User talk:Courcelles/Archive 75

List of Chicago White Sox first-round draft picks
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your contribution to one of wikipedia's latest WP:FL's --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Hello, I saw that you move-protected Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows last month. Since then, there was a discussion on the talk page that indicates a consensus to split the article. You can see the discussion here and now a discussion at the end of the page to determine what steps to take. What do you recommend as the best course of action? Should we move the page history to the Part 1 title now, or should we make a separate request to move? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First, technically, this is still 's move protection. I readded it because another admin's use of Twinkle meant it got lost in the shuffle- if you semi-protect using that tool, a sysop-only move protect vanishes.  Silly, I know.  That said, I can give my opinion, even though questions about the protection really should go to SoWhy.  I think the proper course of action depends on what ultimately is going to be at the basic Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) title.  If it's going to be a dab page, the history likely shouldn't be there, and should be moved to part 1.  If, however, the base article is going to be an overview of the two parts, with two separate articles as daughters, then the history could very well stay put.  Where best to park the history is going to depend on how the coverage is arranged, either the two ideas I have, or something far more creative. Courcelles 23:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The article history really needs to go with the actual text that is going to be copied/moved. If there is an overview article at some point it will effectively be a fresh article so there will be no point retaining the article history at the old article. I think Erik's suggestion is the way to go. Betty Logan (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

SwitchedatBirth.jpg
Hi. I accidentally uploaded a different image to this filename not realizing it was already used. Would you be able to revert everything back to the original version? Thank you! --DisneyFriends (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you figured out how to revert it :) Under CSD F5; I've deleted the new version, as being a different image under the same title made it an orphan. Courcelles 20:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

LGM
I'm not sure if your intention was to remove the now-blocked sock's comments complete from the AfD, but if it was, it'll take another revert. I had tagged him as an SPA after he posted his first comment, so when you rollbacked him it only removed a small edit to his comments that he posted after I posted last, not the whole thing. Either way, thanks for taking a look at that mess. Kevin (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reverted fully. Thanks for letting me know! Courcelles 08:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Image deletions
Kindly read the user page before editing.

Zotel - the Stub Maker (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, care to give me a little context here? Your user page didn't help me understand this comment at all. Courcelles 16:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, TPS jumping in :) I think the message is related to a few automatic file deletion notifications Zotel received from you in early May, posted despite the enormous, red, relatively obnoxious "Don't bug me!" message on their talk page followed by "DON'T BUG ME ! ! ! DON'T BUG ME ! ! ! DON'T BUG ME ! ! ! DON'T BUG ME ! ! ! DON'T BUG ME ! ! ! DON'T BUG ME ! ! !". Kudpung has kindly informed Zotel that bots and automated programs cannot parse and interpret his talk page demands. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you, Jezebel, I see it now. Courcelles 17:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you look at your RolandR block?
I think you made an error here - it's a deliberately semi-straightforward BLP violation by an SPA made for the job, surely? I've rationalised it on user talk:RolandR - Matt Lewis (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Just seen your block log edit. Thanks. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's really not that straightforward. The entire incident strikes me as a case where WP:ABF made it worse than it had to be.  Courcelles 22:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * His edit note was where he really crossed the line imo, and it showed he wasn't as simply misguided as AGF might allow. I have to say that 'AGF' must be just about the hardest thing for Roland to do, given what he's been through - but what he should have done here was check it up with an admin first instead of hitting 3RR based on the new BLP rules. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Partly I am making this edit to thank you for reconsidering your block of me; and partly to note that, if it was indeed an unblock, you seem to have malformatted your response. Please look again at my talkpage, and see what has gone wrong. RolandR (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It was an unblock, somewhat muddled by very poor syntax that I just wasn't seeing earlier (I knew the template was botched, but only now figured out what I had been doing wrong.) Courcelles 00:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Moral: Never edit on an empty stomach! RolandR (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Or anything else, except cook, perhaps! I'm the type that has trouble even going to sleep if I'm hungry... Courcelles 04:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
...for this, it was getting old finding the referral links popping up. jheiv talk  contribs 04:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know :) It's not the typical spam we see, but that doesn't stop it from being spam.  Hopefully it'll die down by the time half a year passes. Courcelles 04:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Request to lift topic ban of user:Ed Poor on Unification church talk pages
You may be intersted in this. Arbitration/Requests/Amendment Andries (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I (finally) see why I was informed of this. I enforced Kafziel's sanction once, but have no real opinion on whether it is still relevant 7 months after that. Not sure I have anything relevant to add that would be worth it to trouble the Arbs with reading. Courcelles 13:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

emergency block needed
Block Swordancer before he vandalizes my userpage again! Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 18:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The account was blocked indefinitely by another admin the minute before you posted this request. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 19:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Olympic medalists
Hi. For info, I've started off the sub-cat for the summer events by sport (starting with fencing), to mirror the winter events. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay. Not sure we need those yet... but that can be done, just as easily. Courcelles 09:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

important email
Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 16:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Read. If you have actual evidence, please file an SPI.  That image is so difficult to use, and most everything so old, I can't draw any conclusions. Courcelles 18:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

United States Bill of Rights has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011
As one of the editors who has made improvements to the United States Bill of Rights article recently this notice has been left to inform you that it has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011. The goal this month is to get this article to Good Article standards or better by July 4th, 2011. You can also vote for next months article of the Month or submit a candidate for article of the month here. --Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Email
— mc10 ( t / c ) 20:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied. Courcelles 22:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Request autoblock unblock
The block of had autoblock enabled. The IP got blocked is shared by quite a few people, could it be unblocked please? (I have since added to its talk page)


 * IP address: 129.188.33.25 (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • unblock)


 * Block ID: #2904349 (BlockList • unblock)

Thanks. --Hirsutism (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea how you know that, but, given it's a username block, the autoblock isn't terribly critical, either. Done. Courcelles 07:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When someone tries to edit through an autoblocked IP, they get this message which includes the IP address and block ID in a pre-filled unblock-ip that the user is instructed to paste onto their talk page.
 * Anyway, thanks. --Hirsutism (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know how the autoblock works :) What I didn't understand is how you got involved, since you were obviously not being affected by the autoblock, being able to post on this page. Courcelles 21:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was affected while I was logged in from work, but posted it once I was logged in elsewhere.  --Hirsutism (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Annoying editor
There is an editor who keeps reverting the musician Gil Scott-Heron article and other articles for different of his recording history. He reverts anything new that has not been cited, things that are not at all contentious, such as the description of GSH as a "soul muscian", which is not accurate and had been changed to "jazz musician" (is accurate) and this editor deleted a list of names of GSH's surviving children as "possible vandalism", even when someone (clearly close to GSH and likely in mourning) begged him in an edit summary to quit doing it. He never leaves a "citation needed" template, just deletes. A quick perusal of his talk page shows that he has annoyed a number of other editors and one recently threatened to block him in no uncertain terms. I don't normally get involved with this sort of thing and in fact, am much more apt to walk away than be bothered with such childishness, but GSH deserves better than such a watchdog, especially one so insensitive and seemingly ignorant as well. I don't really want to get involved in a battle with anyone, but this person needs to be dealt with because he's clearly offending a number of people. I'm writing to you because I've had some pleasant contact with you before and remembered you were an administrator. Can you help? Thanks in advance. Marrante (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Your pal here just reverted my edit to the aforementioned article because he does not agree with what the references I cited say. Seeing as he wrote to you, I may guess that you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, and that any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source. I've challenged his opinion on Scott-Heron's musical genres just as he did, but I provided sources. As for the two edits I viewed as "possible vandalism", they were warned multiple times about adding unsourced content; one of them unconstructively placed the unsourced text in the place of a citation template, messing that up. I've reverted previous IP edits to the genres, b/c they were dubious and unexplained, by users warned multiple times not to make disruptive genre changes. Would you mind helping in this situation, because I certainly don't want to "offend" any more people. Dan56 (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Courcelles, first of all, let me apologize for sullying your talk page with this schoolyard battle. Beyond that, there's not much more that needs to be said. The above post shows the mischaracterization and attitude that have annoyed myself and others, some of whom have simply given up. I had avoided mentioning his name, but he has jumped into the fray and now you have a convenient link to his talk page, where you can see the larger context. In an amusing move, after leaving you the above, this editor left me an automated welcome message about my supposedly POV edits and reverted GSH again. I particularly like the last line above. If someone doesn't want to offend any more people, the simplest way is to just stop. That's also my method of ending an edit war. My ego is not vested in winning, though I will maintain the integrity of my own articles. Marrante (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Admins don't generally get in the middle of content disputes -- you may be interested in WP:3O or WP:DR. Courcelles 17:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't generally get in the middle of disputes either. Stupid me for falling into the quicksand. Thanks for your advice. I'm going to drop it, as I said before. Not worth my time. Marrante (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:
OK. I have read. Thank you. Alptns90 (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

FLC revisit
Hello, if its possible, may you revisit the FLC page for the 2011 WWE Draft as changes were made since your last visit. Thank you-- T ru  c o  503  01:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still opposed, and am still considering a trip to AFD -- notability isn't demonstrated yet. Courcelles 01:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments, and I find it a bit harsh for AFD because unlike sports, that have ESPN, NBC Sports, CNN, NY Times, Washington Times, Washington Post, FOX, wrestling never gets that notability, unless its a scandal or death of a wrestler. The draft concept of WWE (WWE Draft) at first was just a concept, but then has become more of a TV show theme. -- T ru  c o  503  01:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For one thing that list has very little reliable sources, Carroll County Times and Canadian Explorer Online being the only two, if they can be considered such. Notability is established through an abundance of independent, verifiable, reliable sources. At the moment a majority of the sources are primary sources or otherwise unreliable sources, if you can't find reliable sources then it's clearly not notable. If this becomes a Featured list I'll eat my hat. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:05pm • 12:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)