User talk:Courcelles/Archive 32

Allmusic
You removed the up-req. Would you assist me and copy compatibility version (User:Cactus26/Allmusic) to Template?--Cactus26 (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See Template talk:Allmusic, you've got a real template guy on the case now. Courcelles 19:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ok, thx.--Cactus26 (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reviewer rights!!
I'd like to thank you for giving me reviewer rights. Recently, I've noticed a progressive trend on wikipedia regarding the inherent bias each editor has. When I first came to wikipedia it was due to an interest in specific subjects which intrigue me. I generally follow an inclusionist principle, some editors however disagree with specific topics and, in my opinion, nominate articles regardless of content. I was wondering if I could gain the ability to view delete articles. There have been several AfDs with little input that I feel are improperly deleted, unfortunately I cannot view their original content. Is there anyway I can view and possibly restore deleted article for renomination? Thanks! Valoem talk  00:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's one way, and I suspect you already knew it, WP:RFA. Creating a "view deleted" right short of adminship is almost a perennial proposal, but one I've never seen really get off the ground. Courcelles 04:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to be an admin to view delete articles? Is there anyway you can restore an article to my subpage? The article is The Devil's Tree. Thanks! Valoem talk  13:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can do it one a at time for articles you're interested in, I've restored and moved the article to User:Valoem/The Devil's Tree. I'll do that for you anytime, I just technically can't give you a way to view deleted pages without going through "Hell Week". Courcelles 13:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, thanks! I was considering restoring this article after a few more citations do you think there are going to be an issues with this? Valoem talk  13:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That you'll have to discuss with User:Phantomsteve, the closing administrator. Courcelles 14:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Comparison of MPI, OpenMP, and Stream Processing (2nd nomination)
Question on policies: as Articles for deletion/Comparison of MPI, OpenMP, and Stream Processing (2nd nomination) was closed as no consensus because nobody cared to comment, is it within policies if I re-nominate it again and try to get more comments on this re-nomination (for example, from Wikiproject Computing)? Ipsign (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as the request is worded neutrally, yes, a WikiProject may eb asked for input. Courcelles 06:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks. Ipsign (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Mastic ice cream
Dondurma (turkish mastic ice cream) IS NOT Booza (arabic mastic ice cream). פארוק (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay... the admin you need to be talking to is, as he performed the deletion, not me. Courcelles 12:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Pqcell
Hi Couycelles, this has been reincarnated for the FIFTH  time! Could you please delete again, perhaps with  a spoonful  of salt and maybe a block  for the creator? See : Page Log. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone else deleted it before I got here, but Carthage has been salted. Courcelles 12:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hatsune Miku
The page was redirected because its pretty much identical to the vocaloid page with only fan-related stuff seperating which wikipedia doesn't really cover the interests of. The discussion the talk page points this out, and generally, if a page repeats another page identically and adds nothing new then the page doesn't deserve to exist. The redirect to Vocaloid was justified, but unfortantely, theres some supporters there trying to keep it up. And honestly... While I understand you lock for an edit war, but you locked the page when its really should be a redirect. If two pages exist carrying the same information, and it is just worded in some cases slightly differently, then one shouldn't exist and should be redirected to the page with the more informative information on the subject. 94.168.119.106 (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You may well be correct, the problem is that as an administrator, I don't have the authority to settle content disputes. (Nor do I have the expertise to even enter the discussion in this field.) My choices were either to protect the page as I found it, whichever version it was, or block people for edit warring. The second I absolutely hate doing, and it tends to kick problems down the road.  The talk page discussion, or if needed, a listing at WP:AFD, is the way to resolve the matter.  (If it becomes necessary, come talk to me.  I will create the AFD for you.)  Courcelles 18:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would rather see a redirect to be quite honest, as its something people will properly look up. Trouble is I can't seem to get enough attention to adress the issues on the talk pages.  I'd appricate at least some way of getting the discussion going, though AFD is a little bit more extreme then I wanted. Having quit wikipedia about 4 years ago OVER the issues that can remain from servre agressive AFDing to pages, I'm trying to avoid that.  94.168.119.106 (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer
Hi! Thanks for giving me this user right.

Curious though...Why?--Vox Rationis (Talk &#124; contribs) 05:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We've got a database report of users that meet certain criteria, so I'm going through them every so often checking for various things that the computer doesn't scan for, and if things line up, granting the right. Courcelles 06:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks from me, too. Are the criteria documented? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Logan Talk Contributions 12:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The database report looks for 2,500 edits, a year of editing, an edit within the last month. I manually examine a few other things, including the block log. Courcelles 21:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you again! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. Regarding another matter - Are you online at the moment? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just now got back online, so hopefully you've found help elsewhere if it was urgent. If not, what can I do for you? Courcelles 04:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

KEN SCOTT

Thanks, Can't find any references to our Ken Scott posts so sorry if I've posted on the wrong place and yes I would like to appeal against its deletion. I supplied everything Top Jim and Peridon asked for, supplied links to UK and Foreign publishers, links to the biggest two book stores in the UK listing all of Ken Scott's book. I supplied newspaper articles from the Guardian, Telegraph and The Sun about Ken Scotts book, as well as recognised publishers and literary agents. I feel I can do no more. Now I see that the person who proposed deletion in the first place has disappeared. All very frustrating and rather mysterious. On this my very first submission to Wikipedia, at times I have felt as if there was almost a vendetta against me. Not pleasant I can assure you. Any suggestions?Hayley douglas (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure
Your close of Articles for deletion/The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure notes that it will likely be taken to DRV. I think it was clear that there was a general consensus to merge the article to Amazon.com. Issues with undue weight should be dealt with if and when they occur. Please reconsider your closure and spare us both the DRV. Note that I am the editor that nominated the article for deletion. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, would you mind placing a copy of both the article and the talk page in my userspace? I wasn't expecting them to be deleted and need access to the contribution histories to follow up on something with ArbCom. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually see the exact opposite, not a consensus to merge, but a willingness to accept merging as an alternative to retaining the content outright, see Alison, Herostratus, Scott Mac, and AniMate's comments. The side for retention was remarkably poorly argued in this case, perhaps due to the higher than usual SPA's in this debate. The comment about undue weight is only because there was absolutely no way the entire article could be shoved into Amazon.com without unbalancing it. I'll see what I can do about the history tomorrow for you, there are some BLP problems in various revisions, and restoration will likely have to be selective, and I'm flat out exhausted tonight. Courcelles 05:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that a merge would necessarily need to be selective and I doubt anyone who suggested a merge intended for the "entire article" to be added into Amazon.com. I will take it to DRV. As for the copies, I require the entire unabridged history. Since it is not possible for you to do this, I will ask elsewhere. Please do not delete or revision-hide anything from the history. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see DRV. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

wookie block
hi again Courcelles, sorry to keep bothering you about this topic. i recently became aware that it is possible for admins to add a note to a users block log. i was wondering if i asked you really really nicely if you would be kind enough to add a note to my block log indicating that my block was disputed. i currently have a userbox on my page indicating my disagreement with the block, but i don't really like having it there as it ruins the otherwise humorous tone of my other userboxes and might give a somewhat combative impression of me. i just would like anyone who comes across my block log to be aware that the block may or may not have been fully justified, while leaving it up to them to draw their own conclusions. something to the effect of "this block was disputed" would be more than sufficient. pretty please? WookieInHeat (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone might do this for you, but I'm not the one. We aren't supposed to use blocks as ways to "take notes" on users.  Besides, most block logs are casually scanned when needed, not studied, so annotating in this manner would actually make your block log twice as long.  (And, as it was input as an Arbitration Enforcement block, I'm not taking any action that would have the appearance of voiding that action.  That tends to lead to very bad places.) Courcelles 04:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * fair enough, just really hate that statement "accused editor of supporting terrorism" sitting there completely unaddressed. if only someone could have asked me to clarify before all this happened, instead of taking the word of those who disagreed with me at face value... cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA?
Could you take a look at Articles for deletion/FriendlySeats? I feel that phrase like "I believe that you are offensive because you are either do not like Ukrainans or you are from the company-competitor so there is conflict of interest." is a serious violation of WP:NPA, but what is a right thing to do in such cases? Or maybe it is ok and I'm just exaggerating it? Ipsign (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FriendlySeats&diff=397850051&oldid=397705292 . Ipsign (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's not acceptable at all. I've left the user a warning. Courcelles 15:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Could use a tad of surgery over here:
Talk:September 11 attacks

Essentially everything from 174.89.56.99, ImRickJames200, LiquidOcelot's Arm, CQC-The Boss and particularly AlGoreCreated the Internet I would like flat out wiped from the page history. As long as they exist he can point and say "I did that." Half Shadow  20:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Surgery performed. RD3 fits crap like this perfectly. Courcelles 21:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's better. Even left a mint on the pillow. Class. Half  Shadow  21:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Illinois township maps
Thanks for doing the deletions for the last two mass-noms of Illinois townships. I did the first two, as you probably saw, and we both know that those suckers are a beast to complete. You at least manage to do it with less public grumbling than me. :-) SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there's nothing fun about deleting ~130 pages plus talk pages in one go. In the end, it's like a long AWB run, though, your mind glosses over how boring the task is. At least there shouldn't be more than three or four more to get through, assuming consensus doesn't flip on the batches.  The thing is, though, the more grumbling we do, the harder it is to get good editors to go to the slaughter. Courcelles 06:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Borcuț River (Someș)
The correct ortography of the river is Borcut not Borcuţ. I corrected it and requested the deletion of all redirects to the former ortography. I don't think the old redirects should be maintained, but if you think some should remain for whatever reason, I do not want to make an issue out of the deletion. Afil (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be deleting redirects... especially not until all the incoming links are corrected. They do no harm, after all. Courcelles 06:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Jon Stewart (footballer)
Has now played in fully-pro game (20 November) - any chance you could reinstate article? - Thanks.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, Jon Stewart (footballer). Courcelles 14:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ray Meagher
Hi Courcelles

I figured you would be the best person to ask about this as I know you hate people vandalising BLP articles.

Would you please consider locking Ray Meagher's article for a while? --Courcelles 17:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC) warrants more action. I'd love to know what the Aussies have done to offend this IP, they especially seem to have a grudge with Neighbours and Home and Away as about 99% of the vandalism is done to those pages or to actors associated with the soaps!

Hope you're well :) --5 albert square (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha you beat me to warning the IP! Now that's what I call good work!  --5 albert square (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! Have a look through my logs. Issues resolved. --Courcelles 17:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And, for future reference, when you report BLP vios, try not to copy them somewhere else... it just means more I have to clean up. (Sorry, I had to hide your two edits because of that.) --Courcelles 17:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah so you mean I shouldn't have posted links? Sorry, didn't realise posting links would have done that :) --5 albert square (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sent you an e-mail, I can speak a little freer there with less worry of introducing another BLP problem. --Courcelles 18:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
For your help to CSD-U1 on User talk:Dave1185/talk... could I further ask you to please salt the page as it wasn't created by me but by a new editor whom I'm now monitoring. Thanks! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 05:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I see the need... but I also don't see the harm. Salted. Courcelles 05:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I just want to keep the discussions centralised on one page instead of letting such new editors scatter it all over the place. Secondly, I want to prevent potential trouble makers from exploiting the loophole (as I have just discovered it) since I've often been the target of vandals, impostors and trolls... hence, keeping it centralised would also help my talk page stalkers/watchers to monitor it for me while I'm attending to RL issues. Once again, thanks. Best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 05:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center
You didn't create this situation, but now that the editor who has been insisting on the tag has been blocked for 3 days, it seems a bit tricky that the page is also protected (with the tag) for 3 days, as the blocked editor was the one insisting on the tag and there can be no resolution while he's blocked. And from one point of view, he's edit-warred his way to the tag staying there for 3 days no matter how many editors disagree with it. Dougweller (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Gah. What a mess.  Magog and I tripped over each other, and I actually don't agree with the block at all. (This should come as no surprise.  Logically, if I had agreed with blocking for this incident, I would have issued a block myself.)   Everyone deserved a nice main course of wet fish for this mess. If the block is still there when I'm online in the morning, I'll unprotect it and move forward.  Courcelles 06:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I'd realised that you'd decided not to block, I often protect in that sort of situation. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been unprotected. Courcelles 17:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)