Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bladesmulti (talk | contribs) at 05:59, 5 January 2015 (→Request for page protection). 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 older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Kezia Noble

Hi Courcelles, you create protected Kezia Noble back in 2010, following an AfD which resulted in delete. An editor is now trying to recreate that page via Articles for Creation. I have been assisting them with this and believe that the page can now stand in it's own right with a reasonable claim of notability, or, at the very least, stand a 50/50 chance of passing another AfD. Would you consider unprotecting the title please? The draft is at Draft:Kezia Noble, if you wanted to look it over. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 16:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I see maybe one source there that's reliable... where's the notability here? Courcelles 20:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail and Daily Express are both subject to journalistic oversight, and although both are typically considered at the more sensationalist end of the tabloid spectrum, their presence in this article does not hinge on verifying any dissentious facts, they mearly serve to show that she has recieved some media attention. Equally, I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of articles in LDNER and The Romance Files, and while their reader-base is almost certainly smaller than more mainstream press, I feel, when taken together with the other sources, and that she appeared on a mainstream UK television programme, that Noble probably meets the GNG. It seems to me she is notable in her field of relationship advice/coaching, and as we have several articles in that field, to argue that no relationship/dating coach can ever be considered notable on Misplaced Pages seems erroneous (I am referring to the reasoning in the original AfD). If you believe that my take on her notability is too liberal an interpretation of GNG then won't argue the point further. I'm just trying to help a new editor write an article. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 08:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources might just exist, but when I look at the article as it stands, well, I'll run through them:

1. Wiki, not reliable for much of anything.
2. Self published blog, again, not reliable
3. Might be getting somewhere, shows she might be important, but not what GNG is looking for, either.
4. She was on a morning show for ten minutes. Again, shows she could be important, but, we're looking for multiple, reliable sources about the subject.
5. I'd need to look into this to see if it is reliable or not.
6. The best source here, and it is the Mail.
7. Mentions her in passing, very useless for writing a well-sourced biography.
8. Can't find much about this source at all, and for soe reaosn, the website never lets me get down to the footer to investigate them.

(I"d guess it is just one or two decent sources from surviving AFD, but isn't there yet. Courcelles 08:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for taking the time to look at it. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 08:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bellerophon: Still looking into this, I was able to fish out a couple sources that, well, don't talk about her much, but make me think that it all just might squeak through. and . Courcelles 08:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I sent you email!

Replied, not particularly helpfully, I'm afraid. Courcelles 22:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

This is related to your proposed wording changes for Andy's current restriction regarding infoboxes but, because I haven't had much experience at WP:ARCA, I wasn't sure whether I should address it there. One of the thing that I've been complaining about for some time is that Andy almost never (99.9% of the time) seems to engage in discussion with template maintainers or end users before nominating infoboxes for deletion or merging. The current restriction would seem to encourage him not to engage in discussion which, to me at least, seems counterproductive. An example is the nomination for {{Infobox Australian road}}, which was specifically kept after extended discussion, including an RfC attended by members of the Roads and Australian Roads projects. If Andy had discussed this first, the TfD might not have happened. I feel Andy's restriction should require that he engage in discussion before nominating infoboxes so my question is, what is the best way of having this addressed? --AussieLegend (✉) 02:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just comment on your section on the ARCA page. That way everyone will read it, compared to just me on this backwater. (I was trying to come up with wording that would settle the sense of the existing sanction, and the way AE admins have been interpreting it into the restriction, not actually modify it.) Courcelles 03:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

did you notice?

Hello C. Thanks for this. I gotta chuckle out of the day that the protection expires. It goes so well with an article about a fictional animal :-) I know it is a coincidence since you were simply setting a three month protection and I'm not asking that it be changed. I just wanted to pass along a thanks for tickling my funny bone. Happy New Year and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha! Nope, it never occurred to me that it would be April Fool's! Courcelles 01:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't suppose you could find it in your heart to make it a permanent semi? Montanabw 02:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That really would be strange for a first protection without BLP issues, per commons practice. Courcelles 04:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't know how often we have to make requests, but I've gotten many articles with kiddie vandalism problems permanent semi on first ask... though it may be after multiple others did... is there a list somewhere of how many requests have been made? Montanabw 09:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, archives for RFPP are only kept for the last eight days. Courcelles 17:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The article does get a lot of nonsense edits - especially claims that they are real animals :-) I live in the part of the world that they are reputed to inhabit (as does Montanabw) and have not seen one hopping down the road heehee. It would be nice for a longer protection (except for the fact that it would slow down my edit count - more heehees) but I can understand the case against that. Maybe you could put the page on your watchlist Courcelles so you can monitor things after the protection expires. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

We'll make a stronger case for permanent semi the next time...!  ;-)

I usually watch pages I protect. Start using rollback and I'll come a looking, most likely. Courcelles 04:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:PERM Request

Would you please stop by Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled regarding an old rights change, my feeling is that this user has moved on since the prior copyright issues and has improved. Thanks, — xaosflux 14:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note, this is not a request to explain administrative actions, no response needed if you want to just stay out of it; I'll take a non-response as a non-objection. — xaosflux 16:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: The first article I checked was the recent General Post Office, Adelaide. That's not the kind of article I'd want bypassing NPP, the tone is completely wrong, and it is totally unsourced. Orders, decorations, and medals of Timor-Leste is similarly unsourced. Penrice Soda Products is poorly sourced. I wouldn't give this editor autopatrolled with these spotchecks. (I looked at five other pages, one was a redirect someone turned into an article (I missed that in my first reply, that he didn't write that thing), four were disambig pagees.) Courcelles 17:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. — xaosflux 18:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Thank you for writing on a recent SPI, I will be reverting their changes anytime soon. Can you see this ->? Too many nonsensical allegations, but I am sure that none of my changes were incorrect, I was only reverting the version of a banned sock (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam/Archive 94.210.203.230) and IP hopping is becoming ridiculous on this page. If we are talking about content quality, it is still one IMDB spam. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Also look at same banned sock professing puppet who calls my changes a 'vandalism'. Obvious duck IP. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Why has that self-promo (look at the history) page not just been nominated for deletion? Okay, the latest IP here was a proxy, so that's gotten blocked for a while. Page semied three months. Courcelles 05:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I was also thinking of AFD, but first I thought of sorting this ban evasion. Anyways starting a AFD now. Thanks again. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)