User talk:Courcelles/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Some disruption you missed

Thank you for protecting Portal:Contents.

Unfortunately, User:Verbal has been disrupting the templates on that page as well, in the face of opposition and lacking consensus. Those are part of Wikipedia's User Interface and main navigation system. He has been delinking the Outline of Knowledge from them, or tagging the Outline of knowledge links with his own POV inside the menus themselves:

• Template:Contents pages (header bar)
• Template:Contents pages (footer box)

Please take a look.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    18:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Protected both of those. Since I didn't block anyone the first time, no blocks here since the big flareup was yesterday.

Deletion review for Debrahlee Lorenzana

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Debrahlee Lorenzana. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Smallman12q (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Looks like it's headed to an overturn. As a philosophical matter, I don't care for second bite at the apple DRVs, but I'll stay out of it since it is overdue for closure. Courcelles (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

TY

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you!! DocOfSoc (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, but what did I do? Courcelles (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Because of my banned but active stalker, I am removing my effusiveness  ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Thanks again.DocOfSoc (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see SkagitRiverQueen, SPI, this and this. She's not quitting anytime soon unfortunately. A couple of us have been trying to help DocOfSoc to keep this community banned editor away. Mostly all we can do is use deny method. HTH, --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

DocOfSoc (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Ari89

This is the second similar NPA on User talk:Ari89 today which you probably noticed. If the IP numbers were closer, it might suggest a sockpuppet evading a block. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oops. my browser crashed while Twinkle was protecting, didn't realize it has gone through. Let me look into some blocks. Courcelles (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Someone already blocked everyone I saw. IP ranges are so not my area of expertise, you'd need to find an admin who has some understanding of rangeblocks. Courcelles (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. User talk:77.31.85.207 made the exact same attacks and even reverts. Wonder if it and the other IP are friends? ----moreno oso (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oh something is going on, but SPI's into IP's without any name accounts are usually a waste of everyone's time. Checkuser won't reveal everything, and it comes down to whether a rangeblock can be applied. I know there are some admins who advertise that they understand rangeblocks. Might be worth seeing what one of them thinks. (I know nothing about IP's. Not even if these folks are anywhere near the same "range".) Courcelles (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure if I know any admins who specialize in range blocks. Only Materialscientist comes to mind because he knows Mikey. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Signpost feature

Hi Courcelles, I've finished this week's promotions so feel free to add your FL choice of the week today or tomorrow at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-26/Features and admins. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, just in case you weren't aware, you can't pick your own ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I figured that part out :) Against this crop, I wouldn't do it even as an independent observer, there's at least two really unique lists, and another one of a type we don't see often to pick from. I'll write something there tonight. Courcelles (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know#List of Chicago Cubs first-round draft picks

Hi again. Another editor has requested that we add a year to the hook, in one of the following ways:

ALT1: ... that the Chicago Cubs have had the first selection in Major League Baseball's entry draft only once in the team's __-year history?

ALT2: ... that the Chicago Cubs have had the first selection in Major League Baseball's entry draft only once since ____?

Please fill in the blank you prefer (and that's mentioned in the article) and cut and paste onto the DYK page there (linked above). Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, not quite as simple as that, actually. I'll post there. Courcelles (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi there. I've never met you, and didn't know about the "reviewer" user permission until recently, and I found out that you gave it to me. Thanks a ton for taking the time to do that! Awickert (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• No problem, and happy editing! Courcelles (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! Awickert (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nikita

The new show hasn't aired yet, so the only page it has is it's main page. None of those pages would link to the new show, it would link to the original. Jayy008 (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done the run with AWB. While I have the technical ability to fulfil your request, I don't want to stop on MRG's toes, so I'll let her make a final decision to do the move or not. Courcelles (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's perfect. Thank you for your help! Jayy008 (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Reviewer permissions

Hi Courcelles, thanks! It was a nice surprise to know that I already had reviewer rights. Happy editing. AshLin (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us- happy editing! Courcelles (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI

While I'm loathe to get you to stop doing something such that it will create work for me, but if you like, Xenobot is approved for CFD/W work so I can set it to "auto" when doing Image-File replacements. –xeno^talk 13:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks, but I'm actually finding some where a straight Image->File substitution is not desirable for the entire page, so finishing the run manually is likely better. Courcelles (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

*phew* Dodged a bullet there. Carry on, then =] –xeno^talk 13:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC) [FWIW, I was planning on using regex to target the specific things that need replaced rather than simply replacing all instances of File and Image]

Any chance we could coordinate efforts on WT:RIF so that we're all pulling in the same direction? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if there's anything else that is within my level of ability- all I did was move everything from Category:Image-Class articles to Category:File-Class articles. Actually transitioning all the subcats is going to take someone who really understands template mark-up, though. (Didn't even know there was another page, the things I did were marked as NOBOTS on WP:CFDW.) Courcelles (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• That huge list there might screw up CydeBot, so feel free to remove it until the categories actually start to empty themselves. –xeno^talk 20:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's why I've been putting my closes at the top, hoping the bot will run them. If nothing happens on them, I'll copy your huge list to a subpage and let you know where I put it. Courcelles (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Either way - it's in the history. =) –xeno^talk 20:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Up in the Air II

I'll work on some more prose now, but I think the table will have to stay squashed against the box if we want to use that image. If we decide to change the image, there are a lot of George Clooney's available or this one, File:Jason Reitman Up in the Air TIFF09.jpg. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 19:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not like the picture of Jason Reitman from the Toronto International Film Festival. The picture is not from an awards ceremony, it does not have a clear context, and it is not a very good picture. I would rather go with a picture of George Clooney from BAFTA or the Academy Awards, a picture Anna Kendrick or another picture of Jason Reitman, or possibly crop the picture of Vera Farmiga. The chief advantage of the Vera Framiga picture is that it is clear that it is from an awards ceremony due to the dress. On a related topic, Up in the Air was on the Top Ten list of a large number of film critics. I do not know of a single citation that states this other Paramount Pictures Up in the Air website. I do not know whether it would be reasonable to list all of the major critics (with citations) who had Up in the Air in their top ten list. --Dan Dassow (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh, missed this. (My head is really not here today.) Crop, or forcing size would be possible options. The edit I just made there will help, as well. Courcelles (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I found an existing cropped image Vera Farmiga wearing the same dress. I replaced the previous image and forced the size so it no longer squashes the table. Let me know whether this sufficiently accomplishes our objective. I may still enumerate the major critics that listed UITA in their 2009 top ten list. So far found citations for Roger Ebert and Ken Turan. There are quite a few more. --Dan Dassow (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Today has been so unproductive for me, I've made like six edits. I blame the weather, I wish it would hurry up and rain. That being said, I have been working on the prose and I'll add it in a minute (apologies if it's terrible). Dan, the top ten lists could be mentioned in the prose, but I know we didn't include them in the table for The Hurt Locker (and I didn't for Inglourious Basterds). They are not nominations or awards are they? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not consider appearing on the top ten of major critics to be an award. I was thinking of something along the lines of: "Up in the Air also appeared on the 2009 top ten lists of Roger Ebert[1], Kenneth Turan[2], ..." --Dan Dassow (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Top 10's are worth a sentence or two, not much more. We don't need an exhaustive list, the AFI because, well, they're the AFI, and one or two more is plenty. A full list would dominate the actual topic of the list. Courcelles (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the prose okay? I may have repeated myself or certain words a few times, so get your thesauruses out just in case (I used the word "saw" too much in Gosford Park). - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Will copy-edit tomorrow. Not seeing anything too blatant though... Courcelles (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Will you indefinitely semi-protect my talk page edit notice? I don't want vandals finding out they can mess with me in this way. Also, could you indefinitely semi-protect my user page edit notice? Thanks! The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 22:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks HJ! The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 23:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice work. Courcelles (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

• News and notes: New interwiki project improves biographies, and other news

• In the news: Wikipedia leads in customer satisfaction, Google Translate and India, Citizendium transition, Jimbo's media accolade

• WikiProject report: These Are the Voyages of WikiProject Star Trek

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Discussion report: Controversial e-mail proposal, Invalid AfD

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working

Just saw this page. Who usually does the moving/merging of categories required? Is anyone allowed to do it? sonia^♫♪ 12:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Sonia. We have a bot that does all the work, a sysop just has to load it on the page, and wait. CydeBot will edit each article in a category and move them over. Thank goodness, as yesterday I added a 1,000 article category to CFDW, so moving it by hand would have required 1,000 edits. Instead the bot did it in 15 minutes. The bot is even a sysop itself, so it deletes the old categories after the move is complete! Courcelles (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's good. It looked like a lot of work and I was wondering if (like AfDs) the closing admin had to do the job as well...! That's useful. sonia^♫♪ 12:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason many of the old-time CFD admins have well over 100,000 edits. Some rare things, like double merges, where contents are distributed to two categories, have to be ran by hand, but those are usually small enough the closing admin just fires up AWB and does it. Before the bot, CFDW used to be openly editable, to allow non-sysops to help with the moving, but since editign teh page now gives instructions straight to the bot, it has to be fully protected. Courcelles (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I was going to say, if it was manual, that I could possibly help. (I have a semi-bot on simple which does the same sort of thing... couple of days ago I set it to fix archives, left it, then came back to find it hadn't done a thing. Then I realized that the reason I'd been asked was because the pages were all protected! Needless to say, I felt rather stupid after that...) So I'm "the short one" now? :P sonia^♫♪ 13:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! I've never operated a bot, so i'd imagine I'd make the same mistake. You could always help by commenting on CFD discussions- commenters are few, so sometimes discussions languish. Anything listed on WP:CFDW in discussions awaiting closure needs more input to determine what to do, all the cut and dry stuff has been closed by now. Of course youre the short one. It's a term of affection, trust me ;) Courcelles (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

UAA- of course non-admins can clerk and provide input. Just don't remove any reports, and don't be surprised if an admin does something else than your input- i.e., just because you suggest WP:COIN wouldn't constrain an admin from just blocking if it is an obvious violation. You didn't do anything like that- the one I saw was spot on, and I removed it from the list. Courcelles (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

All right. Does the same apply for AIV? And do I have to append (non-admin) to my comments, or avoid the templates (since they are "administrator notation templates"? (Sorry for all the questions...) Affection accepted with thanks :) sonia^♫♪ 13:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Clerking AIV, on the other hand, is usually a waste of non-admin time. The obvious ones will likely be blocked by the time you've looked into them, and the non-obvious ones are usually pretty easy to spot. AIV also moved a lot faster than UAA. The templates... well, I'm not sure there is any codified rule about that. Common sense usually applies. But, indent your comments right, and the bot will remove them if an admin decides to block. Courcelles (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Chicago Cubs first-round draft picks

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Again

TY for rollback privileges. You are appreciated! BTW: Why don't you post your barnstars? You sure earn them! Namaste!...DocOfSoc (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm one of those that feels like praise and criticism have to be taken when they come, and I really wouldn't feel right displaying one while letting the other archive in 36 hours- I get a good bit of both. Therefore, they both archive in 36 hours, and while the barnstars make me smile, I've never collected them into one page. Maybe it is time to collect them on one page, even if they're not displayed on my user page. Something to think about. Courcelles (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do. For those of us who put some thought in finding the PERFECT Barnstar we like to see them.LOL Also, as an FYI, when an admin piques my redheadedness, I go and read their barnstars and learn more about with whom I am dealing, it helps! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, twist my arm ;) I'll make a subpage for them tomorrow. Courcelles (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yaaaaay! Pat on the back! DocOfSoc (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of occupations

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of occupations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• And here I was trying to spend some time avoiding DRV :D. Courcelles (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• The conventional wisdom at DRV is that AFD is not a vote. Therefore, when there is some policy-based debate pro and con, a detailed judgement is required to explain why one reading of policy is superior to another (or why we should IAR and not follow policy at all). If editors think they have a good argument and present it, then per WP:DGFA the closer should "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants". A summary response of "The result was X" is inadequate because it does not do this - it seems to treat the detailed discussion with contempt. The result is then to lower the quality of discussion because discussion is seen to be ignored and so then you get perfunctory voting rather than a proper consideration of the topic. Please see User:Uncle G's contributions for a good example of non-voting discussion which actually engages with the topic. His sage observations are worth any number of Delete per X votes and such quality work should be encouraged. Do you not agree? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What are you getting at? There was absolutely no other way that AFD could have been closed any other way, both in numbers and strength of argument the !voters advocating keep per CLS were soundly rejected per SALAT and being an indiscriminate collection. I really only see the need to write out a closing rationale when uninvolved administrators could quite reasonably come to different conclusions- a good majority of AFD's are simply read the discussion and click the button. In this case, a keep close would have been summarily overturned at DRV, and I don't think no consensus would have fared much better, the arguments were so largely on one side, with the keep side having little to fall back on but CLS, which even sates, "At the same time, there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia." This happened here- this list was too indiscriminate, and too disorganised. Courcelles (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/GA1

I'll get to that in a couple of minutes. I'm going to have a read through of the article now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, looking forward to your comments. Courcelles (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've gone over the lead and the plot section (in between getting distracted by AIV, UAA and Wikinews!) and made some comments. Are you doing this solo? I'll get back to it at a more sociable hour. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me go take a look at what you had to say. :) Courcelles (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Heath Brandon

Deletion review for Heath Brandon

From Heath - I just think after 10 years as a independent singer.songwriter that I should be able to have a wiki page. I'm signed to a label that is distributed by Warner Music, I've performed as the opening act for internationally renowned artists, I spend almost 3 years at the top of the France charts with my cover of "Billie Jean", I've been on numerous international (major label) compilation albums, and have licensed my music to various films, tv, and commercial interests. It's been a slow year or so, musically, so I have not had a reason to update the wiki page.

Additionally, since the page was created, I've become a working actor - namely a commercial voice over actor - and I am currently the voice of AMEX - OPEN and Honey Nut Cheerios. I've spend the past few years as a comedy/improv actor and have created a website for my work at www.swimnaked.tv

The confusion with Brandon Heath has been the bane of my existence, but I don't think it's fair that since he and his new dominate google searches, that I would considered inappropriate to have my own wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathbrandon (talk • contribs) 19:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Any chance you can give me something to go on? The Heath Brandon article was deleted following a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heath Brandon. Is there some part of the discussion or my close you would like to talk about? Courcelles (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What can you show that you meet WP:ENT? What reliable sources have discussed you? The bottom line is that you have to become notable first, and then you get a Wikipedia entry- you're not consider "inappropriate", merely not notable enough yet. Courcelles (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 21#Category:Legal academics by nationality

I see that you closed this discussion as Rename all, but neither have started renaming the categories yourself, nor asked the bot to do it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. What's up with it? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I got the bot to do the subcategories, just somehow forgot to program in the parent category with them. Loading the bot now. Courcelles (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

ping

More mail. Advice appreciated. sonia^♫♪ 11:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Replying. Courcelles (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Received, thanks- I'll let you know. sonia^♫♪ 19:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Help

You here??How do you delete gross vulgarity? Would you believe on Potato chips?DocOfSoc (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC) [1]

We have the WP:REVDEL tool available to delete offensive revisions, but ordinary vandalism is an explicitly not allowed use of the tool-n that is simply reverted and ignored. ArbCom is keeping a pretty close eye on the new button due tot he potential for abuse. Courcelles (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The same thing was brought up at User talk:TFOWR, where 2 admins and a 'crat came to the same conclusion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

TYTY! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

question

it seems every year on List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman episodes the page get vandlized when new episodes are being put up. New episodes are going to be realsed soon for the show and I would like to know is it posbile to protect right as the episodes are realsed. It seems after the episodes are added it is an edit war and vandalism by the ip's. Or will it be best to wait intill it gets vandlsies. Also is there a way to just say protect for at least a lttle bit intill after the season is over. it wil,l oly be a mounth for it to air. I guesssing the episodes will be realsed withen the next 2 to 3 weeks. I just would like your opion on what to do, so we can provent this. thanksSaylaveer (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• You can list List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman episodes at WP:RFPP, but with no edits in five days, I wouldn't be willing to semi-protect it, there just isn't enough disruptive activity to justify protection. Courcelles (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

okay I just wait and see what happens when the episodes get addedSaylaveer (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

ITN/C

Fancy posting WP:ITN/C#Over 100 dead in boat sinking. Plenty of support, no opposition, high death toll, decent article. Should be uncontroversial- a novelty for you! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 30 July 2010 (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.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Floyd Mayweather Jr

Hi mate i believe your protected Floyd Mayweather's article page, if you did then how come people are vandalising him article, so whats the point and meaning behind protecting someones article. i would really like to know because im confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balagonj786 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Balagonj786 (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I only move-protected it to prevent anyone from moving the page. HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) applied the semi-protection, but that only stops edits from accounts less than four days old and with less than then edits. The present problems seem to be between users who are already past those thresholds, so they can freely edit, though I will monitor the situation. Courcelles (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You made a mistake

HalfShadow was clearly reverting vandalism. As such, he is exempt from 3RR. Just look at the spelling that he reverted. It's at best bad spelling or at worst a parody of ebonics or whatever. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

To quote the 3RR exemption, "Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." The edits he were reverting were non-constructive, I agree, but they weren't obvious vandalism- and reverting them without comment didn't help the situation one bit. Courcelles (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FWIW, I don't think the edits were especially helpful, but they don't qualify as vandalism. I believe HS when he says he wasn't consciously edit warring, but the edits weren't vandalism and nobody could really believe they were, so they don't get HS a 3RR exemption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, you could have just asked me to stop and I would have.

Just saying. HalfShadow 06:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Courcelles. You have new messages at Talk:The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/GA1.
Message added 20:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Up in the Air III

Continuing the conversation in User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_11#Up_in_the_Air and User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_12#Up_in_the_Air_II: I believe that List of accolades received by Up in the Air is now ready for an FLC nomination. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As do I. If June agrees, one of you should write up the nomination. Courcelles (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if I can be of assistance. I saw the film the other day. Not the best film I've ever seen, but it was quite funny. Btw, I'm about finish reading through The Body, so I'll have some comments for you in a few minutes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Up in the Air (film) still needs a lot of work to get to the level of a good article. I would appreciate your suggestions on how to improve that article. However, I believe that List of accolades received by Up in the Air is ready for a Featured List nomination. Courcelles and June have done a lot of great work to improve that list. <** Smile **> --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure Up in the Air (film) need much more than a solid copy-edit to be a credible GA candidate, either... Courcelles (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It needs a bit of work, but nothing that would take much more than a few days' work. It looks pretty well-sourced, so that's the most difficult part sorted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a draft of the FLC nomination:

Nominator(s): Dan Dassow (talk), JuneGloom07 Talk? , & Courcelles (talk) ~~~~~

List of accolades received by Up in the Air meets the six criteria for a featured list: prose, comprehensiveness, structure, style and stability. The article is well written and features professional standards of writing. The lead provides a brief description of Up in the Air (film), the venues in which it was shown and the nominations and awards which it has received. The lead clearly defines the scope and inclusion criteria. The article comprehensively addresses all of the nominations and awards that Up in the Air received with proper citation. The length of the list is appropriate for the subject, provides suitable supplementary information to the main article and does not duplicate information. The list is easy to navigate through and includes helpful section headings. The list fully complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and color. There are no red-linked items. The picture of Vera Farmiga on the red carpet at the 2010 Academy Awards properly follows fair use criteria and helps to illustrate the article. The article is stable. The content has not changed significantly during the last few weeks.

• Dan Dassow (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've formatted the nominators the way the archival bot expects it to be, but otherwise it is fine- you could just copy and paste what is above into the nomination, as long as you remove the <nowiki></nowiki> tags from the timestamp. Courcelles (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, late to the party. I think the list is good to go and I like the nom. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Give me a few minutes to finish my copy edit. I found a few of my pet peeves and some other minor things in the first half, it won't take me long to run through the second half. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm done- who kept writing "the films" without the apostrophe? That's worthy of an FLC oppose !vote in itself! ;) The only issue I came up with in the prose was At the Kansas City Film Critics Circle and the National Board of Review, Up in the Air won each of the awards for which it was nominated. It might help to include what the awards were, or just one or two and add including... I left a hidden comment in there so it can be easily found. Other than that, I'd say your prose looks good. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The apostrophe thing was probably me, thank you for the copy edit. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I might have some spare, here:''''''''! ;) You're welcome. I'll watchlist the FAC in case any prose issues come up. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have never nominated an article for GA, FA, GL or FL. I'm not certain how to do so. If either Courcelles or June would like to do so, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I will submit the nomination as soon as I figure out how to so. --Dan Dassow (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The instructions are on WP:FLC, but that's a s much help as I can be. I just stalk Courcelles' (and June's!) talk page. I've never nominated a featured anything before. GAs are much easier to nominate. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 23:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

HJ, thank you for the apostrophes. Dan, just follow the Nomination procedure at FLC and give one of us a shout if you get stuck. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I just submitted the nomination. Please review Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Up in the Air/archive1 to make certain I follow the procedure correctly. Thanks. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to add the list to the FLC page, but everything else is great :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it looks fine now :) Make sure to add it to your watchlists, and FLC has been slow lately, so doing a few reviews wouldn't hurt, either. Courcelles (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, FLC reviews would be grand! Courcelles, I feel your frustration, and will review that list tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dabomb. Sometimes the silence, as they say, is deafening when FLC's are concerned. They all get reviewed in the end, though... Courcelles (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I expect that the FLC for Up in the Air will take longer than the typical FLC. The press coverage for UITA decreased dramatically after it failed to win any Academy Awards. There was general surprise that Jason Reitman did not receive the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay. --Dan Dassow (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion on BLP vio

Hi Courcelles, you had provided the Reviewer rights to me. I would like to seek your opinion on possible BLP violation : Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Possible_vio_reg_Francis_Xavier_Clooney. Since I am yet to receive a reply at BLPN, I am contacting you. If this does not interest you, kindly ignore this. Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I never show my face at BLPN, but this case was fairly cut and dry. Courcelles (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt action. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your attention please..

I have noticed that some names of authentic Pakistani playback singers have been removed from Playback singer page and appears to be a war between the editors. Those names are Akhlaq Ahmed, Saleem Raza, Irene Parveen, Alamgir, A Nayyar etc and I dont undersatand why the editor has done so??Please look into the matter.Thanks Wings spread (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest letting you post on Talk:Playback singer go longer to see if anyone responds. There's nothing I can do as an administrator, and as an editor, I couldn't put together one intelligent comment on the article- as I've never heard the term before, and I don't touch music articles with a ten foot pole. Courcelles (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanx sir,but can you help me out by guiding whom should I be contacting for this serious issue as I am new to wikipedia..?Wings spread (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The response on the talk page sounds good to me- add the names with reliable sources using a inline citation and see what happens. Courcelles (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

RTV

I'm not sure if you have the tool or if it is appropriate, but if so, would you erase the edit history on this and earlier edits, and change the section heading so it doesn't continue to appear in the edit summary please? Anthony (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oversight might be able to do something, but as an ordinary admin, this doesn't fall into the guidelines for WP:REVDEL that we operate under, sorry. (I note someone who has the oversight flag has commented in the discussion, so this is likely as good as it is going to get.) This situation sucks in so many ways. Actually, there is one thing I can do... block that IP. Courcelles (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Anthony (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

At least he's not 3rring [2]! 68.28.104.241 (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And who are you using an IP sockpuppet? Courcelles (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

RevDel Request

Any chance you can RevDel the username of the user you just hardblocked for vandalism on Major urinary proteins? Thanks, Connormah^talk 03:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• A steward locked the account, but I don't see how it fits any of the criteria for revision deletion- it's just ordinary vandalism, and that's not within either of RD2 or RD3 requirements. Courcelles (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the username - it's disruptive while looking at the page history IMO. Connormah^talk 03:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ordinary disruption doesn't meet the standard for RevDel. I'll freely admit that I have a narrower interpretation of the RevDel criteria when someone's privacy is not at stake than some other sysops, so asking someone else may get you a different answer, but I don't feel it qualifies for redaction. Courcelles (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Are we on the same page here? :) I'm just referring to the username in the page history, not the diff. Connormah^talk 03:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we are. It's just a standard username violation, I block a dozen like it each and every week. Courcelles (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

One more point, to redact the username, I'd also have to redact User:Gogo Dodo's edit summary or it would be a complete waste of time. If he thought this was needed, he has the ability to do it himself. Courcelles (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviations as edit-summary fail. trying to abbreviate "Point Of Order" *redfaced* Courcelles (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(after 3 edit conflicts) Fair enough - do keep up the good work though, you're doing great as an admin. Connormah^talk 04:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't want my stupid mistake to show up on anyone's watchlists! Thanks for the compliment, the ironic thing is I'm trying to do less admin work and it just never seems to work out. Courcelles (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Any chance you can take a look at RFPP? There's quite an amount of unfilled requests at the time being. Thanks again. Connormah^talk 04:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

...and the even more ironic thing is, he just expressed his desire to get away from admin work, and you reply by asking him to do more... sonia^♫♪ 04:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course :). I'm pretty damn tired though - I tend to be a bit off when tired. Don't worry about it - I'm sure someone'll get on it soon. :) Connormah^talk 04:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone handled RFPP whilst I slept. And, Sonia, the irony wasn't lost on me either :) I don't mind, though... it's not as if I put myself through an RFA to not use the tools. Courcelles (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, Courcelles! I do kind of enjoy SPI stuff ever since I filed a successful report on a banned editor, and I'm glad to see that I assisted (albeit a little) in catching a sock of another banned user[3]. I'm an amateur; and I can't find a really good definition of "sleeper" on WP. I think 70.73.145.207 would be considered one, since there was no edit in over a year. Any WP page you could refer me to concerning "sleepers" would be much appreciated. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any hard-and-fast rule as to what constitutes a sleeper, but I don't really think an IP qualifies. The term is usually used to refer to a "sleeper check" where a check-user checks an account to see if they have registered any accounts that haven't been discovered. Courcelles (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, thanks, Courcelles! It certainly makes more sense. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

VPC

— raekyT 11:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

This user helped promote The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) to good article status.

Congrats! :) As I just said to Moni, I think it's almost ready for an FAC. You'll want to look at the prose in the critical reception section, though. It's easily good enough for GA, but it'll get picked apart at FAC. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The resolution for the video should probably be decreased to 300 pixels, too. I don't know how to do that. Thanks, HJ Mitchell, for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. I think it needs a heavy-duty copy edit, and there's at least one more book I want to read. I'm not sure I did enough to earn that userbox (or topicon, since that's my style) though. The video is on my to-do list, and hopefully it won't take the hours it did to shrink Once More, with Feeling's... Courcelles (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I was right. Only took me ten minutes or so this time. Courcelles (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Malleus to give it a copy edit. --Moni3 (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The benefit of fresh eyes, although it does make me think, "How did I not see that?" at times. Malleus does good work. Courcelles (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

I took the courtesy to contact Gerardw regarding his acceptance of this edit at Jessica Alba yesterday. A future IP edit removed the material, which I was the one to then approve. The reason the movie should not be credited to Alba, as you may be aware, is because no source has been provided as to Alba's actual role, thus putting the edit in violation of WP:CRYSTAL if I understand correctly (if not, please correct me).

In response to my polite note, his only reply is to quote one of the Pending Changes guidelines. Specifically, this one:

A reviewer ensures that the version of the article visible to a casual reader is broadly acceptable. The reviewer checks the pending change(s) for an article and can then decide to either accept it, revert it or modify it then later accept it. Reviewers are not expected to be subject experts and their review is not a guarantee in any way of an error-free article.

Another editor also commented on another change that was either reverted or changed back later (I did not research that one). After a rather stand-offish reply referencing WP:RVW about three times, I further tried to make him understand that common sense should prevail over policy. He fails to understand this, only referencing me to his initial reply instead of saying anything else constructive.

Thus, even though we are nearing the end of this trial, I think it is proving to be quite successful as my latest reviews have shown no visible obvious spam. Hence, we need to consider a change to the policy in the final days of the test. Namely, let's reword the line he uses as his Bible, because he and possibly other reviewers are using it as an excuse to approve any edit they come across that doesn't add spam to an article even if the information might be unsourced or otherwise untrue. Common sense should always prevail. I myself was double-checked on a review that by second opinion was suggested to be incorrect, and I accepted the second opinion politely; however, while that editor was fairly polite as I was and me in exchange, Gerardw apparently prefers to be stand-offish in response to my equally polite concern. Of humour, both my comment to him and the one to me by the second editor in that case occurred at the same time. *LOL*

What are your thoughts either on this matter, on the suggested review of the policy, or both? CycloneGU (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

• News and notes: Canadian political edits, Swedish royal wedding, Italian "right of reply" bill, Chapter reports

• In the news: Gardner and Sanger on why people edit Wikipedia, Fancy and frugal reading devices, Medical article assessed

• WikiProject report: Always Expanding: WikiProject Images and Media

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Major MediaWiki release, password security, vulnerable MediaWiki installations, and more

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

New Section

mate no disrespect to you, but if something is true isnt that fact supposed to be up there? the guy has accomplished these things, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balagonj786 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

ok mate i tell your something im gonna go, and leave you alone, but thats unfair people edit all day long, and some facts are crap dont even exist, my facts are true and backed up with references.Balagonj786 (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles, tell me im talking sense, you check the article and check the references, and you will notice that everything is true 100%Balagonj786 (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My job really isn't to decide who's "right" about Floyd Mayweather, Jr., that's why the article has a talk page. That should be used instead of getting into another revert war. I'm not the arbiter of anything around here, just someone with a few extra buttons that is telling you—straight-up, no sugar-coating—that yet another revert war on that article will not end well. You can choose to take that advice or not. Courcelles (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Before i go i just wanna ask you one question, why did you protect floyd mayweather jr's article? and do u know who he is? and what country you from? after that ill leave you alone and you wont hear from me again.Balagonj786 (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I move protected it- because some vandal moved it to a nonsensical title. That's fairly standard practice, and it's a high-profile enough article that it shouldn't be moved anywhere without discussion anyway. He's a boxer, and that's where my interest in the sport pretty much ends- it's not my game at all. What country am I from? Complicated answer, that I'm not going to provide. Courcelles (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)