User talk:Courcelles/Archive 102
 | This is an archive of past discussions with 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. |
| Archive 95 | ← | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | Archive 103 | Archive 104 | Archive 105 |
Roman Polanski Abcom request
I posted a reply on the Roman Polanski matter in Arbcom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Psalm84 Psalm84 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Signing
You appear to have used the wrong key for signatures here, but I didn't want to sign it as you, as that seemed a little rude.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Heh, either I had the caps lock on, or I forgot to press shift, because that's the "right" key, just the non-capitalized version of that key. Thanks for letting me kno, fixed. Courcelles 18:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I assumed you were using the same keyboard layout as me, mine would give a " # ".--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Request for help from Oversight
An editor made some changes to an article that I created and edit occasionally as time permits. This user has attempted to "out" me in the revision history of that page, (The Necronauts), on an edit completed at 23:35 on 10 May 2012. This anonymous user also consistently deletes details for which I have included reference material. This user appears to perhaps be Snatchproof81 or Revisionists, both of which have been suspected sockpuppets of Electronado, who has harrassed me in the past. Unfortunately, my willingness to expand wikipedia (since I created that page) has backfired on me as it appears that possible band members or acquaintances have some personal COI. I would appreciate your help in rectifying this issue. I've posted this same message on Wizardman's talkpage. Thank you.Desertally (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- DOne. In future, please send oversight requests via e-mail. Every ooversighter's talk page is heavily watched, I believe, and posting here spreads information further than desired. Courcelles 21:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Female softball player
Is Kere female? :) --LauraHale (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Stupid list splitter. I shoulda caught that one, though. Courcelles 23:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Urgent
As you are a sysop, I need you to edit the DYK queue. In Template:Did you know/Queue/4 could you change Compton-Belkovich Thorium Anomaly to Compton–Belkovich Thorium Anomaly, and in the credits section? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 07:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Now at Template:Did you know. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 08:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- I fixed the queue, the live version had been fixed by another sysop. Courcelles 08:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 08:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:RFPP
You have a request at RFPP. [1] Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 12:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, I've commented there. Courcelles 18:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Attempted outing?
Since you're an oversighter, can you please look at this? Cheers. Reyk YO! 21:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's not outing, as that's just basic WHOIS data that can be pulled on any IP from any number of countless internet databases. there's a reason we encourage account creation here, this level of detail is available (and indeed, linked to form their contributions list) on any IP editor. Courcelles 01:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I didn't know that. That "I can see your house from here" taunting was uncalled for IMO and I thought I'd better make sure. Cheers, Reyk YO! 03:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Commons Category Sets
Hi Courcelles. Seeing as you have made some of the respective edits, could you enlighten this conversation? Thanks! SFB 21:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's a very minor problem, but it doesn't hurt to fix it since categories on Commons and pages on en don't move in "lock-step", and any page move here (or there, Commons categories can move at pretty much any time) will break the page. Courcelles 01:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 May 2012
- WikiProject report: Welcome to Wikipedia with a cup of tea and all your questions answered - at the Teahouse
- Featured content: Featured content is red hot this week
- Arbitration report: R&I Review closed, Rich Farmbrough near closure
Your friendly nit-picker
You might want to change "suing" to "using" in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Proposed_decision#Rich_Farmbrough_banned--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- On a side note, I thought ArbCom cases aren't supposed to be named after an editor. Did that change? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- We renamed all the cases involving discretionary sanctions away from being named after editors, but on matters that focus 85% on one user's conduct, I can't see any reason they shouldn't continue to be named after that editor. What do you call this one? "Use of bots and automation"? How do you distinguish that from Betacommand 3, then? Sometimes the editor is the focus to the point that naming the case anything else would be excessively vague as it was here. Also, typo fixed. Courcelles 21:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thanks for your contributions! SwisterTwister talk 16:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 21 May 2012
- From the editor: New editor-in-chief
- WikiProject report: Trouble in a Galaxy Far, Far Away....
- Featured content: Lemurbaby moves it with Madagascar: Featured content for the week
- Arbitration report: No open arbitration cases pending
- Technology report: On the indestructibility of Wikimedia content
SPI
Want an help from you. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yasht101, which is requested by me includes quiet a lot of evidences. However, the user is not using his old account claiming that he has retired and won't be in Wikipedia anymore. Hence, should I go ahead with the SPI, tough the user is not contributing from his another account? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Holmes FAR
Hey there, are you still planning to look at WP:Featured article review/Katie Holmes/archive1? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, Nikkimaria. As much as it seems an easy fix, my eyes are such a setback right now; between the light sensitivty and the sheer cloudiness of my cornea, I don't soend much time on here at stretches to do things right now. Courcelles
Earth Exploding Live
Hello Courcelles, since you did the recent checks and blocks, I thought I should bring Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Earth Exploding Live to your attention. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- noted, thanks, though looks like it was handled some hours ago. Will watchlist that SPI incase it becomes active again. Courcelles 01:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Articles for Creation Appeal
| Articles for Creation is backlogged and needs YOUR help!
Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 1382 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention. 
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. Click here to review to a random submissionArticle selected by erwin85's random article script on toolserver. We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, |
calling for discussion
A couple of days ago another administrator declined to email me a deleted article. After some discussion with them I decided to initiate a general discussion at WP:Village pump (policy)#When should administrators decline to email the source text to deleted material?
If I recall correctly you have declined to email deleted material in the past. So I invite you to participate there. Geo Swan (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- A PROD likely (almost surely) should have been e-mailed on request, but there is no requirement for any admin to e-mail any user at any time (With the very, very limited exceptions of when admins are required to contact the Arbitration Committee.) If one admin won't do it, ask on WP:REFUND, and someone almost surely will. (If you've emailed many users at all, you'll know how often the mere e-mail address reveals real-life information about the user, one of many reasons admins are not required to e-mail the content on request.) And while I refuse to userify BLP's, I can't think of any time I've declined to e-mail one, If you want to give me the name of the article (or even e-mail it to me), I'm fairly confident I'll be able to provide a copy. (My issues with userified BLP's are well-stated long-ago, but they have very little relevance to things sent through e-mail as long as the e-mailed copy doesn't show up on WP and in seatch engine databases) Courcelles 03:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Friends
Thanks for placing the protection on the page. :) Acalamari 08:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Arb Com
Further to a throw-away line by User:Riskier I have requested disclosure of any relationship between User:Fluffernutter an User:Courcelles. Rich Farmbrough, 21:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC).
- I see she has already answered. I'll leave that be, and I'm not, and will not be, in the habit of discussing private lives on-wiki. Courcelles 23:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Same guy/same tune
He's back. Please don't shoot the messenger. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- My aim was true, blocked the IP, and put some more protections in place. Courcelles`
The Signpost: 28 May 2012
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation endorses open-access petition to the White House; pending changes RfC ends
- Recent research: Supporting interlanguage collaboration; detecting reverts; Wikipedia's discourse, semantic and leadership networks, and Google's Knowledge Graph
- WikiProject report: Experts and enthusiasts at WikiProject Geology
- Featured content: Featured content cuts the cheese
- Arbitration report: Fæ and GoodDay requests for arbitration, changes to evidence word limits
- Technology report: Developer divide wrangles; plus Wikimedia Zero, MediaWiki 1.20wmf4, and IPv6
RFPP
I saw that you protected two articles that I punted on. First, I have no issue with your doing so. I couldn't because it wasn't obvious to me that it was a sock, and I am hesitant to lock out IPs from editing when it isn't clear that it is a sockpuppet, particularly when the party makes the claim but is unwilling to file a SPI. Rather than decline, I chose to punt. I'm a little unclear on the proper handling. I guess I could have researched deeper into it, basically doing a sock investigation to determine the validity of the claim, but that seemed out of process to me. Perhaps due to my being a cautious old man who is new to the mop. If you have any guidance on this, I would be happy to hear it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think you were fine here, I just used my CU tool to figure out that, yeah, those pages are pretty much constantly attacked by socks. Courcelles 13:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent. I didn't doubt the claims so much, but if I were to be asked why I protected them by a 3rd party, I didn't feel that I could provide ample justification with the information I had. I try to not play cowboy when using the rope that came with the admin bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- This particular situation was a bit like a good number of sockmasters; fairly obvious if you've dealt with the master before (or are a CU), but quite confusing if you're not familiar with the pattern. Sadly, the Disney topic area has quite a few sockmasters operating in it. Courcelles 14:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent. I didn't doubt the claims so much, but if I were to be asked why I protected them by a 3rd party, I didn't feel that I could provide ample justification with the information I had. I try to not play cowboy when using the rope that came with the admin bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Please revert this high resolution non-free image to the low resolution version. I did not upload the high resolution image. I could only revert a single edit by the uploader. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
These should be resized down too:
Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- The first one I've reverted, the second two don't have smaller versions in history, so I've just tagged them for folks that have image manipulation software to come behind and resizing them. Courcelles 15:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- You actually have this software at your disposal. If you say 150 px is the target and do
then rt click and save you will have a 150px image, which you can upload. 
Done Rich Farmbrough, 22:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC).
- OK. Thanks for your help. Best Wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comment but sadly my image software is very outdated. Perhaps Admin Courcelles has this software. But I would think that a target of 250 pixels is still low resolution. Dashbot has this resized image here and the resolution is probably higher than 150 pixels (which is still quite small) but just enough to see the 2 characters...and nothing more. Wait. I have irfanview but never tried it before. I'll try it once now and see if it works. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: It worked here (Image-->Resize & then File-->Save As) at irfanview but I was not used to uploading the image: 125px
Rollback and vandalism links
Hello, Courcelles! Back in June 2010 you gave me rollback and reviewer rights, and in December 2010 I asked you to take them away because I was accidentally hitting the "rollback" button when using my smartphone. You revoked the rights at my request and I have never missed them. But in the past week I have been seeing new links on some pages. The new links include "rollback", "vandalism", and sometimes "vandalism rollback" and "good faith rollback". Pages where I have seen these new links include "compare selected versions" and sometimes "user contributions." I don't know where these new links came from and I wonder if there is some kind of mistake. Or was there some change in programming that I am not aware of? (There have certainly been some surprises lately, like the bolding of watchlists which caused such an uproar, and that green "updated since my last visit" tag.) It's not necessarily a problem, I just wondered what was going on. Thanks for any information! --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Have you got Twinkle installed? If so, it's that. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, Melanie, half of that sounds like Twinkle,m and the other half the developers have been playing with the watchlist display settings. Courcelles 19:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- OIC! Yes, Twinkle must be the difference, I recently installed it. Thanks. Does that mean I have rollback rights now? (I haven't wanted to click on the button and find out what happens, for fear of reverting somebody undeservedly!) --MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Twinkle gives a slower, javascript version of the software's rollback rights. Similar results, just much slower. 20:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, Melanie, half of that sounds like Twinkle,m and the other half the developers have been playing with the watchlist display settings. Courcelles 19:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Date formats
[2] This edit appears to be an unnecessary change of style, contrary to WP:DATERET and WP:CITEVAR. The article had a predominant style. Is there a reason you changed it? Gimmetoo (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- The article was actually a train wreck of all different styles, Courcelles 20:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Well done Courcelles for taking a good step forward towards making the dates closer to a format that benefits our readers. When I get some spare time, I'll go through the article and mop up the others. GFHandel ♬ 20:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Explain, please. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is a godawful mess. Courcelles 22:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Your edit changed the date formats without addressing any other issues. In the version of the article you link here, 100% of the accessdates are in a consistent format, and as far as I can tell, nearly all the publication dates are also in a consistent format. So what are you referring to? Gimmetoo (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Access dates and publication dates MUST be in the same format per the MOS. Whatever, though. Do what you want, I'm not wasting more time discussing a month-old minor edit. Courcelles 23:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Or at least it used to. A[[ears MOS is in yet another flux on this. Courcelles 23:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, accessdates and publication dates do not need to be the same format. The MOS even gave an explicit example of that. Your version from the middle of August happened to be after someone tried to make a change to that page of the MOS on this point. It was undone a bit later. If you were under a misunderstanding and that misunderstanding has been cleared up, good. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is a godawful mess. Courcelles 22:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 June 2012
- Special report: WikiWomenCamp: From women, for women
- Discussion report: Watching Wikipedia change
- WikiProject report: Views of WikiProject Visual Arts
- Featured content: On the lochs
- Arbitration report: Two motions for procedural reform, three open cases, Rich Farmbrough risks block and ban
- Technology report: Report from the Berlin Hackathon
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
- No idea when, where, or who this was from. Timestamp so archive bot processes it. Courcelles 02:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Lynczilla?
Would little Lyncs not even be allowed create User:Lynczilla for purpose of roaring? More useful than bot ! bishzilla ROARR!! 16:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC).
- Really, probably not. I doubt I'd consider a humour account to be just cause to modify a one-account restriction. A travelling, insecure computer account would be a different question. Courcelles 02:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Christine, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Replied. Courcelles 02:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
More mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thought you could do with one more. :) - JuneGloom Talk 00:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- okay, tomorrow. I'm... done with heavy thinking for the night. Courcelles 02:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Disruptive IP
Hello Courcelles, I come to you as you noteced and reverted an edit of one extremely annoying IP which is 92.244.140.15. He has some sort of crusade changing language templates in numerous articles in daily basys and has menaged to make a lot of work to numerous good editors which have to spend their time recerting and fixing his edits. He had a number of warnings at his talk page, User talk:92.244.140.15, and I even tried to establish contact with him in Serbian (as he seems to edit all Serbian related articles). However, he has ignored all warning and messages. You met him at Nađa Higl article where you reverted him, however many editors had to make the same exact revert in numerous articles for weks now. His contributions are absolutely none, and all he does is removing sourced information as he did in Serbian language article, or adding an unsourced higher number of spectators for football and other sports stadiums in Serbia (as if a higher number would make him more proud or something, but attention, he removes a sourced number and the source in the process), and an endless list of wrong language template replacements at article lede sections, as he seems to have some difficulty understanding that Serbian language writtes Latin alphabet as well. I mean, you can just check his contributions and see how systemathic his disruption is.
I really don´t know what else can I do, and other editors seem o be in the same frustrating position regarding him. Would it be appropriate to take him to ANI or is it possible you help us? Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Another admin has blocked for six months. Good call. Courcelles 18:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
GoodDay PD
Re: the "GoodDay warned" remedy, I've left comment at the talk page that I think you should consider. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 22:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Such a remedy is, for lack of a better word, useless. Basically, "keep being a pain, and we'll ban you", as defining enough misconduct to engage the ban is almost impossible without leaving a massive door open for WikiLawyering. Courcelles 00:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's better then just an admonishment. Make it a one-strike rule, I dunno. Be inventive? Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 00:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Arbitration request
Thanks for resolving the situation. I was badly confused about the whole issue (especially because my response editconflicted with your reversion!), so I understand far better after reading the user's block log. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusion. Yeah that was just another Echigo mole sock, if for some god-forsaken reason we DO need to hear a case on... whatever that rant actually was, we're not hearing it on the say-so of a banned troll's sock. 17:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
E Miliband
- - Thanks - Youreallycan 20:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. Courcelles 16:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Request
Could you please remove this from the talk page/history. It's wholly unnecessary and just goes to prove why he was blocked in the first place. - JuneGloom Talk 17:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Removed, and took away his talk page and e-mail rights. Courcelles 17:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. - JuneGloom Talk 19:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, Brian/Relaxedora came back today as 86.46.196.151, could you please block him? - JuneGloom Talk 17:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked. You know, there is a way to get your own buttons ;) Courcelles 17:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- True, but I don't think I'm ready just yet. Plus, I have a few things keeping me busy at the moment. - JuneGloom Talk 23:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked. You know, there is a way to get your own buttons ;) Courcelles 17:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, Brian/Relaxedora came back today as 86.46.196.151, could you please block him? - JuneGloom Talk 17:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. - JuneGloom Talk 19:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Little yapper
Are they teasing you? Here, this little yapper will protect your talkpage. Don't worry, he is a Pugapoo (also known as Pugoodle), a non-shedding hypoallergenic hybrid dog. He will chase the cats away for you. Arcandam (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Haha, he's adorable! Strangely though dogs get to me a little, I tolerate their fur MUCH better than a cat's... Courcelles 17:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a bit ridiculous
This [3] is quite messed up. You just banned him for ten days. Given the number of times that the user is referred to on both the Evidence and the Workshop page, and given that it's obvious that the user feels they are being unfairly maligned (and perhaps slandered)... how is he supposed to respond to these attacks? Even if the original response wasn't optimal blocking BU for ten days 1) makes it impossible for him to address the issues that have been raised, and worse, 2) gives a carte blanche to the person who has posted the defamation in the first place to engage in more of this kind of behavior. You are encouraging and rewarding bad behavior.
I also want to know if this was a unilateral block, made on the basis of your own personal discretion, or if this was a committee wide decision. If the latter, can you please indicate which ArbCom members signed off on a ten day block for basically... nothing (jeez crhist, I've seen shorter blocks handed out for vicious outing, long term abuse and, you know, "real" stuff).VolunteerMarek 06:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- The issues are very real here. Edit warring with the Clerks is never acceptable on a case page. The clerks also have full discretion to topic ban anyone who is being disruptive on the pages, having received such a ban, Bali ultimate continued his edit war. That is what got him a block. (as well as telling the clerk in question to, essentially go commit suicide) Ten days in this case is hopefully long enough to proxy for "until the case is over", as it was not the first time he has disrupted proceedings. Courcelles 17:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 June 2012
- News and notes: Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI
- WikiProject report: Counter-Vandalism Unit
- Featured content: The cake is a pi
- Arbitration report: Procedural reform enacted, Rich Farmbrough blocked, three open cases
What "go play in traffic" actually means . . .
I don't know where that "urban dictionary" definition comes from, but it's quite definitely not the standard connotation of the phrase. It's a dismissive insult, typically said to be said by a parent to an annoying child or by an older sibling to a younger one, and generally seen as humorous. Note the definitions/uses here [4] and here [5] and here [6] and here [7] and here [8] ("What dad hasn't told his kids this at least once? Kid being a pain in the butt, dad tells them to go away in a way only a father can! "Go Play in Traffic!") and here, in a satirical piece in the Wall Street Journal [9]. Back when I was in high school, we had a young teacher who would use the line on students who annoyed him, delivering it in a W. C. Fields voice (sometimes while driving off in his Hupmobile). I'm not at all arguing your block of Bali, but if you relied on the definition you cite in assessing the severity of his conduct you should be prepared for the usual suspects offsite to tee off on you for it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- This "go play in traffic" line just made it mean, the heart of Bali's misconduct was in 1) edit warring with a clerk, and 2) ignoring a ban from the case. No matter what exact;y it means, "go play in traffic" isn't something one person on WP should be telling another! Courcelles 22:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to interrupt, but the section header caught my attention. Perhaps there are regional differences in meaning. Where I'm from, the more common form of the saying is "go play on a (the) freeway". Either version is not something one would normally say to a child and, when said to anyone, is something considered "mean" (the implication being that playing on a freeway would likely result in death). Just the view from my locale - Taroaldo (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's similar in my view to "go take a long walk on a short pier."--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to interrupt, but the section header caught my attention. Perhaps there are regional differences in meaning. Where I'm from, the more common form of the saying is "go play on a (the) freeway". Either version is not something one would normally say to a child and, when said to anyone, is something considered "mean" (the implication being that playing on a freeway would likely result in death). Just the view from my locale - Taroaldo (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Question about protection policy
I noticed that you semi-protected User:Interlude65 at the user's request. It has occurred to me in the past to request semi on my user (but not user talk) page, but I was under the impression that this is not done unless there has been vandalism. Did I misunderstand the policy? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, user pages, but not user talk pages, can be semi protected simply on user-request, there is no need for a history of vandalism, it's generally left to admin discretion (And some admins do want to see history of vandalism; I personally don't care). I'm happy to protect yours if you like. Courcelles 21:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Please do. And thanks for the clarification of policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, and done. Courcelles 23:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Please do. And thanks for the clarification of policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.
Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)
Vandalism?
What sane reason do you have for calling this edit [10] "vandalism" [11]? The text of the edit in question is, "In the 1980s, Harvard law was criticized by Barack Obama in 1991 for its lack of diversity [1]. It hired Native American Elizabeth Warren in 1992. [2]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.145.144 (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)