User talk:Courcelles/Archive 76
 | 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 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | → | Archive 80 |
Message added 02:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC). 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.
—mc10 (t/c) 02:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Both of you have replies. Courcelles 05:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
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.
--5 albert square (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- And replied. Courcelles 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- And again :)--5 albert square (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Courcelles, as someone who has reviewed a few of my cricket lists in the past, I was wondering if you might be able to take a look at List of international cricket centuries by Andrew Strauss and make any comments at the FLC, which seems to have died a little of late. Harrias talk 09:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Will do. Courcelles 16:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: 3rr
Hello. I beg to differ: The IP at Orc (Middle-earth) had previously been warned not to vandalise that page (and also another Tolkien page). I have even reported it to AIV, so vandalism reverts do not fall under the 3-reverts-rule. Regards, De728631 (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Read WP:NOTVAND. In no way do those edits constitute vandalism. Courcelles 00:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then please tell me how this edit summary is not disruptive and in bad faith? De728631 (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I must admit that I feel traited unfairly by you. As I have repeatedly explained to you and on the AIV board, I was not at all consindering this an edit war. I can live without rollback rights but I just wanted to let you know that I'm considering getting a second opinion on this.
- Meanwhile the IP has happily continued to change the article [1]. Regards, De728631 (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've blocked the IP for edit warring. Whether you considered it an edit war or not really doesn't matter; it was a textbook one, and accusing your opponent in an edit war of vandalism doesn't make it so. Your responses actually make me more sure that removing your rollback flag was the correct decision, if you don't understand what vandalism is, you shouldn't be sing the rollback button, and a content dispute perused in the wrong ways doesn't justify you jumping in with the rollback button. You made four reverts here -- you could easily have been blocked for your engagement in this conflict. Courcelles 01:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm beginning to think you didn't really notice how this all began. Did you check all the IP's recent contributions or just the diffs I had posted on AIV? I noticed that you wrote in the IP's talk page that "the accusations of vandalism above were completely wrong" That first edit was vandalism and the subsequent attempts of the IP to push their opinion are directly connected. I didn't put that diff on AIV because someone else had already warned the IP about it, but that's where I was coming from. De728631 (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please let's continue this dicussion on ANI. De728631 (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I really have no idea what else there is to discuss. This wasn't a particularly hard case, one bad edit, three good ones. You used rollback to remove readers, readers, and readers. None of those edits can be called vandalism, unless you want to argue that one bad edit means the user can be reverted freely and without restriction for all other edits, which is clearly nonsense. The correct action was to read WP:NOTVAND, understand the differences between vandalism and everything else, then gone to WP:RFPERM in a couple weeks and asked for the rollback flag back. The three reverts you made were not of vandalism, and any attempt to paint them as such fails logic. Courcelles 09:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I at least count the "reader" edits as sneaky vandalism and gaming the system by using fake arguments in the edit summary. As I've written on ANI I for one did not see any good faith actions by the IP there (their uncommunicative way has been documented [2]). And one other editor was apparently of the same impression because they used rollback to revert the IP's "reader". De728631 (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I really have no idea what else there is to discuss. This wasn't a particularly hard case, one bad edit, three good ones. You used rollback to remove readers, readers, and readers. None of those edits can be called vandalism, unless you want to argue that one bad edit means the user can be reverted freely and without restriction for all other edits, which is clearly nonsense. The correct action was to read WP:NOTVAND, understand the differences between vandalism and everything else, then gone to WP:RFPERM in a couple weeks and asked for the rollback flag back. The three reverts you made were not of vandalism, and any attempt to paint them as such fails logic. Courcelles 09:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please let's continue this dicussion on ANI. De728631 (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm beginning to think you didn't really notice how this all began. Did you check all the IP's recent contributions or just the diffs I had posted on AIV? I noticed that you wrote in the IP's talk page that "the accusations of vandalism above were completely wrong" That first edit was vandalism and the subsequent attempts of the IP to push their opinion are directly connected. I didn't put that diff on AIV because someone else had already warned the IP about it, but that's where I was coming from. De728631 (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've blocked the IP for edit warring. Whether you considered it an edit war or not really doesn't matter; it was a textbook one, and accusing your opponent in an edit war of vandalism doesn't make it so. Your responses actually make me more sure that removing your rollback flag was the correct decision, if you don't understand what vandalism is, you shouldn't be sing the rollback button, and a content dispute perused in the wrong ways doesn't justify you jumping in with the rollback button. You made four reverts here -- you could easily have been blocked for your engagement in this conflict. Courcelles 01:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Meanwhile the IP has happily continued to change the article [1]. Regards, De728631 (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
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 19:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Replied. Courcelles 19:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Please, cancel my privileges
Hi,
Long time ago, I started doing some cleaning in Wikipedia and became both a reviewer and rollbacker. I stopped doing that for so long now that I think it would be better to remove my privileges. Should I ever decide to come back and do the same, I will ask for them a second time.
Thanks for trusting me with these super-user rights,
Heracles31 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Very well, sorry to see you go. If you want either (or both) flags back, just ask. Courcelles 04:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you take another look at this? I don't really think that this warrants an indef VOA block. Looks more like an, er, moderately competent newbie editing in good faith. Sandstein 08:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- He's accusing someone (didn't know Dangerfield had died, whoops) of smoking pot, and his user name is promotional of illegal drug use. I still can't see how this isn't a VOA, especially with that username. The "source" he is providing to justify the edit is downright unacceptable. No real objection to a unblock, but that username simply must change. Courcelles 08:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- What's the problem with the username? It sounds jvenile somehow, but other than that ...?
- suckafree is a reference to oral sex, and 420 is slang for marijuana. Courcelles 09:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, if 420 means marijuana, couldn't the name also mean "suck a free joint"? That's still silly, but not offensive. A Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL shows no obvious association with oral sex. Sandstein 09:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- See 420 (cannabis culture). That makes it no more acceptable, as promotion of illegal activity is not allowed under username policy. Courcelles 09:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly, but does that need an indef hardblock? I've started WP:ANI#Block review: Suckafree420 to get more input. Sandstein 09:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- See 420 (cannabis culture). That makes it no more acceptable, as promotion of illegal activity is not allowed under username policy. Courcelles 09:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, if 420 means marijuana, couldn't the name also mean "suck a free joint"? That's still silly, but not offensive. A Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL shows no obvious association with oral sex. Sandstein 09:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- suckafree is a reference to oral sex, and 420 is slang for marijuana. Courcelles 09:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- What's the problem with the username? It sounds jvenile somehow, but other than that ...?
The Signpost: 13 June 2011
- News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft
- Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page
- Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case
- Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news
Grand Tour FLC
Hey Courcelles, I've noticed you have reviewed quite a lot of lists at FLC and was wondering if you could review this one, as the only reviews so far have been from FL directors. It definitely needs someone outside of them to review it, I would greatly appreciate if you could review it. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by NapHit (talk • contribs) 12:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I need to run through FLC this week. Will hit it then, though it strikes me off-the-bat that a two paragraph lede is too short for a list of this magnitude. Courcelles 04:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I see that you are familiar with this user. Do you think this user's talk page comments at Jenny Lind merit a civility warning? I'll leave it up to you. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- "my, how presumptuous, you little Wikityrant!" isn't the most civil thing in the world. Probably better to have someone else take a look, though, as my fingerprints are all over this user's talk page. Courcelles 09:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It's too bad. This person probably could be a useful contributor if he/she weren't so sarcastic and defensive. Unless you think it's worth contacting another admin, I might drop the issue. Please send me a note on my talk page or by e-mail if you wish to discuss further. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
You delete a page without an explanation that reflects the discussion. The problem was not anymore the notability and a move then a merge to keep the information was explained. Mutant growth hormone now redirect to growth hormone but there is nothing to tell. Who wants redirections such as mutant human to human or mutant frog to frog ? Comic books have a fictional element called Mutant Growth Hormone. Real life put mutant as an adjective in front of different real names. Should we create redirections with mutant name for each name ? 130.120.37.11 (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Wow, a header like that stands out on the watchlist! Can't you cover "mutant growth hormone" in Marvel Comics or a related article, then change mutant growth hormone to redirect there? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to see the article back then that somebody merges it to List of comic book drugs.
- There were no arguments to keep this article separate. Not a single one. Then, the support for deletion was substantial and grounded in policy, and the arguments for redirecting it to a comic list were shot down convincingly. Zero notability, and a good argument to delete it outright. I see it is now a redirect to the real thing, and that makes perfect sense to me. Courcelles 04:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to see the article back then that somebody merges it to List of comic book drugs.
- "There were no arguments to keep this article separate.", that is why, the proposition was to merge.
- "Then, the support for deletion was substantial and grounded in policy, and the arguments for redirecting it to a comic list were shot down convincingly." 4 agaisnt 5 and don't you see that the arguments for redirecting it to Growth Hormone were shot down convincingly and there is a need to merge to avoid a loss of information.
- Crazy runner told that the pages linked are only comic articles and the section about the alternative version Banshee is not written in the List of comic book drugs.
- Spidey104 explained that mutant is only an adjective in front of Growth Hormone.
- Now where are the arguments agaisnt a merge and the ones to redirect to Growth hormone ?
- When you are writing, mutant human, you add a link mutant to mutant or mutation and a link human to human. However with the logic "that makes perfect sense to" you, we should create a redirection mutant human to human.
- In Principles of molecular medicine, Page 957 Par Marschall Stevens Runge,Cam Patterson, you can read "mutant growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH)", the word mutant is an adjective in front of GHRH.
- In an article of Comic Book Resources, you can read "MGH [Mutant Growth Hormone]", the word mutant is in the name.
- And speaking about policy "I am not suggesting you copy. I suggested you add information using the same sources as found on the current article." Since when wikipedia does not give credits to the ones who wrote even badly ?
- 130.120.37.11 (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- The decision was not "redirect". Someone else did that as an editorial decision. The close was delete. Discussion of whether the redirect that exists is a good idea is a topic for WP:RFD, and not a matter of this AFD. Not merge, not redirect, straight delete. It turned the link red, until some other person made the redirect. I wouldn't have made a redirect, personally. Courcelles 09:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- All the argument for the deletion were shot down convincingly because
- sources have been added by Crazy runner
- the argument "The. Names. Of. Real. Things. Should. Not. Redirect. To. Things. That. Don't. Exist." has been withdrawn by Spidey104.
- The only problem is the notability and the solution of the merging is the best, there is no loss of information and the redirection is the right one.
- Read the conclusion of Chromancer is "If consensus does not support a full deletion", "the principle of least harm would suggest any redirect would have to go to the real-world article" but nobody would search for. 'Mutant growth hormone' while a common enough phrase in scientific literature, is not actually a specific term. It's simply an adjective + noun, and not something anyone would actually search for. It would be like redirecting Bald human to Human.
- 4 against 5 with a lot of arguments which have been withdrawn. Can you point out the valid arguments for the deletion ?
- Now, we have a loss of information, a splendid redirection which means nothing and nobody use. It should have redirect to the MGH in the list and the merge would have preserved information.130.120.37.11 (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- There is enought notability to be in the list, the article has sources and reliable ones and interview to explain the social commentary. The editors were confused by the nominator who has never stop to speack about "The. Names. Of. Real. Things. Should. Not. Redirect. To. Things. That. Don't. Exist." and he is the one who has created the redirection even if counter arguments were given in the deletion process.--130.120.37.11 (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- All the argument for the deletion were shot down convincingly because
- Okay, Mathewignash, just a vote, no reasoning. Jfgslo's comments are perhaps the most on-point ones in the entire debate, and fully and totally refutes your arguments that this term should redirect to a list of fictional items. Follow that on with Chromancer's comments. The only well-reasoned comments in the entire debate were towards deleting, and not redirecting it to a list of fiction, when it is a real thing. Courcelles 12:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Crazy runner provides references that oppose the "no real-world significance and no reliable sources" and the "some mentions in unreliable sources such as fansites and forums". How many people reads comic books ? and how many people read advanced books and articles in medicine ? In Principles of molecular medicine, Page 957 Par Marschall Stevens Runge,Cam Patterson, you can read "mutant growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH)", the word mutant is an adjective in front of GHRH. Spidey104 explains it Mutant Growth Hormone should not redirect to Growth Hormone. Do you write mutant human or mutant human ? If you write mutant human, the argument about the real thing is valid otherwise it is not. 130.120.37.11 (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- On google, I have 36 400 with '"mutant growth hormone" -marvel' and 90 900 '"mutant growth hormone"'. Make some maths and you will see that there is more about the fiction than the real which is only an adjective before a noun.130.120.37.11 (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
FLC revisit request
Your friendly FLC director has a request for whenever you get some free time: could you please return to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Andrew Strauss/archive1 and see if most of the comments have been addressed to your satisfaction? The nominator did leave one question, so that may still be outstanding. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Never mind; I see you're keeping track of the FLC. Just wanted to keep things moving on these old FLCs that are piling up. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, oen more thing, and I'll be fine with it. Didn't box everything else up because I hate making two red boxes. Courcelles 04:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)