User talk:Courcelles/Archive 74
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 70 | ← | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | → | Archive 80 |
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.
Silly me, I emailed you and then forgot to tell you about it. - JuneGloom Talk 23:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
File:ROP - Logo.jpg
The image was somehow removed from the article it was supposed to be part of, i dont know why. i have been off wikiepdia for sometime now,but the problem has been rectified. This particular logo is needed to recognise the Royal Oman pOLICE - the law and order organisation of Oman. I have put the logo back on the page for Royal oMAN Police. thanks. prbably the tag can be removed now!? --Pranav (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the tag, but there's never any need to tell me about these- when a file is back in use, a bot will remove the deletion tag fairly quickly, Courcelles 23:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
/* May 2011 */ ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Unlock
Greetings Courcelles! Do you think it is possible to unlock ABCs of Attraction so that I can move ABCs of attraction to it? Proper capitalization is all. Many thanks and hope you have an awesome weekend planned. :) Alexandra Adotrde (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- The protecting and all three of the deleting admins are still active, please ask one of those four. It seems like a cap fix, but I'm not sure the new article has staying power. Courcelles
In the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 18#Pamela Stein (closed), User:NuclearWarfare restored the history of the article while deleting all 73 revisions, which he described as "more a technical close than anything else: enforcing Courcelles' decision to delete the previous versions of the article while still maintaining the attribution history, which is what I thought most editors were requesting. If Courcelles is fine with it, I would be OK with you or any other sysop undoing my revdeletes or reopening the DRV." [1]
You wrote in the deletion review that there are "things there that shouldn't be restored", but I went through all the past revisions and didn't see anything that was obviously problematic. (I did see one revision that included an insulting word, which is offensive but not bad enough to be revdeleted. And various revisions included the subject's children's names, but those can be reliably sourced.) Do you think that, at a minimum, we could narrow down which revisions need to be deleted? Otherwise, I am going to request a new DRV because the consensus was in favor of undeleting the history, not suppressing all the previous versions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- There's no way her children's names should ever have been posted, even if they could have been sourced. And they weren't here- a clear violation of WP:BLP. We do not post the names of minor children of barely notable people, ever, (and especially non truly non-notable people like here) and we don't keep that kind of information around. Courcelles 17:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- In that case, can we restore the revisions that don't mention the children's names? It looks like only a small number of the revisions mentioned the children by name. In fact, none of the revisions from 2005 through 2008 mentioned the children by name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't reviewed all 78 revisions, but if you can find something worth restoring without restoring the children's names in any instance, go ahead. I think you're spending a lot of time for no gain whatsoever, but, well, that's your call. Courcelles 17:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I won't restore the versions that have the children's names included. I admit that you may be right that the amount of time I am putting into this exceeds the possible benefit, but I am probably going to see this through nonetheless. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't reviewed all 78 revisions, but if you can find something worth restoring without restoring the children's names in any instance, go ahead. I think you're spending a lot of time for no gain whatsoever, but, well, that's your call. Courcelles 17:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- In that case, can we restore the revisions that don't mention the children's names? It looks like only a small number of the revisions mentioned the children by name. In fact, none of the revisions from 2005 through 2008 mentioned the children by name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall ever seeing a semi-protected talk page. I certainly understand the article's protection, but how can someone who is unable to edit the article make an edit request or discuss ways to improve it if the talk page is locked? Is this necessary? Joefromrandb (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a common occurrence, but occasionally the vandals move their garbage from the article to the talk page when the article is protected. It's not necessary often, but when it is, there's no way for IP's to do any of those things, unless they find an editor who is active on that article who is willing to consider the changes, and approach said editor on their talk page. Courcelles 22:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with you, and with the highest degree of respect, have made an unprotection request. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 May 2011
- News and notes: GLAM workshop; legal policies; brief news
- In the news: Death of the expert?; superinjunctions saga continues; World Heritage status petitioned and debated; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Formula One
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Injunction – preliminary protection levels for BLP articles when removing PC
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
|
Magioladitis has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †
|
At It Again: Mysweetoldetc
Hello C: Mysweetoldetc just created an interesting intra-linear response to an entry of mine on the talk page for Battle of Little Bighorn here [2]. Whatever validity his/her responses to my points may have, the tone and approach is, shall we say, unconstructive. I'd appreciate it if you have the time if you'd have a look at it. It is more of a WP:PA than an actual response, so I'm not inclined to reply at the moment. I noted that you rapped MSO's knuckles before, and I'm thinking that a short note to him or her might be useful. MSO conveniently italicized his/her, ah, contributions. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've reverted and left him a note. It's totally unacceptable to make his comments look like yours, but not blockworthy unless he persists. Courcelles 21:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Courcelles has a crush on me, as you can see! But none of your nonSense, sir. You have some answering to do on the BLBH talk page. Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Hardly what I would call a constructive approach to serious editing. Sensei48 (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
YGM
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.
~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Request for lifting of topic ban
Hi Courcelles. I would be very grateful if you could lift (at least provisionally) my indefinite ban on editing in the Israel/Palestine field. I hope my recent efforts in monitoring and combating vandalism on Wiki (along with a few other contributions) will be recognised as a positive commitment to the project. Sincerely Prunesqualer (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Prunesqualer violated his topic ban less than two weeks ago. 1 week of using anti-vandalism tools should not be sufficient especially since we know that the intent was only to get back into editing a contentious topic area. This recent anti-vandalism also shows no improvement in interaction with other editors, how he will handle controversy, and if there is a focus on quality content. Cptnono (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- @ Courcelles I would greatly appreciate it if you looked into the context in which I "violated [my] topic ban less than two weeks ago” ie I was initially queried (by Brewcrewer) about having a second account, and then accused of Sockmasery (by Cptnono) in the I/P field. These Queries/accusations centred round an edit which occurred in January, yet the Queries/accusations only surfaced months later, a few hours after I first appealed (to you) to have my topic ban lifted. Firstly, I would like to say that I have never been involved in sockpuppetry/sockmasery and would ask, if you could spare the time, if you would to use your admin status to look into this. Secondly, I would suggest that the timing of these Queries/accusations smacks strongly of gaming the system (or worse). My behaviour in the past has not been perfect, but I would appeal to you to look into the context of my edits before passing judgment. Sincerely Prunesqualer (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- You violated your topic ban in April as well. Those were not connected to the accusations others made.
- You obviously are not ready if your initial response is to accuse critics of gaming the system.Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- The appeal in the second instance is to WP:AE. Here's the problem- lifting a ban such as this requires a few months of constructive work, as well as involvement in another topic area, not five days of using the undo button. I have no objection if AE is prepared to lift this sanction, but I would be more amenable to an Fall/Winter time-frame, assuming your activities and involvement in other areas of the project are solid. Courcelles 07:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- @ Courcelles Just for the record. Not all of my recent edits involved vandalism patrol. You should also know better than to dismiss vandalism patrol work as simply- “using the undo button”. During the many hours I spent doing it, I quickly learned that, not all vandalism is easy to spot, that checking up on facts is often required, and that without the dozens of people who give up their time doing this work, wiki would quickly start to fall apart. Having got that off my chest I will now go back to some constructive editing. Prunesqualer (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't discount anti-vandalism work at all -- I did it for months. However, what it doesn't demonstrate is an ability to edit in a terse environment like most of those areas under discretionary sanctions are- vandalism patrol is lonely work, and sanctions are imposed in areas where collaboration is de facto mandatory. Courcelles 08:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough, sorry to be so prickly. I consider myself to be basically an honest and well intentioned person, so I don’t find it easy being judged but, I guess, that's how things have to work on wiki. Ta ta for now. Prunesqualer (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't discount anti-vandalism work at all -- I did it for months. However, what it doesn't demonstrate is an ability to edit in a terse environment like most of those areas under discretionary sanctions are- vandalism patrol is lonely work, and sanctions are imposed in areas where collaboration is de facto mandatory. Courcelles 08:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- @ Courcelles Just for the record. Not all of my recent edits involved vandalism patrol. You should also know better than to dismiss vandalism patrol work as simply- “using the undo button”. During the many hours I spent doing it, I quickly learned that, not all vandalism is easy to spot, that checking up on facts is often required, and that without the dozens of people who give up their time doing this work, wiki would quickly start to fall apart. Having got that off my chest I will now go back to some constructive editing. Prunesqualer (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- The appeal in the second instance is to WP:AE. Here's the problem- lifting a ban such as this requires a few months of constructive work, as well as involvement in another topic area, not five days of using the undo button. I have no objection if AE is prepared to lift this sanction, but I would be more amenable to an Fall/Winter time-frame, assuming your activities and involvement in other areas of the project are solid. Courcelles 07:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- @ Courcelles I would greatly appreciate it if you looked into the context in which I "violated [my] topic ban less than two weeks ago” ie I was initially queried (by Brewcrewer) about having a second account, and then accused of Sockmasery (by Cptnono) in the I/P field. These Queries/accusations centred round an edit which occurred in January, yet the Queries/accusations only surfaced months later, a few hours after I first appealed (to you) to have my topic ban lifted. Firstly, I would like to say that I have never been involved in sockpuppetry/sockmasery and would ask, if you could spare the time, if you would to use your admin status to look into this. Secondly, I would suggest that the timing of these Queries/accusations smacks strongly of gaming the system (or worse). My behaviour in the past has not been perfect, but I would appeal to you to look into the context of my edits before passing judgment. Sincerely Prunesqualer (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use revisions
Courcelles, this category needs attention. I tagged a few images with {{Orfurrev}} but the revisions were not deleted. Thanks. Novice7 (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, I've fixed my mistake. Novice7 (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that was an exercise in boredom :) Backlog cleared! Courcelles 15:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks :D I was wondering if you could leave a few comments on "Exhale (Shoop Shoop)" here? Thanks in advance. Novice7 (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll try, but no promises. I'm so far behind in article work and in reviewing right now I can't see the light through all this paper I'm buried in. Courcelles 15:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks :D I was wondering if you could leave a few comments on "Exhale (Shoop Shoop)" here? Thanks in advance. Novice7 (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that was an exercise in boredom :) Backlog cleared! Courcelles 15:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Republic of China
We edit conflicted. No worries, I defer to your judgment. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- No worries... I'm hopeful your protection ends up being too long, but not a big deal. Courcelles 17:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just wondering...if the full protection is allowed to automatically expire, what will occur? Will the page be reverted to the semi that was applied for 3 months on 7 March or will all protection be lifted? —HXL's Roundtable and Record 21:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- It'll be totally unprotected as regards editing. I'll be sure to stick the semi back on, though. Courcelles 22:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. There is no strong need yet (i.e. when the unconstructive edits start rolling back) to re-apply semi, and I am sure you have more pressing matters and better things to do xP —HXL's Roundtable and Record 22:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- It'll be totally unprotected as regards editing. I'll be sure to stick the semi back on, though. Courcelles 22:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just wondering...if the full protection is allowed to automatically expire, what will occur? Will the page be reverted to the semi that was applied for 3 months on 7 March or will all protection be lifted? —HXL's Roundtable and Record 21:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Zannel
The microblogging site http://www.zannel.com is closing on 1 June 2011. Wikipedia used to have an article about this website but it has been deleted. Would you consider a request to provide a copy? There is very little about this site in a Google search nowadays. Thanks, Ian.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Major, major spam piece, but check your e-mail for what was there. Courcelles 20:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. With the huge dominance of Twitter nowadays, there is a tendency to forget that a few years ago it was in competition with sites like Zannel and Jaiku. The deleted article about Zannel was rather spammy in tone, but had some information about the company history that would have been hard to find elsewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
About the article "Daniela Hantuchova"
If you think exhbition tournament isn't worth mentioning, please give me a responsible explain. Pierce (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Simple, this is an encyclopaedia, and we aren't a week-to-week guide to anything, tennis included. This Hong Kong tournament is an exhibition; no ranking points; no actual meaning; and no real coverage in comparison to the tournaments proper before the Australian Open (Sydney and Dubai). The fact that it's being hosted by a red-linked organisation is a major hint that it's not significant enough to mention in biographies, and especially not with more space than the Majors. Courcelles 13:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Further, you really seem to be trying hard to promote this tournament. Do you have a connection with it? Courcelles 13:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello again
I believe the protection period is over for Talk:Harold Camping. The template redirecting users unable to edit it to WP:RFP is still there. I was going to remove it, but figured I had better check with you first. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry too much about it. You can either take it down, or Dumbbot will take it down before very long. Courcelles 00:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I just wanted to be sure. I didn't know if you intended to re-protect it. Although I disagreed with you, I respected your intentions, and didn't want to seem like I was rushing to remove it. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- One awful IP edit and one IP violating NOTFORUM... not going to re-protect now -- I'm hopeful the noise and mocking of this fellow is mostly over and that the talk page can be left open. Courcelles 01:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I just wanted to be sure. I didn't know if you intended to re-protect it. Although I disagreed with you, I respected your intentions, and didn't want to seem like I was rushing to remove it. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, just curious: did you intend to move protect this or was it your intention to fully protect it? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I meant to move protect it, as I was putting it on ITN, and the bolded link of the main page is typically so done, to prevent us from getting a redirect loop, or page-move vandalism, visible from the MP. Courcelles 06:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I thought it was something to do with the bickering and page blanking that's been going on there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- no, though I see the problems. Feel free to handle them as you see fit, by full protecfion or otherwise. (the insominiac)Courcelles 09:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I thought it was something to do with the bickering and page blanking that's been going on there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
2002 done
List of 2002 Winter Olympics medal winners is done. Could use a copyedit from a fresh pair of eyes. :) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll go over it tomorrow, and put it up for FLC for us. (My brain is just mush this evening, featured-level copyediting is not going to happen today.) Courcelles 23:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)