User talk:Courcelles/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

Here ya' go

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For working so hard you get three barnstars in a row for it, for your consistent work in AFD, AND for hitting the 100,000 edit mark. Congrats. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 03:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems like since I became an admin, my edit count just goes up. Lots of work to do, anytime you finish one job, the reward is three more things that need doing. Courcelles 03:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

W G Grace

Pleas explain why you have placed a full protection on this article and what investigations you have performed with regard to the "dispute" you have quoted. As I understand it, there is a 3Rs rule in place which applies if editors revert each other three times. In this case, there was one revert only and that was done by me as the main author of the article.

The points raised by the other editor, KDTriesAgain, are entirely based on hid objection to the article's compliance with WP:CRIC#STYLE in which case he should voice his concerns at WT:CRIC from where the style guide was implemented by a consensus of project members. KDTA is not a member of CRIC and, as far as I can tell from a scan of his contribs, has never before worked on a cricket article. Despite this, he acts as if he is an authority on the subject and tells me that something I have found in a number of key sources (i.e., that Grace's younger brother was called Fred) is "obviously not true". I outlined the sources on the Fred Grace talk page in response to another of his messages.

I would also ask if you are aware of the very suspicious co-operation between KDTA and the other user who has suddenly appeared on the talk page, BaseballBugs. While KDTA's interest in the article is accepted, you should be asking why BB appeared on the talk page as soon as KDTA was challenged and how come they support each other so fervently? That needs investigating and so does the attitude of BB in terms of WP:CIVIL.

I consider your protection order to be high-handed and it is very annoying at the present time when one of the CRIC admins, YellowMonkey, is being arraigned by the site for alleged abuses in his own use of blocks, protections, etc. You have not advised the main editors, myself and User:Jhall1, or KDTA or WT:CRIC of your action. You have applied the order after only one revert which was done by the main editor.

Please explain your actions in full. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 04:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt. This entire message sounds like you and the Cricket wikiproject have some ownership issues relating to this article. That someone isn't a member of some project is always a meaningless argument. I'm not about to start speculating on people's motives, the timeline is actually fairly clear here; you reverted, the other side reverted, there was an RFPP request for protection to allow time for discussion without the edit war, I protected the page for 48 hours, over half of which have now passed, in which there has been discussion but no clear consensus reached. So, in 19 and a half hours the page will unprotect itself, and hopefully the edit war will not resume. Courcelles 04:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No one is claiming ownership of anything. The aspect of the article that KDTA dislikes was developed over a period of years due to a style guide that CRIC has endorsed by consensus. KDTA should take his concerns to CRIC and if we agree a new consensus base don his argument, we will amend the style guide. That is his issue. Preventing anyone from editing the article because of that is out of order and simply alienates editors, especially as you do not communicate. Where is the WP:COMMONSENSE in this?

As I do not trouble myself with the site's more obscure processes, what exactly is an RFPP and from whom or what or where did this one originate? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As I explained on the page, the article was on my watch list due to Grace's "connection" with Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I saw an edit skirmish going on without any discussion, so I asked for protection. It looks like that protection needs to be extended, as it's clear BJ has every intention of resuming the edit skirmish once the protection goes off. My specific complaint is that some little group has decided that they know better than Mr. Grace as to how his name should be spelled. As for BJ's personal attacks on me, including a false claim of "pique" and more importantly the implication of sockpuppetry, I don't do socking. So he can ask for an SPI every day and twice on Sunday if he wants to. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, I don't see anything that compels W.G. Grace to be spelled WG Grace. I suspect he's putting his own spin on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

RFPP- Requests for page protection. Where you are welcome to list this to see if someone will lift the last 18 hours of this protection. Wikiprojects do not, and can not, have the kind of power you are according to them in that comment. Someone who disagrees with a wikiproject can ignore the project, they do not have the power of community consensus that things like AFD and the Manual of Style enjoy. I do communicate. Administrators do not make a habit of informing talk pages when pages are protected- it is assumed that those who care are watchlisting the page, and a protection is very noisy on a watchlist, as it appears entirely differently than a normal edit. Courcelles 07:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you also take note of Baseball Bugs' attempt to justify his preference by means of WP:OR in that he insists we use a signature as the cited source for his view. A signature is WP:PRIMARY. In WP:CRIC we deal in WP:SECONDARY. All of this disruption has been caused by someone who is trying to defy one of the site's basic tenets and who says that those who do adhere to the secondary sources requirement are "Wikipedia busybodies". Not to mention his unacceptable attitude which is sarcasm, whatever he might say, and that breaches the spirit if not the letter of WP:CIVIL.

That said, I further suggest you look a little deeper when someone comes along complaining about something and that you point out to Baseball Bugs that he has certain obligations, re the above points, when using this site.

As for CRIC "claiming ownership", you have got it completely wrong. We employ our own guidelines to encourage a standard among ourselves. We accept that non-members come along and do things differently at times and often we accept what that person has done, but not always. In this case, KDTA introduced errors as I explained in the edit summary and latterly on the talk pages. It is easier to revert and start again that work on a page containing errors. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

One additional matter. I note that you have not answered the point I raised about WP:3RR and I would be very interested to read your interpretation of that. You have closed access to that article when only two reverts took place a few days apart: the first by the main author of the article who gave stated reasons for his action; the other by a good faith editor who was following his own interpretation of the sources he has seen. By not giving KDTA and myself an opportunity to come together and discuss things properly, you have failed to WP:AGF. You have taken Basebull Bugs at face value and accepted his views without consulting either myself or KDTA. I consider that to be poor administration which has not helped the situation at all. Please explain your interpretation of 3RR in the light of your action. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The 3RR has nothing to do with it. If 3RR had been violated, I would have issued blocks, not used page protection. Page protection allows what you said I have disallowed, "an opportunity to come together and discuss things properly", without the threat of continued reverting and the blocks that inevitably will lead to for both sides. Courcelles 20:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, you have failed WP:AGF where two experienced editors are concerned because you have been too easily influenced by someone whose actions re WP:OR and WP:CIVIL are open to question. I repeat that I consider it to be poor administration. How would I go about making a formal complaint? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A formal complaint over a 48 hours protection that I've already told you how to appeal (by filing a request at WP:RFPP)? I suppose you could try an WP:RFC/U or request my desysopping at ArbCom, though I don't know what kind of remedy you are looking for here, given this protection is over in four hours. You accuse me of failing to AGF? Nice to see things go both ways around here. Courcelles 20:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The editor's "primary source" argument falls apart when you look at the picture itself, which was produced by a studio somewhere, and which also says "W.G. Grace". So there's the secondary source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Confused

The image I uploaded (more than a year ago) is used to illustrate the album of an artist? Surely this is fair use? I don't understand how to re-edit the image to make it all proper but there is no other free image for this album cover?Mark E (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What we need is for you to go to File:Julieathertonalbum.jpg and click the edit button- you can edit a file description page like you can any other page- and add something that complies with Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. It is fair-use, but we have to have an explanation of why we claim this can be used as fair use. A little cheat sheet is available at User:ESkog/Rationales. For a similar image I think does a good job, see File:Seduction of Ingmar Bergman.jpg, as that rationale was accepted at a featured article candidacy. Courcelles 12:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Think I have done it right? Hopefully haha. Thanks and hope it is ok now.Mark E (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Courcelles 12:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary warning or confusion ?

The image → is not orphaned as you have written on my talk page. Look for yourself at Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It was removed with this edit, which looking at the history, was actually vandalism. Since it is now back in the article, it will not be deleted. Courcelles 19:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

KAVL logo

Is that better!! Didn't even realize it didn't have a rationale. I know all logos need one, but didn't catch that one. Does that save it from deletion? (JoeCool950 (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

Much better! Thanks, and yes, that does save it from deletion. Courcelles 02:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Like I mentioned, didn't even catch that. Thanks for noticing that. Happy New Year!! (JoeCool950 (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC))

Non-free use rationale

{{Non-free use rationale}} template... should mention that in posts. --J. D. Redding 20:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Could very well be worth mentioning in {{Di-no fair use rationale-notice}}. Any ideas how to reword to incorporate it? Courcelles 20:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

After 'edit it to include a fair use rationale' add a line like: "If there is a suitable explanation, please use {{Non-free use rationale}} template.." --J. D. Redding 02:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you take back the editing rights you gave me?

Hi, Courcelles! Back in June you gave me rights as a Reviewer and a Rollbacker. I appreciated the expression of confidence, but I have an odd request: could you please turn them off again? The reason is that I sometimes look at Wikipedia using my iPhone - and between the tiny links and the big fingers, it's happened more than once that I hit the "rollback" button by accident. If I hit anything else by mistake I can just hit "back" and not complete the edit, but "rollback" doesn't give you that option - it just goes ahead and does it. I think I would rather use "undo" like any other editor and not run the risk of reverting things by accident.

As for the Reviewer function, I never used it - guess I just don't hang out at any of the pages that are review-protected.

Thanks, and happy new year! --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Any time you want them back, just let me know, as there is a very easy addition to your monobook.js to turn the rollback links off on specific devices; like iPhones. (Doubly useful once you go through RFA, as rollback can't be deactivated for admins.) Courcelles 22:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Poke

Hey there. I've removed/fixed the three dead links, added a ref to the lead and added links to the table, so all List of accolades received by Slumdog Millionaire needs you to do is write some prose. ;) - JuneGloom Talk 22:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Happy New Year! :) - JuneGloom Talk 00:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy new year

Happy new year, my friend! Since you seem to be online and in backlog clearance mode, perhaps you'd like to help out the drive to clear CAT:UAA? It's being "coordinated" from WP:AN. Happy new year again! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Aaah, someone who is watching my deletion logs! I'll add it to my list if I feel like mashing the block button. Courcelles 01:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a habit of bumping into you on the not-so-speedy file deletions, so I tend to go for the one that you're not doing. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Gah, do I really do so many deletions that people regularly "bump into me"? I tend to do only the orphaned fair-use ones, but the football game is AWFUL. My Gamecocks haven't played this poorly since the 0-11 season... Courcelles 02:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've doen about thirty of these things. And this is the most BORING backlog I've cleared in a while. Thanks a lot... Courcelles 03:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion?

I noticed that you some week ago have deleted the article about the Finnish tycoon Jaakko Pöyry. I also (today) noted that barely one week earlier there had been posted a notification on my discussion page about the proposed deletion.
As I mostly am active at the Swedish Wikipedia, I do not visit my English pages on a weekly basis, so I have completely missed this thing and the possible discussion about it.
If there has been a discussion about the deletion, and a fair number of contributors have come to the conclusion in consensus, I don't suppose I'd have anything to add, but if the decision has been made merely because nobody did object at the time, I would like to have a word in the matter also.
I can't recall whether I was the creator of the article in English or mainly a contributor, but I know I was the creator of the Swedish one. I have no attachments to the guy; I'm not related, nor have I been an employee, so I have no "non-appropriate" bonds, I'm only a fellow compatriot. I just feel that a man that has been granted a handful of awards for his technical innovations in both Finland and Sweden and founded a company that today has activities on six continents and has an annual turnover of close to € one billion, is worth of at least mentioning in a world wide encyclopaedia. -¨¨¨¨ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islander(Scandinavia) (talk • contribs) 21:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, has there been some alteration aboyt the way of signing posts? Islander(Scandinavia) (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This was done under our WP:PROD process here on enwiki- no one objected within a week. That said, you have now objected, so the article is restored upon request. This won't stop someone opening up a discussion process, which could lead to a more permanent deletion. Please also add some references to the article, if you can. Happy editing. Courcelles 21:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And, signatures are done here by ~~~~. I think that's a fairly common convention across WMF wikis. Courcelles 21:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and a thought

Thank you for commenting on AE in the request involving me. I may not completely agree with your reasoning, but I do appreciate you taking your time to look into the issue nonetheless. On a parting note, here's a mini-essay I wrote that you may find interesting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)