User talk:Courcelles/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao back up

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao is back up as a FAC. It has had quite a bit of work since the last nomination. I'd appreciate any feedback you have at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/St._Michael's_Cathedral,_Qingdao/archive2. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in Europe, but if it's still open by next Friday when I get home, I'll review it. Courcelles is travelling (Talk to my master) 10:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

First time I've touched a computer sicne 8 May, and I notice it is closed. Darned. Courcelles is travelling (Talk to my master) 08:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Iowa class battleship

No hurry with the GA review, please take you time. I want all the details you need to pass the article for GA outlined so I can see what steps we need to take to get back in the game. I am hoping that in part the GA review will help be better step this article back to FA class, since this would be a step toward fixing the article. At any rate, thanks for the review. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Missed this in the vandalism of my talk page earlier. Thanks for the patience- the article is in pretty goos shape conpared tot he condition it was in near the FAR, though. Courcelles (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Freedom Award/archive1

Hi, this FLC needs a revisit when you get the chance. Also, congrats on your soon-to-be successful RFA; I don't see it ending any other way. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoops; forgot about this one while on vacation... I've given a few more comments, thanks for the poke. As to my RfA, comments about chickens and hatching come to mind, it is a nerve wrecking hotseat to be on, for sure. Courcelles (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at my RfA

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 supports, 9 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Courcelles. You have new messages at Tommy2010's talk page.
Message added 00:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

anddd one more thing. Tommy2010 00:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Nice to a friendly face (figuratively speaking) on my watchlist! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The worst part of travelling? The laundry. Or is it the pile of bills the mailman brought me today? Or is it that about the only thing I know from the last week is that Cameron is PM? Yep, everything bad about travelling is coming home! Still, I'm glad to be here, and glad to see you haven't gotten in too much trouble! Courcelles (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I blocked an admin yesterday! :S There's nothing interesting to know about last week other than that Cameron is PM (bah! >:( ) and that Clegg is deputy PM (hooray!:) ). This is interesting- he had 70 supports on day 1. I wonder if it'll be the first RfA I've participated in to get to WP:200? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Just to let you know I replied to your question about The Hurt Locker. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 19:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice going! WP:100! 102/0/1 as I write this! That's impressive! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just saw you crop up on the recent changes list. If you're not too busy, do you want to nominate the Hurt Locker accolades list for FLC now? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 00:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If you still want me to cast my eye over it before the FLC, I can do so in the morning or if you want to nominate it now, I can still cast my eye over it in the morning! I'm probably done for tonight, or I will be after a check on Wikinews and one last look at my watchlist ;). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Better yet, you could review the FLC. Reviewers there aren't always easy to come by. June, I'm writing up the nomination statement now. Courcelles (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Beat the crat congratulations!

Well, it's not going to go any other way! I don't think I've ever seen a unanimous RfA before! I'm sure you'll make an excellent admin, and I look forward to seeing the formal flipping of the bit on my watchlist in the morning ;). In the meantime, I've added you to WP:100, coincidentally, just above me (same number of supports as well, hmmmm)! Congratulations :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! You'll make a fine admin. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 00:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. It would be unprecedented for it to close any other way, but I'm not counting any chickens yet. Courcelles (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh bah. Yer in, mon, and I'm happy to see the vote so amazingly lopsided... hearty congratz and salutations! Jusdafax 01:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Unanimous? I think that you must have bribed everyone. (Oops, that means me, too...) :) Congratulations. Hi878 (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I paid all of you in Third Zimbabwean Dollars. ;) Courcelles (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh oh... I might be in trouble... I paid for the house with those... We were all thinking that it was weird, having money with such high values... Hi878 (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, do I get some too? :) Congrats-in-advance, btw. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 02:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. At a hundred billion to 3 eggs, take all you want! (Seriously, Sonia, any time you need sysop help, my talk page is always open. That goes for all of you, except HJ- he can just do it himself! :D) Courcelles (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! Do you remember suggesting to me that I create an article? I've found an interesting topic and started work in my sandbox. Thanks for the great advice and have fun with the mop! PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 03:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Princess- if you want someone to take a look before you publish it, I'd be happy to take a look. Courcelles (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Terrific result - not a single Oppose! Congrats :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Under50critic

Hi. Please block his email, too. I got an inappropriate one. Thanks, Jack Merridew

Has been handled. Thanks for letting me know. Courcelles (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Air India Express Flight 812 URGENT?

HI BJB, I have dropped this same message to Admin user:Mjroots, but think they are offline. Very strange editing here.
New editor (6 edits!) User talk:Chris.duzzo is doing strange things like, 6:03 did what appears to be a mass revert DIFF w/o any explanation (more than being bold!). I reverted him back (I have warned lvl 2). I think this new editor needs a look at what they are doing. Not the first time they've done something funny there IIRC. I may be up against 3rr!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think you're going to need a more experienced sysop- I can't call any of Chris.duzzo's edits vandalism, but I'm alos trying only to do the admin chores that wouldn't raise controversy right now. (Which I think I may just have done elsewhere, but, that's what I'm trying to do.) WP:AN/I would be a good place to get more experienced eyes on the issue. Courcelles (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. They just keep popping up on the one page and aren't responding on their talk page! Thanks for your attention! (forget your mop n' bucket was still 'shiny' n' new' Have fun! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting that comment on my talk page. Also congrats on becoming an admin! --5 albert square (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Derailment ITN

I noticed you added the derailment article to ITN just now, just as I was making a comment on WP:ITN/C. I think the article is far from postable shape at the moment, and should be removed from ITN until it's not a series of single-line paragraphs. -- tariqabjotu 10:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hey Brad, congrats again, my friend :). Just so you know (if you don't already), the protection options for Twinkle include a little tickbox labelled "iconify" that adds the |small=yes parameter to the protection template. You'll probably find that Twinkle is much quicker for protections than "the old-fashioned" way (I love it!). It also has a handy index of block templates and, obviously, it does speedy deletions. Hope that helps- it took me a little while to figure out what all the Twinkle buttons did so I thought I'd give you a head start! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

AIV

Sorry about that. I mistook your comment for a second report. I did block the IP address for a little while, though. Courcelles (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, it happens. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:SuperModer

Please be careful - You blocked User:SuperModer despite the fact they had not vandalized past the level 3 warning on their talk page. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I blocked per Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account- every edit that account had made was vandalism. Courcelles (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with that. The intent is clearly established by the edits- there's no need to give them another freebie. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Better late than never

Hey BJB, I didn't realize you'd been successful until I saw, just now, that you blocked that DrPeppersucks account. Congratulations! Drmies (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Trying to ease into things here, but I seem to be using my new block button a fair bit. Courcelles (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:CFD closures

I see that ou've done several WP:CFD closures at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 17. Please note that, in general, CfD discussions should be open for a full 7 days, meaning that a discussion started at 22:33, 17 May 2010 UTC shouldn't be closed until 22:33, 24 May 2010 UTC. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Won't do it again... though I don't see any real point to revert myself at this after the fact. Courcelles (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You're quick!

My closure was at 05:40 (UTC), you removed 2010 April 30 from discussions awaiting closure 05:40 (UTC). Are you magic? — ξ^xplicit 05:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hahaha. I was going to take a look towards closing it, and saw it was already closed. Still, that's quite a coincidence... Courcelles (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Your Request for Adminship

Dear Courcelles,

I have closed your recent RfA as successful per the consensus of the community. Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please make sure you're aware of the Administrators' how-to guide and the items on the Administrators' reading list. Feel free to contact me if you need anything, and good luck. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 03:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well done! :) --candle•wicke 03:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all three of you. Courcelles (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean he gets the mop, even though he bribed us all? Thanks to him, I'm a trillionaire! I suppose that this is just more proof that Wikipedia is corrupt. :) Hi878 (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wanted to stop by and offer my congratulations also on your recent RfA. It is quite apparent that you have gained the community's trust and you have long ago earned mine. Nice job Brad and take care. Kindly Calmer Waters 04:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Calmer. I'm just happy to help do things that need to be done a little easier now. --Courcelles (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Good show! Glad to see you're already using the buttons. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, congrats! Tim Song (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Off to a good start. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you three; and Tim, thanks for pinning the mop to my user page. If anyone needs my help, you know where to find me. Courcelles (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations Brad!--Chaser (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating me, Chaser. Courcelles (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! I see you are hard at work already. Quite a few times I have checked out AIV only to find that you have got there before me! Keep up the good work. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Congrats Brad, great news - I was expecting at least one arbitrary oppose for not being actively editing for long enough, but we didn't even get that! Best of luck with the tools. ~ mazca ^talk 10:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I was expecting a raft of opposes- for that and automated edit percentage. It was as pleasant an experience as RfA can likely ever be. Courcelles (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well done, Brad! Evidently nobody foiled our evil plan to get you a mop! *Evil laugh*. I can't quite believe it was unanimous (are you sure you didn't bribe everyone?) ;) but I can't think of a better candidate for a unanimous RfA. I'm sure you'll put the mop to good use. Any time you want to help clear out RfPP, it would be appreciated :). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) He did bribe us. :) See above. Hi878 (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not fair, I didn't get a bribe! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you some of mine. How does 100,000 Third Zimbabwean Dollars sound? :) That's half of what I got. Hi878 (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You might as well pay me in monopoly money! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that might be worth more. :) Hi878 (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Just adding my congrats :) Enjoy the new tools. Orphan Wiki 00:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit tardy, but congrats from me too! I see you've found the RPP script! There's a page with admin scripts on, or have a look at some monobooks! If you need any help or advice, feel free to drop me a line! GedUK  08:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was a rather necessary find when the page kept growing, and growing... I've found Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts, though if there are any more that would be useful, I'd love to know where they are. Thanks! Courcelles (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And that RPP script has only existed for about a month, it was hell doing it manually before! Have a look at my monobook, and SoWhy's, as there's good ones in there. AFD closer and CSH helper are particularly useful. GedUK  11:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I had the AFD closer from having done enough NAC's to make it useful, but I "stole" a few from you and SoWhy that, hopefully, will make various chores easier. I have the feeling the sysop chores could take as much time as I let them, though, so have to be careful to still do some article work... Courcelles (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Did what you asked...

Hi there! I've done what you have asked for and successfully reverted a number of edits, mainly vandalism, but a few good faith as well. fair ♫ talk to me 19:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on this at WP:PERM/R, but I'm not expressing an opinion at the minute. Just FYI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if you decide to grant the request, you can subst User:HJ Mitchell/Rollback on their talk page if you want. I'll leave the decision to you. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Cat:Canadian expatriate ice hockey people in the United States

Why was the decision made to delete and not upmerge in this case? Those who argued for deletion argued for the category's insignificance in relation to ice hockey, their particular interest, but not for the tree Category:Expatriates (as you state in your closing comment). The fact remains that those listed at the category page deleted are Category:Canadian expatriate sportspeople in the United States. Mayumashu (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• There was no consensus for an upmerge there- in fact, the consensus was encouraging more similar nominations. Only one other person mentioned an upmerge, and the arguments for getting rid of the whole tree were much stronger than the argument for an upmerge. There need to be more nominations to refine the Expatriates tree, but I can't see how an upmerge close there would have been anything other than a so-called supervote, which I don't have the right to make. I can only read the discussion and determine what the consensus was, which was to delete this category. Courcelles (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. I really still don t see how you can come to a 'delete' verdict. Perhaps arguments for deleting Category:Expatriates were stronger here (more who participated indeed supported delete), but we weren t, or weren t supposed to be, debating that (supra)category, as it was not nominated. Upmerge would be / have been a fair compromise between those who focus on ice hockey and do not value this as a hockey category and those who focus on human migration and by this decision have lost significant info for the tree Category:Expatriates. Too, however, WP:Categorisation is not done as systematically as it could be done, at least in theory, and in part that it is not is a nice thing about it. I won t pursue this matter now any further - thanks for the time. Mayumashu (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC

I see your point- really, I do, and this is an issue we need to settle. I'll start working on a large, umbrella nomination to see what the general consensus will be for this tree. (Note Explicit's close in a very similar discussion in the sameday page as my close. Handling these one at a time is, at best, extremely inelegent.) Courcelles is travelling (Talk to my master) 00:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship

Quick note relevant to your upcoming GAN review ... Ed recommended here that we need to fill in some info from Garzke & Dulin, and I've got the book right here, I'm digesting and regurgitating as we speak, but it might take me a day. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My notes for this article are at the office, I was planning to type and post them tomorrow. In fact, I'll still do that, and just work with the added information as it comes into the article. Thanks for the note. Courcelles is travelling (Talk to my master) 00:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

FLC comments

A while back you left a comment on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Coach of the Year/archive1. I was wondering if you could re-examine the article and either raise concerns or give it your stamp of approval for FL status. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I hate to put you off, but I'm pretty much sick as a dog today. Will do tomorrow. Courcelles (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Carrier Pigeon (ship)

Hi, may I please ask you to give DYK credit for the above article to user:Invertzoo? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy too. (I didn't deliver the credits personally... a bot does that!). Done. Courcelles (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Tony Abbott

Hello Courcelles. Thanks for looking at the Tony Abbott article. I wanted to comment that I think a full lock of the article will make the revert situation worse, not better. It blocks others, who were not involved in the edit war, from editing. I think a better solution would be to watch who is responsible for the reverting, and enforce individual rules or restrictions on those editors. Page locking is a blunt instrument, and the warring will surely continue as soon as it is unlocked. Thanks, Lester 00:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm out and about, and will be the rest of the evening- so I can't log into my sysop account, but take it back to WP:RFPP and link here. It was a three-party edit war, and one of them has since been blocked for a week, so if another sysop wants to unprotect it and see what happens- then they have my full permission to do so. Courcelles is travelling (Talk to my master) 00:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Courcelles, for your comment and your interest. Lester 01:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

edit request

You appear to be online, so... could you please change Singlish speaker to Sonia on this page per my rename? Thanks :) {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 12:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Anything else I can do for you this morning? Courcelles (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Courcelles. You have new messages at NerdyScienceDude's talk page.
Message added 17:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 17:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Regina Iowa City Page

Dear Bradhamesbrown:

im a librarian / teacher working on the Regina High School (Iowa City) page. Apparently some part of it was protected? I'm added a bunch of content, and was wondering if you could add some information that I put up recently on the school infobox.

I checked over the edits that were made by others, and saw that their inappropriate changes were fixed by you - thanks for doing that.

I dont even know if this is the right way to do this, but thanks for your help.

Sam Garchik, Librarian, Regina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgarchik (talk • contribs) 17:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've just checked the page's history, and it has never been protected from editing. If you're running into WP:Semi protection on another page- or a template (Infoboxes are templates, see WP:INFOBOX) I can give you a flag to let you around that low level of protection. Courcelles (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks for helping out. - you give me a flag - what does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgarchik (talk • contribs) 18:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, your account is old enough that you are WP:Autoconfirmed, so there is no need to give you the confirmed flag. For the edit you want to make, go [1], and when you see the line | principal = insert the principal's name after the equals sign- this should do what you want. Courcelles (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Brown

Thank you Brad, if ever the world becomes a less partisan place we can look at it again, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem- that was the longest protection log I've seen in my (short) time as a sysop. Some articles, as much as we love the idea of anyone being able to edit, just aren't working and are absorbing too much contributor time- this was one of them. Courcelles (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree, if and when we have flagged revisions then that will be a different story, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Major League Baseball categories

When I saw your administrative note at the CFD for the MLB players by state categories, I wondered why you would choose to release the work to the bot in increments. Seeing Cydebot spend two hours on this task, I understand now... (luckily, there was little else in the queue). :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, and most of the categories are over a hundred members, a few over five hundred, and two over 1,000. I'll send some more through tonight when CydeBot doesn't have much to do. CydeBot, however, can take as long as it wants, as long as I don't have to do that many thousands of articles manually! Courcelles (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, I shudder to think how slow the CFD process would be without a bot to do most of the work... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sock?

User talk:Garrysmith10000
He admits to being Garysmith10 in an edit summary, but I thought I'd pass this along to you in case there's something I don't know. —Soap— 21:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Nothing you didn't know- trolling only account redux. Permanent block applied. Courcelles (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2010 Indianapolis 500

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Gordon Brown

I don't know how much you know about British politics, but I'm not sure indefinite protection is required here. Gordon Brown has been Chancellor and then Prime Minister of the UK since 1997, but has recently stepped down and he's also leaving politics. Six months to a year should be more than enough before he's significantly less currently notable and therefore much less of a vandalism target. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

PS sorry for creating another section on this - feel free to reorganise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually very familiar with British politics- but it doesn't really matter. This is what matters- every time the protection expires, the vandalism returns within days, if not hours. In a few years, Her Majesty will make him a Baron if tradition holds, and at a minimum, he'll be of the profile of Baroness Thatcher, who despite not being actively in politics for decades still is permanently semi-protected. As I said above, the clean-up of vandalism on Brown's article has been nothing but a time-sink of limited contributor time. Maybe in a few years, unprotection can be tried, but right now, all it seems to be generating when unprotected is libel and vandalism. Courcelles (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I'm very familiar with British politics, I have an A-level in the subject and the length of that protection log is stupid. A year might have sufficed, but we can only guess what Brown's profile will be like in a year. His predecessor has been out of office for nearly 3 years and is indefinitely semi-protected and it still gets some vandalism. Her Majesty is also indefinitely protected and his successor is coming to the end of a 6 month protection which I'm almost certain will be re-applied a few days after it expires. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I hadn't realised Blair and the others were all indefinitely protected. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination)

Thank you for reading the lengthy debate and kudos for providing a detailed, well-written closing rationale. Not bad for a fresh, under-two-week-old admin! Cunard (talk) 05:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, good close. Well done. Tim Song (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to close this mess. Hut 8.5 09:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Very sound rationale, you covered the major points in a very messy AfD. Well done! Dayewalker (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for reconsideration: Deletion of Bullshido.net entry

Requesting you re-examine the arguments in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bullshido.net_(4th_nomination), as per WP:DRV.

Your summary of my argument is factually false. My argument was that the addition of four more reliable sources should carry weight. The statement that the Real Fighter article was not neutral based upon some colorful language suggests your inexperience with publications about mixed martial arts. Also, you gave us no time whatever to contact Sean Treanor and learn more from him; in any case, an article hosted on Stanford's Graduate Program in Journalism webpage, and not on a student's personal website within stanford.edu, could hardly have failed to undergo peer review or professorial supervision.

Furthermore, regarding the Real Fighter article, Stephen Koepfer, the President of the American Sambo Association, took time out of his day to inform the discussion about how the article got produced:

My name is Stephen Koepfer and I wrote the original Bullshido article/investigation on Geraci. I wanted to share my account regarding how the RF acticle came into being, since my name has come up here. Sacha Feinman, a noted journalist http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sacha-feinman/17/400/976 contacted me about writing an article about Geraci. He was, as any good journalist would be, concerned with not simply regurgitating our investigation. However, reading my article, he felt it was well written, ivestigated, etc. He felt it would be a good springboard for further investigation. So, I provided all my sources to Feinman. He vetted the entire Bullshido piece, found it to be verifiable, and continued to investigate the case in further directions which Bullshido had not covered. As Feinman noted himself it was the Bullshido article which formed the basis for his own further investigation. Feinman and I did not collaborate on his article, other than my making introductions to sources and the subject, Geraci. Feinman was not paid by Bullshido, nor is he even a member of the site. He came to us because of our notability. I fail to see how the RF article, regardless of how much or little it sepcifically mentions Bullshido in print, could not be considered a notable reference for Bullshido. Our ivnestigation served as the springboard for his, he came to us because of our notability, he personally stated this as such, and the subject of the investigation itself (Geraci) is quoted in the RF article as saying the Bullshido investigation was accurate.

This addresses both the neutrality and the reliability issues, and you didn't mention it in your summary. Nor did you mention Carol Kaur's well-reasoned argument, which contained novel points to which no one had a reasonable answer.

The only policies on which you seemed to be amenable to a flexible reading were those involving the definition of consensus. If Bullshido's similarity to an epithet is no grounds for considering its lack of coverage in a different light, neither are the repeated calls for deletion a basis on which to go with an impossibly loose definition of consensus.

I respectfully submit that your summary of consensus was factually wrong on several points, and ask you to reconsider. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, that AfD was a mess, and both you and mthai66 made 73 edits each to the AfD. Responding to each and every one of your arguments in a closing summary would have resulted in a summary as long as the AfD itself- which was 31,000 words long, by the way. Both of you tried to wear down the other side by sheer length of discussion- argument by exhaustion, if you will. The consensus among editors- most of which don't have a vested interest either way in this article- was pretty clear that the sources do not exist to justify the Bullshido article. A closer's job is not to decide if the article is merited-to do so would be to "supervote"- merely if consensus is there one way or the other, and in the case I'm quite confident that the consensus did, in fact, exist. Deletion review is available if you still disagree, but I stand by my close. Courcelles (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm, you seem intent upon characterizing our motivations and actions in the worst possible light. I wasn't trying to wear anyone down. I was improving the article as the discussion progressed and wanted to call attention to that fact; also, a lot of the editors' votes seemed to be based upon the AfD, which was no longer accurate as of the day after it was written. However, I did not expect you to revise your call, and was mostly doing this in the spirit of trying to settle the issue without deletion review, as WP:DRV suggests. You appear to be hostile to our very existence, so that, as they say, is that. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been sent to DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 31 . Hut 8.5 22:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Courcelles. You have new messages at TFOWR's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 10:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

CFD closing inquiry

Hi; regarding this close—would it be OK with you as closer if (after the merges are performed), I create soft category redirects on the old category names that use "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia"? Since both terms could be "correctly" used, I think redirects could be useful in this case and would prevent them from being created again, which, if they were created and populated, would just lead to the same confusion we just resolved. I see I forgot to propose redirects in my nomination, but I did intend to propose them. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think the redirects would actually be a good idea once Cydebot is done with the merging. Courcelles (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I can create them if you don't want to do them. In such cases, do you know if we should restore the history of the category, or should we just re-create it anew? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'd tend to say that nothing GFDL/copyright significant is being retained, so the category redirects can be created fresh, without old history- though, honestly, you've been doing this a lot longer than I have, so I'm fine with whatever you feel is best. Courcelles (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• I never have much of a clue when it comes to GFDL and copyright issues. Sometimes I used to restore the categories to create a redirect but then I started getting a bit lazy and now I just re-create them. I imagine it's OK—just wanted to make sure there wasn't a reason to restore that I hadn't thought of. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• I can't see any- the text in a category can be GFDL significant- which is why Cydebot lists contributors when doing a straight move, but the very title of a category is, in my view, not. Courcelles (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocking

I thank you for your rapid response to blocking vandals I report, and I will assume GF and that you accidentally ignored the fact that my second warning was an edit conflict (within 1 minute), and I'll assume GF that your sarcastic edit summary comment was not revenge for my voting on your recent RfA ;) It was nevertheless uncalled for.--Kudpung (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It actually wasn't sarcastic or anything- and I honestly didn't even notice who did it. (In fact, I didn't even recognize your name- if you hadn't mentioned the letters "RfA" I'd never had made the connection) I'm sorry if it sounded snarky, I was going for light and funny, not sarcasm. Courcelles (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well my name now figures boldly in your edit summary, and won't look good now in my own RfA ;) The problem at Wikipedia, as I have also learned to my dismay (because I now also fall into the same trap), is that contrary to AGF, most people deliberately look for anything that could be even vaguely regarded as sniping. Personally, I always think it's best to keep comments like that out of edit summaries and on the talk pages where they belong. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your rapid response to vandalism, and I'm pleased to see you being bold and immediately issuing indef blocks for clear cases. Most admins only block for a day or two which does't help anyone.--Kudpung (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that edit summary is nothing- when your own RfA comes around, I'll almost surely be in the support column. My views on vandalism-only accounts are well-documented in this page's archives- four edits, all obvious vandalism is about as easy a call to indef block as there is. No one should really need a warning to realise that an encyclopaedia won't put up with its pages being replaced with profanity or libel; after being warned it is ought to be plain as day it won't be long suffered. IP's, however, can't be indeffed because they rotate among users so much, but long series of repeated vandalism, block, vandalism, block can lead to blocks of a year or more. Blocking, I guess in the end, is more of an art than a science- if the rules could be written out easily someone would have written a bot to do more than clerk AIV! Courcelles (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...For blocking my fan! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 02:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• No problem- almost all that account's edits had been problematic to some degree, and the recent comments on user talk pages were inexcusable. Courcelles (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Impersonating an admin...

I didn't !vote for no "Courcelles", I !voted for someone quite different ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 18:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I'll try to do the same things! Courcelles (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

DON'T VANDI ROSSI!

6 points for creativity. 10 for making me LOL. However, DON'T DO IT! ;)

• Pardon? I think you're on the wrong talk page- I just reverted vandalism to that page. Courcelles (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles?

Why the change? :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• AN/I. See that thread about the outing incident by the person from Bullshido? It was time to get rid of the real name if things like that are going to be taking place... As to this name, well, it's a place in France I'm rather fond of, and can't be traced back to my identity as easily. Courcelles (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That thread is rather worrying, I don't blame you for ditching your real name. Btw, I've finally succeeded in bullying TFOWR into letting me bluelink his RfA! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Woah, I'm liking the new name! It'll probably take me a while to get used to it though :) Aiken ♫ 21:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You? It'll take ME a while to get used to! :D Courcelles (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for saving my virtue

Hi Brad. Thanks for the revert, though I can't help wondering what I missed out on ;) Favonian (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just general nastiness- per normal practice, all it is worth is: revert, block, revision delete, oversight, ignore. I've already done the first three. Courcelles (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just had time to read it, but didn't write down the phone number. Seems I have a real friend there: [2] Favonian (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Aaaaand I'll just hang on to Favonian's thanks and pile a bit more of mine on top. Cheers. Moocha (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

MEOW

Darn, you beat me to my NAC. I was kind of hoping he'd argue, so I could go get my bit back and say "ok, now it's an admin close". :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Go get your bit back anyway! I really can't think of any circumstances beyond a newly discovered copyvio that five days after an endorsed keep DRV is a suitable time for re-nomination. Courcelles (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Nah. I gave it up to try to encourage detachment from WP. It's obviously not working, but it's like dieting -- once you break the diet, you gain more weight back than you lost. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I never knew how useful the bit was until I got it. Even if I stopped sticking my nose into things, being able to "self-serve" the various requests I used to make a lot of is saving others tons of time. (In truth, you're still an admin, anyway, just with no buttons to mash.) Courcelles (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular cat names

I'm disappointed that the AfD was closed without having had a chance to defend it. I believe that my deletion rationale was significantly different than the previous one, and was based on a compilation of new information which wasn't available during that AfD. Can you please define the "significant amount of time" that needs to elapse before an article can be renominated for deletion without being speedy closed? Thanks. SnottyWong talk 03:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• To keep this in one place, I replied on AN/I. Courcelles (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Category:UK MPs 2010 who have been public affairs lobbyists -

Having initiated this category, I was away for a few days and missed the deletion debate. I started it as I read an article saying that 20 years ago, there were many doctors and teachers in the UK House of Commons. These professions have reduced in numbers and their place has been taken by people whose previous job was in " Public Affairs".

I thought it would be useful to link the MPs in the new House of Commons who have this profession given in their WP article. The category _is_ making a political point. It is NOT an attack on those so categorised - why should it be? What does it insinuate? The role of lobbyists in government is a matter for serious study and understanding. There should be, from British experience, some limitation of the role of parliamentary lobbyists, or at least, a well-informed debate on the matter. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 19:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• The discussion here, ran for the full seven days, per policy, and received a high level of participation for a Categories for Discussion debate. The suggestion made there is the best way forward- create this as a well-referenced list, not a category. I agree it was not an attack- attack categories are deleted at once under CSD criterion G10- but the discussion really couldn't have been closed any other way the way it went. Courcelles (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this helpful response. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 10:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Damn you!

I was about to do that rollback request! >:( HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• LOL. Maybe we need a Template:Closing for RFPERM! Anyways, shouldn't you be sleeping? Courcelles (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably. I think I've spent enough time on WP that my body clock runs on UTC! I'm just running round editing protected things at the moment! My template edits have gone way up today for some reason. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You're British! UTC is only an hour off your usual schedule! All I seem to be doing is mashing the block button, though I can say I've never pressed it on another admin ;) I think I've only put one thing on ITN- you keep doing all the work. Courcelles (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, English contrary to what you read on WP:ERRORS, there is a difference, but that's an argument for another place!. I do seem to making a lot of edits to ITN, but it is where I said I'd be working in my RfA (and I have to work harder to get ANI in uproar there than I do when I'm blocking admins ;) yet still I manage). Have you blocked am established editor yet? That's never a pleasant thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you both are talking about rollback requests, I just wanted to say thanks to one of you. wiooiw (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I mashed the button, and HJ thinks he did :D In all seriousness, no problem, come back any-time you need help from a sysop. Courcelles (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, you ought to get a fancy new signature- new name, new sig seems reasonable ;). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm considering lowering the protection on wooden and I wondered if you had any thoughts? I'm discussing it with Connormah ‎at user talk:HJ Mitchell#John Wooden. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• You've sorted Wooden, and I agree. As to a sig... I've never even considered changing it. Always seemed simple and subtle as it came from the factory.... maybe that needs to change. Courcelles (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Change can be a good thing (unless it's the skin that changes while you're in the middle of an edit! Stupid vector!) and it seems sensible now you've got a new name! It took me ages to get mine right, but I never was much good with fiddly markup, but I quite like it, and I'm pretty sure I'm the only person with a teal and navy blue sig (except my sock account)! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)