Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr.grantevans2 (talk | contribs) at 03:26, 21 December 2010 (Page protection used for pov). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Flushing Farm, Little Thatch, Suffolk, Seasons, Suffolk and Quicks farm

Hello Courcelles, I noticed you closed all the discussions for all the articles listed above. I don't understand why you decided to relist Little Thatch, but not the others. As all of the above articles are related (they are all Grade 2 listed buildings in Round Maple), I would have thought it would have been better to relist them into one discussion, or if not to have merged them into Round Maple. Would the best solution not to undelete the other three articles and merge the discussions. Thankyou for your time. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 16:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Little Thatch discussion looks a bit different than the the others, or at least it did a few days ago. I absolutely despise batch nominations at AFD, they have a nasty tendency to produce horrible decisions regarding at least some of their included articles, so I would never merge discussions that were started separately. They just never work when you're discussing something nuanced where there may be something that distinguishes articles that appear similar. Courcelles 18:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Little Thatch discussion is no different to the others, it's just that the editers posting Keep didn't find the other discussions. Could we not relist them separatelly. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 16:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Also I think it makes more sence to keep the article's histiory rather than re-creating a redirect to Round Maple. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 15:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I see little point in having redirects of unlikely search terms to a highly obscure settlement. I am concerned that Crouch, Swale has a misaligned sense of perspective - these subjects are barely notable at a local level. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

But the redirects are plausible and I thought deletion is supposed to be used at last resort. There is clearly a solution here. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 21:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You're proposing; and creating; redirects to a tiny village that are no more plausible than redirecting the street address of my house to my city would be. This sea of redirects does little but clutter the search box. Courcelles 22:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Administrative action on Political prisoner

Hello. As you recently semi-protected Political prisoner, I'm letting you know that I just gave warnings to the two established editors over their reverts.

I had chosen not to semi the page as this was to me essentially a content issue, and I felt that protection would give one set of editors advantage. Which it did. The SPAs were using the talk page (poorly) and providing sources (again, not good ones, but) and I'd rather have had everyone demonstrate good collaborative editing to reward the effort rather than have them locked out of discussion and shown that established editors can just force their way. Which is what that IP now thinks.

But I'm rambling, sorry.

brenneman 04:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The SPA's were tarring and feathering numerous BLP's with a controversial label, pushing a WP:FRINGE view. You just don't label a BLP as anything controversial without an ironclad source, and nothing being presented was any better than opinion "journalism". I considered the reverts the established users were making to be fully complaint with the BLP exemption to the 3RR, "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)"(emphasis mine). Seeing as how you've agreed here and on the talk page that the material was poorly sourced, what is the issue? Also note the protection is far longer than the period it will take these users to reach autoconfirmed. Courcelles 10:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh... I'm not sure if we're having the same conversation? The article Political prisoner is not a biography of a living person? And I'm sorry to say I don't understand your point about autoconfirmed at all. - brenneman 10:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No, but the claims the SPA's were putting into the article were about living people. BLP policy does not apply just on articles that are actual biographies; BLP impacts just about every article that is not historical or about fictional subjects. Autoconfirmed- the ability to edit through semi protection- takes ten edits and four days. The protection is a month. Therefore, the protection won't stop this crop of SPA's, just slow them down enough to hopefully have a read through our relevant policies of verifiability and BLP. Courcelles 10:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's what you meant. I find jargon and acronyms quite difficult to parse out, so forgive me if your meaning took a while to get through to me.

In particular, I'm still not sure why you're telling me this with respect to the "living person's" hot button? I have warned the editors over failure to use the talk page when making repeated identical edits, and for using inaccurate edit summaries. These aren't optional. If asked, I'll dig up ArbCom rulings.

I'm surprised that we're having this long discussion, and I'm still not feeling like we're having the same discussion. For example, I know what autoconfirmed is I'm just not understanding why you felt the need to tell me about it? I way more concerned about making the more established editors understand why the way they handled this was slightly sub-optimal.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you telling me that you can't see how applying labels to living people without absolutely perfect sourcing is a BLP violation? Especially derogatory ones like "political prisoner". The established users behaviour wasn't perfect, but it was within the letter of the 3RR. No, somehow we're not having the same conversation; you appear to have decided that the established users were in the wrong here. I'm noticing you've just returned from a nearly two-year break; I don't think you understand just how seriously and rigorously BLP policy is enforced these days. And, after looking, I see User:Bidgee and User:Stepopen were indeed using the talk page before and after the protection. For you to have threatened these users with a block for enforcing BLP standards is quite inexplicable. Courcelles 11:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Argh, I'm about to back away slowly. Since when is "political prisoner" derogatory? Waving the "BLP" flag does not trump all other expectations that are placed upon editors. And yes, using the talk page to say that they would continue the same behaviors. But I think that this conversation has well and truly outlived the point where it is productive, but I don't have to get the last word or anything, and thank you for being so courteous.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Warning: Vandalism

Courcelles, there is vandalism in the Yo gabba gabba! page. The vandalism name is "MY NAME IS ARTHUR" in the edit box. 74.12.126.46 (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That article is getting hit fairly hard, so I've given it a period of semi-protection. Courcelles 13:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Good news.

Good. I'll keep looking for vandalized pages. I'll let you know which page is vandalized. 74.12.126.46 (talk) 15:25, 18 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: Rollovers as Business Start-Ups

Concern was: no evidence of notability within the USA and of about zero notability elsewhere)

I recall posting on the talk page, after the article was nominated for PROD, that the article was definitely a notable article in the USA. The person nominating the article for deletion was in the UK, which would explain their unfamiliarity with the article due to it being the USA IRS agency, and not a UK agency.

The article is definitely notable in the USA because it addresses a topic millions of Americans may be exposed to if they used their retirement savings to invest in a start-up business, what the USA tax collection agency (the IRS) calls "Rollovers as Business Start-Ups".

I am sorry I was not timely in the talk time during the deletion discussion. I have been busy with the Christmas season.

I did not have the time after the PROD notice to research an international impact of the article topic. I can research articles on the impact of USA citizens using ROBS to invest in internationals buisiness ventires, if that will help restore the wikipedia article.

The article is definitely of notability in the USA. The source of the material for the article was from the USA IRS (tax agency) website: http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=231594,00.html I thought I had posted several newspaper references in the article. Since the article has been deleted, I can't recall how many I had posted.

The citation was the USA's IRS website, with has a Public domain copyright. The copyright notice can be found here: http://www.irs.gov/help/article/0,,id=152693,00.html "Copyright Notice Content on this web site that was created or maintained by Federal employees in the course of their duties is not subject to copyright and may be freely copied. "

Please advise what I would need to change or add to the article to make it noteworthy, and undeleted.DozenAttempts 19:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DozenAttempts (talk • contribs)

I don't know if Rollovers as Business Start-Ups would have a chance at WP:AFD, but PROD's get restored on anyone's request, so I have restored the article. Courcelles 19:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. ]) 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/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)

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: Misplaced Pages: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:, Misplaced Pages:, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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~~ 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)

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 Misplaced Pages including 'Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner' and 'Kenyon & Kenyon' are allowed in Misplaced Pages 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)

Nedzmin Kozlo

Sorry to be stroppy again, but did the irony not strike you that in removing backlinks to Nedzmin Kozlo because "Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nedzmin Kozlo" had knocked off NK you were actually handling the evidence that "Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages/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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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. Misplaced Pages is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Misplaced Pages 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

• News and notes: Article Alerts back from the dead, plus news in brief

• In the news: Faulty story urges for advertising on Misplaced Pages; brief news

• Image donation: Christmas gift to Commons from the State Library of Queensland

• Discussion report: Should leaked documents be cited on Misplaced Pages?

• WikiProject report: Majestic Titans

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Motion passed in R&I case; ban appeals, amendment requests, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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) Misplaced Pages: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.)

Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

is part of that control effort.