in the right place, I did read however that the proper process is to speak to the individual responsible for deletion first. I would appreciate any direction you may have to offer to address this and I would be happy to help as far as improving the forensic photography wiki as well.

Wace96 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's the relevant AFD so I don't have to keep looking for it; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secure digital forensic imaging (2nd nomination). There are two major problems with this article. First and foremost is that there were absolutely zero sources present in the article. The second is that the article doesn't appear to focus on any central point, rather it appears to cover several related topics in a rather confusing manner. Now, I can place the article somewhere in your userspace to work on those points, but this article will need a great deal of work before returning to article space; if there is a valid article here at all. Courcelles 21:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletionist vs. Due Diligence and Good Faith

Please don't take this as a personal attack. Because the articles that are deleted by deletionists no longer have a talk page, and therefore receive no attention following the short speedy deletion process, deletionists never see the negative effects of their habit/philosphy. I believe it is my duty as an ex-wikipedia contributor to bring awareness of the effects of this detrimental deletionist viewpoint. Therefore, my case analysis follows: You deleted the article on Video Copilot. Unbelievable. You state that it just seemed to be a promotion, and that it is one of millions. Video Copilot is a website that has sparked revolution of top-quality vfx in micro-independent films, which is an essential part to it's mother - the explosion of micro-independent filmmaking. You say not notable!? Are you kidding? Do a simple youtube search of "video copilot" and you will have hundreds of thousands of videos pop up that are all paying tribute in their credits to where they learned their craft - Video Copilot and/or Andrew Kramer. Honestly, I'm sincerely surprised that you haven't heard of this website/company and its founder yourself. Additionally, a simple, good-faith, due dilligence google search will reveal that the vastly popular "Creative Cow Magazine," and it's sister project, creativecow.com have featured and adhored Andrew Kramer for his contributions to the industry time and time again over the last decade. So there are print periodicals that regularly detail and praise Video Copilot's efforts, products, and effect on the industry. Along the lines of any objective standard - this meets notability guidelines - as a matter of fact, it is likely more notable than 75% of wikipedia. Now let's analyze your efforts, that I would quickly and effortlessly label - sub-due-diligence. You merely looked at a few forum posts, and did a quick Google search. You (naturally considering the subject) found advertisements, and proceeded to quickly delete the article. This can only be described as 100% sub-par research, has no scholarly merit to it at all, and only worked to make wikipedia a less helpful and less connected source. This type of deletionist behavior is lazy, destructive, and alarming. Again - this is not a personal attack, but a person appeal for a more thorough look into articles you are about to delete. And please remember that behind these articles typically exists a good-meaning person, trying to make wikipedia a better place, just like you, who has put their time and heart into the articles. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinBrister (talk • contribs) 02:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoa. Actually, the article Video Copilot, as you may view in the deletion logs, sat for seven full days- 168 hours- with a tag on it that said all anyone had to do to stop the deletion was remove the tag. This was not a speedy deletion at all. It can be restored with a polite request for it to be done. Courcelles 03:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I wasn't the one that proposed the deletion here, only the one who was cleaning out the category of PROD's that were over 168 hours old. Courcelles 03:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have to admit, most deletionists would not have come back with a good faith reply; they would, instead, have come back with a troll-worthy comment. I understand that the article was there fore 7 days. however, I would bet that most wikipedia patrons don't log in for weeks at a time. Factor in that they don't typically look at the same article each time, and the statistics get even worse. What I am saying is that 7 days, in and of itself, does not mean that the deletion should commence. Which brings me to my next point - I understand that you didn't propose the deletion, however, you are the one who followed through. I am suggesting that articles should be given a real and careful look before deleting just because no one objected in a time period that, as you just stated, can reasonably be measured in hours. You can restore it? If you originally felt that the article didn't meet notability guidelines, then I'm sure it won't pass on the second pass. There is an entire pit of savage deletionists waiting to prey on an article. However - in the near future, I will likely write this article myself, from scratch. That way I can be sure to include a lot of references, and do it on a week that I have a lot of free time to fight of the hoards of deletionists. I know I sound sarcastic with much of this, and I apologize for that. Rather than preaching to who may possibly be the only decent mannered and polite deletionist that exists, I should be commending your politeness. Anyway - I have finished.  :) You may delete this section from your talk page upon reading it. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinBrister (talk • contribs) 03:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)