User talk:Courcelles/Archive 69

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

→

Archive 75

FLC for Huskies of Honor

Hello. I have an open featured list candidacy for Huskies of Honor that has gone several days without receiving any comments. I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look? You can find the FLC review page here. –Grondemar 00:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure... tomorrow. Courcelles 00:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, no rush. Thanks! –Grondemar 04:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

You were blocked directly. An admin went to Special:Block, saw your username in the field, and mashed the button. Wikipedia:IP block exemption would have done you no good at all in that case- it only does any good if the IP you're using has been blocked, and your account has not been. Courcelles 01:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

PMDrive at ANI

Hi, Courcelles. I've made an ANI report regarding PMDrive's handling of the Wendy Starland article, see:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Administrator_PMDrive1061_and_the_Wendy_Starland_article

Although there was some resolution, I think the behaviour during that episode warrants further discussion. I would appreciate it if you would care to comment. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I really have no idea why you did that. We walk an incredibly fine line between protecting our subjects and having an openly editable encyclopaedia, and the matter was pretty much over- spend a few hours on OTRS and you'll understand what I am talking about. In all my edits, I've yet to see a situation where ANI was the best venue to make things better. Courcelles 07:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer review of 1982 Asian Games medal table

Hi Courcelles, I've created a new article 1982 Asian Games medal table and now it is in peer review. I've worked a lot on this and want to make it Featured List. If you've any time, could you please take part in this review and give me your precious suggestions..Thanks in advance -- Bill william compton^Talk 11:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Latest from the banned editor

What's my little friend got to say now? I"m trying to figure out what I did to get this guy so riled up. It makes me tiny bit uncomfortable that I can't access what he said so as to defend against it, as much as I appreciate the process and the protection of the admins. I'm guessing this is related to a comment regarding the WWE, but I don't know for certain. Drmargi (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There's not a thing to defend yourself against. If you turn on your e-mail, I'll send you the line he used, but it's not worth the hassle- typical juvenile garbage. Courcelles 16:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I figured. My e-mail is on, but I've e-mailed you. Drmargi (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Replied. Courcelles 16:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Got it. I'll reply to e-mail. Drmargi (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Short Stories (Kenny Rogers album)

If you deprod something, give an explanation. You should know that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I restored it... for some reason. Might have been WP:REFUND. I didn't contest it myself, just put through someone else's contest. I didn't have a clue who three months down the road. Courcelles 21:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OTD changes

You removed the item whose article has no less than 18 references on the grounds that it was unsourced, and reintroduced ENGVAR issues that had been resolved after being raised at WP:ERRORS. Poor edit. Kevin McE (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 2002 FIFA World Cup qualification has no references at all, and 2002 FIFA World Cup has all of three. Courcelles 00:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Question re: PP on Sylvester Stallone

Hi, Courcelles! A little earlier today, you full-protected the Sylvester Stallone page because of an ongoing edit war. Unfortunately, the page was left in a state where the article text doesn't match the cited source. While I could certainly be mistaken, looking at the Edit History tells me the disruptive editor was an IP and the folks trying to clean up the mess were registered accounts. Would you agree to either:

• Semi-protect the page so one of the registered editors can restore it?

or

• Revert the IP editor's last change yourself, leaving the page in its protected state?

Thanks for your time! I know you're busy and this is a pain in the butt... — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Unprotected... I'll be personally monitoring the situation, however. Courcelles 20:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please do. Since it's completely unprotected now, I'll bet that guy comes back. He's pretty quick to violate 3RR, though, so that may be a way to deal with him.

Regardless, THANKS for your help! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 23:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad news

The copyright tyrants got to me. I overreacted, got into an edit war and lost both my rollback and file mover tags. While I suspect that I will get the former back soon, I don't think the latter will be coming back any time soon. I'm going to have to make some significant changes to the files in order to placate the tyrants, so unless they agree to my desperate plea to restore the file mover in order to facilitate what I'm going to do, I'm going to need your help again. Sorry. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 04:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

• News and notes: Editor retention; Malayalam loves Wikimedia; Wikimedia reports; brief news

• In the news: What if experts just want to get their links into Wikipedia?; brief news

• Recent research: Research literature surveys; drug reliability; editor roles; BLPs; Muhammad debate analyzed

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Two cases closed – what does the Coanda decision tell us?

• Technology report: The Toolserver explained; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Mail?

Hi,
did you get the mail I sent regarding Intoronto1125?
Cheers, Amalthea 19:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, it got sent straight to my spam folder, replying now. Courcelles 19:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will give him a reply later today. And huh, do you know what scored that mail down? Or is your filter that aggressive? Cheers, Amalthea 20:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Who knows. That account only gets the various Wikimedia mailing lists I'm on mail, nothing else, so the spam filter really shouldn't be trained at all. Courcelles 20:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"Suso" again

Hi, You twice deleted Jesús Fernández Sáenz under G4. I have found Jesús Fernández Sáenz de la Torre (the same player I believe) which has twice been deleted (A7 and G7). Could you please check the content whether G4 is again appropriate or whether I should be looking at a new discussion. What with all the possible different spellings with accents and such, It is not easy to find the original discussion you G4'd under. --ClubOranje^T 10:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like all the others. Problem is that we've seen it under so many titles I'm not sure where the AFD is at this point- if you can find it, G4 should fit like a glove. Courcelles 11:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesús Joaquín Fernández Sáenz de la Torre. The article has joined its predecessors. Favonian (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Favonian. The new title has joined the others in the salt mines, as well. Courcelles 12:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The creator of the most recent batch of Suso clones pushed his luck too far. After yet another instance, I've sent him off for a week. Favonian (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys.--ClubOranje^T 19:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And another one...Fernandez Suso...Thanks--ClubOranje^T 10:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Zapped and salted. This is getting rather old. Courcelles 13:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your take on MOS:HASH

I seem to have wandered into a discussion on use of №/#/No in table headings among an assortment of 30 Rock episode list articles when the effects of a couple edits spilled over into an article where I edit. The issue the correct use of hash marks to represent the word number in table headings seems to be a bit up in the air, and I thought you might be able to give me some insight. First off, my bias: I've seen the use of №/# to head the tables that contain episode numbers within a season versus episode numbers over the life of the a series spread like wildfire of late, and find them loathesome. They seem to be pushed vigorously by two editors, both with fairly strong editing styles (shall we say), at least one of whose agenda is to use headings that work on his monitor rather than headings that actually inform the reader of the difference in the two columns. I've campaigned against them in a couple articles, and thus far, been successful. I haven't pushed the edits beyond where I actually edit, but I do see these two shorthand headings as a real problem.

That said, another editor and I have been looking for a solution: clear but concise headings to label the two columns. We are trying out something new in a couple articles that involve use of the hash mark. Last night, OE (other editor) changed the hash marks to the word number, citing MOS:HASH. I took a look and my reading was that a. the use of the symbol № is unambiguously unacceptable in any instance, and that b. where one might use a # in a sentence, No (but not №) should be used instead. I saw this as analogous to the rule for use of and versus an & in text versus in a table, where the ampersand, and by the extension, the # is acceptable. OE feels that, based on your comments, the use of the # is also incorrect in table headings. I read the discussion (and agree with your assessment of most episode list articles as horrid!) and didn't interpret what you said in the same way he did. Given he's an editor I like to work with, and because I respect your work tremendously, I thought the wisest thing was to come to the source for some clarification.

So, getting to the point at long last, would you view a heading reading # in series as acceptable, or should is read No in series to comply with the MOS? (Sorry to be so long-winded!!) Drmargi (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, you'll never get through FLC without some reviewer demanding that a # sign be changed. Someone brings a list with a # header to FLC at least once a month, and it is always caught, and always changed. 90% of this is stylistic, and 10% is technical- (a # sign breaks links in MediaWiki, try typing it into the search bar and see where you end up.) I seem to have waded into a little stylistic war- and we all know where those can lead, but my only real interest is in season articles I worked my butt off to get stars put on them (and one I'm going to have to do the same for in the Summer to keep an FT alive), so that this is a really widespread problem isn't something I plan on getting into. The problem is that it seems most TV season articles are using the №/# thing, and bringing it into compliance with MOS is going to be a battle from some fronts, but it will be done as these articles improve and move through FLC if not before. Courcelles 15:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. At least by ridding ourselves of the symbols, we have a solution to the dreaded №/# issue. They're all over the TV episode list articles like a rash these days, and between the guy you had the exchange with and the one who thinks he owns the road I've dealt with, we've got a good MOS-based practice to back up the changes. I'm not wedded to the hashmark at all; if No works instead and has the added benefit of passing the MOS test, dandy. (Gad, I'd forgotten about the whole date de-linking drama. We have a term for such discussions in academia, but it's a bit rude for a talk page.) Thanks!! Drmargi (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm going to avoid thankspamming over a hundred folks (only half of whom I recognized, much less actually knew), but I'm going to single you out. I really appreciate your nomination, and look forward to continued productive work with you, other admins, and the AUSC. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Bob. You were ready for the mop even if you hadn't been elected to AUSC, so I was very glad to see it go as well as it did. Courcelles 13:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for opinion

I would like to request your opinion WT:GAN. Thanks and cheers. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 00:57, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

NIN

Courcelles, I placed the NIN FTRC on hold but I would like to know how long you're gonna work on Trent Reznor. I can't keep it up for long. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

ping. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it this weekend, but you need to have more patience with FTRC's than this- the focus needs to shift onto saving them, and not delisting them as soon as possible. Plus, you could never close this one, since you filed it. Courcelles 22:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

FLC

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grammy Award for Best Rock Instrumental Performance/archive1. Have your concerns been addressed? --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't cap it because of the conversation, but I did support. Courcelles 22:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

RevDel on Sydney

Hi. Would you be able to do a RevDel on an edit summary here due to usage of a highly offensive term? Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that it referred to a particular editor, gone. Courcelles 00:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It was funny that they even linked the term to its page, as if that would make it an acceptable reference to an editor. Taroaldo (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Rev Deletion request

Hello, Talk:Chantilly High School, IP edits with a gross wp:BLP violation. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, that wasn't just deletable, that needed to be oversighted. One of your edits had to be 'sighted in the process, sorry. (the one where you did a bit incomplete clean-up job). I've also blocked the IP for 48 hours. Courcelles 04:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, for future reference, whether something needs to be deleted or suppressed, it's better to use e-mail. Individual admins can be contacted for RevDel, and WP:RFO explains how to request oversight. Posting them on-wiki tends to draw lots of attention, the last thing we need before a diff is deleted/sighted. Courcelles 04:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Transformice

It's been over eight months since the article has been deleted and I feel the game has become much more notable now rather than in June 2010, which was a month after the game's release. The site now ranks in the top 40,000's of Alexa's Traffic Rank. It's won a Mochi People's Choice Award in its Flash Gaming Summit 2011. The site polls over 1,000,000 results in Google and is recognized by Newgrounds, Kotaku, Kongregate and has over 180,000 likes on Facebook. Back in June 2010, the game was solely French, running on French servers, but has since expanded to English, Russian, Brazilian and Chinese. The game has garnered a much larger fan following in the past eight months. In addition, the main instigator for the WP:SALT placement during the AfD Discussion was identified as a sockpuppet and subsequently blocked from Wikipedia. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 13:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably would be a good idea to write a userspace draft first, so we can see what kind fo sourcing exists now that didn't nine months ago. Courcelles 19:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Very well. I took you up on your suggestion and created a solid foundation for an article on the matter here: User:Antoshi/sandbox. Please take a look at it and tell me what you think. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 21:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed what you said about putting new messages at the bottom. So, I took the whole section and put it here, heh. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 14:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't G4 it, so that's enough to unsalt the mainspace title so you can move it in. Don't be shocked if it goes back to AFD, however, the sourcing is rather thin. Courcelles 22:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I know a few more sources would be good, but I feel as though it's solid groundwork. I'm hoping for some additional input in terms of sourcing from fellow editors, as I've done what I could. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 23:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)