User talk:Courcelles/Archive 10

WP:ANI
You might want to comment in this AN/I thread since you have had interaction with NCDane regarding the same issue before. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And that, though I'd never have remembered it, makes me involved, so I'll have to leave it for someone else, it does appear to be somewhat of a crusade for this user. Courcelles (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Objection to Dragonball: 2 Reborn move
I highly disapprove of the move of the article and AfD to "Dragonball 2: Reborn" as there is no official title and "Dragonball: 2 Reborn" is/was the original name of the article up for deletion. The IMDB listing is apparently part of the ongoing hoax/rumor. Also, the list was completed, as shown by this edit. Apparently, someone must have removed it from the day's log. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then, move them back, you should be able to. If I had realized that AfD was six days old at the start of the process, I'd just have snowball deleted the thing, but if it bothers you, just move everything right back where it was.  Courcelles (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've moved them back to their original names. I still not sure why they were moved so late in the AfD. All moving them does is causes problems. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was fixing a cut and paste move performed by a new user, that's all. Courcelles (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I've been working off the Olympic medallists lists, trying to get them in shape, I'll finish working on those lists for you shortly. Thanks for the star! Courcelles (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision deletion for several vandalisms
Could you please do revision deletion for User talk:Hi878 and User:Marek69? An anonIP tagged them recently. moreno oso (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I blocked the vandal first, hope you don't mind ;) Now I'll examine the offending revisions. Courcelles (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. I wonder if it minds? You made my night with that one! moreno oso (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and deleted them. Borderline RD3's, perhaps, but purely disruptive and of no redeeming value whatsoever. Courcelles (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I pulled one up at random and I'd say t's a borderline RD3 but sits smack in the middle of RD2. I've seen worse, though. As vandals go, not the most imaginative! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   04:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Most vandals aren't. After two hours hunting down sources, and making AWB fix bad links, can I say how much I utterly despise diacritics? Courcelles (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh fun! The joys of wiki editing and administrating! And we do it all for free! While I'm here, do you know any good DYK-related scripts that give you a character count for an article? I've got User:Dr pda/prosesize.js in my monobook, but it just seems to give bytes and words, not characters. I'm aiming for 5x expansion of Nick Parker, but it looks like I might have to make every character count since the article wasn't short (just a total mess and almost completely unsourced) when I came to it. Still, to  isn;t bad, and I'm not finished.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The bites is the character count, for DYK purposes. However, User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js is foolproof, as it calculates the 5x by going into article history for you with a single click. (I made 100 edits in under an hour.  Don't think I've ever done that before where every edit was to articles- no user talk warnings... and I've got more to do tomorrow.  Fun.  Did our paychecks get lost in the mail? (Eh, this ahs nothing to do with the mop, more like cleaning up two potential FLC's.  One I've made 90 edits to without writing one word of prose...) Courcelles (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well of course it's foolproof, Shubinator wrote it! Thanks for the tip, I'll add that in the morning (or, er, later, damn body clock!). How so you make 90 edits without adding a word of prose? I've made 200 edits to articles over a few days, but most of that was vastly expanding the prose (take Lily Cole, for example. If I'd known about it back then, I probably could have got a DYK credit, I must have expanded that by more than 5x). It's surprisingly difficult to expand an article that much, though. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Voleyball and synchronised swimming. interesting combination! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Easy, four long tables that need referencing...and diacritic fixing! Lots of work to do without starting the five day clock to write prose forDYK! I'm thinking images might be the downfall for the synchro list, though.  Know anyone with a flicker account who is good at buttering people up? --Courcelles is travelling (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, the other day ESPN radio led off the tennis match follow by Donovan's game winning futbol shot. The announcers dropped into a fake high English accent and said, "Jolly good show". Too bad they sounded like they were ordering shrimp on the barbie in southern Australian type accents. ; ) moreno oso (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a Flickr account and most of those images on my userpage came from begging people to release them. I'll be happy to do a bit of begging on your behalf if you want- just give me the URLs of the images and the people you want me to beg. :) Bloody hell, it's masochistic being an England fan. :( HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the kitty know you're over here? What am I saying? He's the brains of the outfit. moreno oso (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The 5x expansion is difficult, I've only done it once when the article as I found it contained any prose at all, as the article has to be fairly stubby for it to need that much more prose. Being an England fan today was even less fun than being a U.S. fan yesterday... not sure I care who wins this thing anymore since those two are gone. Courcelles (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I can't say I'm bothered either. I probably won't watch any more until the final. What a load of absolute bollocks! total fucking shite! We were useless! 4-1 is bloody humiliating! I think this pretty accurately sums up the feelings of most of England right now. if I'd seen that, I probably wouldn't have even warned them for it! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Evening. Could you please do rev delete for this DIFF? TIA. moreno oso (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to go ask someone else, but I don't think that is disruptive enough to justify revdel, simply reversion, which was done. Courcelles (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to say the same thing, but was delayed by having to do a Google translation. It's not particularly pleasant, but i don't think it qualifies for RD2. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   04:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK

 * Hey, I finally managed to expand Nick Parker by 5x, but now I have a question- where should I nominate him? Do I put him under the date I started work, or today's date or what? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The day you started. It doesn't really matter, but the farther down the page you are, the quicker service you get from your friendly neighbourhood reviewers... Courcelles (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅- T:TDYK. You fancy reviewing it for me? :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   04:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm... involved much? ;)  If no one else does it, I'll do it tomorrow. Courcelles (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You could hardly be considered involved- I don't think you've made a single edit to it! ;) I decided to review a few myself while I was there. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Penny for your thoughts on T:TDYK. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   06:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That was interesting, who've you pissed off today? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   06:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wowzer. Who did I piss off?  I've done little for two days but cleaning up the diacritics mess that was the Olympics articles... hardly controversial. Courcelles (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidently a persistent little bugger with a dynamic IP. I had to protect Tbhotch's and Bongwarrior's talk pages from the same guy. Funny though, I just realised we've both got each others' talk pages protected! If only they'd find something better to do! Did you manage to look at that DYK nom? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   07:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Broke the thread, the touchscreen doesn't like to scroll on edit boxes. I've looked... and it's an interesting case... it's one source, but it is also about as official a source as we could get for the subject.  The first hook must mention the sport, because when I hear "test match" my mind goes straight to Cricket, but I'd been likely to just have signed off on the hook. Courcelles (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea, it was getting tedious to scroll through and you'll be archive quicker that way. I {{subst:DYKtick}}'d it, though I wouldn't put that on ITN. 08:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ITN and DYK, as we both know, have very different standards. There's a reason the route to a WP:FOUR doesn't run through ITN/C ;) Courcelles (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I never understood why DYK was so highly thought of. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea and anything to encourage responsible content creation is great, but on some days it reads like it should be titled "things you didn't know about the north-eastern United States" and other days it should be "did you really give a crap", but I suppose it would be impossible to get a DYK that interested everyone. ITN has its flaws, though, and the timing can be as much luck as judgement. On another Main Page note, I'm surprised the peanut gallery aren't out in force over Byrd's death being on ITN. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   08:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Crud
You're up for crud? Game's on. . .moreno oso (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Aww, I hope you don't still feel like crud. If I may bother you... delete? {&#123; Sonia &#124;ping&#124;enlist}&#125; 07:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's never a bother, Sonia. Gone in a poof of smoke. Courcelles (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) You have a reply, btw. {&#123; Sonia &#124;ping&#124;enlist}&#125; 08:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Signing on RFA
I've helped you sign on this RFA, FYI, as you only signed with the timestamp. — MC10 (T•C•GB•L)  19:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. That was stupid of me- thanks for the clean-up. Courcelles (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer
Thanks for asking me to be a Reviewer. But, please remove this status.

I am terminating my activities on Wikipedia. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed. Let me know if you ever want it back. Courcelles (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I am now a Reviewer
thanks for the Reviewer'r rights..... I am howver curious how did I earn these rights..... and how are these rights diffenent than just looking up a user's contributions??? Cheers Wiki ian 04:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Help:Reviewing will explain it all- we were handing out the flag based on a database report that covered those who have 2,500+ edits, and the last edit over one year ago. Courcelles (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, and is there a groovy little userbox I can put on my userpage to state I have these rights? Wiki ian 04:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There sure is Template:User wikipedia/Reviewer! Courcelles (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mimi MacPherson
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mimi MacPherson. 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. Gnangarra 05:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Review
I am delighted to be a given this role; I do not want it removed and will be responsible in making key edits.

--Wikiaddict6989 (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

fyi
Hi ... a sysop may wish to close this discussion, as it appears to have been w/drawn by nom. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Closed... I think I need to spend a few hours on CFD tomorrow, the discussions are starting to back up. Courcelles (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Many tx. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer
Thanks for making me a reviewer. I just wonder what it means, I don't know if I will have use for this. I haven't asked for it, but will not ask for the status to be removed anyway. John  Anderson  (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See Help:Reviewing for a full explanation. Basically, having the flag just "gives back" abilities you already had before this flagged revisions trial started. Courcelles (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of French football champions/archive1
Needs a revisit when you get the chance. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure I ever planned on doing a full review of that list, but I'll see if I can come up with anything. Courcelles (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)'s FAC
Good on ya for offering to take this over Courcelles. My worry though is that if the article's pruned as ruthlessly as some of the commentators have demanded, then it'll have the heart torn out of it. I think Moni3's view is that it's better to have a "good" article than a bronze star, which I have some sympathy with. Anyway, I just wanted to say that. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a great deal of sympathy for Moni's view, as well. If you wanted to do it, I'd shut up and go back to my lists, but it would be a shame for it to not pass FAC without someone making an honest effort- without stripping the heart from the article.  Courcelles (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're up for it then please go ahead. I went through the article earlier and tidied up a few little bits before I posted my support, so have at it! I did something similar at GAN to what you're doing (or was it GAR?) a while ago, with The Princess and the Pea, so I'm in no way trying to discourage you from taking this on. Good luck. Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. In case you're not aware, a rather similar situation cropped up in this article's FAC, in which I was directly involved. Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, while I have your attention, I think one of the reviewers makes a salient point- "Once More, with Feeling", or "Once More, With Feeling", the capitalisation of that W needs to be made consistent throughout the article, but I'm split which needs changing, the prose or the title. Courcelles (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize we were both working on the article at the same time. Sorry about that. I think we may have had an edit conflict, because some of the titles I linked were lost. Anyway, I've addressed a couple of the issues and am finished. It's a nice article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that- I tend to copy edit in small doses, which is about all I can do today, anyway. Courcelles (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Manual of style says says prepositions shouldn't be capitalised (although personally, I disagree and it was a pain when I used to do a lot of album articles and then had to change them all when I found that out!) – B.hotep •talk• 20:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd go with the MoS on this, and say it should consistently be "with", not "With", which looks a bit strange to me anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles, first you suck donkey balls for asking to keep the nomination open. That means I am unable to wander off in a drunken haze and look for shirtless pictures of Barry Manilow for my ever-growing collection. Secondly, I am not abandoning the article, and I will participate in discussions about it, but I am not interested in pruning it or otherwise cutting large parts of it. If you have questions about sources and whatnot, I'll do what I can to respond. Two things: at least five newspapers informally title the episode "Buffy: The Musical" (and I have them saved in a sandbox). This was in the first line, but BigNole removed it because it's as controversial as saying Hitler was spawned by gay Satanic cucumbers. Instead of popping some blood vessels in my cranium by attempting to explain that five citations or a note in the first line of the article would be unnecessarily and stupidly distracting for a fact no one would reasonably question, I've just let that go. However, I'm quite certain that readers will come searching for the "Buffy musical" so it's, you know...fuckit...completely not worth the ridiculosity. BigNole also removed the CD album cover image from the Criticism section. I felt it is justified to be included, but now I feel like having pancakes. Again, I want to impress upon you that you are cutting into my getting drunk and not caring time. You are, by the way, completely welcome to replace my name with yours, add, or whatever, as the nominator. Serious as cancer when I say rhythm is a dancer. --Moni3 (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my, that is the funniest thing I've read in a long while- might be the first time I've ever been accused of cutting into anyone's drinking time! (Though, on some level, isn't this entire encyclopaedia cutting into our getting drunk time?) Second, I'd never replace your name- that'd be ridiculous- this article is your gig.  Further, I completely agree, large sections of the article do not need pruning, though there are a few sentences here and there that might be able to be trimable.  By and large, I'd say Matthewedwards is much closer to the right track than Bignole is.


 * (I also just had to go and turn Buffy: The Musical blue.) Oh, and curse you, too. Now I have to run by the market on the way home and pick up ingredients for pancakes! Courcelles (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Notes, because I don't need a sandbox, just a holding pen
This says the episode placed 88th for the week, but without giving the actual rating. The article is also a bloody mess, so need to find a better source- or at least a supplementary one.

Reviewer
Hi! So far, think I'm doing okay as a reviewer, but would it be possible to have the ability to semi-protect a page? Thank you.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ...If I read what you're asking correctly, no. Only admins can semi-protect a page. so  nia ♫♪ 21:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Applying semi-protection is limited to Administrators, sorry. Courcelles (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course you can have the ability to semi-protect a page. Just go here and have your heart ripped out. That's surely a small price to pay. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I heard they eat your heart directly from the chest, don't even rip it out anymore. Saves time at RFAs.... Beam 11:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer
Thank you. Daytrivia (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer
Thanks. Can I quickly ask what the criteria for "reveiwer" rights was? Simply having rollback, as it indicates, or are individual reveiwers vetted any other way. I couldn't tell by browsing the proposal/implication of the user right trial. Thanks. Beam 11:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the right was given to people with rollback. WP:Reviewing says "If you have rollback or autoreviewer rights, you are a good candidate for reviewer rights as well – the level of trust is similar." And I got reviewing apparently because I had rollback. But I'll have Courcelles confirm that. –dffgd 11:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There were also some database reports based on edit count and length of time here which the flag was given based on. Courcelles (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking. Any chance you can tell me the report/results for me? Beam 18:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment
Hi,Please give your valueable comment to Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Max Viwe |  Wanna chat with me?  15:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion please...
I suspect Articles for deletion/Houston McCoy was a difficult afd to close.

I hope you don't mind some questions.

I strongly agree with the comments about whether or not Jimbo's opinion merited extra consideration, or whether the (unspecified) disruption should play any role. There is something Nelson Mandella and George Washington have in common. They were both so popular that they could easily have agreed with the suggestions they become President for Life... If Jimbo was open to my advice I would urge him to be a Nelson Mandela, not a Robert Mugabe.

I think there were some other problems with this afd.

In so far as possible I would like to see as much of the decisions made on the wikipedia be made in an open and transparent manner. That wasn't possible here -- because Jimbo, and several other administrators, blanked the article's talk page. And some of the participants in the afd seemed to be basing their points on the deleted contents of the talk page. I requested that someone with access to the talk page deletions provide a safe neutral summary, so that all of us could offer informed opinions on an equal basis. I requested that the afd be relisted once that summary had been provided.

The assertion that McCoy requested deletion being a case in point. He didn't request deletion in the afd itself. No one provided a diff to a post that they could claim was McCoy requesting deletion. Maybe there was a post on the deleted talk page that represented itself as McCoy requesting deletion.

My impression is that while we should approach each post from someone who claimed to be a disraught subject of an article with patience, we should explain, in every single case, that they have to use the OTRS mechanism to confidentially verify that they were who they said they were.

You wrote: "I see no credible evidence, that the requested deletion isn't a genuine request from the subject (or his duly appointed representative), so this closure will proceed under the assumption that the request is valid."

Could you please clarify what you refered to as a genuine request from the subject? Was it on the deleted talk page? So far as those of us who can't read the deleted talk pages can see, there was no request from McCoy at all.

I requested the afd be relisted -- once someone who had access to the deleted talk page(s) provided a neutral summary of them. Frankly, I am disappointed, on the grounds of open and transparent decision making, that the deleted talk pages weren't summarized.

I think administrators who courtesy blank pages should offer a brief summary of the deleted material, or a link to a discussion, where the courtesy blanking was discussed, or a link to a wikipolicy, if the blanking is particularly clear-cut.

Maybe there are occasional cases where even the briefest summary will reveal information that should be made public.

If you reviewed the deleted talk page, perhaps you could confirm whether speculation about a drinking problem was what triggered the courtesy deletion of the talk page? When I worked to find more references for the article, and found the 2007 interviews with McCoy, where his opinion on the Viginia Tech shootings was sought, I saw that he acknowledged once having had a drinking problem. This open acknowledgment would eliminate any justification for the blanking based on assertions that talk of a drinking problem was merely negative speculation.

WRT the assertions of blp1e -- I have long been concerned over how frequently this section of WP:BLP is called upon by contributors who either don't realize, or decline to acknowledge, how subjective this assertion is.

I'd already written a number of biographies, prior the creation of WP:BLP. Prior to the creation of WP:BLP some contributors, back then, routinely argued for deletion for transparently POV reasons -- WP:IDONTLIKEIT. For instance, they would argue for deletion because they, personally didn't believe what WP:RS asserted. But the personal beliefs and interpretations of our contributors is simply not relevant. Our contributors are supposed to make their contributions from a "neutral point of view", without regard to their personal beliefs.

At that time our policies protected those articles from that kind of POV-pushing. It seems to me that the blp1e section of BLP created a backdoor path for contributors' bias to slip in. When contributors are not sympathetic to an article, think the subject is a liar, they make that judgment call, and conflate all the events in the article, and assert there is just one event -- or even zero events. Contrariwise, some contributors who are sympathetic to the existence of an article, may strain at gnats to represent a single event as several events.

It has always seemed to me that the administrators who close afds have the (difficult) task of evaluating whether blp1e assertions are credible, and to discount those that aren't credible. Most of the contributors who claimed the article lapsed from blp1e declined to address those contributors, like myself, who suggested that McCoy was associated with multiple events. I think this should erode how seriously their arguments should be taken. It is not a vote, after all. Geo Swan (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very long query, and I'll deal with this properly at some point today, I promise. Courcelles (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have a million things that need doing here... and I'm feeling so awful I'm going to go home and sleep instead. You're not being ignored. Courcelles (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did look at some of the old talk page comments, but by no means all- there were around 140 deleted edits (there are 153 now), most of them being from 2006 and 2008. (This wasn't a blanking, check the talk page's deletion logs- there are four deletions before mine) After making a more through review today, there really isn't much to say there.  It's as boring as dishwater- there a couple times too much personal information was posted, BLP violations, and this was before the Oversight tool was around.  BLP1E is an interesting philosophical debate, as at least a few of the established notability standards do lend themselves to the creation of BLP1E's- that we see articles kept for people that have made one appearance in England's fourth level football league is proof of this.  We're not voting, but the discussion is an exercise in building consensus, and I felt SlimVirgin summed it up best- we allow a presumption towards deletion in subject request, which in this AFD merely strengthened an existing consensus. Courcelles (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of New York Yankees no-hitters/archive1
Heyo, would you mind stopping by again and capping whatever resolved comments you have? I don't want Sandman's dislike for this list to scare off other reviewers. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem... one more question, and then I'll cap things off. Courcelles (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

VPC
Hi Courcelles (?)! If you have bit of spare time before the semi-finals :) and could help out with a few VPC closures would be very helpful to reduce the Q. --Elekhh (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Doing... Courcelles (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your reliable helpfulness! --Elekhh (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a little note
Maybe you'd like to look here. Not sure if there's something you might want to change. Hey, and while I'm here, what about Germany and Argentina? I'm surprised at how well the European countries have been doing this World Cup! PrincessofLlyr royal court 02:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

VPC
Hi Courcelles (?)! If you have bit of spare time before the semi-finals :) and could help out with a few VPC closures would be very helpful to reduce the Q. --Elekhh (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Doing... Courcelles (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your reliable helpfulness! --Elekhh (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a little note
Maybe you'd like to look here. Not sure if there's something you might want to change. Hey, and while I'm here, what about Germany and Argentina? I'm surprised at how well the European countries have been doing this World Cup! PrincessofLlyr royal court 02:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

AFD Close in six days by you, instead of the required seven
I might have missed something out here. You closed this AfD in six days. I thought that seven days was the minimum any AfD should've been listed... I'll appreciate a reply on my talk page, or a talk back. Warm regards.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  09:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, AFD's are closed after the log page they are on is seven days old- this discussion was listed on 19 May, and closed on 26 May seven days later. You'll see the times are never taken into account.  Look at a log page, like Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 27, and see how many were closed within hours after midnight UTC. Courcelles (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're actually right. The AFD was listed on the 19th June log, despite the AFD showing me the date of 20th June actually (it must be because of the UTC stuff). Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for the reply. Best.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  09:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, teh setting that displays times local to each user causes misunderstandings like this fairly often. So, can you fix the new article, or can it be zapped- it's beyond any question an A7 candidate as it stands. Courcelles (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I had thought it was easy to save it, I would have removed the CSD myself. The fact that I only put the hangon tag is so that you could feel free to take the call. I'll have no issues if you delete it immediately. In case you decide not to, I'll work on it for an hour or so and see if it can be saved. Ok either way. Best.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  09:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That's about all that I'll be working on this article today. Check it if you have time... (and delete it if you still think it's CSD'able). Take care and best   ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  11:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's snowing in Canada?
Or is there something to be gained from leaving this AfD open, do you think? I'd be tempted to close it myself, but I've opined and I was asked to look at it by another editor. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   09:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically, none of the speedy keep criteria apply. But, no one is advancing a deletion arguement that is worth a darn- it's snowing.  Too bad I !voted. Courcelles (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose there's no harm in leaving it. The article's not going anywhere, Interestingly all but 2 of the !voters seem to have got there directly via my talk page, so I suppose there's no harm in getting a wider criss secction of the community than just my talk apge stalkers! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   09:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've all said "AFD is not cleanup" and then seen the improvements AFD can make to an article... it's rather strange, that. Courcelles (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose you know how to trace the career of a Canadian military officer? British officers are incredibly easy to trace through the London Gazette, which has every promotion, award and medal in the last 200-odd years, but I'm not sure if there's an equivalent Canadian publication. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   09:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you tried the Canada Gazette? Almost all Commonwealth nations have one. Courcelles (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, excellent! That should be handy. I don't suppose the yanks have anything similar? There's an IP at AfC churning out (very good) articles on Medal of Honor winners, but the sources are all books and newspaper reports. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   10:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Federal Register, but it isn't of as high of utility as the Commonwealth versions. Courcelles (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Marko Lens
You deleted this after an AfD. It's been recreated, and tagged. I declined the speedy without digging too far, because there was a claim to notability, i.e. that the subject had won a Nobel prize. I strongly suspect that this is nonsense, but it's sourced (not brilliantly, I'll admit). On digging deeper I realised you'd deleted it. My first thought here is, but is it sufficiently similar to the previously deleted version? TFOWR 15:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Maybe not close enough for G4, it's the same stuff, still promotional, but in different words.  Further, the current article is highly problematic- A7 would have been fine with me.  It claims the subject is a Nobel laureate, which List of Nobel laureates, nor anything else, appears to back up. Courcelles (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to prod it. I can't see an easy way to CSD it. TFOWR 15:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Afternoon gents! Id say it was a borderline G11 (spam), or you could go with G3 (hoax). That PROD won't hold up, though because there's been an AfD. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, seems to be my day for dodgy prods... I'd take a G11 - it's not an area I'm that familiar with, but if you think it's spammy enough I'll run with that. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 15:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it fits into the category I was discussing with another editor the other day- "candidates for speedy deletion as utter shite that don't quite meet a real criterion". Regardless, I've salted it. Hopefully that's the last we see of this guy's attempts at self promotion! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both of you. I'm going to stop deleting stuff now ;-) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 16:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this the famous Dr. Lens MD, Msc, DPhil (Oxon), FRCS of the Cardoganclinic, with two references in the Lancet, beloved of the Mail Onlines Femail section, American Society of Clinical Oncology contributor, subject of an article in Vogue, cited by Jason Voorhees for his piece on retinoic acid inhibits induction of c-Jun protein by ultraviolet radiation that occurs subsequent to activation of mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways in human skin in vivo, and consultant plastic surgeon at King’s College and St Thomas's Hospital? Weakopedia (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it! Except that this one may - or may not - have a Nobel prize. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 17:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer userright
Many thanks. Jll (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Under-rod-flagg-framsida.jpg
Eh up, would you mind taking a look at that file? I put it on DYK yesterday after a WP:ERRORS complaint about the other one being too small. Can I leave you to clean up my mess and delete it or do whatever need to be done? Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd clean up your mess, such as it is, merely by unprotecting it. The high-res version is vastly superior to File:Rod-flagg.png. Courcelles (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, your reply just undid MiszaBot. Edit conflict? –dffgd 15:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Darned strange, since I replied an hours after the bot ran. Oh, well, it'll be back around tomorrow... Courcelles (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That works. I've unprotected an de-tagged it. At least it's out of category:Protected main page images, which is now looking relatively clean. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you take a look?
I would like your objective opinion.

It's about my edit to article Invention. There is an invitiation to edit it, and I was attracted because I am close to this subject and would like to participate.

However: the reactions I encountered were a bit surprising. Am I wrong? Is it the initiation rites for a new Editor?

--Zutam (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at the situation, and, as said in the edit summary of one of the reverters, you should have discussed it on the talk page before, not after, the edit. Note that I'm not an admin and don't have any special privileges, I'm just another editor commenting on the situation. –dffgd 15:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

William O. Bradley
Sure. I didn't even know that was possible. You also have my permission to nuke the sandbox article when you're done. I don't need it now. Thanks! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Brevity and brilliant writing
So...I don't have any room to really complain here. I don't know if I do or don't. I'm still trying to figure out why FAC makes me feel so physically bad. At any rate, I read over the various copy edits that were done over the weekend while I was otherwise engaged. I fixed some stuff simply because it was not reflecting what the sources say. I have to admit that I cringed and twisted when I read the plot of OMwF. It's dull, it's lifeless, and just about worthy of an oppose. It's not brilliant writing. It's poor. I don't like it...clearly...

It completely escapes me why anyone would want to cut more life out of the plot, and I think I've made it pretty clear that cutting for the sake of meeting some arbitrary word limit guideline set by people who seem to have no interest in the topic or the article defies comprehension. I would not be compelled to watch the episode, nor would I want to read further about it in the article in its current state. I don't feel like I have any authority, however, to revert the cuts to plot content. That's the risk of telling FAC to stick it. I don't know what I'm doing posting here. Maybe attempting to remind you that brilliant writing is more important than some word limit somewhere. Give readers a reason to read. Do it through language they enjoy, not brevity. If people oppose, then they oppose. BFD.

If your crafty plan is to cut the plot down to an embarrassing shell then restore it to a version that is actually interesting, then hats of to you, you diabolical genius. I would support that. Anyway...you know...whatever. I'm trying not to care, but still caring, and not sure which one I prefer. --Moni3 (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sent you an e-mail, but in broad terms, can't disagree with what you say. Not at all.  You caring, however, is far better than you not caring. Courcelles (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey there, Moni. I can't say I disagree with what you say there either, even though I'm one of those who's attempted to trim the plot section (primarily to try to assuage Bignole's concerns and maybe squeeze that "oppose" into a "neutral"). Please feel free to revert any of the changes I've made without fear of rancour from me. While I'm usually on the side of brevity, I do appreciate a finely crafted and balanced bit of prose; to see that tweaked by subsequent well-meaning editors (and we are well-meaning; it's testament to the reputation you've built here that so many people have been willing to pitch in) I know can make one anxious. Believe me when I say I cringe and exclaim out loud whenever I see the dreaded "copyedit" edit summary on my watchlist for articles I've written. :-) I feel like I should say "don't let it get to you" or "chin up" or something equally facile. Instead, I'll just echo Courcelles' remark that an invested, impassioned and occassionally frustrated Moni is better than an apathetic Moni or no Moni at all. Best, Steve  T • C 23:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

admin action
Would you please have a look at this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Neil_Conely the account seems to be have trouble with impersonation and considering the content I would say a block is in order/required. ThanksOff2riorob (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The account only has one edit and it was 2 years ago. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking, I noticed the date late. Ta. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ping!
You have mail! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied. Courcelles (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You have more! Steve T • C 21:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied. Courcelles (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Bots down?
Hi, Courcelles. I noticed you were manually removing entries at WP:UAA. Are the bots down? -- Rrburke (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. (Grr).  Every entry save four I've removed was already blocked. Courcelles (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've contacted the botop for helperbot5 by email. -- Rrburke (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Just a little thank you for the fast RFPP response and protection of my subpages. :) dffgd &#91;messages·edits&#93; 01:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a question for you, Courcelles, and it kind of has to do with what dffgd was talking about. I requested that both of my sandboxes be indefinitely semi-protected for the same reasons dffgd requested their userbox subpages be semi-protected. Semi-protection of both of my sandboxes was denied. If semi-protection of dffgd's subpages wasn't denied, how come semi-protection of my subpages was denied? I know a different person reviewed the request, but I still don't see why they weren't protected per my request. The Utahraptor  Talk/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 16:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no idea about your case- but it is sort of up to the reviewing admin's discretion. I almost never deny these requests, but some admins want to see vandalism on the page before hitting the button.  Have you asked the admin who denied your request? Courcelles (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they told me to talk to you about it. The Utahraptor  Talk/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 16:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Got a link? I've no idea which admin said that... Courcelles (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here The Utahraptor  Talk/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 16:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, well, I'd have just done it, but I'm not going to wheel-war with User:Tnxman307 over it either- I kind of treat it as a "on request" service, but some sysops views differ. Sorry, that's just how RFPP breaks sometimes, ask five of us and you'll get five slightly different answers, all valid.  See if he's fine with me hitting the button for you- if he is, I'll do it. Courcelles (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Now waiting for response from Tnxman307. The Utahraptor  Talk/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 16:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tnxman307 has replied. dffgd &#91;messages·edits&#93; 17:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, then. Courcelles, since Tnxman307 said it would be alright, will you indefinitely semi-protect my sandboxes? The Utahraptor  Talk/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 18:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Courcelles (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The Utahraptor  Talk/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 18:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Your offer
Thank you very much, I'm flattered. I will give it some careful thought over the weekend and get back to you. Cassandra 73 (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No pressure, take your time- I'm not going anywhere. Courcelles (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

FAC
I responded to your comments at Featured article candidates/Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992/archive1 --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Courcelles. Just wanted to say what nice work I thought you, and everyone else, has done with the Buffy FAC. I haven't supported yet because I'm still not convinced about that last photo, the one with the episode playing in the background. If an image guy like Faschua says it's okay, then I'm happy to support. Best, Matthewedwards : Chat  19:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And if an image guy says it's not OK, it'll disappear in a flash- I make no secret that images are not my speciality, but I know I can't write a respectable FUR for that image if it were necessary. Courcelles (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)