User talk:Courcelles/Archive 2

Sarah Thomas (American football official)
I fixed some things lost in the move, and it should now be viable and ready to go. Thanks for your help in getting it there. Unit Anode  19:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick note about the article. User:Iamnothuman's cut/paste merging has mangled the history, confused the titling, and effectively sapped any energy I had for working on this further. There's now some big conference going on at one of the talkpages, when there's not even any real disagreement now as to what it should be titled. I don't have any more patience for it, so for now, just consider the DYK nomination withdrawn. I'm sick of the whole situation. Unit  Anode  21:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the above issues have been resolved. The article is stable, and now much-improved. I've fixed the nomination to reflect that Iamnothuman's 3 edits were before my own, and it should be ready to go. I'd appreciate it if you'd take another look at it now that it's stable. Unit  Anode  14:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding P2
I see that you state that you moved my DYK self-nomination concerning the article ARA Uruguay to something called "P2" but searching for the lead text "that during its operational history 1874–1926 the" does not find it it. Is this an admin private queue, or do I need to adjust my search criteria in some way?

Thank you, Leonard G. (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * P2 is short for Preparation area 2, and your hook is listed at the top. As far as I know there are no "admin-only" areas on Wikipedia... than again, I'm not an admin~  Courcelles (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! you are fast! But if you are not an admin or higher, what powers are needed for such a move (i.e., what keeps anyone from doing that)? (Mostly curious, but I am interested in the DYK page and review process) - thanks, Leonard G. (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing. The Prep areas are semi-protected so only editors with accounts more than four days old can edit them.  An admin has to copy and paste the hooks form the preparation area over to the queue, but non-admins can set up the sets in the prep area. Courcelles (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Higher than an admin? That'd be the Arbitration Committee or a bureaucrat, but I am neither of the three.  No special powers, no extra buttons.  The prep areas mainly work on the belief that people who don't know how to set up sets of hooks won't bother, and that any screw up on Wikipedia is easily fixed! Courcelles (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool! Thanks - Leonard G. (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment
I realise that the withdrawal might be for the record 'keep' - Category - Military history of Asia - I did not specifically say keep - In AGF withdrew - simply on the basis that I have been asked to wait till a milhist reorganisation proposal is worked out - I object to the category as it stands- cheers - it will probably be renominated in the near future SatuSuro 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nomination withdrawn is one of the grounds for a technical speedy keep, and is not a bar to a re-nomination in the future. It can be brought back up at anytime- speedy keep doesn't carry the same discouragement of a future nomination that a full week-long keep decision does. Courcelles (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out! Happy new year as well!! SatuSuro 17:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year's to you, as well. Courcelles (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

== -- ==

I have provided My Explanations for each of the edit on "Claims to be the fastest growing religion" below. I hope you will support my edits as they are more objective, backed by reliable data, more succinct/organized, and remove much of the biased/islamophobic statments.

I have removed 2 sentences (repeats) that claimed Islam to be 2nd fastest according to "real growth" (or new adherents) because the reference (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3835) did not actually provide any such data on that. The reference only states the percentage increase. Timothyn7 (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have rearranged 2 sentences to make it more clear and objective. The first sentences now give objective data on the claim of Islam as fastest. The last 2 sentences are now commentary offering explanation of why it is growing. The last sentence still requires references. Timothyn7 (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added a sentence that references Encyclopedia Britannica, which I believe to be less biased on this topic. Timothyn7 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The sentence that reasons that Islam has high retention because of fear of punishment is biased and inacurate and the reference do not prove this point. It is also something that Musilms will deny. (anti-Islam/ pro-Christian view). However, This sentence could be under another topic "Apostacy in Islam". The referenced citations are not relevant and give an example of Ba'Hai mistreatment in Iran. The Egyptian refernce actually discussed a ruling in favor of people of Ba'Hai faith.Timothyn7 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC) -timothyn7

Timothyn7 (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks a lot, Fetchcomms. Wikipedia is evil- you sit down to take care of one little thing and easily end up doing twenty or thirty! Courcelles (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Umbrella nominations
See WP:CFD where it says "If a group of similar categories or a category and its subcategories, use an umbrella nomination: For deletion, ." Debresser (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. I see it, I just didn't know how to do one.  Now I do, but it's too late to combine all the ROC ones.  Courcelles (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My RFA
Why did you close it already (I understand Not Now).--Curtis23 (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC) The guy that edited this after me is right if your not an admin I would like my RfA reopened.--Curtis23 (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Curtis, you have the right to decline a WP:NOTNOW closure, but RFA's that start like that have only succeeded once to my knowledge- and that user was an admin on the German Wikipedia. If you want it re-opened, I can do that- but do you want it re-opened just so an admin can lose it, or do you want it reopened to run for the full week?  Courcelles (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

user:Curtis23
Hi there; I see that you have closed this user's WP:RfA as WP:NOTNOW. This is beyond argument the correct decision, but I would be grateful if you would let me know why you, as a non-admin, felt enabled to make it? Non-admin closures of WP:AfD yes, but WP:RfA? You will note that in case this question is just demonstrating my ignorance, I have not reverted your edit. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 22:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, as I said above, that NOTNOW is wholly appropriate. I do not ask you to revert yourself- if I had not agreed with the decision I would have reverted and warned you. Having said that, I cannot recall ever, since I have been here (3.5 years+) seen a non-admin closure of an RfA. I would suggest that this is a practice which you should not make a habit of; I can search out official policy if you really want me to. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 22:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am honestly not trying to attack or to criticise you, and will concede (again) that your decision was correct. I have since my last comment gone into the policy and indeed, "any user in good standing can close an WP:RfA that has no chance of passing". So you were right under policy, but possibly a little premature after only four oppose votes. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 23:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I never thought you were attacking me, I honestly wanted to see if there was a good reason for me to revert my own edits. (Also, if I had truly done something wrong, I wanted to make sure never to do it again!  I realize I don't know every line of every policy here, and if I'm wrong, I want to know about it.)  Yeah, I'll concede it could have waited for a couple more opinions, but the two neutrals were de facto opposes, and the "pile on" effect was either beginning or about to begin.  Still, I won't be so hasty next time. Courcelles (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Older noms
Hello Courcelles. Just wanted to stop by and explain why I have undid the moving up of older nominations just now and yesterday. Right now it is approx 2220 (UTC). As editors have all different timezones, we go by this one specifically for the DYK nomination clock. So right now someone would still have about 1 hour and 40 minutes to submit an article for December 27th, regardless of the time it may currently be in thier prespective time zone. I know it appears as 6 days sometimes; however, the 5th day has not yet finished everywhere just yet. I hope that explains my rational. By the way User:Bruce1ee was the one to inform me several months ago when I was doing the exact same thing :-) Kindly Calmer   Waters  22:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, I lost this in the orange bar! Thanks for letting me know, CW.  Courcelles (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Account creation tool server request
Procedural edit- yes, I requested access to the account creation interface. Courcelles (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request so welcome to the team. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in as well as the mailing list.


 * Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day (a day being from 0:00 UTC to 23:59 UTC), although you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked "Account Creator Needed". However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM.


 * Please keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA thankspam


Man, the clones are keeping you busy today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.91.37.25 (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

God the Father in Western art DYK
Hi, You left a message that the "hook" needs a citation. I am not even sure what a hook is. Rather than a long discussion, could you please just edit that hook to make it right? I will appreciate your help. I added a ref after the sentence in the article, is that right? Thank you. History2007 (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your rapid response. The first sentence, the better choice came from:"James Cornwell, 2009 Saints, Signs, and Symbols: The Symbolic Language of Christian Art ISBN 081922345X page 2" which I now moved close to it. It was 2 sentences down. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good, good. I've checked off your submission now, thanks for taking care of it so quickly! Courcelles (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. History2007 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

John Trask DYK
Hi, I've responded to your comments at DYK, and hopefully it is now suitable for approval. Harrias (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've responded in the DYK talk page. Courcelles (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Question
Can you tell me how many characters Liberty Kid is? Joe Chill (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1,632 per DYK rules. Courcelles (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. Joe Chill (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

re:DYK nomination of I syng of a mayden
Hi, I think I've managed to fix your query on I syng of a mayden at the DYK entry. Thanks for the heads-up, and do let me know if there are any corrections I need to make. Rob (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hedo Turkoglu
Hedo Turkoglu

I didn't add any links. I said "at various web sites". I haven't deleted any of the data you added, now stop deleting the data I've added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.37.217 (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Indonesian television hell
Links may be one thing - adequate WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS are another - :) SatuSuro 07:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said it shouldn't be deleted. Just that the speedy nomination was unfounded ;)  I'm assuming this refers to Articles for deletion/Sports broadcasting contracts in Indonesia?  Courcelles (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a gmail as well - I understand your point at the afd - good point - yeah we get em regularly - as much WP N and WP V that couldnt cover an ant SatuSuro 07:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied to gmail Courcelles (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that SatuSuro 07:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Rasputin
Thanks for the tip on the undo. Sorry about the mess-up. As for CSD, an admin just explained to me what speedy deletion was about an hour ago. Until then I only knew about AFD. Rasputin72 (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. There is also WP:PROD, which can work if you feel no-one would contest a deletion.  All the rules on prods are on that page, but the big one is that prodding an article is a one-time deal- it it gets contested by anyone, it has to go to AfD.  Courcelles (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Shonan Maru
Hi, I put up a few alternative hooks for this if you would like to have a look? Thanks G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 16:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thanks for reverting on my talk page. Morning277 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Speculative technology
In that closed discussion, you used a Death Star as a sci fi example. There is a science show by an Asian Physicist where he shows how to build one. At least that is the case if my memory is not failing me. Just remember that we have know that teleportation is possible since at least the 60s! Enjoy. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Teleportation of an atom- sure. Teleportation of a complex lifeform?  Not convinced that's even theoretically possible, yet- at least not without killing the subject.  Anyways, the universe is far too vast and far too complex for absolute "not possible" statements.  (Though, no one with any sense would build a Death Star- far, far bigger than it needed to be to blow things up!)  Courcelles (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK assessment of Morgaon Ganesha temple
Thanks for the assessment, but I am sure about your comment at Template_talk:Did_you_know: "I can't tell if this was placed here originally or got moved alter and lost the checkmark, but please do not place hooks in the special occasion holding area at nomination- request they be held, and then they can be moved after approval." The DYK nomination was purposefully put there as it was "created for January_19". This is my 7th + direct nomination in special occasion holding area. Placing such a nomination in "created on" section defies the purpose of special occasion holding area, as nomination in "created on" section waits days for a review then the day for which the article was created may just pass. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also a request in special occasion holding area fails the day criterion then it can be moved in "created on" section. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember reading that was the process at some point, but all I can find now is at the top of T:TDYK is "Using a DYK suggestion string (see below examples), list new suggestions in the candidate entries section below under the date the article was created or the expansion began". Maybe it changed, maybe I'm just crazy.  Your hook was submitted so early, it would have been looked at in plenty of time either way.  Looking back through things, I think it's done about half-and-half.  I guess not a big deal either way around.  Courcelles (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Jairam Ramesh
Thanks for your third opinion on Jairam Ramesh.
 * Agree with Wizardman- the rules are quite clear, blockquotes do not count as prose. However, if you could expand it quickly, this might be a case for ignoring all rules and letting it run. Courcelles (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't realize block quotes do not count. Thanks for keeping the article under consideration. I have expanded it so it is now 9,348 bytes more than on Dec. 31 nomination date. That should make it 5x. You please count. Marcus334 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion on Jairam Ramesh DYK nomination has stopped. I followed everyones suggestions at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know. Can you put it into queue? Marcus334 (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ... that when Mr. Jairam Ramesh (pictured) took over as Indian Minister for Environment and Forests on May 29, 2009, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s instructions to him were: “Be proactive.” ?

5x expanded by Marcus334 (talk). Self nom at 05:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)



Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandal on my page. BigDunc 15:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anytime. You're welcome. Courcelles (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issue on the 39th Brigade Combat Team Article Bowie Knife Section
I deleted the challanged section and said I would find the material elsewhere, stated this in the Edit summary, and you reverted it to put the copyright infringment banner back up. Don't under stand this. Would seem to be the best course just to remove the offending section and let me redevelope it. Damon.cluck (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damon.cluck (talk • contribs) 17:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you didn't use an edit summary, so on the Recent changes list, it just looks like section blanking vandalism, which happens around here hundreds of times each day. Such misunderstanding can be easily prevented by the use of an edit summary, especally when removing large sections of information. Courcelles (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I have the same information from a different sources and I can use the Wikipedia article on the Bowie knife for some of it. Damon.cluck (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I got in your way, actually. I'm going to strip that warning off your talk page, as it wasn't actually valid. Courcelles (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A handful
I see that Bulman8 is a handful! I tried to warn him like you did. But its as useless as if he hadn't had a talk page at all! I think its time to pull the plug. Leave me a talkback.-- Microsoft 1000  Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace!  22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've not seen anything more from him- if he continued vandalising, however, he should be reported at WP:AIV, as a final warning has been left. Courcelles (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

St. Michael's Cathedral
Fixed issue you mentioned. Thanks for the review! ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 12:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply. 111.161.2.14 (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 01:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A.P.O. Orfeas
Thanks a lot, for protecting my very first article in English Wikipedia! All the best, --ΑΝώΔυΝος (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anytime. Vandalism is an unfortunate part of a collaborative encyclopaedia, but we do our best to remove it quickly.  Welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you decide to stay and build this project! Courcelles (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wegelius
Why do you keep deleting my Wegelius edits? This happened to me today and to another cyclist recently. And Wegelius can keep getting away with it. I might report him to the police. Call me at Wheel World in Culver City. I would love help in reporting this guy and setting him straight.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.238.52.78 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I deleted it because it is negative unsourced information in a biography of a living person, and if false, is libel. Wikipedia cannot have unsourced information on real, living people that would be defamation if it were false under any circumstances- if you have a reliable, third-party source confirming your allegation, you must cite it.  If no source exists, it may not be included in Wikipedia.  Courcelles (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My Talkpage
I don't know if you have a malfunctioning bot, but I am quite capable of tending my own talk page, thank you! Please do not revert content on my talk page again unless it is warranted... Doc9871 (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No bot- I reverted that user placing a message on several people's talk page calling them "clowns", which is a quite blatant violation of the rule against personal attacks. Netherless, I will try to remember to avoid your talk page in the future.  Courcelles (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehee no problem. I like the evidence presented where and when it was, whether it's being called a "clown" or a "saint".  On my talk page, it's all good... Doc9871 (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK fix
I reviewed the DYK for February 1969 nor'easter so I've been following it. It's now in PrepExtra and I see it's got an error in the hook. . . it should say "due to," not simply "to" the weather. I'd rather not be bold and make the change, but I'd like to get it fixed before it moves to the main page, thanks.--otherlleft 21:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you for noticing!  In the future, the best place to recommend changes you either cannot (Because it is in a queue already) or don't feel comfortable making is at WT:DYK, where many members of the DYK project will see it and be able to correct it faster than an individual on their talk page. Courcelles (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK
I added it to the article and changed the hook. Joe Chill (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Waikato River Trails DYK
Thanks for the rather swift review - much appreciated!  Schwede 66  10:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess there's a lesson here- edit summaries that make someone go, "Huh?" are good to get DYK reviews done! Courcelles (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My DYK
Thanks Brad :) I love your version and it's certainly more interesting than mine. Thanks for your kind comments about my DYK activity! JulieSpaulding (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Paper Trash Monster
hello Courcelles you are cool but you should not have deleted my edit to the Staples, Minnesota page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.20.120 (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "The evil paper trash monster eats trains for breakfast."? Sorry, but I'm going to have to say I made the right call removing that one- Wikipedia has a guideline against things made up one day.  Unless, of course, you can source a paper trash monster around Staples, that is.  Enjoy editing Wikipedia, but please think about making constructive edits instead of making jokes! Courcelles (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Chester A. Arthur. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 15:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded . Summary: Reverting blatant vandalism is explicitly exempted from the 3RR. Courcelles (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Real sorry about that one, my bad. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 15:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit on the Choi Kwang Do article
Hi thanks for contributing to this article those contributions you reversed were obviousley made by someone who either holds no respect for what wikipedia represents or became so frustrated that they momentarily forgot, I hpoe that they may read this and realise their mistake and not stoop to something like this again. Please excuse my lack of eloquence in the attempted delivery of the following to give you some history on this article. unfortunatley there is an ongoing edit war, BMurrey and a couple of others at the forfront o fthis edit conflict and instead of approaching the inclusion of information they wish to have in the article in an appropriate way they have just been showing total disregard for wikipedia and its rules and running ruffshod over everyone - this section of the article was removed by vote as (excuse my lack of accuracy for the term but of the same meaning as) "an attempt to ride on the back of someone of notability". an attempt has been made to direct them to the discussion page to decide about the inclusion of this material but they just put it back time and again with a slightly adjusted heading. some of these users and IP addresses show only interest predominatley in this article and there is a strong coincidence in the trace destinations region that show some concern for sock puppetry (a known listed "antagonist" is a professional computer technician /programmer located in the area of coincidence) someone wanting to get their teeth into something could do well here, if you are interested I would like to see you back and I am happy to help whereever I can but I do not know how to get around wiki my pc skills are not gr8 but i have studied a lot of the aims and rules and feel i mostly understand them, unfortunatley I was put off working out how to get around by contributors who do not respect the wikipedia project in a seemingly at times almost unpoliced environment - this is not a slur against wiki but it seems that once there is a certain amount of success achieved by modern enterprises these days they become a target, in the case of wiki it is a BIG target. I visit back these days irregularly but if you contact me for info I will respond as soon as I do. Bacmac (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK query
Hi, Courcelles,

Thanks for reviewing my article for DYK. This is the first time I've submitted an article for DYK, and I'm very excited!

I just asked a follow-up question, at Template_talk:Did_you_know, in case you get a chance to view it before someone else does. Thanks for you help!

Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 22:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone else has handled it, though I'll take another look this afternoon. Courcelles (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Foulds
Produced an ALT1. — Aaroncrick  ( talk )   09:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied at T:TDYK Courcelles (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — Aaroncrick  ( talk )   11:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Periatil warning
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively here, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did with this edit to List of Nobel laureates. You may wish to read the introduction to editing for more information about Wikipedia. Thank you. petiatil &raquo;speak 09:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petiatil (talk • contribs)
 * Replied here. Courcelles (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Striking this per the comments below. For transparency's sake, will leave and let the bot archive in five days. Courcelles (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: The warning you issued me
Sorry bout that, I'm not sure what exactly happened but I do know when I was reviewing I did see ' OSAMA BIN LADEN Obama ' however, like you stated earlier, it must've been an edit conflict. Cheers! petiatil &raquo;speak 09:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi!
no need to be rude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.57.245 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I was rude. You might want to read Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view, as your edit did not comply with it. Courcelles (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)



Isabell121 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

A barnstar for you

 * Thank you very much- it's usually me wondering how other people are beating me to everything! Courcelles (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

John Colohan
I know about John Fallon Colohan because I was one of his rape victims, douchebag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.78.130 (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * May I suggest you read the policy on verifiability? On Wikipedia, only information that is backed up by a reliable source may be added- especally negative biographical information. Courcelles (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK opinion
Hello, would you be willing to review this DYK thread? Thank you!--otherlleft 18:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Careful
Watch what you are reverting. This edit by 24.207.78.123 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) --> --> is a valid edit where the IP corrected the show name. The vandalism was done by 76.14.191.61 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), not by 24.207.78.123 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) --> -->. But you reverted the valid edit by 24.207.78.123 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) --> --> also and your revert kept the incorrect show name. Just want to say you should be more careful while reverting using huggle. Cheers. --Defender of torch (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh. I thought I was farther back in the history than that when I hit revert.  I'm not sure why Huggle only reverted two edits.  (Likely a classic PICNIC case, to be honest.)  Courcelles (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

:-)

 * ;-)  Anna Lincoln  09:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
Hi. It looks like you reverted my edit to Talk:Mesa Verde Middle School (Rancho Peñasquitos). I think you know why, but I would like to know why this isn't allowed. Shouldn't old, irrelevant sections be changed on talk pages?  Pzoxicuvybtnrm  05:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Older content on talk pages is generally archived, not removed entirely. At any rate, the threads you removed were only one month old on an inactive talk page, so shouldn't be touched yet.  I should have fixed your edit a different way, however- the full revert there wasn't the best of ideas.  Courcelles (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, those topics were irrelevant because some of the problems have already been addressed. Pzoxicuvybtnrm  02:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Provide a source
Provide a valid source to back up what you say, it is as simple as that --Clarince63 (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Donut
Thanks for looking for a Doctor Donut photo and for sussing out the copyright of the photos I pointed to. --Griseum (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. There's a reason I don't mess with images often- the copyright rules are long and complex.  An image would really make that article shine, though.  If you have a flickr account- I don't- try writing the posters of a few images and see if one of them will release one under a suitable license- the CC-BY-SA 3.0 being the easiest to understand.  The hook can be held for a few days while you work on that.  Courcelles (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, thanks. --Griseum (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Kastle

 * I don't see a speedy deletion template- what I do see if that the Richard Kastle article survived an AFD debate last year. That article does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion.  Courcelles (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Randyrhoads1fan (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Kastle
You have probably seen the Speedy Deletion message on the Richard Kastle talk page but I haven't seen one reaction at all. Therefore a message or a vote one way or the other is lacking. Richard Kastle is a wannabe pianist, unknown beyond his extremely limited viewing on youtube.

He now plays Holiday Inns and nursing homes for free.

His attempts to play the piano are a joke to any serious pianist.

Unfortunately, so few view his wikipedia article to justify the normal deletion process by vote.

Juri Koll is the only present editor of the Kastle article, and has caused immeasurable damage to the talk pages of other editors such as User Prof.rick, who, as a final measure had to delete his own talk page.

PLEASE, look into the Richard Kastle page and decide fairly if its presence in wikipedia can possibly be justified.

Why does Juri Koll claim to be the creator of this article while the page history indicates that Mike Caffey created the article? I suspect sock puppetry, probably conducted by Kastle himself. I therfore URGE a thorough investigation of the article by wikipedia administrators.

Thank You for listening,

Randyrhoads1fan (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not an administrator. If you don't believe the article should exist, you may follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO, and start a second deletion discussion. With the sources in the article, I do not believe the article will be deleted- he appears to meet the general notability guideline.  As the Mikecaffey account hasn't edited in over a year, I'm not sure there's much point in discussing sock-puppetry.   Courcelles (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy Courcelles's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you- it's much appreciated! Courcelles (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom for Marialiese Flemming
Hi Brad! Thanks for your quick response - I will take a look at my nom soon. In regards to my old name... it contained my real name, and considering there aren't too many people with my name in Canada, changing it was a good idea, especially if I ever get involved in some edit dispute! Thanks,  Arctic   Night  09:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aww thanks :) I would say that 99.95% of my time on Wikipedia is spent reading policies, guidelines, past XfDs, RfAs, RfCs, etc. You can probably see the results of this in my XfD discussion points: I tend to use too much 'evidence' to support my points . Anyway, thanks for your comment about an RfA... I am undergoing admin coaching at the moment but I really want to take it slow.  Arctic   Night  10:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

GRRR just GRRRR!!
UGH! :) I was literally editing the page and going to look at the final tally when I saw you closed it. Good job!  D u s t i SPEAK!! 22:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support
User: - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

__NOINDEX__