User talk:Courcelles/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

DYK for List of 1956 Winter Olympics medal winners

Cbl62 (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection

HI ya! I have been assiduously working on the article [[1]] Southern CA Chinatowns, which is up for deletion. Two editors, who are not clear on the concept, Grayshi and Skookum1 are working hard to get it deleted. I went to the ask for protection page and it may as well be Greek to me ATM. As in most instructions in Wiki, it assumes knowledge which I yet do not have. In ANI [[2]] you will find that Skookum1 has worn down and driven other editors away from articles and several other that evidence his charm. Tonight he went in and reverted EVERYTHING I had written, even tho' the article is till under discussion. I believe the article needs to be protected until discussion is completed. May I ask your help yet one more time? Your honest opinion on my work is welcomed. The article should probably be retitled but that is another issue. Breathlessly awaiting your response. Thank you again! Respectfully DocOfSoc (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There's not really a whole lot I can do- protection would also prevent you from editing it. Here's me suggestion. Userify the article so it can be rewritten without the glare of AFD or the time-pressure of being in the article-space. Right now, it is a little disorganised, and I think it is supposed to be about the Chinese diaspora in Southern California? If that's the general idea, it could stand to have a different title. Why this is just now coming up, I don't really know... the thing was started by a very good admin five years ago! One blant and one revert, though, isn't going to be grounds for protection. Sorry. Courcelles 07:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

TY`You are awesome! Nothing I can do about Skookums character eh? Would you go to the delete page and relay that info? I am not canvass, but what you have to say is important (as usual ;-) You are the bomb!! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:COI?

Hey Courcelles! Special:Contributions/Wmckeen -- case of WP:COI? William_McKeen does come across sometimes self promotional without resources, especially the "a leading pop-culture authority" statement. I'm looking for resources in the meantime, but was wondering if the user should be warned about possible conflict of interest. ~dee^(talk?) 16:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and warn him. There's a fairly obvious conflict of interest there. Courcelles 19:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there

Just wanted to stop by and say you're doing a great job with the closings. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 00:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince François, Count of Clermont

Hello, I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a second look at Prince François, Count of Clermont. I was obviously in the minority with my opinion that the subject is not notable but the article remains an unreferenced BLP and the community has been clear that these articles need to be sourced or removed. One of the keep voters offered articles but they are all behind paywalls. This is one of the longest-standing unreferenced BLPs and we now have a decision to keep it. Thank you for your time. —J04n(talk page) 00:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That sources are behind paywalls is no different than them being on my bookshelf, neither is generally available, yet both are perfectly accessible. Neither is it unsourced. Poorly sourced, yes, but there are four sources listed in the bibliography section. Unless you wanted to call Arbitration Enforcement and delete it under WP:BLPBAN, and I wouldn't really object if you did, there's no consensus for removing this content. Courcelles 01:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I would rather not go the BLPBAN rout and unilaterally delete it, IMO that would be poor form on my part after an AfD that I initiated was closed as keep. I'll go with deletion review, no hard feeling. Take care —J04n(talk page) 01:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

SpaceTime (software)

Could SpaceTime (software) be semi-protected...I'd still like to expand a bit.Smallman12q (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I semi-protected this last night. Is there something else you need? Courcelles 23:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You put full-protection...not semi-protection...Smallman12q (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed this to. I put in a [request for page protection] requesting temp semi-protection so was a little surprised to see full protection go on. The problem was two IPs then a new SPA removing content. The latter also posted this so a COI, but their other edits were just blanking sourced content.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, downgraded to semi. Courcelles 04:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Contested PROD

I wasn't notified that the prod of Ana Santiago was contested, and nor was I told that the article was restored. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Your point? It was contested at WP:REFUND. I don't think I've ever notified anyone when undeleting something there, people have watchlists for these situations. Courcelles 23:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The prod was reversed. It is customary to notify the person placing the prod when contesting it anyway, so they can take it to AfD if appropriate. Please refer to WP:PROD. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A quick 'thanks'

...for sorting out the Chunk norris nonsense so promptly. Nice one, cheers.  Chzz  ►  22:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I first misread it as Chuck norris and was just going to full protect it as a redirect... then my eyes caught up with my brain. Doh. Courcelles 02:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Article removal question

Since you closed the AfD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 European Junior Judo Championships - Women's 44 kg, I was hoping you could answer a question for me. The same author has created several more articles about individual weight divisions and I was wondering if there was a way to speedily delete them. They don't seem to exactly fall under CSD:A7 and I was hoping not to have to put more articles up for AfD. Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, they're going to have to go through AFD. They don't fall into any of the A7 categories, so it's either going to be PROD if you cna get one through, or another group AFD. Courcelles 02:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was afraid of. I'll wait a few days and see if he creates any more pages so I don't have to keep doing this. Papaursa (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

• Fundraiser: November 15 launch, emphasis on banner optimization and community involvement

• News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity

• In the news: WP prose praised, Public Policy update, education debate, WP documentary

• WikiProject report: WikiProject California

• Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science

• Election report: The countdown begins

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended

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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

Please see this. Flatterworld (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored the history, as it seemed pretty harmless. Let me know if this is a problem and I can delete it again. Protonk (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So now we have a bunch of unsourced claims about a living person sitting in the history and visible to everyone? This wasn't a proper move here, the correct action would have been to e-mail the last revision, making sure it was without any libelious content, to the requestor, and assume that the AFD closer did what he did for a reason. Courcelles 22:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen McCulloch gave no indication that the content there was any more problematic than any of our other hundreds of thousands of unsourced articles. I'm happy to re-delete it but I need a clear statement that you feel the material is so bad it can't even belong in the history of the page. I will check back here periodically so I don't need a talkback notice. Protonk (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care. What does aggravate me is that you ran roughshod over another admin's actions after giving them all of ten minutes to respond. That's not how we do things around here when time isn't super-critical, especially since I had edited just three hours prior. There's been too much of this going on lately, and you just happened to be the first one to do it to one of my actions. Sorry, really crappy day. I'll go now before I bring more of my RL pissed off attitude here. Courcelles 23:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kresimir Chris Kunej

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kresimir Chris Kunej. 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.

I have no problem with your closure, I am simply following procedure in notifying you. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's my week for deletion reviews, I guess. No worries. Courcelles 22:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Full Protection of Assassination

I've noticed some fairly disturbing trends regarding this article and User:Epeefleche. Also notice an article, Targeted killing, which I believe he created. I'm seeing some article ownership issues and definite POV pushing under the cover of U.S. based sources which do not present a worldwide view of the subject. I made a note on his talk page regarding my request for full protection, which he promptly deleted and then responded to via e-mail. I don't know if a ten round fight is in order yet, but I do believe this issue needs to be addressed. From the history of the two pages it seems to have been going on for a very long time. N419BH 18:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

He did respond to you before removing the section. If you have a problem with him, talk to him, because I don't see the need to do anything here more than I've already done. Courcelles 19:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

K thank you. I don't have a problem with him, but I do see an ongoing issue regarding those articles. Wait and See is probably the order of the day. N419BH 20:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

George Soros Protection

I see that you extended my three day protection of the article to a one month protection. Why so long? Oftentimes vandals will quit touching a page after only a short protection, which encourages positive contributions from anons after that. Malinaccier (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I just saw your justification on the RFPP page. Works for me. Malinaccier (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your action in this matter [3]. Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

His comment here [4] fails to note the proper procedure to appeal the topic ban is through Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal, etc. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The way to appeal a ban is never to violate the ban. I'll consider unblocking him if he requests it, but, good Lord this wasn't the right way to accomplish anything except get blocked. Courcelles 21:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I doubt the behavior pattern would change, if unblocked. -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As an aside - where did you get that particular block template you used? -- Cirt (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's Template:Uw-aeblock. IT has a decent number of arguments that allow various messages to be left for AE blocks. Courcelles 22:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks. Is a note about that template usage linked at the main WP:AE page, for admins to easier find it and use it? -- Cirt (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, though I'll confess I've never bothered really reading that page and a half of text at the top of AE. Courcelles 22:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you add a link to it at AE? -- Cirt (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Metavariable

I've redirected Metavariable to Metasyntactic variable, since there were only two components, one a red link and one a redirect to Metasyntactic variable already. Thanks for letting me know. Corvus cornix_talk 07:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Magotteers

Hi Courcelles, please see User:Magotteers reported. Could you please let me know if abusing multiple accounts by one user should be reported elsewhere? Tuscumbia (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone else handled the AN3 report. Reports of abusing multiple accounts should be directed to WP:SPI for check-user attention. Courcelles 03:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles, yes, it was looked into. And I suppose there is no need for SPI since he admitted using other sock account on the board. Thanks. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wright brothers

Can you please semi protect? ~dee^(talk?) 17:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi'ed indef. Just came off a one-year protection and the vandalism is right back. Not overly surprising given the topic's importance in education, but... disappointing. Courcelles 02:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup, mon ami! Yeah, I got tired of seeing it come up in my watchlist 7 times a day for vandalism. ~dee^(talk?) 08:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Down the Block There's a Riot

What am I suppose to do? My close was correct, and users keep reverting to the AfD heading still on the page. If they disagree with the unanimous consensus they should go to DRV. Perhaps a mention on their talk pages to the right course of action from an admin..... CTJF83 chat 03:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No, your close was NOT correct. The correct close was keep in five days time if things stayed the same, you swooped in and supervoted "redirect". I'm going to revert you as an improper NAC. Courcelles 03:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

How can you say just a title and airdate with no plot summary, that won't air for a month is a proper page? CTJF83 chat 03:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I coulda closed it as a keep (clearly it is the wrong nominator rationale anyway...so not sure why it is reopened) and then redirected it per BOLD and WP:ATD, as it fails GNG CTJF83 chat 03:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the state of the page or other courses of action, IAR closes ignoring consensus are something that even admins are discouraged from doing, and non-admin closures are supposed to be entirely uncontroversial, reflecting clear consensus. The point here is the action you took was inappropriate, without debating the specific circumstance. sonia♫ 03:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Redirecting may be a perfectly valid option. The problem is that an AFD close has to come logically out of the discussion. No one in the entire discussion mentioned redirection, so closing the discussion six days early with something you pulled out of thin air is not correct. Edit warring to preserve the decision of a non-admin close is, quite possibly, a worse decision. I very well could have blocked you for edit warring and revoked your Twinkle and rollback rights for this. That was in no way, shape, or form an act of vandalism. Courcelles 03:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That was a mistake, I meant to hit the button right next to it so I could provide an edit summary, but being they are close to eachother, I hit the wrong one and AGF that I accidentally hit it. Other wise I would have hit the non-TW rollback button by the user's name. Plus why wouldn't the AfD be closed early for an invalid reason, as it isn't an WP:ORG, and it looks like the nom disrupts anyways. CTJF83 chat 03:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and plus they both just undid my edit, so how was I suppose to know what their intentions were with no edit summary? CTJF83 chat 03:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

AGF works better if you don't abuse tools twice in the same edit war. You reverted four times in 23 hours. You could have been, and by rights should have been, blocked as an edit warrior. Using the wrong three-letter acronym isn't prima facie proof of disruption. (After edit conflict) Every word you say proves you do not understand what is and what is not vandalism. The lack of an edit summary doesn't entitle you to rollback edits as if they were vandalism. Courcelles 03:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

An interesting side in this discussion is how few of the Desperate Housewives episodes show any notability at all, such as The Thing That Counts is What's Inside and most of the current season. Courcelles 03:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

All the more reason to leave it as a redirect. I like how on Wikipedia I get threatened with "punishment" of being blocked for a set of poor decisions, but rarely get praised for the 36,000+ good edits I do. Please undelete User:Ctjf83/Watchlist, as I think it is time for a short Wikibreak. CTJF83 chat 12:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've said it before, if you're hungry for praise, you'll starve on Wikipedia. (That's not a shot at you, more something I have to remind myself after cleaning out yet another backlog or writing something.) I wasn't threatening you with a block- a block at that point would have been worse than useless! (When you become an admin, remember that. Either do something, or say you could have done something, but didn't. Never say you could do it, and then do it without further cause. That's the worst kind of administration.) Page undeleted per request. Courcelles 13:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)