User talk:Courcelles/Archive 63

RfC to reduce edit wars on the Evolutionary psychology page
Recently you put the Evolutionary psychology page under full protection mode due to edit wars.

FYI, I have recently added a RfC to try to reduce edit wars on that page, here:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Evolutionary_psychology#Addition_of_a_warning_notice_at_the_top_of_Discussion_page:_This_is_not_a_controversy_or_objections_page

Memills (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted. Courcelles 19:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

RL Stine
Regarding changing the protection settings on R. L. Stine, can you pop over and check out the discussion at User talk:EVula? There was a reason I picked pending changes over semi-protection. Thanks! EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Image for Mariel Zagunis
For what reason did you delete the image for Mariel Zagunis? It was a public-domain image.

166.137.9.214 (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I merely removed the unsightly red link of [[File:Mariel Zagunis flag hr.jpg]]. deleted the image, as it was a flagrant copyright violation. Courcelles 23:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

First Battle of Ypres
"What happens" when you remove semi-protection from First Battle of Ypres is that nearly all the edits become vandalism or reverting vandalism. WW1 is on a school curriculum and vandalism is inevitable. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe so... let's let it run a while longer, though. Courcelles 17:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As essentially the requester for this unprotection that sounds about right. 3 bad IP edits out of 4 over a week isn't a great record, but its not wildly awful either.
 * Courcelles if you do re-protect it can you drop me a note on my talk page in case I miss it on my watchlist (though it is usually pretty obvious :p). I'm definitely interested in how overall the pages I requested for unprotection are doing, if a significant percentage do need re-protection then I can reconsider what I suggest in future. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

bring back File:Opera Speed Dial Browsing.png
Hi, you deleted the image File:Opera Speed Dial Browsing.png since some vandalism happened on Features_of_the_Opera_web_browser (section blanking) while cluebot didn't reverted this. I brought back the section, but the image is "lost"? can you recover it?  mabdul 13:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Courcelles 14:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied via e-mail
Subject line says it all. :) Just let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: MLB lists
Go for it. Once Baltimore's passes FLC I'll likely hit Chicago as the last one on my end (unless suddenly no one wants to do the final one) Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 02:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I figure Stax will do one when his FAC is done, then whichever is left could probably be just whoever wants to do it, or all three of us could. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted on Wiz's talk page. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and question
Thank you for unblocking me and talking with me, while you are here can you please answer the questions I left Timotheus Canens-So rejecting is reverting I understand that now, but I still have the question, can I revert edits made by IPs more than once a week, as I know you can revert IPs without being counted towards 1RR under ARPBIA. Thanks, Passionless   -Talk  06:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say no, that without qualification "one revert per week" means what it says, but Tim imposed the sanction, so he can define it as exempting reverting an IP if he wants. (Fair warning, unless and until he defines it formally that way, it will be enforced as reverting IP's being like any other revert.) Courcelles 06:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks, Passionless   -Talk  06:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

José Eduardo dos Santos
Hello Courcelles: I should like to draw your attention to an IP who is at present making edits in the article on JES which reveal blatant ignorance. I have myself been specialising in Angolan studies for several decades, and am at this stage contributing to the corresponding articles on pt-WP. The IP is including JES in "communist" categories - while the man has since the 1990s become the symbol for the MPLA's having left behind even the slightest trace of marxism-leninism. In another vein, our IP insists on indicating as JES' place of birth not the town (Luanda), but only the slum quarter of that town (Sambizanga) where (according to tradition) the birth took actually place. As you will see, I undid these edits once, indicating my reasons, but my changes were promptly reverted. What can be done in such a case? I must say I have never come across such a situation in pt-WP.....Sorry for bothering you, but I saw you are an administrator who intervened in this article before. Aflis (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've reverted and left a note on WP:BLP, which this edit violated. This article is... a problem, as it seems to attract critics of José Eduardo dos Santos with striking regularity.  If this keeps up, we'll consider bringing back the semi-protection. Courcelles 18:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow - that was the quickest reaction I ever saw on WP! Thanks for that. And yes - the article is a problem everywhere (certainly on pt, but to varying degrees also on de, es, and fr). I myself am extremely critical of JES, but because of what he is (authoritarian, corrupt etc.), and not because of what he is not (or no longer: during his study in the Soviet Union he probably was more or less communist, but he was then pivotal in the MPLA's leaving that ideology behind).Aflis (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: Decidedly, the article on JES is a problem for some people, although for opposite reasons. After my answer above, I discovered on my talk page an attack by user BET2008 who is acting like an MPLA controller in charge of preventing anything which is not party line to appear on en-WP. What is your advice: let it go or take action??? Aflis (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do neither. Let me. Courcelles 00:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your quick & most efficient intervention. I shall continue to work on Angola-related articles (putting to use what I & colleagues are doing on pt-WP), and I very much hope no other snipers are hidden in the bush....Best wishes Aflis (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sniping continues, this time from the opposite direction. I have made a (hopefully balanced) intervention, but it is perhaps worthwhile that you keep an eye on this.....Aflis (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Bring Back the CJ Environmental Page
Thanks in advance for your deletion reconsideration of the CJ Environmental page. The page was originally marked for deletion because there needed to be one more solid reference. It took almost 2 months to acquire a quality business journal reference which is why I'm now contacting you back. The reference is from the New England Business Bulletin and it talks about the new CJ Gold & Silver price assurance initiative that they created to protect their consumers. The CJ wiki page is locked for administrators only so we are unable to add this new reference nor do anything to get the page back online, can you help us? Thanks! Beckshow (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Your tone here is promotional, a major problem with the original article. 2) That article is more a press release than true third-party coverage, it even reads like advertising copy. Please read WP:SPAM and WP:CORP. Courcelles 22:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. What do you recommend we do to get this page back online? We want to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and rules so I appreciate you giving me a little more detail on how one might go about accomplishing this. It's hard to understand what else can be done if the New England Business Bulletin is not being viewed as reputable. Beckshow (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that otherwise reliable sources reprint company PR, which this source is doing here. That doesn't really help with the requirement of significant coverage in multiple independent sources. See WP:RS for guidance of the sort of sources that are necessary. Courcelles 23:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We will work on getting more significant coverage in independent sources according to the specifications of the WP:RS section. I will be in touch with you as soon as possible with the necessary references. Is there anything else we might want to think about in addition to having coverage in multiple independent sources? Again, I appreciate you taking the time to continue to answer my newbie questions. Beckshow (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The following three articles have recently surfaced about CJ Environmental. Here are the links:
 * Diamonds.net Article
 * Boston Business Journal Pt. 1
 * Boston Business Journal Pt. 2
 * What are your thoughts about bringing back CJ_Environmental now in light of these references? Beckshow (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Could we get a delete here, please?
As I stated, every time we try to redirect it, this IP comes by and reverts it, so... Half Shadow  21:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Close. Closed as redirect and fully-protected it. Courcelles 22:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, that works, too. Thankee. Half  Shadow  22:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Just keep up the good work. Courcelles 22:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

GAC 2011 AO
Just to let you know I removed your note. As you can see I am back. But when it is eventually reviewed feel free to edit bits and bobs on the article. KnowIG (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Just would have been a shame to see it failed cause you were blocked. Courcelles 22:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

YGM LOL
Answer: Because I've had to deal with the forces of tendentious editing, I'm at high risk of being dogpiled. (grin) And I'd be too much like Lar (thus would never be able to edit articles because I'd constantly be fending off flamers!) and I lack the patience of our wonderful Dana boomer! LOL! (Nice to be asked, though) Also, the process itself is chilling and I'm skeered. I did however, adopt a WikiWolfcub. Montanabw (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You ought to reconsider. I think you'd get through, with your extensive body of work. Courcelles 22:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate your confidence. I however, am still stinging from having survived (though fully vindicated)  stuff like this.  I just don't want to deal with these sorts of personalities all day long and I know I have the kind of pit bull personality that I'd get dragged there only too often. I also suspect I'd find these sorts emerging from the woodwork to dogpile me if I dared accept a nom.  (LOL and giving myself a slight trout slap!)   Montanabw (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE
Passionless has opened a complaint at WP:AE regarding edits of Jerusalem, though your name has not been mentioned. I saw your protection in the edit history and your sanction of Passionless, and am letting you know in case you want to comment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Help
Hello, i was wondering if you could do me a favor. Ive uploaded this cover about three times now, and i have to keep deleting it because the upload logs have reached over 10 uploads. Continually by different users (one leading to a block) its still being changed. The source is in the upload and the one continually being uploaded was the promotional cover, since we cant use both the official single cover is the one to be used, but alot of people fail to grasp this =P Can you please speedy delete the uploads and perhaps protect the upload so only admins can edit it, it will save alot of hassle. The file is File:Kesha - Blow (Official Single Cover).jpg - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 06:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First, you can link files using a colon, like File:Kesha - Blow (Official Single Cover).jpg. Has this dispute been occurring over more than one image, either deleted or still around? Because one upload and one revert isn't enough to actually do anything. Courcelles 06:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, didnt know they could be linked like that, thanks. Alright, original cover with over 8 uploads. [[File:Ke$ha - Blow (Official Single Cover).jpg]] which i had deleted. The cover is changed almost daily, there is even a warning on the page saying dont change the cover, i dont mind reverts there but not on the upload page, it just makes a mess. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 06:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can't take a side in this dispute, but that's evidence a mess is being made. Protected against reupload for a week.  You should hold a discussion somewhere- and likely not in the File Talk: namespace- to decide which image should be used, if there wasn't already one. Courcelles 06:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards.  My 76 Strat  08:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Dustbin Baby (film)
I personally consider the protection unwarranted, as the issue was pretty much resolved before it began, but so be it- could you also please close the 3RRN thread? J Milburn (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Was in the middle of writing a closing statement. Courcelles 16:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, what? You accept he broke the 3RR and should have been blocked, but didn't block? He has wasted everyone's time, damaged the article and has now left it fully protected while a spurious RfC citing a guideline that explicitly does not apply goes on. This seems like a textbook example of when the editor should have been blocked and the page left unprotected- he is the problem here, not the page. I respectfully request that this is reconsidered. J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was very careful not to say he broke the 3RR, he didn't. If we start counting reverts in that manner than almost any edit to material that is already there can be taken as a revert. He could have been blocked for edit warring, and so could have you.  Your three reverts are no less a violation of WP:EW than his three or four, the 3RR is simply a bright-line at which one is beyond question edit-warring, staying below it in no way means the parties aren't warring; your conduct was no better than his. Courcelles 17:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got to be joking. What that essentially means is that his version (which cites a guideline which explicitly does not apply) get's precedence if we're both "toeing the line"- he makes his bogus edit, I revert, he reverts, I revert, he reverts, I revert, he reverts, article left in a worse state. The RfC is clear- he's shouting nonsense. I have explained this to him, and he continues to shout it. He has caused a great amount of disruption here, and it is the article that has taken the brunt of it. Seriously, if my actions were improper, what should I have done instead? It has been made clear that discussion with this person is pointless- he now accepts that the guideline does not apply, but continues to cite it anyway. J Milburn (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The disruption continues. He is now removing my comments from talk pages. J Milburn (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued misrepresentation of my position, off-topic chatter and refusal to answer direct questions. I fail to understand how anyone could see this person as acting in good faith any more, nevermind a positive for the encyclopedia... J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. I am a long-time, experienced content editor and admin. I have nurtured this article from creation to TFA. It is currently featured. Led by a featured picture. Someone comes along and removes content citing a guideline that explicitly does not apply. They are told that it does not apply. They continue to fight and edit war. The article is protected, and, despite the fact this person has very clearly breached the 3RR, they are not blocked. I am then tarred with the same brush. The article is protected. We are suddenly two opposing edit warriors; we both have opinions that are precious and must be accommodated. I have to sit and read the nonsense he's posting, and I am told repeatedly to discuss the matter with him, while he accuses me of everything under the sun, up to and including a conflict of interest. If it wasn't for the fact another editor came along and reverted him, the article would still be in the worse-off state he wants it to be. Seriously, just take a step back and look at the bigger picture. This is mad. J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * More in a few moments, but there's a well-known bug that can overwrite comments with new ones and not produce an edit-conflict message. Comes up every few weeks somewhere, though I can't get find the right search string to find it, it was discussed on AN not that long ago. Courcelles
 * Okay, "We are suddenly two opposing edit warriors; we both have opinions that are precious and must be accommodated." This is the very definition of a collaborative encyclopaedia.  Not that every single opinion needs to be valued, but when a good-faith editor with a long and extensive record (and a clean block log) challenges a source, the suitable response is not to engage in an edit war with him, treat him with incivility, and accusing him of spouting "nonsense" at every turn.  Your behaviour in this case is the type of admin conduct that gets us blasted in such publications as The Economist. His behaviour isn't any better, but more is expected of you, as it is of any administrator.  The assumptions of bad faith need to stop from both of you. Courcelles 18:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My ability to assume good faith has been stretched to the limit in this case; once the guy continued to edit war after admitting that the guideline he was citing did not apply, I was... Challenged. Right now, my priority is to see the article unprotected, with all the information cited to a reliable source (preferably with T blocked, but I'll settle for mere leaving the article in peace...). I'm feeling stressed to hell (and not just because of this, I do have real things to worry about too :P) and so I'm gonna get out of the house for a bit. Could you keep an eye on the discussion and hopefully see it to some kind of resolution? I appreciate your efforts, and I trust your judgement generally. J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I tend to prefer resolving things without mashing block buttons on long-time editors :) It actually seems like a resolution is there, so I've unprotected the article and watchlisted it.  I hope there's no hard feelings here, you're a good admin, and I know how frustrating it is for someone to move in and start messing around with something you spent weeks preparing and defending at a featured content candidacy. Courcelles 19:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your work here, and thankyou for being a moaning post for me. I think now that there is neither an active edit war nor protection of the article (as in, now I'm sure the article is safe, which has always been my first priority- of all "my" articles, this one is probably "my baby") I feel a lot better/calmer about the whole situation. I've left T a conciliatory message, so I hope this whole thing can be resolved now. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)