This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

Hello Courcelles, you have deleted File:GenteNica.jpg without checking the Commons file description is complete and removing the bot move template.

As the file is already deleted I cannot look myself: A original source is missing. And: Was there no description of the file? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, this was all we had:

== Now commons == {{NowCommons|1=File:GenteNica.jpg|2=no|date=2011-01-07 }} Courcelles 03:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, should have been a source-missing relative speedy. Could you please restore and tag it with the appropriate template to notify the uploader? I have tagged it on Commons. Just answer here if you want to. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The uploader hasn't edited in 15 months here. Could you just leave a note here about the Commons deletion, instead of both of us having problematic images... and if he comes back, making him fix two images? (Sorry, since I saw Commons had everything we did, the fact that we should have been di-no sourcing this thing locally didn't register. And it should have, as many of those as I've deleted.) Courcelles 03:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay - or this way: done. Good night (probaly good day for you) ;-) --Saibo (Δ) 03:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

i wanted to edit dragonball raging blast 2 with an article about gameplay, characters, etc... but i cant cuz you locked the page? why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mischief805 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The page has a history of large amounts of recent vandalism- click the history tab at the top of your screen, and see what the article was receiving; it was not pretty. Sometimes we have to do this, and after ten edits you'll be able to edit the page, or you can go to the talk page and request an edit now using {{editsemiprotected}} for another editor to make the edit for you. Courcelles 03:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ey? I think I meant what I said. I might not have said it in the best possible way of course but that's a failure of my vocabulary, not of my intent. Volunteer Marek  07:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I was an idiot, and ought to be asleep. I realized I misread about as soon as I clicked save. Courcelles 07:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it popped up on my talk page, I started writing the reply above, refreshed half way through and saw you undid it and got confused. Thought it was a "rollback" mistake or something. Volunteer Marek  08:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. We have decided not to use the image due to the fact that it's color balance is off. Would delete it myself if I knew how. Thanks. GullyWalker (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

G7'ed, thanks. In the furutre, you can add {{db-g7}} to the page. Courcelles 20:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This request was made at WP:REFUND. I declined the request and pointed the requester here. My own response to something like this for AFDs on low risk non-BLP articles closed with 1 delete !vote is to restore the article and reopen and relist the AFD. (but I usually don't like to close "1 voters" as delete but that's just me) The reason is that I like to give an article's primary editor or other interested editor their say if possible.

However, in this case since it has already been relisted twice I would recommend revising the close to "WP:NPASR no consensus" and informing the nominator.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

See, this is where we differ strongly- these are always a delete when I'm closing. I'm not going to overturn this one, because of a REFUND request, especially not one that ends "Yoga of silence is a relatively young phenomenon there is no academic literature about it yet." When the filer admits the article is not notable, there's not any point in chasing our tails here- even if that comment had been made in the AFD, it still would have been a delete close. Courcelles 20:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

OK fair enough. I personally would like to see at least 2 !voters concur with the nom before we can call any delete a "consensus" but that's just me. However, I think we can both agree that AFD needs more participation.

One possible alternative I'm thinking of doing with these is to !vote instead of close/"leave leave alone" so when another admin comes along, he has 2 "delete" !votes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, I'll delete something on a first nomination with no votes other than the nominator after 14/21 days; given that a PROD would have gone away after seven. I just don't !vote much anymore unless I care about the article, so I really appreciate those who do patrol AFD as a voice of reason in multiple subjects, and I'm sure you've noticed who those folks are. (I can think of a couple we ought to nominate for adminship so we can get on to other tedious chores ;) ) Courcelles 20:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) You might be interested in this discussion from last summer, particularly the "soft delete" option (close as "delete" but allow recreation or restoration at REFUND) which I supported. It was similar to a proposal I made twice to WT:AFD to treat AFDs with little or no participation like uncontested PRODs. It was rejected both times but the second proposal attempt indirectly lead to the creation of WP:REFUND. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read that discussion, and he closing statement is broadly what I do, "In most cases where there is only one vote other than the nominator and that vote is to delete the article, it should be deleted and treated as any other deleted article would be, but admins should at least consider undelteing or userfying if it requested." Except that when the request for undeletion admits it isn't worth having, well... Courcelles 22:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, i´m the author of this article and i was sending the request for undeletion. I don´t understand why an article about yoga of silence is considered as not notable enough for wikipedia. Seeing that it´s existing in four more languages, the article should at least get the chance to be discussed and revised by some more people! Loverofsilence (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey; just wanted to see how your sandbox lists were coming along. If you don't have time to finish what's left, you could always put them into the mainspace and I can tackle whatever's left to do on them. We got close to an FT then suddenly everyone involved went on to other things. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops... yeah, we got real close to finishing that thing. Okay, I'll try to finish a few off this week. Courcelles 20:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wonder-twins activate! Form of...vandal blocker! DMacks (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

At least we were thinking the same thing on the duration! I'm used to protection conflicts, but block conflicts are much rarer. Courcelles 22:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi I'm a KMess dev, we got a notice from a user that our Wikipedia page got deleted (also due to a lack of attention from our side). Now we obviously would like to restore the page in better shape. Could you restore our entry and maybe give some additional comments on why it was deleted, so we can improve it to prevent this from happening again. Thanks Rubenvd (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Any news on this? If not, I will have to restore the page manually from google cache. Rubenvd (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You can see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KMess. There's really not much I can add to that, the article was promotional, had no sources, and absolutely no indication that your software was significant or notable. Courcelles 16:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you restore the page/remove the lock? Then we can create a decent article for our software which meets the Wikipedia criteria. Rubenvd (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please go to Special:MyPage/KMess and write a sourced, non-promotional version of the article, and then we can consider it. Courcelles 21:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In Turkey like rest of the world there are main two sides in politics. Mr. Hasan Sami Bolak who has been a well known writer, journalist, politician and movement leader for the pat few decades has lots of enemies who dislike his thoughts and politics and also his books etc. In Turkish wikipedia the admins have mainly have Kurdish ethnic identity and are mainly on the opposite side of him. They had a lynch campaign for him in the Turkish wikipedia and in the past and they have deleted his article. Also i believe daily they surf all the blogs, articles about him in the internet community and they dont hasitate to attack him. They are an anti Hasan Sami Bolak Team and they have tried to make his article be deleted in the wikipedia in the past. Now it shows that the had more votes and they have had the article be deleted. Also the two people (yabancı and kibele) are the same people and yabancı is a puppet of kibele and everyone knows it in the Turkish wikipedia. And all i want to tell you is that they have just used you to achieve their goal. Best regards and have a good day. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can prove sockpuppetry, please file a case at WP:SPI. If there was sockpuppetry going on there, and an SPI proves it, the AFD could fall into questions and make it worth doing the process again; if not, the consensus there was fairly clear, and there's not much that can be done other than filing a deletion review. Courcelles 20:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

They are a strict team in Turkish Wikipedia and they close the puppet files about them. Theres nothing i can do unfortunately. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Wasn't expecting that. I thought you needed 50 articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Or for some random, bored admin to realise your articles are just wasting folks time over at new-page patrol. ;) 50 is better, but still more than we need to figure out if folks have a clue, unless the articles are just cookie-cutters. Courcelles 04:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please update me on the status of the deleted Novak Druce + Quigg LLP article (in the archives on page 41) now that I've uploaded several independent sources (on December 20). Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.148.121 (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said there, I don't see anything in those sources that proves any notability at all. Promotional articles that the firm brags about just don't help. You can always file a deletion review. Courcelles 16:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Novak Druce + Quigg LLP. 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. Thank you.

I have edited it and added link after link, and it is still not good enough. I am not trying to promote a business which makes money, but simply trying to spread awareness of the NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION so people volunteer and help out the kids in their communities. That is it..nothing more. there are no financial gains whatsoever. We are like Make A Wish Foundation...why is their page not an advertisement? Please work with me so this page can stay up and running — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscella (talk • contribs) 17:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You may find this essay enlightening; Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Charities have to meet the same WP:ORG requirements as a commercial enterprise to have a page here. Courcelles 17:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for protecting the page, but may I respectfully inquire as to why for only one day given the prolific IP vandalism? Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it's TFA. No one will care as soon as midnight UTC comes and goes. Courcelles 21:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:: Sorry, what does TFA mean? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Today's featured article- the one on the main page. Courcelles 21:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I realized what TFA means a few minutes ago and I was letting you know when you edited and there was an edit conflict. Still, I wonder if the vandalism will just cease after midnight. I'll keep it on my watchpage for a couple of days. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It always does- I've seen it a hundred times, the kids move on to tomorrow's FA once it is on the mainpage. You could set your watch to them. Courcelles 22:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's what makes having edited and shepherded and everything an article through the FAC process so much fun. (sarcasm, really, I hate TFA day). Thanks for everyone's eyes... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You write them, Victoria, I'll whack the trolls. Unless you want an RFA so you could do that yourself... Courcelles 22:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You dream. I'm quite happy as an editor. Don't have time for more.. now back to Commons uploads...Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Courcelles 21:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Courcelles, just wondering how you decided to delete the article Ishaya's Ascention? All contributions to the discussion about the delete advocated to preserve it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.82.243 (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to need some help here... Ishaya's Ascention has never existed, and I can't find anything similar in my recent logs. Courcelles 02:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it was Ishayas' Ascention

Sorry, still has never existed. The right title should have a pink box on the page telling you it has been deleted before. Courcelles 03:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the IP is referring to Ishayas' Ascension. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How did you do that? That must be 10,000 deletions ago in my logs; I'd never have looked back that far! As to the discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ishayas' Ascension, no one advocated retaining the article. This doesn't mean we can't have an article on this subject if someone can find reliable sources, but after a fortnight of discussion no one had been able to find any, so that article had to go per the policy on verifiability. Courcelles 03:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just happened to notice that "Ascention" appeared to be a misspelling of "Ascension". Don't get the idea I'd work that hard to figure it out ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, on 6 December 2010, I had added several sources. Moreover I find that the comments on the talk page were indeed advocating to retain the article, i.e. save it from deletion. Should I request I deletion review? Thank again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.78.235 (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No one had posted on the talk page since October, and I can't see how the two links you added are reliable sources, either. Yeah, a WP:DRV is likely the only way to go here. Courcelles 21:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have created new content I will be re-submitting about Paradax Records: 09:36, 28 December 2010 Courcelles (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paradax Records" ‎ (Deleting blanked AFC submissions with G10 or G12 content underneath per discussion at WT:WPAFC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Paradax_Records — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.L.Crane (talk • contribs) 20:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You may do so. The prior content there was not usable as a copyright violation, but you can recreate a page with valid content at the same title. Courcelles 21:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)