User talk:Courcelles/Archive 77

Quantitative Easing
Hi there Courcelles :), I have a problem with an editor called LK (talk) who appears to be edit warring by continually removing properly and reliably sourced information from the article Quantitative Easing. His latest revert of properly cited material is | here where both the information and the source has been removed.  I have used the talk page to make sure no one can overlook the cource fro this material.

I'm asking for advice on how to proceed to resolve this and prevent material which is correctly and reliably sourced from being removed from Wikipedia. thanks. Vexorg (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there. LK (talk) is continuing to remove properly sourced information from the article. FYI Vexorg (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, it looks like you're both in the embers of an edit war, and that now would be the time to go for a third opinion, or a request for comment. Economics is one of those subjects where I know just enough to talk out my rear end, and it's a trafficked enough article where protecting due to one dispute would be a poor choice. Courcelles 05:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, other editors are involved, but the issue is the editor in question LK (talk is repeatedly removing properly sourced material and a knowledge of economics is not required to note that violation of Wiipedia. :) Vexorg (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He's not doing it enough to sanction him for edit warring, at this point in time, though. The entire situation needs a infusion of civility, which is quickly being lost. Bottom line, though: I have neither the time or desire to get into this dispute. Courcelles 06:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for advice re. Conflict of interest
I am contemplating creating an article about the 1990s UK indi band “70 Gwen Party”. I am convinced that the band is noteworthy enough to include in Wiki- They recorded four separate BBC sessions for John Peel. and, despite the fact that the band split up more than ten years ago, a “google" search of “70 Gwen Party” in quotes still produces 50,300 hits including the official BBC site (searching “71 Gwen Party” produces none). The problem is that I am related to one of the Band members and produced some of the band’s art work. Given that the band has long since split up and there are no longer monetary concerns would it be acceptable for me to produce this article? Prunesqualer (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how severe your COI is, but if it isn't much, there's some good guidance on Plain and simple conflict of interest guide on avoiding common pitfalls. A good idea that's not there? Ask for a WP:PR when you're done, just to give it a neutrality check. Courcelles 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will do. Prunesqualer (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppet second opinion
Hi Courcelles. I was thinking of blocking as an obvious sock, based on contributions, of these that you blocked: but I thought I would first ask your opinion as to whether this would require checkuser evidence. Thanks. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 12:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I missed this one. Sorry. I see you blocked, and the block looks fine to me, whether it is a sock or not really doesn't matter, the edits are still problematic. Courcelles 09:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Since then, Gran2 came to my talk page and let me know about these two:
 * which I have no doubt at all are the same user, evading the block. I'll block those, but what's your opinion about the value of doing a check for other sleeper socks? And how long would we block the IP for? A month? Thanks for any advice or suggestions. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record:
 * which I have no doubt at all are the same user, evading the block. I'll block those, but what's your opinion about the value of doing a check for other sleeper socks? And how long would we block the IP for? A month? Thanks for any advice or suggestions. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record:




 * Are all ✅. There's also the sleeper, which is now blocked. No comment on the IP as to checkuser evidence. Courcelles 20:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket closed
An arbitration case regarding Racepacket has closed and the final decision is now viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) is banned from Wikipedia for one year
 * 2) is admonished for blocking editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes
 * 3) and Racepacket are prohibited from interacting with one another
 * 4) Hawkeye7 is prohibited from taking administrative action "with regards to, or at the behest of LauraHale".

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Hi Courcelles. I've seen you close several ban discussions. Administrators' noticeboard was closed with the result that /  was banned. I remember that when a user is banned, his/her block log is annotated. Would you do that and do any other paperwork that is necessary when a user is banned? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Really should be done by the admin who closed the ban discussion, as that was a somewhat unorthodox and ambiguous close of these things. (Notice the question, "Is Claritas banned?" isn't effectively answered by that close, it leaves wiggle room.) Courcelles 02:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked Black Kite to clarify his close. Would you write on 's talk page what paperwork should be done when a user is banned? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We have such a bureaucracy around banned that "is banned" and "is effectively banned" are actually different in practice. The close, IMO, should not have included the word "effectively", for the reasons that people peruse community bans, there needs to be an unambiguous statement of banning. An "effective ban" is no more than "no admin will unblock", which is the case for many indef blocked users no one has tried to ban. Part of closing a ban discussion is adding the user to WP:LOBU, and Black Kite did not do so, which is the second way that close is ambiguous. Courcelles 15:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Claritas has been added to LOBU; the "effectively" was referring to Anthem of joy, who is "effectively" banned as a sock of a banned users. However, for clarity I have added the "banned" note to AOJ's userpage, and will make a note at LOBU. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To address Courcelles' concerns about "is effectively banned", would you reword your closing statement at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224? Instead of "Anthem of joy indefinitely blocked and effectively banned", perhaps you can say "Claritas is banned from editing Wikipedia by the community. As a sock of Claritas, Anthem of joy is indefinitely blocked and effectively banned". Then instead of linking to diffs at User:Claritas, User:Anthem of joy, and LOBU, perhaps you can link to Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224 instead? Also, would you annotate the blog logs? For example, when closed Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224, he annotated the banned user's block log with a link to the ban discussion. I'm sorry for the nitpicking but ban discussions need to be as unambiguous as possible.  Cunard (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Caroline Wozniacki
We apparently have different interpretations of "n weeks as of date". I meant n weeks ending that date, you mean the nth week starts that date. Maybe your interpretation is more common for tennis jargon and mine for general Wikipedia jargon. I will leave it as it is. By the way, she is actually certain to hold No. 1 for at least 42 weeks into August. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * With the source you gave, it says she will hold #1 for this week and next week. In the system, that means the rankings effective (and published on) 20 June and 27 June, as there are no new rankings published during Grand Slams.  Okay, she can't lose it at Wimbledon, but the 4 July rankings won't be formally calculated until after the Championships.  The rankings technically aren't "the week of 20 June", they're of the date they're officially published, which is 20 June.  Yes, the rankings of 27 June run until 4 July when new ones are published, but the tables are dated by the day the ATP/WTA publishes them, not the day they are replaced with new ones. Courcelles 02:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure I had this right, I went and took another look. The source says, "and will spend her 18th and 19th straight weeks there this fortnight (her 36th and 37th overall weeks)." The fortnight is, naturally, Wimbledon, (June 20-July 3)  The rankings published today, say  "as of 20 June 2011".  This would be 36, there won't be a 27 June ranking because of Wimbledon being a two-week event (week 37), and then the 4 July will be, assuming the article you gave is right, week 38. Courcelles 02:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we agree on the facts and just formulated it differently. She is certain to hold No. 1 for long because Clijsters isn't playing Wimbledon and Zvonareva is defending 1400 points from the 2010 final while Wozniacki only defends 280 from the fourth round. I'm not suggesting to mention the 42 weeks. My own original research actually indicates 43 weeks with the 43rd due to top-10 players only being allowed to play one International tournament per half calendar year, and 2011 WTA Tour is full of them. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Mutant growth hormone
You delete a page without an explanation that reflects the discussion. The problem was not anymore the notability and a move then a merge to keep the information was explained. Mutant growth hormone now redirect to growth hormone but there is nothing to tell. Who wants redirections such as mutant human to human or mutant frog to frog ? Comic books have a fictional element called Mutant Growth Hormone. Real life put mutant as an adjective in front of different real names. Should we create redirections with mutant name for each name ? 130.120.37.11 (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, a header like that stands out on the watchlist! Can't you cover "mutant growth hormone" in Marvel Comics or a related article, then change mutant growth hormone to redirect there? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the article back then that somebody merges it to List of comic book drugs.
 * There were no arguments to keep this article separate. Not a single one. Then, the support for deletion was substantial and grounded in policy, and the arguments for redirecting it to a comic list were shot down convincingly. Zero notability, and a good argument to delete it outright.  I see it is now a redirect to the real thing, and that makes perfect sense to me. Courcelles 04:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "There were no arguments to keep this article separate.", that is why, the proposition was to merge.
 * "Then, the support for deletion was substantial and grounded in policy, and the arguments for redirecting it to a comic list were shot down convincingly." 4 agaisnt 5 and don't you see that the arguments for redirecting it to Growth Hormone were shot down convincingly and there is a need to merge to avoid a loss of information.
 * Crazy runner told that the pages linked are only comic articles and the section about the alternative version Banshee is not written in the List of comic book drugs.
 * Spidey 104  explained that mutant is only an adjective in front of Growth Hormone.
 * Now where are the arguments agaisnt a merge and the ones to redirect to Growth hormone ?
 * When you are writing, mutant human, you add a link mutant to mutant or mutation and a link human to human. However with the logic "that makes perfect sense to" you, we should create a redirection mutant human to human.
 * In Principles of molecular medicine, Page 957 Par Marschall Stevens Runge,Cam Patterson, you can read "mutant growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH)", the word mutant is an adjective in front of GHRH.
 * In an article of Comic Book Resources, you can read "MGH [Mutant Growth Hormone]", the word mutant is in the name.
 * And speaking about policy "I am not suggesting you copy. I suggested you add information using the same sources as found on the current article." Since when wikipedia does not give credits to the ones who wrote even badly ?
 * 130.120.37.11 (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The decision was not "redirect". Someone else did that as an editorial decision. The close was delete.  Discussion of whether the redirect that exists is a good idea is a topic for WP:RFD, and not a matter of this AFD. Not merge, not redirect, straight delete. It turned the link red, until some other person made the redirect.  I wouldn't have made a redirect, personally. Courcelles 09:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All the argument for the deletion were shot down convincingly because
 * sources have been added by Crazy runner
 * the argument "The. Names. Of. Real. Things. Should. Not. Redirect. To. Things. That. Don't. Exist." has been withdrawn by Spidey104.
 * The only problem is the notability and the solution of the merging is the best, there is no loss of information and the redirection is the right one.
 * Read the conclusion of Chromancer is "If consensus does not support a full deletion", "the principle of least harm would suggest any redirect would have to go to the real-world article" but nobody would search for. 'Mutant growth hormone' while a common enough phrase in scientific literature, is not actually a specific term. It's simply an adjective + noun, and not something anyone would actually search for. It would be like redirecting Bald human to Human.
 * 4 against 5 with a lot of arguments which have been withdrawn. Can you point out the valid arguments for the deletion ?
 * Now, we have a loss of information, a splendid redirection which means nothing and nobody use. It should have redirect to the MGH in the list and the merge would have preserved information.130.120.37.11 (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is enought notability to be in the list, the article has sources and reliable ones and interview to explain the social commentary. The editors were confused by the nominator who has never stop to speack about "The. Names. Of. Real. Things. Should. Not. Redirect. To. Things. That. Don't. Exist." and he is the one who has created the redirection even if counter arguments were given in the deletion process.--130.120.37.11 (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, Mathewignash, just a vote, no reasoning. Jfgslo's comments are perhaps the most on-point ones in the entire debate, and fully and totally refutes your arguments that this term should redirect to a list of fictional items. Follow that on with Chromancer's comments. The only well-reasoned comments in the entire debate were towards deleting, and not redirecting it to a list of fiction, when it is a real thing.  Courcelles 12:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Crazy runner provides references that oppose the "no real-world significance and no reliable sources" and the "some mentions in unreliable sources such as fansites and forums". How many people reads comic books ? and how many people read advanced books and articles in medicine ? In Principles of molecular medicine, Page 957 Par Marschall Stevens Runge,Cam Patterson, you can read "mutant growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH)", the word mutant is an adjective in front of GHRH. Spidey104 explains it Mutant Growth Hormone should not redirect to Growth Hormone. Do you write mutant human or mutant human ? If you write mutant human, the argument about the real thing is valid otherwise it is not. 130.120.37.11 (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On google, I have 36 400 with '"mutant growth hormone" -marvel' and 90 900 '"mutant growth hormone"'. Make some maths and you will see that there is more about the fiction than the real which is only an adjective before a noun.130.120.37.11 (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mathewignash said "The page for growth hormone does not mention mutant growth hormone that I can see. Additionally I don't think it's a valid arguement for deletion that a fictional thing should be deleted because shares a name with a real world thing. If it's true we would simple rename the page Mutant Growth Hormone (Marvel Comics), not delete it." and also "I don't think you need to have full notability that a stand-alone article would require to merge this into a list". How can you consider it as just a vote without reasoning ?130.120.37.11 (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)130.120.37.11 (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The number of invalid arguments you have raised are rather surprising. Google hits is the most meaningless and overused statistic- they mean less than nothing when discussing deletion, there are plenty of topics with large numbers of Google mentions, yet no article here, and no actual prospect of being notable enough for an article.  The popularity of various topics is poor argument.  Comic books may be read by more people than medical literature (I'd disagree with that assertion, but that's not worth arguing), comic books, are, well, comic books.  They're entertainment for the masses, whereas medical literature is advancing the boundaries of human knowledge.  Almost any source on biochemistry is going to be useful for the purposes of proving notability of a topic, whereas the vast majority of words used on comic books are not helpful to establishing notability.  You almost seem to be arguing about the target of a redirect that I didn't create, when you could, instead, simply retarget the redirect if you so desire. Courcelles