User talk:Courcelles/Archive 27

Andranikpasha
Hello Courcelles. Could you please take a look at this ? Thanks  Tuscumbia  (talk ) 17:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The first is a quacking duck, blocked for a week. Further, as a formality, I've topic-banned Andranikpasha, so any edits he makes as an IP within the area of either Armenia or Azerbaijan is revertible on sight.  Courcelles 17:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Courcelles, I really appreciate your prompt response. Thank you.  Tuscumbia  (talk ) 17:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Two more
Hi Courcelles,

Sorry for bothering you again, but could you please take a look at these two: ? Looks like it's not going to stop.  Tuscumbia  (talk ) 19:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Three from the Russian Federation, and one from Armenia. What is going on here?  I might punt this one to the CU's and SPI clerks who think about this more than I do.  I can't quite decide if it is sockpuppetry or just nationalism, though. Courcelles 19:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

:)

 * :) Courcelles 19:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Added a couple of photos and captions to the 1956 list, hope that's all right. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. (I was also the idiot that moved it into main-space and forgot to categorise the thing, after all.  It definitely needed more pictures.) Courcelles 02:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You shudder now
Boo!  Anna Lincoln  15:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * *Quivers* Courcelles 23:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Teramo
Ciao! I notice you've shortly intervened at the recent Teramo edit war. As you could read in the talk page there, the other user has started an insulting campaign which I can I barely sustain. Is there any way to stop him? As a final note, I would point out (whatever the point in this stupid Teramo matter, which, frankly, is starting to bore me) that, as you can easily see, I am a faithful and quality contributor for Wikipedia since years; while this one has just contributed with a single (and horrendous) article, and gives himself the right to insult me!! Let me know. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I would have given a lengthy block for that, but I don't want to overrule EdJohnson's handling of the matter. My patience with him is at its very end.  Another personal attack and I'll lay a block on him, though. Courcelles 23:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No objection if you still think a block is the best course. Certainly there is little evidence of reform from DDF19483, if you look at his latest post at Talk:Teramo. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Favour
Hi Courcelles. I don't normally do this but I have a couple of FLCs waiting in the wings, only problem being PDSA Gold Medal isn't receiving much attention. I'd be really grateful if you could have a look at it if you get a chance and leave some comments. Thanks for your on-going support of the process! Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, will do. Courcelles 23:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For my files, done. Courcelles 22:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Refdesk/Humanities
I see you protected this recently in response to an RFPP request. I would have protected it too, if not for a long thread on the Science RefDesk about the same vandal in which it was determined that it wasn't worth it (particularly since he just switched to vandalizing another page). I'm not familiar with the RefDesk policies myself, I just wanted to make sure you'd seen the discussion.  — Soap  —  00:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hadn't seen it, though I'm leaving it protected, too. Whoever this person is will get before before a day runs out, though an SPI for a rangeblock would be a good idea at this point. Courcelles 00:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The person seems to have given up for now since their last nick was I'll be back tomorrow and they haven't vandalised RDS in a few hours although it's been unprotected so can you unprotect humanities? Cheers Nil Einne (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rangeblocks wouldn't help since he's apparently using Tor; apparently we've sort of compromised and allowed a similar version of the thread he was trying to post to stay up, though he's still posting through Tor anyway, and that is block-worthy so we're still blocking his IP's.  — Soap  —  10:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism
Please review the accusation you just made against me. I was submitting a vandal report against a user who is persistently interfering with my efforts to clean up my OWN user talk page (remove spam from abusive users). Yet you label me the vandal. Then please suggest how I am supposed to deal with the problem. 173.75.231.176 (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Check out this guy's contribs in detail. He appears to be inventing stories like "This is the second time I have warned you and you will be blocked if you keep this up" and reverting edits by a user just because he was blocked for a violation of NLT. He also vandalised the same user's talk page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked 36 hours for disruption. Courcelles 19:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
For your help at the Indonesian project - beyond the call of duty! SatuSuro 00:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I hope to clean out a few more of these "NA" categories- some of them are so bloated with categories and templates to render them useless. Courcelles 00:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * so impressed by the thoroughness - wish wikipedia had more people like you! SatuSuro 03:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Or I just can't sleep, or focus to work on something that requires reading sources ;) I can't quite picture what I must have done to your watchlist this afternoon. (Though I think category talk is one of those namespaces most folks wouldn't know we have, like the MediaWiki pages.)... Courcelles 03:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My watchlist hasnt been like this since early 2009 - most items on my watcchlist are places most eds dont ever go... SatuSuro 03:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Another day, another revdel
Darius's original version of Diana Matheson's article was is a near word for word paraphrase of her Olympic Team profile page. That part of the article hasn't changed much over the years. One person (an anon user) did add something else to it, but was the only significant contribution that has been made since the article's inception. Anyway I've stripped out the copyvio. But now the revisions need to be deleted and that's where you come in.

Thanks for revdelling that other article for me. Sorry about not coming back to say 'thank you' sooner. I've been kind of busy with real life and other stuff. :-(

--*Kat* (meow?) 05:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 14 revisions deleted, article history cleaned up. Amazing how rarely anyone but a bot touches some of our articles, isn't it? Courcelles 05:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! Thanks for doing this. --*Kat* (meow?) 10:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Shaun Alexander
Hi Courcelles. It looks like we edit-conflicted on the protection. Change it to any expiry you prefer. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No big deal, I was looking at RFPP, and I think you were looking at ANEW. ANEW taking precedence, we'll leave it at two weeks and see what happens. Courcelles 18:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Did you get my messages? Thanks Zylog79 (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to need some help here, I don't recognise your username... Courcelles 23:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection
Hi, could you protect some of my userpages so that I am the only one with permission to edit them? User:Namiba/June-October 2010 talk page history, User:Namiba/January-May 2010 page history, and User:Namiba/2007-2009 talk page history would be great. Thanks for your help.--TM 21:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can semi protect them so IP's and new users cannot edit them, I can lock them so only admins an edit them. What I can't do is leave things so a single non-admin can edit them.  Wish it was possible, but it just isn't in our technical toolkit. Courcelles 21:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I always knew that not becoming an admin over my 4.5 years here would bite me. Go ahead and semi-protect them for now. Thanks--TM 21:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All three semi'ed indef. Courcelles 21:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciated.--TM 21:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
for protecting Inglourious Basterds. I've only just checked on the article and I wish the edit warring over the category would stop. MikeAllen and myself worked hard to bring it up to a GA, so I hate to see it being disrupted like that. - JuneGloom  Schmooze  23:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was somewhat surprised, a year after release, that the page would still need protection... but, oh well.  Bug me when the protection expires next year if problems continue. Courcelles 00:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

protecting Alexi article
Why did you semi-protect the Alexi article? --Charles Jeffrey Danoff 21:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Jeffrey Danoff (talk • contribs)
 * Can you give me a link? I've protected thousands of articles, so recalling one without a link is all but impossible. Courcelles 21:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also note that Alexi does not exist... so I really need some help here. Courcelles 21:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Alexi Giannoulias Sorry for not linking. --Charles Jeffrey Danoff 21:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Jeffrey Danoff (talk • contribs)
 * Oh, see the history at . The worst of it is in the trash and you won't be able to see it, but the article was attracting far too much libel from IPs.  The article is merely semi-protected, so that IP's and newly registered editors can not edit it.  As you are Autoconfirmed, you should be able to edit the article. Courcelles 21:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I was just perusing some IL candidate pages researching before voting today and thought it was weird his was the only one that's protected. Thanks for explaining. So, then if you want to protect a page, protocol isn't to ask first in the page's discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Jeffrey Danoff (talk • contribs) 21:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually users who notice there is excessive vandalism will report it to WP:RFPP for administrative attention. (Though an admin doesn't require an RFPP report to act- sometimes we find pages that are being vandalised independently of any report) Usually we don't do anything on the talk page over simple vandalism, which is what was going on here. (We generally have low tolerance for vandalism that is also libelious, sicne living people's reputations can be affected) In the case of a genuine edit war, where restricting editing to just administrators for a time (called full protection), we will generally read and/or comment on the talk page before enacting it. (I'd image WP:Protection Policy explains this better than I am!) Courcelles 22:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining.--Charles Jeffrey Danoff 05:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Jeffrey Danoff (talk • contribs)

Thanks

 * All part of the service. You already have some idea of what vandal Joe Sixpack thinks of you... but you should never actually have to read that crap! Courcelles 04:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha :) Thanks also for re-protecting my user page! Arctic  Night  04:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't quite get why a spin through deletion removes the protection, but it does. There really should be something in Special:Undelete that allows you to restore the protection with the revisions, but if MediaWiki was exactly how I would like it... no one else could stand it!  Courcelles 04:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You have opinions on MediaWiki? I guess I haven't been around long enough to be forming those! :) When I'm off semi-wikibreak status, remind me to take you up on your offer to get Tillson Harrison to FA. I remember you made it somewhere, I just forget when and where! I think it's nearly there, it might just need a bit of improvement. Arctic  Night  07:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't have opinions on MediaWiki before my RFA. (Rangeblocks are another area that the software could use an entire reboot on.)  Main problem with Tillson is going to be the sourcing- there's at least two I wouldn't want to see 's commentary on... it wouldn't be good. The actual writing can be smoothed out pretty easily, the sourcing is going to take a little more work. Courcelles 17:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. Which sources might pose some issues? This character is fairly obscure, and even though he meets WP:GNG with flying colours, there aren't too many sources out there on him. I'm guessing that sources five, eight, nine and ten are the ones that raised red flags... Arctic  Night  17:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good guess :) 5 and 10 were the two that hit with me the force of old fish, though. (especially since I can't get five to work.) Are you anywhere near a major university library?  Courcelles 17:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah - I now notice five is dead. Oh well, it didn't really add too much to the article anyway. I think much of what was in there can be compensated for by the other refs. Unfortunately, searching nearby university library databases (from home) isn't showing anything at all. What I do get is already in the article! This is the only interesting thing I could pull up... the nearest copy is in British Columbia though... Arctic  <font color="#000000">Night  18:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Longer prot?
Please see, with regard to chronic vandalism at this page, could you please extend the semi prot to a longer period of time? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll extend it to a fortnight, but if she loses- as the numbers look right now, she's going to be forgotten by this time tomorrow. Courcelles 04:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An astute and wise prediction - perhaps. -- Cirt (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)