User talk:Courcelles/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Pamelia Kurstin

I'm not sure why you nominated Pamelia Kurstin for deletion, as she is an international recording artist and probably the world's most accomplished theremin player. I don't look at this "wikipedia" thing to often, so I couldn't respond to your deletion request. I remember that the article had tons of edits, so it wasn't like some vanity page. There are tons of reputable sources about her: http://woub.org/sync/feature-theremin.html http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1147257 http://www.allaboutjazz.com/iviews/pkurstin.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/may/23/worldmusic

You crossed the line with this one, buddy. You owe it to the community to bring the article back. And you ought to issue her an apology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.112.145 (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't nominate it for deletion, User:JzG did. I merely executed the deletion after seven days with no objection. It seems that you are now objecting- though I caution you about your tone in the last line- so the article has been restored. Courcelles 04:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The tone was meant to convey sarcasm! Sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.112.145 (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The next time sarcasm comes across correctly on the internet... will be the first ;) Sorry for being dense. Courcelles 06:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

IP block

Hey, Courcelles. Is this part of a rangeblock? I'm seeing an unblock request but I don't wanna butt in if there's a reason to leave it alone. Thanks Tiderolls 06:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse the ring. It's been handled. See ya Tiderolls 06:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's an edit filter block. There are no contribs listed, but there are editfiler logs of severe PAs. Courcelles 06:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Block?

You added a block notice to a bot that is not logging in correctly, but it is not actually blocked. You might want to take a look into it? Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Check the block log... I did block it, snd someone unblocked thinking the problem had beeenfixed. Obviously still broken, so blocked again. Courcelles 08:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Thanks. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Festivus

Could you please protect Festivus and block the IP I have been reverting? I've had to revert the same vanity entry multiple times today. Thanks--TM 22:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell took care of it... and I have to agree, that's a content dispute, not vandalism. Courcelles 00:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, which other articles could someone go to and add an unsourced statement that a party for 100 people is being planned for the day after tomorrow? Without being called a vandal? Should that not be covered by IAR--3RR prevented TM from improving WP? --Pgallert (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The important distinction here is that calling something vandalism requires bad faith—an actual intent to damage Wikipedia. Please also note who unblocked TM around 20 minutes after my first post in this thread. I didn't block him, I wouldn't have blocked him. If I had seen the situation first, I would have fully protected the article without a trip through Special:Block. (Truth be told, I'm one of those who really doesn't like blocking for 3RR unless it's the only viable option.) Courcelles 08:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't want to blame nor badger, and I understand that TM was breaking 3RR because the IP edits technically did not constitute vandalism. I assume "being called a vandal" is a bit weaker than that. But "content dispute", well, that's a euphemism and does not properly describe the situation, either. Maybe call it a failed attempt to enforce WP:NOT. I did see who unblocked TM, and I did see your notice to HJ. Still I am disappointed that a veteran editor with a white vest has been blocked (that did not improve WP, either), and that you did not go as far as saying that the block was wrong. Not technically, of course, but in its potential effects. --Pgallert (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No harm would have been done had the statement been left in the article. Calling it vandalism doesn't make it so, unsourced ≠ vandalism and veteran editors are not exempt from 3RR, which is a blockable offence—WP:3RR explicitly says "Violations of the 3RR rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours." There is no need to continually revert. Even in cases like BLP or vandalism, there are other alternatives. I tend to be more lenient than many admins when it comes to 3RR/edit warring blocks, but five reverts of the same edit, without edit summaries, that doesn't fall into one of the exemptions will get you blocked 9 times out of 10. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you think?

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Very crude cut and paste from the WikiPint, but I've wanted to make this forages and I've only just found an image of a glass of whisky! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you need to break out the camera and take a real picture of a glass of Scotch. Other than that, it's a perfect thing for those of us who don't care for beer! Courcelles 01:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I'll get a bottle of the good stuff for my birthday next week and take a photo of it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

30 Rock (season 4) at FLC

Hey Courcelles. This list is close, but the reasonable objection over grammar in episode summaries is outstanding. Anything you could do to push it along? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Been working on it... Courcelles 00:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Disney park albums

I guess The Official Album of Disneyland and Walt Disney World (1991 CD) isn't as notable or important as Still Hungry (Twisted Sister album). --blm07 21:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Who knows. Seems more like an argument for nominating the latter for deletion, as there aren't any sources there. (The Disney article was deleted as a PROD. It can be restored if anyone asks, though it really needs third-party sources first.) Courcelles 00:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Courcelles, Thank you for your cool headed edits and fair actions regarding both the protection of BLP articles and my unblocking. Your edits are very much appreciated by both myself and by other editors.--TM 01:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Courcelles 02:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Block of 161.215.18.51

Hi, thanks for blocking him/her, two questions: Why 39 hours? Why not longer, they seem to never have done constructive editing, and as long as they can create an account they should be okay. Thanks. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

39 just seems to be my number for a first-recent vandalism block. Some folks use 31, some 37, some 24. We can't really block of much longer without a history of escalating blocks, which hasn't happened here. Blocking a major corporation is not something we do lightly, and in some ways less admin action now makes more action later a lot easier to get and get it to stick if the problems continue. (Not to mention that the current block could very well be a cluebat when they see we have the page tagged with the UA name!) Courcelles 02:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, but what is a 39 hour block really going to do? Can't we just give a longer block, that stops them from editing anon. and force them to sign in? I think it would be an embarrassment on United Airlines for vandalizing Wikipedia, but, I'm not an admin so I really don't know how this all works. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You should hear what UA flight attendants say in-person about Delta! Whatever our individual thoughts about the effectiveness of blocking this IP for less than two days, placing a long block- 2 weeks+- is just not within policy for a first time in two years block. (Also, this entire conversation is a little bit of WP:ABF towards the IP.) Courcelles 20:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on them and update you/AIV. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocking 214.13.163.133

Hi Courcelles, I saw you have blocked this user before, and he is still vandalizing pages, so you may want to consider blocking him again. Thanks. Chroma Emprise 05:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, nothing I can clearly classify as vandalism for over a week. Report it to AIV if the problems continue. Courcelles 05:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks for your help. Chroma Emprise 05:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Nenad Firšt

Yes, I can quite see that you have "a tendency to forget what made this place fun", not to mention forgotten how to treat people with common courtesy. Cheers to you and SchubminWeb for flushing away the effort I put into responding to the "help with UBLPs" appeal without the decency of a word of notice. Still, no-one else to blame but myself, I've frequented Wikipedia long enough, I ought to have had the sense not to invest time building card-houses in the adventure playground.Opbeith (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the talk page. We have a general rule, WP:G8, that talk pages without a main page are generally deleted, however in this case I should not have deleted the page. (All I saw were the WikiProject banners, and not the text beneath them). In cases where you do need a talk page without a subject page, you can use {{Go away}} to stop the deletion. Courcelles 09:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I call a decent and helpful reply.Opbeith (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy editing. Courcelles 10:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Iran

Hi I don't understand why you deleted the File:Boulevard in Iran.jpg redirecting article. Nima Farid (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirects to files that are on the Wikimedia Commons do not work, instead they appear as non-existant files. The version of this file, File:Avenue in Iran.jpg that is hosted on the Wikimedia Commons should be used instead, as you have uploaded a file back locally, whereas we are trying to get all free media on the Commons. (see Speedy deletion criteria F8. Courcelles 10:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know that. Of course I made a duplicated file under the name File:Bulevard in Iran.jpg, but thanks anyway for letting me know the problem. Nima Farid (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Message to Courcelles

Dear Courcelles I would like to say that I am the real Alison Weir,and it hurt and disappointed me that you did not beleive me. May I reitarate that I am the real Alison Weir.All I ask is for someone to beleive me.Not too much to ask is it Love,Alison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.0.45 (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Admin needed to delete an improper archive stub

Would you help the user at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Admin needed to delete an improper archive stub? Talk:Judaism and violence/Archive 10 should be deleted. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sure thing. Archive ten deleted, bot counter fixed so the next archival round should go into archive 2. Courcelles 22:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting it. Would you delete Talk:Judaism and violence/Junk redirect as well? Cunard (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

G6'ed. Courcelles 22:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Cunard (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Essential second opinions

Thanks for your essential second opinions on the BLPs that I have nominated for deletion. I am following up a request to reference BLPs and feel that many may be "vanity publishing" or just not worthy of inclusion. I know I have nominated quite a few, but this is just a small fraction of the ones I have reviewed. I think that these poorly referenced stubs are often the reason why WP is often criticised and the reliability of the project questioned. I plan to continue to check more of these articles, but will not delete them myself because I think a second opinion is important. So, thanks for your help and my best wishes to you. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied over at your talk page. I did notice I declined a few with old BLP unsourced tags, but never caught so many were from one tagger. It's a problem we get to around here, where articles that experienced editors and admins know are unlikely to survive AFD, yet contain something that gets them through A7 as written. Thanks for trying to source the messes others left behind. Courcelles 00:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I've replied there too. Thanks and best wishes :-) Graham. 00:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I fixed a whole mess of your AFD closes..

...on the AFD log for the 4th by adding the {{subst:afdbottom}} tag. One example is this one. One thing they all seem to have in common is that they all have {{flag|Alberta}} at the bottom so my guess is that Mr Zman's closing script is choking on it. I fixed all of them on the log for the 4th but you might want to check your other closes for this problem. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This is related to User talk:Black Kite#Template:Ab. The template was changed at 22:41, 11 December 2010 to redirect to Template:AB instead of Template:Afd bottom. I have reverted the change, and Black Kite has protected the page to prevent this from occurring again. Cunard (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My word. First, how on Earth did we end up with two drastically different templates that differ only by capitalisation? Second, I'm glad we caught it within twenty-four hours, because everyone that uses the common AFD closing script was making a mess. If I knew how, I'd go in and edit the script to use the templates directly and bypass the redirects and let Alberta have {{Ab}}, but I don't. Courcelles 03:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Courcelles. You have new messages at Nolelover's talk page.
Message added 02:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 02:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protection of Cher articles

Hi! You recently added semi-protection to the Cher singles discography and Cher albums discography articles for a period of six weeks, following my post at WP:RFPP. Unfortunately, a bot removed the semi-protection on the Cher albums discography article soon after you had added it. I have reverted the article to your last edit (note that there has already been one case of unsourced chart & sales info being added by an IP user in the interim) but the page still seems to be unprotected. Perhaps you could take a look for me and make sure it is semi-protected. Many thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

That's what you should have come here to serve me. I tagged the page, yet somehow didn't protect it. Protected now. Sorry... feel free to apply that trout a few more times. Courcelles 04:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha...I shall certainly apply the trout, in a thoroughly Monty Python-esque style. Thanks for that. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)