User talk:Courcelles/Archive 19

94.168.221.119
Can you please take a look at this user's edits? S/he was just recently unblocked and s/he's back at it again. ~dee 06:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They haven't edited in hours, send them to AIV if they disrupt again. (I was quite asleep when you posted this :) ) 13:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice; I'll keep my eye on him/her. (( ...and I'll keep your timezone in mind next time, it's just that you're my favorite admin atm ;-) ))  ~dee  20:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Season 4
In your view, is season 4 "there" for FLC? -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  15:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * replied on your talk page, since this is a three-person discussion. Courcelles 15:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry...
Sorry, there is no excuse for what i wrote on the Adams review page. I hope you can forgive me, and if not, or at least work constructive together to improve contenth here on Wikipedia. Pardons, --TIAYN (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You!
Hi Courcelles, I saw some of your contributions on an article that falls within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the | Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for joining the PPI Assessment Team. There is a request for you to review some articles and a description of assessment logistics on the WP:USPP Assessment Page. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative)

Attila
You have recently taken action on a contributor to this page. If you have time, I wonder if you would take a quick look at its recent history and talk page. We are having trouble with repeated addition of rubbish by the same contributor. He seems to lack the competence required for either constructive contribution or meaningful discussion. If you can't, thanks anyway, and I'll try more formal requests for administrative help. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

dear Courcelles, if you check the history of the article, you can clearly see the vandals of wikipedia. removing reliable sources is their main activity.--Finn Diesel (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done some things, and likely made no one happy, but... well, this article has been a mess for months. Courcelles 14:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If we can just get on with this better encyclopedia thing I'm happy - thanks again. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of a better encyclopaedia :) Less drama, more writing.  It sounds so easy, yet it never seems to be so.  Happy editing. Courcelles 04:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, hopefully we can proceed. FWIW, I'm happy about the 1RR, it makes good sense, slowing the pace helps keep things in check. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind
Dabomb87 (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I've self-reverted, as I feel that I may be stepping on your toes here and perhaps too hasty in granting the right. I would appreciate your comment at the page, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I would have minded, quite strongly, actually. Courcelles 03:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, apologies for that; I was quite careless there. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey
- JuneGloom07  Talk?  18:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Football records in Spain
Fairs Cup is an official competition and you would edit the protected article "football records in Spain". Yo can see "Fotball records in England or Italy" or the LFP (Professional Fotball League of Spain).--Sporting1905 (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Discuss it on the talk page and use when you have consensus. Admins do not edit through protection without a really good reason. Courcelles 20:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bruticus deletion
Could you please reopen the deletion review for the page Bruticus? It has 2 keep votes, then a relisting which generated one delete vote in a couple hours after being relisted, then you deleted the [age about 4 hours after that. Hardly enough time to get any real opinions on the deletion review. If it's going to be deleted then let some people have more of a say in it. Thanks. Mathewignash (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It had two keep !votes that, combined made zero sense. At all. They were pure votes, and the article was rightly deleted.  (Though I never really processed the relisting, since the AFD was never removed from the original 15 September log.)  I'd have closed that one as delete with nothing but the nomination and the two keep !votes—they were that poorly considered—while the nominator was dead-on in his reasoning. Courcelles 03:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Stefan Dennis
Hi!

Thanks for locking Stefan Dennis' article before.

I did consider reporting it when I reverted the vandalism but I didn't because I felt sure it would be rejected because of not enough recent vandalism --5 albert square (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a known hardcase when it comes to BLP's. (If it had been a fictional character, it wouldn't have been enough.)  Happy editing, Albie. Courcelles 03:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD -- reopen?
Could you take a look at again? You closed it as delete but toward the end sources were provided and many of the !votes indicated that sourcing was the prime problem. A relist with notification to the various !voters seems like a good way to see if those sources meet their requirements. Hobit (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the sources are sufficient, but no harm in letting this run another few days. I've relisted, but I'm not going to spam the participants. Courcelles 03:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do you object to me doing the spamming? Hobit (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Intercontinental Cup (football) winners/archive1
Needs a revisit when you get the chance. Thanks in general for all of your recent reviews; I see your name almost as much as I see TRM's! :) Dabomb87 (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Still needs a little polish. Courcelles 05:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
Hey Courcelles, I had a question about articles that are tagged for speedy deletion. I notice on the tag it states that the author of the article can add a "hang on" to stop the article from being deleted (well, sort of), but let's say I saw an article I believe could be worked on and improved, am I entitled to put the hang on tag or would I be better off recreating the article after it is deleted? This usually involves bios of living persons which I notice could meet wiki standards but the author just failed to keep a neutral tone or add enough reliable, secondary sources which, with some effort, could be found. Sincerely, your wiki-stalker ;-) ~dee  22:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as you didn't start the article, feel free to remove the tag. If you later discover you were in error, you can always slap the tag back on to put it back in the queue.  (This is one of only two times replacing a speedy deletion tag is permissible. (The other being article creator removal.)) Courcelles 22:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The "hangon" tag only needs to be added by the creator: speedy tags can be removed by anyone else (though if the article unquestionably meets the criteria it may still be deleted). If you want to improve an article so it no longer meets a CSD criterion, simply remove the tag and state that in the edit summary. GiftigerWunsch  [TALK]  22:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Great to know! Should I tag the article with anything in particular to ensure it doesn't get deleted before I'm done (because, well, I'm a slow worker)?  ~dee  22:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, just remove the tag. That'll remove it from how admins find speedy deletion candidates (CAT:SD) Courcelles 22:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup, messieurs! :-) ~dee  22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Bitte schön GiftigerWunsch  [TALK]  22:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ^. :) Courcelles 01:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"More trolling"?
Care to explain? Nergaal (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of your comment was trolling, pure and simple. Every time I see your name, I see you making a pain of yourself, at FLC, at FTC, the Prager GAN, etc. Courcelles 01:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa, I hope that the opinion of an administrator is actually based on good facts. Other than the baseball AfD (which in hindsight was a mistake) what problems did I create? At xTC lately very few care to review the topic and simply submit quick votes, and a good amount of inertia has started to appear. At FLC I got a feeling that there are a lot of friend-support votes and very few actual reviewers bother to go past small technical issues (i.e. MOS, not weather the lead is actually appropriate). I don't see how opposing an article when reasons are listed is trolling, since consensus will eventually drive the nom, not my sole vote (as was the case with the volleyball one). Could you be a bit more specific? I would prefer to understand better this opinion as I do not have any desire to spent time contributing only to find out that is better if I spend time doing other things instead. Nergaal (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your volleyball opposition showed you have no idea what the Olympics actually are, or how they should be written about. (Or that you realised that a list with 46 nations, and over 900 names could never mention everything in the lede. Ten people could have written that list and it would have taken ten totally different appearances.)  It was even more apparent with your opposition to the 1972 Summer Table one, when you thought two sentences about Rhodesia was over-representing what was actually a very defining event at those Olympics, as they snowballed into the "forgotten" boycott of 1976.  You oppose lists not based on any of the criteria, but more on how they would have looked if you had decided to write them.  So be it.  But for you to go, after not having anyone agree with your points, to run off and use it as a poor reflection of the FL process was pure trolling.  Now, Talk:B. J. Prager/GA1.  You made it abundantly clear in the 1932 Olympics FLC that you don't like one sentence paragraphs.  But to quick fail, and send something to the back of a two-month queue because of one?  The GA process is broken, and stuff like that is a good example of how.  Could have been fixed with ten minutes of editing, could have been removed entirely, but in no way fell within the very strict standards for quick-failing a GAN.  You don't get to impose personal preference as a reviewer, and I'm not sure at all you understand that. Courcelles 02:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So this is about a "Strong oppose" vote? I had no idea until now that those articles were yours. I simply gave my opinion, and if opposing an article on "medal table" talks more about a boycott than about the first non-host to get 50 medals then fine, then indeed I have no idea what Olympics are about. For your curiosity I thought that this falls within the scope of 3.a, and I am sorry I did not explicitly state that. As for the GAN, I did not quickfail it strictly because of the one-sentence paragraphs, but because of the pattern I noticed: I don't think it is worth expanding on points when the person submitting the articles does not care about making good submits, and a lot of them. Also, it is interesting how you can empathize with the Prager case, but be ok with removing the two FLCs that had no outstanding comments. Nergaal (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * {editconflict)I hope all of this did not generate from a "strong oppose" vote; if anything I think is more annoying when nobody bothers to vote. Feel free to disregard the provious reply as I actually don't know why I care abut the Prager issue; if the community feels that attempting to take some steps is closer to trolling than helpful I will just stay out of it. As for the FLC opinions, they were only meant to be constructive. If getting opposes after spending (usually) a ton of time making a list/article is annoying, I found to be as annoying to bother doing a review; moreso when also bothering looking for sources, only to get back a skimpy comment from the editors along the lines "after considering your opinion it was considered not worthwhile". Since for the latter, anything that is a criticism appears to create an image of trolling, I will probably stop bothering with it.Nergaal (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The 1972 medal table article wasn't mine... actually, if my comments there hadn't been dealt with, I'd have been opposing it as well, the numbers simply didn't make sense with what I know about Munich. (the FLC was withdrawn before it was necessary) The Metallica FLC sat there for a month, and no-one supported it. Maybe that's mine or TRM's fault for providing commentary but no !vote. Maybe it is yours for not finding a relevant WikiProject and serving notice that it was stagnating. (I know I like to review FLC's with one or two substantial support !votes, that just need some spit and polish.) Who really knows? It can go back up in a few days, fresh, and atop the queue. FLC has a few established guardians who can check the bad votes of those who just like the subject. GAN, on the other hand, is an individual system. TonytheTiger submits a ton of work. I have no idea how on Earth he churns it all out. So what? No, really... so what? It still demands a through review, with some real effort put into it. What else did you think was wrong with the Prager article other than a one sentence section? I can see a few on first glance, and I'd imagine you can too. But when you provide substandard reviews like "I will quickfail this nom. There is a section with a single line, and two others with a single paragraph. This is B-class at best." we are left only to assume that that is all you found wrong with the article. If you are thinking these things, you have to put them on the review. The rest of us can only see what you write, not what you think... and in these cases, what you wrote wasn't in line with the guidelines. Courcelles 03:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In a perfect world, I think that people who submit articles for review should not look for reviewers; since moreso than not, it falls either within the idea of begging or of finding partners/buddies who almost surely put a support vote without really being careful about the content. In a perfect world everybody would also spend 10 minutes a day contributing to wikipedia instead of watching the commercials on TV - even after the former stopped being a fad. I will try to keep in mind a few things. Thanks for the lesson(s). And see you around. Nergaal (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

13th Amendment
Looks like you've made some recent changes to the protection level of the page on the 13th Amendment. That page gets a lot of vandalism & edits, so it may very well need it (I think it does), but if you could leave a few comments on the talk page, that'd help us understand what's going on. Thanks. Ebanony (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just a semi-protection, it stops IP's and newly registered users from editing, nothing else. Courcelles 02:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be fine.
I don't think the Spam/username message will ever become a high-risk template, whether or not it's high visibility (unless it's a spam, vandalism and username violation account simultaneously, which is probably extremely rare). mechamind 9 0 05:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't I downgrade this to a semi-protection? Yes, it appears that I did, see . Courcelles 05:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes you did. I just acknowledged that you said "let's see how this goes" in the log summary. mechamind 9 0 17:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Question
Seeing that you are an administrator, could you move the page List of Prime Ministers of the Soviet Union -> List of Premiers of the Soviet Union? I can't because that page already excists. --TIAYN (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)