User talk:Courcelles/Archive 70

Userfy an AFD'd article please?
Could you please userfy the article about Nick Cannon's unreleased album Stages to my userspace? (AFD here from Sept. 2010). I missed that AFD but did add many sources and even a published track listing back in 2008 I believe. Maybe the nominator might've seen a washed-down version. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, see User:Andrewlp1991/Stages (Nick Cannon album). Courcelles 19:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

SPI done
I think we can demolish User:Courcelles/Betamakers Community Application with U1 now. Thanks for this while we needed it. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done- I've put the deleted history back at the mainspace title if anyone needs it again. Thanks for letting me know. Courcelles 23:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Robb Thompson
Hi Courcelles. Do you think it is possible if you can semi-protect Robb Thompson? Thanks! Alexandra Adotrde (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Semi, 1 month. Courcelles 19:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot it was getting some hate vandalism. Don't have to like the guy, but if you want to state facts source them whether good or bad! :) Alexandra Adotrde (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Kimber James protection
I have only one question about the protection on this article - indefinite? There's been no prior history of vandalism to this article prior to whatever that IP was trying to insert... why not stick it at a nice long period of time (3-4 months) if you're worried about repeat efforts? Tabercil (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oversight issues; we can't have a repeat instance of this now, in four months, or in five years. Courcelles 19:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's taking caution to an extreme level IMO... why not semi-protect all porn star articles while you're at it? Most of them will have similar privacy issues. Tabercil (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad idea, really, or even for all BLP's. When we have the level of problems we had here, we do take caution to a quite high level, as even with oversight, we can never undo the damage the edits have done. Courcelles 23:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And that runs counter to the credo that Wikipedia was founded on - "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Additionally semi-protection policy, it kind of runs counter to what you're saying: "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by unregistered and newly registered users." (emphasis there mine) What we have on the Kimber James article is a BLP violation by one specific IP address over the course of two days. A simpler solution IMO would've been to block the IP for BLP violations (which got done for edits to a different article) and redact. Tabercil (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Protection policy never really foresaw the kinds of material that requires oversight. Look through the page's entire history- the BLP violations have been done by far more than one IP, and over a very long period of time.  Anyone can still edit, all they require is making ten edits to other articles- the lofty ideal of "anyone can edit" cannot, and must not, be upheld at the cost of the lives and privacy of our subjects, who have asked no part of our encyclopaedia that anyone can insert libel in. Courcelles 03:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not disagreeing on the topic of libel and such being allowed in - if you take a look you'll see I supported the Pending Changes proposal, which I think is a better solution than protection/semi-protection, and I do think this is the ideal article for this sort of thing. But taking a look at the various reverts prior to the redacted ones, most of them seem to be wrangling over Kimber's status as a man or a woman... which is an understandable confusion. I just don't think the vandalism is the "heavy and persistant" sort that SILVERLOCK calls for. I mean, compare that to Beth Phoenix - the rate of clearly tagged reverts is about the same as what Kimber's article has and yet it's doesn't have any protection on it at all. Tabercil (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Beth Phoenix has an empty suppression log- even when it was protected three years ago, no one ever found anything they needed to suppress there. Phoenix appears to attract mostly childish vandalism, not the pure malice the James article was getting, and those merit entirely different levels of response. Courcelles 05:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Belated thanks for the semi-protect on Kimber James yesterday (possibly two days ago from your point of view?). It came as a relief, especially considering how long the edit you suppressed had been there. January ( talk ) 18:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Now... RFA is still looking for a few good candidates... Courcelles 20:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi Courcelles, a while back when I asked for rollbacker for my main account, you set it for both that and this one and I asked you to remove it from this one. The concerns I had are no longer valid (I've switched mobile browsers), and anyway misclicks happen even when not on smartphones. Don't suppose you could add rollback to this account for me? Thanks! StrPby (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Courcelles 20:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

FLC for Huskies of Honor
Hello. I finally was able to respond to your concerns at the FLC for Huskies of Honor. Note that I didn't quite understand what you meant by the "Connect Connecticut Huskies with UConn" request. If you could re-review, I would appreciate it. –Grondemar 15:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied. Courcelles 20:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

YGM

 * replied yesterday, but a timestamp for the bot. Courcelles 03:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Fenway Park
WHY DID YOU DELETE MY ARTICLE? Oh, wait... wrong message. :) I saw your note at the Fenway article (and by the way, Fenway turned 99 today) and even if that paragraph were in perfect English, its appearance in the film merits at most a sentence in the Fenway article. Fortunately, we do have a better place for that sentence: List of baseball parks used in film and television. I'll be adding it shortly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha. Yeah, that was a pretty bad group of sentences, not sure how it lasted like that in a high-traffic article long enough for me to see it... Courcelles 03:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another little bit of hype got by us, removed by another user. We are chagrined. It's probably about time to take a re-read of that article. You know, given the Red Sox 86-year championship drought, it's somehow fitting that Fenway was dedicated the week the Titanic sank. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Restore
Could you please restore LouFest in draft form on my userspace. Don't bother if it's completely useless. Thanks. Marcus  Qwertyus   22:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing there but an barely filled out infobox and an external link. Courcelles 22:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

GKR
Hi Courcelles - just wondering why GKR_Karate got deleted rather than un-vandalised. I have asked for a recovery (although I asked for the wrong page - Go_Kan_Ryu_Karate - as I couldn't remember which was real). Thanks, --Jyukumite (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was not vandalised, rather it was deleted after a community discussion found it to not be notable. See Articles for deletion/GKR Karate for where this happened. Courcelles 05:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons question
Hi Courcelles! I have a question regarding the FlickreviewR bot. I have posted it on your Commons talk. Sorry for posting a message here. Thank you. Novice7 ( talk ) 09:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Read and replied there. FYI, most WMF projects e-mail you when your talk page is edited, including Commons.  Enwp is the exception to the rule. Courcelles 10:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I didn't know that, really. Sorry again for posting here. Novice7  ( talk ) 10:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problems, and don't apologise. This is a pretty good way to get my attention :) Courcelles 11:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) Novice7  ( talk ) 13:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Courcelles. I was wondering if you could do a history merge of these edits with its article "Thank God I Found You". I know, it's a tiring job. Please can you help? Also, if possible can you delete the previous versions of File:Mariahcareysingle dreamlover.jpg and File:07-mariah carey-dreamlover.ogg too? Novice7 ( talk ) 06:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Images done. Courcelles 11:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The history merge would simply make a mess. As the edits in the sandbox are contemporaneous with edits to the actual article, the history would be useless if they were history merged.  Not to mention the sheer technical difficulty of getting the "middle" revisions form one page separated and merged somewhere else. Sorry, Courcelles 11:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for deleting the previous versions. As for the history merge, it is okay :) Novice7  ( talk ) 12:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your advice
What should be done with IP addresses and some new users that are, every once in a while, adding negative commentary on Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica about the prior owner, Sherrod DeGrippo? The most recent example of such commentary is this, which was made five or so minutes ago. Silver seren C 05:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not much, I'm afraid. The majority of IP's are contributing constructively, and the main article is semi-protected, so it would have to be very bad to justify protecting both the article and the talk page- there's even a line in WP:PP nowadays about protecting only one of the two at a time. Courcelles 11:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of highest paid Major League Baseball players/archive1
Mind checking in? I believe I've responded to your requests (sorry for the quick poke, it's officially the oldest outstanding FLC so I'm on edge). Thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 13:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --LauraHale (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wecome Home Travels in Smalltown Canada.jpg
Since the article has been repeatedly deleted, for reasons I don't agree with, (see User talk:Djblackwood), the image might as well be deleted too. djblackwood (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted as G7. If the situation ever changes, just let me know and it can be easily restored. Courcelles 19:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple requests at CHUU
There's a template that allows a 'crat to easily fulfill and mark a request that can be done as CHUS but was placed on CHUU, and it's rather inconvenient to move requests (as it autosigns them :p), so generally they can be left there - however, there really aren't any 'crats at CHUU right now, so all the requests are sitting there dormant :p Thanks for moving that one request though! demize (t · c) 19:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Robert Kazinsky
Hey Courcelles!

Wonder if you can do me a favour pretty please?

Can you add Robert Kazinsky to your watchlist? The actor resigned from filming The Hobbit recently and said it was down to personal reasons. The trouble is now some IPs have been adding that he is suffering from a health problem but when they're adding it it's not being referenced. Google isn't showing anything - yet. One of the IPs said that a New Zealand magazine was repeating this health reason, but the trouble is nobody outside of New Zealand seems to be able to access it! I've deleted a chunk of the history but if you look through the deleted diffs you will see what I'm meaning.

I know that I watch the page and I think Anemone Projectors, given the nature of the edits would you be able to watch it as well? I've semi-protected the article for 3 weeks meantime, hopefully it will die down in that time!--5 albert square (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

cosmetic changes
If you keep doing changes that don't change the rendering of the page like this one you may get blocked. Moreover, your comment ("Don't change the photo") isn't visible and offers nothing to the Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted every change a certain indefinitely blocked editor made in contravention of an active block, which is entirely within policy. Perhaps you noticed the comment I made when I blocked that IP? 22:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Sorry. Thanks for the explanation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, look at Yobot's talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

AE
Re. Of course, I agree with your action but it probably should be called a warning rather than a notification. Something I get from the long-running case at WP:AESH is that the thing you are giving with uw-sanctions is a warning and not a notice. Since at first I was surprised, I looked through past cases and they always speak of 'warnings' before giving discretionary sanctions. I realize that some cases contain 'Logs of notifications' (e.g. ARBPIA) but that may be the AE admins' language, not the arbs' language. This has been puzzling me for a while, and I'm not sure you will agree, but I thought I would share the observation. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In my experience, and my usage, I have always treated notification and warning as interchangeable, as their functions are the same, to remind editors that there are these sanctions, and they haven't been on their best behaviour in the topic area. I take the point though that in this case, warning might have been a better term, as our meaning here was crystal clear- "Stop doing this, or these sanctions will be imposed". I'll be more consistent in using the term warning in the future, but if his behaviour remains unchanged, wikilawyering to get out of the sanction on the basis of my using the word notification and not warning would, I hope, prove futile. Courcelles 05:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you see he's stated he's going to ignore this? Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seen, and ignored. There can be no doubt in his mind where that course would take him, and if he wants to dare admins to sanction him, it won't be long before someone takes him up on his offer.  Until he actually does something more than talk on his talk page, though, it's just talk, and not worth engaging him over. Courcelles 17:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)