User talk:Courcelles/Archive 94

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90 ← Archive 92 Archive 93 Archive 94 Archive 95 Archive 96 → Archive 100

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

User:EuroNews back and causing trouble

You previously blocked User:EuroNews for sockpuppetry. He or she has returned and is spamming articles to include an individual whose Wikipedia article was previously deleted for being non-notable. I reverted his or her edits but instead of discussing he or she is now edit warring. Can you please look into this? I'll hold off on making further edits related to him or her until you've had a chance to weigh in. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Looks like a rather long-term spamming problem to me, he has already had plenty of warning, so if he continues, I'd have no hesitation leaving him an indef block. Courcelles 17:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Expired Semi-protection on Fairy article

Hi there. I just noticed the one year protection lock you'd put on the Fairy article expired a few days ago and we've already got IP editors adding their own completely unsourced "philosophies" about fairies. I'm not asking for another protection lock just yet, but I just wanted to drop a note to ask if you would add it to your watchlist (if you aren't watching it already) to keep an eye on the page in case the IP activity increases and the page ends up needing protection again. Thanks. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll keep an eye on it, watchlisted. Courcelles 17:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Southron wikimeets

Here's the most recent Atlanta event: Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 2; I think they plan on doing them monthly or so going forward.--Pharos (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Floyd Mayweather Jr

How was someone allowed to embed wrong name into the picture on Floyd Mayweather's article picture?Supergunner08 (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your checkuser block needs checking

See User talk:Quackslikeaduck. This user has been editing since 2005, so it isn't a new account. Looks like collateral damage. Could you either tweak your block, assign WP:IPBE, or perhaps this really IS the person you were trying to block. If not, this needs fixing. Thanks! --Jayron32 04:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

  • He's not the target. Given the block is soon to expire, I made it AO for the remaining 14 days or so. Courcelles 04:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

ACE 2011

I have saw your questions. They look to be answered well and its better to participate becuase you are doing well fine and you can be part of one. Good luck! --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the Arbitration Committee Elections

Courcelles,

As a candidate for the Arbitration Committee elections, please be aware that your name has been entered into the SecurePoll ballot and can no longer be removed barring the most dire of emergencies and direct manipulation of the database. While you may still withdraw from the election, your name will not be removed from the ballot, but only struck through. If you have any further questions on the process, feel free to contact myself, the other election administrators, or the election coordinators. --Tznkai (talk), 2011 Arbitration Committee Election Administrator. 21:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

File:TokusouExceedraft.jpg

Could you restore this file? I mistakenly orphaned it while editing the article it went on when I did a text replace on it a couple of weeks ago.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

  • No problem, done. Courcelles 02:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

SPI was closed without finding

The SPI I filed with respect to 138.253.48.190 and WebHamster concluded 138.253.48.190 was not a sock (i.e. I was wrong) so a "block evasion" block is inappropriate. Gerardw (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  • No, the clerk closed it without blocking, entirely different than saying you were wrong. In fact, I rather think you were right, but either way, the IP was beng highly diruptive on the SPI, and I'm going to leave it blocked for that reason alone. Courcelles 15:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Gerardw (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Boston University

Hello Administrator User:Courcelles! I am writing to you because you recently closed this SPI Case. Could you please clarify the situation for third parties on the talk page, where the dispute was occurring? I would highly appreciate it! With warm regards, AnupamTalk 04:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, a new account appeared just now on the talk page, echoing the same concerns as blocked user User:Bowjangles and moreover, he reverted back to User:Bowjangles' version here. Could you please conduct a check for User:Rabbitvibe7 and revert to the referenced version, protecting the article to ensure that sockpuppetry will not occur? With regards, AnupamTalk 04:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, the content issue still exists, just without the presence of the socks, so y'all will have to discuss it like normal, since it appears to still have legitimate user(s) on both sides. Really, other than informing us if any other suspicious new users show up so we can investigate, there's nothing else to be done from an SPI standpoint. (Obviously, in determining consensus, the trio of sockpuppets can be ignored). Courcelles 04:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Rabbitvibe7 is  Confirmed. Blocked, reverted. Courcelles 04:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind response and action. I will inform you if any more new users show up. If any other legitimate user wishes to discuss the problem, I will do so with him/her. However, without the socks, three legitimate users have commented in favour of the version you resinstated, forming a consensus there. I hope you have a nice night. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 04:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Deletion of Vaughn Frick

It appears that a page about me was deleted last summer. I frankly don't care if there is a Wikipedia page about me although I was somewhat annoyed that an uninformed editor implied that I wrote it myself. I did not. However, I would like to get a copy of the deleted page as it contained information regarding some of my peers that I do not have. I am also curious as to why Wikipedia's policies do not include informing the known subject of a page when changes are made to the page. One would think there would be a desire to avoid libelous statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvfrick (talk • contribs) 07:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

SPI was closed without finding

The SPI I filed with respect to 138.253.48.190 and WebHamster concluded 138.253.48.190 was not a sock (i.e. I was wrong) so a "block evasion" block is inappropriate. Gerardw (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  • No, the clerk closed it without blocking, entirely different than saying you were wrong. In fact, I rather think you were right, but either way, the IP was beng highly diruptive on the SPI, and I'm going to leave it blocked for that reason alone. Courcelles 15:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Gerardw (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Boston University

Hello Administrator User:Courcelles! I am writing to you because you recently closed this SPI Case. Could you please clarify the situation for third parties on the talk page, where the dispute was occurring? I would highly appreciate it! With warm regards, AnupamTalk 04:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, a new account appeared just now on the talk page, echoing the same concerns as blocked user User:Bowjangles and moreover, he reverted back to User:Bowjangles' version here. Could you please conduct a check for User:Rabbitvibe7 and revert to the referenced version, protecting the article to ensure that sockpuppetry will not occur? With regards, AnupamTalk 04:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, the content issue still exists, just without the presence of the socks, so y'all will have to discuss it like normal, since it appears to still have legitimate user(s) on both sides. Really, other than informing us if any other suspicious new users show up so we can investigate, there's nothing else to be done from an SPI standpoint. (Obviously, in determining consensus, the trio of sockpuppets can be ignored). Courcelles 04:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Rabbitvibe7 is  Confirmed. Blocked, reverted. Courcelles 04:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind response and action. I will inform you if any more new users show up. If any other legitimate user wishes to discuss the problem, I will do so with him/her. However, without the socks, three legitimate users have commented in favour of the version you resinstated, forming a consensus there. I hope you have a nice night. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 04:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Deletion of Vaughn Frick

It appears that a page about me was deleted last summer. I frankly don't care if there is a Wikipedia page about me although I was somewhat annoyed that an uninformed editor implied that I wrote it myself. I did not. However, I would like to get a copy of the deleted page as it contained information regarding some of my peers that I do not have. I am also curious as to why Wikipedia's policies do not include informing the known subject of a page when changes are made to the page. One would think there would be a desire to avoid libelous statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvfrick (talk • contribs) 07:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I've e-mailed you a copy of the article as it was when it was deleted. Let me know if you need anything else. Courcelles 16:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

would like to have students add to HIV article

Hi, I teach a course at Boston University, Neuropsychology, and this year am allowing students to submit or edit a Wikipedia article as an extra project. This is being done with the encouragement of the APS (Association for Psychological Science) Wikipedia Initiative. It's all new to me as well as to the students, so please forgive our ignorance of procedures. I have 2 students who know about cognition in HIV and noticed that there is little about this in the current article. They don't want to edit what's already there, but just add a section on cognition and HIV. At present they can't do this because it's semi-protected. Would they be able to do this, and if so, what is the procedure? Thanks very much. (I'll also leave this message on the HIV talk page). Alice C-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicecg (talk • contribs) 04:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  • The problem with the HIV article is that when unprotected, it attracts every crackpot and vandal who wants to bash or add the name of who they think has HIV, so a straight unprotect is a challenge. What I can do, however, is flag the two students in question as "confirmed", which will gte them around the semi-protection, if you'll leave me their names in a reply to this post. They should be able to then edit the HIV article freely, as if it were not protected. Courcelles 13:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


Many thanks. They are Dorothy Shi and Vanessa Wong.Alicecg (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  • They'll need to create WP usernames before I can flag them. Courcelles 03:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Checkuserblock on 132.3.33.68

Could you look at 132.3.33.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? We received a request through Unblock-en-l to create an account for a user who is using that address, so I pulled CU data and noticed that, since your block, other accounts with identical technical indicators have became active. I presume you're familiar with the abuse in question, so could you look at the accounts at your first convenience? In particular, the account with the red-linked account of 23 November and the two that were active on 28 November need to be scrutinised. I suspect they may have been sleepers created before you blocked the underlying IP, which may mean the Unblock-en-l thread (which was dated 9 days ago) is also from the same guy. When you've made a decision, I can then respond to the Unblock-en-l thread. Thanks! AGK [•] 15:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Any chance you can send the user from unblock-en to ACC? Failing that, I'll have a look when I get home this afternoon. Courcelles 16:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for responding. I have sent the user to ACC, so the question of the new account is settled, but the possible sleepers will have to be looked at. AGK [•] 19:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, the problem here was pretty much pure vandalism through socks, I don't think any of the three are actually related. Courcelles 03:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2011–12 Hannover 96 Season

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2011–12 Hannover 96 Season. 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. Kingjeff (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

History repeated: CC of a message sent to Fastily

Woops, did it again. Please Undelete User:Schweiwikist/subpage/test3--didn’t wrap a g7 in a noinclude

Hi, due to my repeating an error I committed a year ago with Portal:Current_events/Calendar/2010/335, my transclusion of Portal:Current_events/Calendar/2011/335 without a noinclude wrapper mistagged my list page as a speedy delete candidate. Please recheck the deletion log. This exchange with your deletion precessor will be a help: Been here, done this.

Thanks in advance. Schweiwikist (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(end CC)

And thanks to you as well. Schweiwikist (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I"ve restored the sandbox page in your userspace. Courcelles 15:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks, you beat Fastily to it. ---Schweiwikist (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Boston University

Dear User:Courcelles, I hope this message finds you doing well. Today, another redlinked account, User:FiveColourMap, commented in the discussion, supporting the dissenting position. His account was also created after the issue arose at the talk page, heightening my suspicion. It is also unlikely that this user could have found this discussion since it was not publicized. Could you please perform a checkuser between User:FiveColourMap and User:Bowjangles? I would highly appreciate it. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  • This account was created on 9 August 2011; and the argument made is logical and valid, and sounds nothing like Bowjangles. Checkusering this account would be a fishing expedition, not within policy. Courcelles 02:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear User:Courcelles, the discussion started on 4 August which I was I was suspicious. Nevertheless, I understand your point. Sorry for the inconvenience. I hope you have a nice night! With warm regards, AnupamTalk 03:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Good luck at the Arbitration Committee Election 2011! Happy holidays and best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 17:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Happy holidays to you as well, Jona.. Thanks :) Courcelles 15:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks and you're welcome :-). Take care, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 17:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_94&oldid=1171650503"