User talk:Courcelles/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

Pending changes trial

Hi

Do you know where I can find a list of the pages that are awaiting for their revisions to be checked? I would've thought it would be under Pending Changes Log but every time I go on there all the revisions have been checked! --5 albert square (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Special:Oldreviewedpages. (although, at the rate everyone's reviewing, there usually aren't any there anyway). Regards, {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 11:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Still trying to find my way around this new feature :) --5 albert square (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
No probs :) You may find it easier to test it on the labs wiki, where there's no pressure to get it right: here, if you're interested. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 11:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've just been on there and my account on there is still not auto-confirmed. So I'm only a member of the users group instead of being auto-confirmed users, rollbackers, reviewers and auto-reviewers. Dunno why that's happened as my accounts are linked together! Any idea what I need to do? --5 albert square (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
User rights, except for a few limited exceptions, are limited to one wiki only. I've flagged you as a sysop over there for testing purposes. Courcelles (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --5 albert square (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello,

I was recently granted a reviewer userright, and in attempting to use it I discover that the 'decline' button is greyed out - apparently all I can do is accept the edit.

I am attempting to decline an edit to the Turkey article wherein an apparent nationalist attempted to remove the section relating to the Armenian genocide. It would appear all I can do is accept it and then revert the vandalism after the fact. Seems a bit redundant. Is this how it is supposed to work, do I have to accept a certain number of edits before I can decline them? --Joffeloff (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it is working fine, but that is not the way it works. If you do not want to accept the edit, you undo or rollback it as per normal, and your edit will be approved. Declining only works on revisions that have already been approved by mistake. Cheers, {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 12:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, right, silly me. I went to try it out but someone got there before me. I just assumed there would be a decline mechanic built into this fancy new widget for some reason. --Joffeloff (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a common assumption, don't worry about it. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 12:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

How can my account be upgraded? I don't even do edits here on Wikipedia anymore.

The only reason I saw this message is because I was reading a WP article. I am clearly inactive here on Wikipedia, I only do minor edits now, like reverting vandalism, and they really aren't that many. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviwer

Please remove my reviewer userright and leave a message on my User's talk page that i'm not a reviewer any more. Thanks in advance. Alpha Centaury (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

  • SO removed. Let me know if you ever want ti back. Courcelles (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:You are now a Reviewer

Hello Courcelles.

I have seen your message on my talk page. I am delighted that you have thought me capable of fulfilling this job, and I accept my Reviewer rights. However, there is a slight problem. I am not being able to understand my duties as a reviewer. Also, I am not familiar with the concept of "pending edits". I have personally not heard of this. I have also heard that the "Reviewing" process is temporary, for a period of 2 months.

I shall be obliged if you can enlighten me on this subject, so that I can do my job to the fullest.

Thank you once again.

AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 15:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


Odd

Why 37 hours? Did you just pluck that out of thin air or something? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: You are now a Reviewer

Thanks for that promotion. As a result of your message, I have read some stuff about the two-month trial that is going on until August 15. It seems like a reasonable undertaking. Hopefully I'll be able to do something with this reviewer status. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 18:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer userright

Hi. Just out of curiosity, how are reviewer userrights sought and granted? I notice you left a lot of messages on the talk pages of users whose names begin with the letter "A", including a banned user named Asgardian, which you then reverted. Is the userright granted at random by letter, or something? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the reviewer status. It's nice to have a new thing. If i'll use it, i'll try to use it well. --Bluedenim (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Can i get reviewer rights as well please? I've been a good boy even though i've only been editing for a few months. Please?

(Does a soldiers salute) consisting of a finger gesture aimed to my forehead to display respect to the administrator

Someone65 (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Go to WP:PERM/RW. —ΩpenTheWindows™ 23:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback: SpikeToronto

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

— SpikeToronto 00:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:You are now a Reviewer

Hello.

I have received your message about being promoted to Reviewer. Thanks for that, but as other people I didn't quite understand yet exactly the duties, but will glad to help.

Thanks.

Xguilex (talk)

  • Help:Pending changes is the best primer to the flagged revisions trial I've read- let me know if it doesn't answer any of your questions. Courcelles (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reviewer status!

Thanks for appointing me reviewer. I'll have a closer look at what it means and will see how I can assist. Cheers! Thomas Blomberg (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I also want to thank you for granting me reviewer right! Kind regards, ZBukov (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I echo the above comments.--Alan (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Trilobitealive (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Same. -Thibbs (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Tnx Arjuncodename024 08:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I shall strive to be worthy of the honour which thou hast bestowed upon me.Writtenright (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)writtenright

Re: User:Walloon now a Reviewer

I have noticed you have promoted User:Walloon to the status of Reviewer. It is with sadness that I am forced to report that this user, whose real name was Steven Dhuey, passed away on June 2 from a pulmonary embolism. Please see his obituary for more information: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/jsonline/obituary.aspx?n=steven-patrick-dhuey&pid=143504179. Hence, for reasons which should not need explaining, Walloon will no longer be active on Wikipedia. I encourage all who knew him in life to pay their last respects by signing the guestbook available by visiting the above link. Thank you. 95.209.36.50 (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about that. Unfortunately, I have to ask; is there anything that connects the account with the obituary? I'm not seeing anything obvious that points to the connection. Courcelles (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not have any concrete statement by Steven in which he states that the account is his, no. However, if you take a look at his profile on Amazon.dom, you'll see that the individual in the picture is one and the same as in the photo on his userpage (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3T0YU5P78X74A). Additionally, Steven's book on the history of the Dhuey family in the US (http://www.fortunecity.com/millenium/byker/116/) links his username ("Walloon") to his real name, as explained via this page: http://www.fortunecity.com/millenium/byker/116/Back_in_Belgium.html (CTRL+F and search for "Walloons"). Furthermore, as can be seen by clicking on Steve's name available via the book's front page, his email address was "[email protected]", thereby providing a further link. I realize none of this is conclusive, as Steven's name appears nowhere on his Wikipedia userpage, so you are of course free to believe me or to refrain from doing so. 95.209.5.174 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not that I don't believe you- more of an issue that we don't block accounts of deceased Wikipedians, and this right is about the most trivial thing around- I'd rather leave it on and hope that you're wrong. (However, I never encountered this individual. Taking this to WP:AN might rustle up someone who has.) Courcelles (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer Status

Thanks for granting me reviewer status, which I gladly accept. Sincerely, --Skb8721 (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

reviewer trial.

Hi Courcelles.

Thanks for granting reviewer access to me to trial. Is it possible for you to put some articles for the pending trial. The article which does have a few anonymous edits is Spratly Islands. It would be good to use this as a test case. Thanks. Visik (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Appreciations

Dear Courcelles, thank you for your kind message on my talk page. I do not know the details underlying one's becoming a "reviewer" (e.g. whether one gets nominated for it or whether that is something that one becomes automatically on account having had a thick enough skin to survive being a Wikipedian for a long enough period of time), but in the event that you have had any contribution towards my receiving this new status, I take this opportunity and thank you most sincerely for that. With kind regards, --BF 09:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC).


RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the reviewer rights. Will try to do my best. aJCfreak yAk 22:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Templating the regulars

This was disruptive- leaving a series of five templates on a user's talk page is not best practices for interacting with fellow editors. I will be forced to remove your access to Twinkle if you do something like this again- discussion would have gotten you much further than templates here. Courcelles (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I’m sorry; I was unaware of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, so I had never read it. Thank you for informing me. Taric25 (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Since you tried to help in this issue, I thought you'd find it interesting that for all his apologies, Taric25 has now filed an ANI against me.[1] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Closed by the time I saw it. I will be monitoring the situation, though. Courcelles (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for reviewer rights! I am still trying to understand this privilege, and I will try to help when and how I can. Tckma (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well Tehw1k1 (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
same goes here... i dont quite understand it, but will read about it, but definatly honored for such grant... will do my best to be up to expectations... :)

Arab LeagueArab League User (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Arab League

You like golf

Can't stand it myself, but I don't suppose I could get you to update the 2010 U.S. Open Golf Championship before the timer turns red? Seems to be a slow news week- we had 30 hours without an update last night so I posted a crappy article on the Chinese floods. That was 21 hours ago last time I looked at my talk page (I like having the timer there) and the golf looks like the only item we could get up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You have the Nauru election now to play with but I'll be fair and give you one each. I have just performed some personal surgery on Graeme McDowell's internal organs that could be used like so: Graeme McDowell of Northern Ireland wins the 2010 U.S. Open Golf Championship, the first U.S. Open winner of European origin since 1970. Or any other way. Since the championship article seems to say he has won anyway and being basically clueless on the finer minutiae of the topic as well tends to hamper any ability to add any more to the other articles, what with all the numbers and winged, bipedal, endothermic (warm-blooded), egg-laying, vertebrate animals this particular sport involves. --candle•wicke 04:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I see that Phil Collins discography was promoted to FL last week. I have to admit, there's a lot more prose in there than in Lindsay Lohan discography, but I still reckon we could have a decent shot at FL if we can sort of the sourcing. Fun, fun, fun! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Graeme McDowell

--Not that you bothered to any work even after I pestered you! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: You are now a Reviewer

Thank you very much! --Shruti14 talk • sign 13:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I will do my best to uphold this privilege you have bestowed upon me. Thank you very much! Shaneymike (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! ♠TomasBat 14:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks. --Seduisant (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>I noticed on my watchlist you made me on June 13, but never got the note I've since noticed others got. I assume that's just an oversight? Don't know if I'll have time or energy to learn process, but am watching two of the listed pages. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you get to be a Reviewer? Thanks! JTRH (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

sorry to trouble you, but I'd like some advice please

I have been editing the page on George Muller over the last few weeks and notice that a large number of "Citation needed" marks had been inserted. I removed these, as all the facts were backed up by the references quoted at the end of the article, and I gave this as the reason for my reversion. A user, Rantir, reverted this edit, which I again (in ignorance) reverted - with "justification" again.

Rantir then opened a discussion with me to thrash out the best way forward.

Jezhotwells, who you appointed as a Reviewer (hence my contacting you), then accused me of a having a "serious WP:COI", starting an editing war and threatened to have me blocked, even though the matter had moved on to the resolution/discussion stage. He went on to claim that I was asserting ownership of this article, which I have never done.

He referred me to WP:V which, as I read it, did nothing to change my mind. I said clearly that, if I had misunderstood, then perhaps the policy needed to be clarified. However, in order to keep the peace I added the citations demanded. I have subsequently found another article which states in simple language exactly why citations are needed, so I do now understand that I was wrong to remove the tags.

I do feel that the manner of Jezhotwells' comments were inflammatory and unhelpful. Although I now see I was wrong to remove the tags, it was done in good faith and without malice, as demonstrated by the fact I gave a reason for doing so. Jezhotwells refuses to accept this and continues with an aggressive tone.

I have written to him at length and asked him to retract his unfortunate comments but he is now accusing me of "pushing a religious POV on this article".

I have tried to be polite to him but all I seem to get is threats, accusations and aggression. I should be grateful if you would mediate and possibly even reconsider his position as reviewer.

The comments are on the George Muller discussion page, my talk page and his talk page.

Thank you for your time.

Silver Shiney (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Jezhotwells continues to issue insulting, unbased, comments. "...rather than god-bothering promotion. Get used to it." is the latest. Please forgive me for troubling you with this, I only contacted you because you awarded this person reviewer rights. If I should be in touch with someone else to complain about Jezhotwells' attitude, I should be grateful if you would please point me in the right direction. Regards Silver Shiney (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Oops. Missed this in other drama. It looks like the two of you need dispute resolution, or at least the eyes of editors/admins more familiar with the situation. (I gave Jezhotwells reviewer rights off an automated list, it is a recently introduced, minor flag with a grandiose name, not a big deal.) WP:AN/I might also be a good place to go, at least to get some eyes on the dispute. Courcelles (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for looking at this. My understanding of dispute resolution is that it is for differences of opinion on editing - but I may well be very wrong on that. My problem with him is the insults he is making, with regrettable allegations of "owning" the article, starting an edit war, having a conflict of interest, pushing a religious POV etc etc, and I'm sure his last comment about being a "god-botherer" (whatever that is) falls foul of the UK's antidiscrimination laws. I'm not sure if it's the Muller article he has it in for, or if his rudeness is directed just at me, but I do not appreciate what appears to be a bullying and intimidating manner. As he is a Wikipedia Reviewer, this reflects badly on Wikipedia itself as it would seem that such behaviour is condoned. Anyway, enough of my rant, go and enjoy your football and thank you, once again, for taking the time to read this. Kind regards Silver Shiney (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for the Reviewer status to help test the new status. I am noticing a weird quirk already, however. I finally saw something up on the list today (at other visits it's been blank), and one was this] edit for Gaia Online. It was reverted by another reviewer merely one minute later, but it still showed up as needing to be reviewed in the list. Not seeing anything that I could do other than accepting and then immediately reverting it, I clicked Accept, then went to edit...to find out I was shown as accepting the old edit AFTER it was already reverted! Now I am shown as accepting the edit and someone else immediately reverts it after I accepted, which did not occur at all.

Can I suggest instead a "Decline" button that automatically reverses the unapproved edit and puts the same reversal template in the comment box? We also need to find a way to stop declined edits from staying in the log after being reviewed. CycloneGU (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've since found Undo under the right column for future reviews - silly me for forgetting that. But I still like having a Decline button right in the template that just acts as an undo. =) CycloneGU (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, there was some controversy on WT:Reviewing over the decline button, if I remember correctly. Comments about feature improvement ought to go over there, as I couldn't code a program that added 2+2 if my life depended on it, though. Courcelles (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you tell me

How the traffic of this DYK nom stacks or rates on Wikipedia? I have another article I worked on that shows its at 944 but doesn't have one third the hits Monsiváis does? He's a Mexican writer who recently died and I 5x expanded his article on death on June 19. His funeral should be within this week.

  • 4,700 views in day is good, but it wouldn't be enough to be mentioned in the DYK record books at Wikipedia:DYKSTATS, which usually requires 5,000 page views on the day it runs. Courcelles (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Another question, I am about to finish an article on Salvador Cristau Coll who is a Spanish Vicar General who will be consecrated as an auxiliary bishop in four days. I plan on DYK nom'ing it but saw the ITN thingie above (glad I stopped here). How do articles get nominated for that? I expect to finish Coll's article within the hour. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Nominations for ITN are made at WP:ITN/C, but don't bother. Within the Catholic Church, only the death/election of a Pope, or the death of a few senior Cardinals would go up- an auxiliary bishop has no chance. Courcelles (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all the quick replies. I'll put a current events tag on it.----moreno oso (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not that the consecration of a Bishop isn't important; I just remember a few weeks ago the consecration and installation of an Archbishop was nominated, and it got !voted done 0-6 or something. Courcelles (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Tough crowd! An archbishop is a heartbeat away from being a Prince of the Church. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Running my DYK check gadget over it, just nominate it and wait- it is long enough, and passes all the rules I can see :) Courcelles (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing Bug Methinks

See Revision History of Cat, 04:01 June 23. I reviewed the previous edit and clicked Edit after researching and confirming the translation. I added pronunciation. I clicked Save. "Changes are not yet shown because previous edits are waiting to be reviewed." That edit? The one I clicked "Edit" to and added my change. I clicked "Accept". My own edit...is now "Accepted by"...me!

Maybe we need to fix how the Edit button works in reviewing...CycloneGU (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You may be replying to this as I type, but I've placed this at Wikipedia talk:Reviewing#.22Edit.22 Button on Reviewing. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You have the technical ability to accept your own edits... but, since you're talking bugs to one of the non-techie admins, you took it to the right place. :) Courcelles (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mimi Macpherson

Can you please fix your closure, and sign it so that every body can see the rationale. Gnangarra 04:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I've moved my closing statement above the title of the page under discussion. Courcelles (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thankyou for fixing that, while understand and respect WP:BLP "do no harm" principle I think your closure wasnt correct as notability was established with references to events over the last 15 years. Could please explain what further information is necessary to ensure that the article can be re-created. Gnangarra 05:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I support your close and your rationale for closing. I would propose a courtesy blanking but it appears that DRV will happen shortly and no doubt the blanking would be reversed. I wonder if when Jimbo spoke to the subject, he told her that her life would be openly discussed and dissected in multiple venues across the project, then archived for perpetuity? Hmmm ... Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 05:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  • There is an appeals process- WP:DRV. In this case, it really wouldn't be a bad idea, as I hinted at in my comments, the close here was an exercise of admin discretion, and DRV serves as an invaluable check and balance on that. Outside of a DRV, I'm not sure what could be shown to override the subject's preference for deletion that hasn't already been shown in the AFD. Courcelles (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • As to the blanking, there's no reason not to do it, even if it must wait until after the (inevitable) DRV. DRV makes me spend a week knowing that every-time I check my watchlist, someone will be examining my actions, which, while not enjoyable, is a guaranteed event in some AFD's, no matter who closes them and how. I do sometimes wonder, though, do the subjects of these articles realize the AFD is more scrutiny that the article would otherwise ever receive. Courcelles (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not commenting on the decision to close (I'm sure that'll all come up in the DRV), you may want to revise the part in your closing statement when you say that "slightly more" editors supported a keep position than a delete, when this shows that there were more than twice as many keep !votes as delete ones. Frickeg (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And how many were there because of the discussion on the WP:Aussie board? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thats what happens with notable australians they tend to be on many watchlists, and they tend to get discussed on WP:AWNB, you are missing another interesting facet that would be what email list the Jimbo followers came from at least the AWNB is public. Gnangarra 14:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

CSDs

Thanks for taking care of some of those for me. I have one last one if you don't mind one more :-) User:Mark Chung/Links‎ which was basically a copy/paste done of the earlier deleted links page from my user space, done during a dispute a few years ago. I suspect he forgot he even did it. I only found it while using "What links here" to make sure I got all the pages I was aiming for. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm seeing this as a better case for G11 than G6, to be honest, but I'm not sure there's anything that is covered by copyright there except your first sentence. Why not delete that, and all the links back to your userspace and the arb case? Courcelles (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Since he doesn't do any work on this project spaces, I'm guessing he also does not have the copies of those books mentioned either. I guess just cleaning it up would be fine if it isn't a CSD candidate (kinda silly thing to do during a dispute, though LOL) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I didn't untag it either, userpages aren't something I spend much time working on (Have you seen mine lately?!) and MFD somewhere I try to avoid. Which is always the second option if whichever admin wanders by decides to decline the speedy. Courcelles (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Cool. For now I removed the "me" specific stuff :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mimi DRV

You were correct in your prediction at closing Mimi McPherson, talk (or should I say canvassing) for DRV started almost immediately, see [2]. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Oh well. Sometimes you can read an AFD and just know there's no way to avoid being taken to DRV, no matter what you do. (And I acknowledge that other admins would have closed as "no consensus" in this case.) Courcelles (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • (Begging the pardon of Courcelles) Rlevse, accusations of canvassing are not helpful. I supported deletion but even I concede an Australian perspective was useful in this discussion. The discussion at AWNB was fairly wide ranging and I don't think it is fair to call it canvassing at all. Besides, what is wrong with canvassing? Don't we want wide participation in discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs)
  • (Again, begging Courcelles' pardon) Gee thanks, all I did was notify the the project of the closure and I get accused of canvassing. Way to assume bad faith. Frickeg (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Just a couple of responses, the AFD was closed at approxiamately 13:00 Perth, Western Australia local time which is 15:00 on the east coast of Australia. Given the time of day here of course the closure would be noticed and people comment about it. I'd also point out that Courcelles also said it would go to DRV. Gnangarra 14:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

For you

For approving semi-protection of my user page, this cookie is for you. I was getting tired of IP addresses adding nonsensical or obscene comments on my user page, so thanks for protecting it. The Utahraptor Talk 14:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

PCE (talk · contribs)

Apologies - I should have left you a courtesy note to say that, as an AN/I thread about this user has been started since you disabled his talk page access, I have re-enabled it so that he can comment there if he wishes. I will copy anything he says (uncensored) across to AN/I. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC) ...and he came back with more of the same and his talk page is turned off again. Ah well, we do our best. JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. When you're in a hole, the first course of action is to stop digging, as my grandpa used to say. Courcelles (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

I am honoured and will follow the guidlines. Best wishes. --RobNS 02:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Happy editing! Courcelles (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Taric25

Hey, considering our previous disagreements, I suspect if I try to correct him, Taric25 will throw another fit, so though I'd see if you could explain to him that WP:PR is for articles, not his proposal Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television), and ditto WP:30? He seems to just keep adding notices everywhere because it is mostly being ignored, I suspect because most did feel like I did, that it was an attempt to fork the discussion at WP:NOT and no one wants to split it across too pages, and its mostly just being a copy/paste of WP:MOSTV, making it kinda pointless. One or two folks noted that on the talk page, but Taric didn't really respond well to their remarks. Anyway, seeing as it is not an article, the PR thing is kinda silly, and I suspect it will get thrown out of 30 as soon as someone sees it, but thought maybe a friendly note from someone not me might help him realize he should take some time to read up on this stuff more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  • The PR needs to be closed as being obviously the wrong forum, and I've done so. One of the 3O regulars handled the request there as out of scope, and I've left a message on his talk page about PR's purpose. Courcelles (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Alas, it seems like he still refuses to accept anything I do, such as removing his incorrect use of "needs attention" on the WikiProject television box on that page (a flag only for articles) and wrongly putting it on the project class when it is not. *sigh* Ah well, for now just going to ignore it. Once the thing fails, can just remove them all together again. Thus far, it seems no one has supported it, so hopefully he will realize soon that it really is not the answer to his desire. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

The peer review process is only for articles (usually those being considered for a featured article, featured list, or good article candidacy), therefore I've closed Wikipedia:Peer review/Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television)/archive1. WP:RFC, and listing on WP:CENT if it is considered important enough, are more appropriate than a peer review listing. Courcelles (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for letting me know. I added it to Template:Centralized discussion. Thank you! Taric25 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahem!

Don't forget to reset the timer! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I didn't forget... I was taking care of two error reports that came up rather quickly. (Endashes... hate the damned things.) Courcelles (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
That's what they all say! ;) because – and - are so much different! Now an emdash on the other hand...! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure Move Protection is called for just because it's on the Main Page? I don't particularly care either way, but it's stopped me from moving this now. Can you please move it to just Isner–Mahut tennis match, there is not going to be any other notable match between these too (infact we have barely any articles on individual matches at all). I don't think this is controversial and I really can't be bothered to wait for a week long by filing a move request. So can you please do this move through the protection, noting it as a request for a BOLD move from me. Obviously, if someone objects, you or another admin can undo and then we can go through an RM, but in my experience, it's unlikely to be challenged. MickMacNee (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you discussed it on the talk page at all? I can't see so. (It's pretty standard practice to move protect ITN articles, as they stay on the main page for several days.) Courcelles (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, most articles on ITN would qualify as "highly visible" pages, so temporary move prot is easily justified- partly because of the risk of page move vandalism and partly because move warring over a Main Page article is extremely annoying when trying to bypass redirects and may end up breaking the link from the Main Page. If you raise it on the talk page and don't get any real objection after a reasonable amount of time, I or Courcelles (or another admin) will move it for you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
If you move it then you can fix the redirect at the same time. It's only an issue if someone comes to you and objects, so you move it back and refix it. Hardly a pain. There can be no move war because of the protection, but the protection is not in place because of a move war. There is a difference.MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I haven't opened a discussion precisely because it is intended as a BOLD move, and the only reason I can't do it is because of the protection. It being protected has no bearing on whether it can be boldy moved or not, except technically, but it's not as if the protection exists because of a move war. I really can't be bothered to start a discussion just because it's protected, so if you aren't going to just do it, I guess I'll have to wait for it to drop off ITN and do it hen, if I even remember. MickMacNee (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
no objections ifHJ wants to do it... I'm logged out for the day... Typing on my mobile.--Courcelles is travelling (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Come on, Mick, patience is a virtue! I've moved it for you and changed the ITN link to bypass the redirect, If there are valid objections, then I'll move it back and there'll have to be a proper discussion (as there should be, ideally, even if it weren't protected). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't do half the crap I do each day if I was required to discuss it first. Anyway, thanks for moving it, no objections so far, so I'll be unwatching this talk page and leaving Courcelles in peace. MickMacNee (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I strongly object to and have reverted the move. "Isner–Mahut tennis match" is ambiguous and could refer to any Isner–Mahut match. What if they play another match in the future? The article needs to identify its subject, hence the "Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships" title. Redirects of simpler titles already make it easy to find the article. —Lowellian (reply) 01:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I see your point... and after thinking about it, I think I even agree with you that Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships is a better name. Courcelles (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Castelldefels accident

Thanks for the ITN, but I [created the article! Mjroots (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Alright... the substantially updated part is usually higher than the creation... but I'll change the template. Courcelles (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I don't know if she's on your watchlist, but I've just put Pixie Lott on pending changes protection now we apparently no longer have to go through the queueing system. It will be... interesting, put it that way, but there were some good IP/new account edits before she was protected, so I think it might be worthwhile. I thought I'd let you know since you protected her in the first palce and because more eyes would be appreciated! :) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm seeing entirely too many failures of this flagged revisions trial... it is wasting more time than it is worth, IMO... Courcelles (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
There's a thread about it (about me, as it happens, but I don't think that's the point!) on Jimbo's talk page. I think the costs are outweighing the benefits on some pages- someone seems to have gone down the list of most vandalised pages and unprotected them all- but on others, I think it's working. Some vandalism is sadly inevitable, but there were plenty of good edits to Pixie before she was protected, but she was also attracting sporadic drive-by vandalism, fancruft etc. Hopefully the latter is in low enough levels that the good edits don't come at too high-a-price. it also seems to be working on Brad Pitt- he isn't attracting nearly as much vandalism as I expected, so by screening that out before it reaches the live version, we're alleviating some of the concern and allowing good edits to get through. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

I was just on my way to ask someone to restore the page protection. The vandalism activity was so high on this page. Thanks for changing it back to semi-protect.Malke2010 19:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hello, Courcelles, and thanks for your contributions. I noticed you reverted vandalism on an article, and I wanted to say thanks for that! However, you forgot to warn the user who vandalized the page. In the future, please warn users who vandalize. They may not understand Wikipedia policy on vandalism and test editing, and they need to be informed. Old warnings also help people warning vandals for subsequent vandalism, because they need to know how many times the user has vandalized to give them the right level of warning. You can find a list of user talk template messages at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. This list doesn't just include vandalism warnings; it has warnings for other things like copyright infringement and spamming. Thanks again, Courcelles! cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 21:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

New Sock of Brucejenner

Elchopo (talk · contribs) appears to be the latest sock of Brucejenner, and he's returned to the Chaz Bono article to talk about her sexual organs. You blocked the last round of socks (Dennisjuris, Adrianbius) and protected the page, so I thought I'd bring it to you first since you're familiar with the case. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I've put the article abck under semi- perhaps over-cautious, but it is a BLP and this is quite enough, and blocked the quacking duck. Courcelles (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
THanks, hopefully that'll quiet up this guy. I appreciate the help! Dayewalker (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Coen Brothers

"This is a fucking show dog, with fucking papers!" I challenge you, sir! My edit was a verbatim quote from a Coen brothers film and was appropriate for the Coen brothers' Wikipedia entry! Also, you are clearly not watching the World Cup, if you respond so quickly to an edit! Shenanigans!

  • Links, diffs, anything? With this being your first ever edit, I'm not sure what you're complaining about. (Also, the World Cup ended ~2 hours ago for the day.) Courcelles (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I brought a sense of humor to my first-ever edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradygrey (talk • contribs) 22:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

PING

*in my best computerized voice*...You've got mail. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback permissions

Hey, I've just set up a new user name and am trying to get it operating the same as my previous username. There are several things I miss from my old account including Rollback. I noticed you are active on the rollback request page and thought I'd send you a quick message directly asking if you reckon it would be possible to be reassigned rollback permisions with my new user name? My previous user name was jimothytrotter and I'm sure my edit contributions for that account should qualify me to have rollback on this one as well? James.TALK

  • Timestamping for archive bot. You've made one edit in 8 days, come back here, or to WP:RFPERM after some more activity. Courcelles (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
See this for a reason. Happy huggling! :) dffgd 21:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Happy editing to you, too! Courcelles (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I forgot to say thanks, by the way. I didn't mean to clobber all your edits. We were just doing conflicting things at the same time in a manner that the wiki doesn't prevent. I didn't bother to restore your thread, but I read it and thanks. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  • No problem. It was probably better not to leave a note under RBI, anyway. Courcelles (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Integrity
Your comment accompanying your relist decidsion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robbie Drebitt show consideration of others and diligence toward improving the project. Nicely done. I will look into the proffered sources, and offer my comments. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Michael, it is appreciated (both the barnstar and looking at the sources.) Courcelles (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Wired.com's (Wired News) is a branch of Wired (magazine)... owned by Condé Nast Publications, with international editons Wired UK and Wired Italia. It appears to have both the editorial oversight and the reputation for accuracy that should allow it to be seen as a reliable source for technology subjects.
  • Ain't It Cool News, appears to be respected within their industry as having reliable articles and reviews, interspersed within gossip and annonymous reports. If a specific review or article in question has a byline, it can be presumed that it went through editorial oversight. If such do not have a byline or editorial acknowledement, then one can presume that particular article as unreliable. Each proffered item must be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
  • Tubefilter is one of those cases of a reliable "blog"... in actuality a site with staff, editorial oversight, and a reputation for accuracy within their industry... not actually being a blog in its strictest sense, but using that self-proclaimed user-friendly label when publishing their researched and authored articles as a means to encourage comments from readers as a kind of instant feedback. The newcomer to this pack, they appear to be already well respected within their industry. So... an authored Tubefilter article or review can be considered generaly reliable, but the reader's comments in response are not.
  • Your relist was an excellent call. This above will be repeated at the AFD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer rights

  • Hi,

I want to tell you that I mostly edit pages not creating them.There are many users on Wikipedia who have these rights because of their good edits.Take a look at my contribution.I fights against vandalism and patrols New pages.Because of my good edit I was previously given this right.So, You should reconsider.ThanksMax Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 15:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  • And yet Autoreviewer does absolutely nothing but mark articles you create as patrolled in Special:NewPages. To be perfectly honest, I would never have given you the flag in the first place, that another admin saw fit tot take it away a mere week ago doesn't argue for its reinstatement- try six months or so. Courcelles (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Spelling article

could you ask one of your new Reviewers SnowFire to stop acting like a vandal with regard to recent edits on the spelling article, and to try act more responsibly by discussing the technical issues involved in a global article dolfrog (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  • First, he's not "my reviewer", that flag has been cast far and wide to thousands of editors. Second, he's not vandalising, please read WP:Vandalism for what is and what isn't vandalism. Third, if you keep revert warring, I'll lock the article from everyone. Talk it out before reverting again, please. Courcelles (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Sankt Paulin BW 10 DYK.JPG

Hey, I was just cleaning out Category:Protected main page images and notice that file. It's been sat there for a while as a supposedly temporary upload, do you guys at DYK still need it? I was about to delete it, but it still has a few incoming links. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Oooh, I made that mess (trying not to stick a 10 MB image on the main page). I'll clean it up (retarget the archive link, and delete). Courcelles (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, I can rest assured that the category is clean! :) I swear I'm the only person who looks there, thankfully User:MPUploadBot does a fair bit of the work these days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Rlvese does a lot of the DYK images these days Commons-side, so it stays somewhat clean, but I don't like sticking insanely large images up there. Courcelles (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_9&oldid=1171957611"