User talk:Courcelles/Archive 79

Natal Philharmonic Orchestra‎
I am curious as to what your rationale was for closing the deletion discussion as 'Keep'. Since it is not a vote, what policy-based argument swayed you? Dlabtot (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, it was a terrible discussion. Five poorly argued keeps against a not all that well argued delete from the nominator. Really, nominate the whole thing again in a few months, but there was no chance at all of a delete close surviving DRV, and the "consensus", as poor as that debate was, was for keeping the article. Courcelles 00:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So there was no rationale and you simply tallied votes? Since the only reason you are giving is that it was 5 to 1. I guess I will have to take it to WP:DRV. Dlabtot (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Try this. If that had been closed as delete and gone to DRV, what would the outcome be? It would be an overturn, and it would form a consensus to do so very quickly. You, as an admin, simply cannot take two lousy arguments, and work out a consensus that the nominator is more right than the five people who showed up to oppose the nomination. If the nomination is spot on, perhaps. If the nomination is no better than the keep !votes? Not a chance. Courcelles 01:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You could have relisted it or give a high quality opinion of your own to clarify the consensus. Also I don't think its foregone that DRV would overturn this if you deleted it. Spartaz Humbug! 10:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's apparent to me this was a bad AFD, flipping through things even more. The sources are there, easily found by the dozen, and AFD never sorts through hundreds of articles on a topic, and there are several hundred here.  Spartaz, you might not think so, but I'm confident that I would have !voted to overturn any delete close here, and my general thoughts on !voting overturn is "wrong with the smell of fortnight-old dead fish". Courcelles 17:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Natal Philharmonic Orchestra
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Natal Philharmonic Orchestra. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
 * Thank you for edit conflicting me replying to your earlier comment with this template. Courcelles 01:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess this is sarcasm. In other words your 'thank you' is not sincere.  I find insincerity to be rude. Obviously there is no way for me to anticipate an edit conflict. I placed this template because the instructions for initiating a deletion review said to do so.
 * You were unable to articulate a rationale for keeping the article other than tallying votes, so I took it to deletion review. There is no reason for you to be upset by this, it is in no way personal, it is simply process. Dlabtot (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the sarcasm, but it is customary to allow time for a discussion. Instead, you posted this DRV 14 minutes after your last comment in the above thread. Two-person discussions on WP usually take hours, if not days; you will rarely get a response in under a quarter of an hour. Courcelles 17:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the semi-protection at Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop. Much appreciated. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Courcelles 02:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Saint Germain des Prés Café
Hi there, I was wondering if you might reverse the deletion of the Saint Germain des Prés Café article, or the Saint-Germain-des-Prés Café article. Every St Germain album page now doesn't have a simple listing and there is no information on what the albums are about. For instance; Saint Germain des Prés Café, Vol. 7. hope we can resolve it like this rather than having to go through the swamps of Deletion Review or REFUND. Dorkules (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What about any of those articles makes them notable in any way? They're all technically A9's as it stands, and could be deleted by any admin. (I'm surprised I didn't notice this when I deleted the main article.)  Restored as a contested PROD, but an AFD is fairly likely as the articles stand. Courcelles 03:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for adding the author's name to that source in the Petra Kvitova article. Simply overlooked that. -- James26 (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I look forward to working on the article over the next few years with you. Courcelles 16:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick question: Are you planning to source the additional claims in "Playing style" (beyond the stat about aces)? -- James26 (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, though that was the easiest one to do. Unfortunately, it appears to be a bit of synthesis/OR at the moment... Courcelles 18:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Field Marshals
Y'know how I appreciate all the hard work you've put into that list doing things that are far too fiddly for me to understand? Could you have a look at Woody's comments here? Oh, and something weird is happening with Gibbs (#130), could you have a look at that, too, when time allows? Thanks a lot. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I"m swamped and heading out of town this week, but I'll get it done before I go. Courcelles 16:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it. Going anywhere nice? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Only in my dreams! As to the list, I see the rest of the problems, which mostly amount to I forgot about some very boring work when I went to bed one night.  I'll finish making it all work tonight when I get back in. Courcelles 16:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

RfB
 Waterfox would like to nominate you to become a bureaucrat. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then [ contact Waterfox] to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for bureaucratship/ . If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. I've seen you commenting on RfAs, since, like, the dawn of Wikipedia time. Obviously I will formulate my praise for your good judgement further in the RfB nomination, but I definitely think you'd be an excellent candidate for a bureaucrat. —  Waterfox ~talk~ 18:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite flattered, but, as much as I agree with WP:RIG, I think I'm going to have to decline to run. There's plenty of admins out there who would make wonderful 'crats, you might want to track down a few and see if anyone's interested. Courcelles 20:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Template usage of ((blocked user))
I have used the ((blocked user)) template on everybody involving any vandalism at User talk:Di3h4rd. I warned users that there has been an indef block imposed. Thank you for protecting User talk:Di3h4rd. StormContent (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wondering why I didn't remember this, and it turns out that is because it was half a year ago! Given it has been that long, I'm going to throw that talk page in the trash and salt it. Courcelles 01:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Mark B. Barron restoration
Hi Courcelles. You deleted an article I authored on Mark B. Barron, but  - my bad - I didn't get the source beforehand. So I'd like to request it be restored to my userspace in case there are, in the future, adequate in-depth sources establishing his notability to justify inclusion here. Or if there's a different way to get ahold of the text, I'm open to that. Just don't want to have lost my work. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyzzyballuba (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As it says in my editnotice, as a matter of personal policy, I do not userify BLP's. You have an e-mail with the text of the last revision of the page. Courcelles 01:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you, thank you, thank you! (I'm glad the verdict was practically unanimous). --  Kenatipo   speak! 04:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, though I just express a little confusion as to what I'm being thanked for. Courcelles 01:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for being so oblique. I'm celebrating the banning of my wiki-nemesis Salegi, and thanking you for your role in it.  --  Kenatipo    speak! 19:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's really nothing to celebrate. Banning a user is the ultimate remedy the community has, and is always something to regret, and never to look on with joy.  There will be less disruption now, but in essence, what we have done is told another person that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, except him; and while this is a necessary duty, it is never a happy one. Courcelles 19:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Poor Courcelles! You sound like you just pulled the switch on the electric chair Salegi was strapped into, and now you're filled with remorse.  Lighten up!  He's not dead; you didn't send him to Hell for eternity.  Lighten up!  God help anyone who takes Wikipedia too seriously.  To me, this banning is about as regrettable as taking a loaded weapon away from a 5-year-old who has already "accidentally" shot a few people with it.  When BelloWello matures to the point that he realizes that the rules do indeed apply to him, then unban him!  --  Kenatipo    speak! 21:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible 1952 Winter Olympics FTC
Hi Courcelles, just a courtesy note to let you know that as 1952 Winter Olympics just passed at FAC, I've been discussing with its main author,, on a possible FTC. Since we jointly worked on the medal winners list I thought you'd like to know. Only 1952 Winter Olympics medal table is left of the main set of articles for the Games, and that should be a fairly straightforward one to clean up to FL status. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Venues of the 1952 Winter Olympics would be obligatory, as well. Courcelles 01:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oooh, yes, good catch. Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I know medal tables, whereas Venues lists are uncharted territory for either of us. I'll work on the medal table, you take the venues?  I'm a little worried the medal table could be susceptible to a 3B challenge, but if it is, it can be ran through a PR for the FT requirement. Courcelles 09:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Louise Sauvage
Louise Sauvage: I added Boston Marathon to her list of medals in the little bar thing. Is the formatting okay? It wasn't on any of the other winner pages but I thought it would be useful to have there. Not sure of the latter either if it is okay to include. --LauraHale (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me, though I'm not sure the Marathon Majors officially award medals in the sense the Olympics/Paralympics/Commonwealth Games do (gold/silver/bronze). Courcelles 19:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

AWB bug in recent Afd closure & question
Hi Courcelles,

In a recent AfD discussion that you closed I visited one of the 58 articles bundled in the nomination, Vajrasana_(yoga) and noticed, that the talk page was still redlinked. Remove afd notice went well, but Oldafd talk banner was however not placed on the correct talk page, Talk:Vajrasana_(yoga), but somehow got over on Talk:Vajrasana, look. I reported the case on AWB/B, and as it is "your" edit it seems correct to tell you that I per common sense moved the Oldafd talk banner to the correct talk page.

Talking about that specific AfD, you write in your closing comment "Anyone is free to bring these back here as soon as they desire, no need to wait any longer than it takes me to get the tags off them." Should that be taken literally? Is there a guideline concerning time between two nominations?

Having earlier today had the need to add a little Wikilove to a message, and disovered to kind gestures of WP:PUA I don't see why I should be stingy, and rush to bring you
 * I see the problem. AWB is good at following redirects, and the AFD nominator actually linked a number of redirects in his nomination.  While this is so, AWB is less good at knowing if the talk page is a redirect or if it should be going somewhere else, especially if there is no talk page there at the present time. All in all, between the nominator and the closer, this is a PICNIC error, not an AWB one.  Thanks for catching that! As to renominations, there's no hard and fast rule, but people tend to look at renominating before the ink is dry on the first nomination as mildly disruptive, and a selective renomination here would be in no way so. Thanks for the beer, and happy 4th! Courcelles 17:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Writing "All in all, between the nominator and the closer [...]" makes me fear, that you take me for the nom of that AfD. I was not, and will try to work on those articles. Have a great afternoon/evening! MarB4  •ɯɒɹ• 17:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew you were not the nominator. Just a general observation that people should list the actual article, and not a redirect to an article, at an AFD. Courcelles 17:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Goes without saying. And you are (of course) right, he listed the redirect Vajrasana instead of Vajrasana (yoga). If I understand you better than I understand AWB - which I hardly understand! - the process is not simply feeding the list of nominated articles to AWB and let it do its thing, but you, in the closing process, goes to the listed article, Vajrasana, manually, notice it is a redirect, continue to Vajasana (yoga), and then run AWB. ... Hmmm, but why does the Oldafd talk page tag then goes back on the redirect page, not on the page where you are? Sorry if my ignorance makes things contortuplicated now, but I like to learn, and I would also like to awoid having reported a bug on AWB/B that is not a bug. If letting you edit/delete my report on AWB/B makes things easier, please do so. Thanks. MarB4  •ɯɒɹ• 06:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, AWB can read redirects, but when it encounters a non-existent page, it stops. Given this was two AWB runs, once to remove the AFD notices, and once to tag the talk pages, that's where the problems came in. Courcelles 04:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

New warning boxes of my own...
Hi, Courcelles! Feel free to use my new warnings on a vandalizing IP! (link) However, i'm not done with my new pages and still have warnings to make! StormContent (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Warnings that aren't part of Twinkle feel like a waste of large amounts of time to me. At any rate, though, see the "canonical" warnings, there is a little hidden text in there that allows ClueBot and Huggle to read the level of the warning and react accordingly.  Any alternative warning system needs to be made compatible. Courcelles 04:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Re Twinkle: Twinkle/Preferences is pretty customisable. sonia ♫  09:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice close
I, too, began to notice a striking resemblance between the Natami DRV and the Natami AFD. As an original delete !voter and someone who endorsed (perhaps weakly) the AFD decision in the DRV, I think your close of the DRV was right on the money. I don't think there was resounding consensus in either direction in the DRV, and given general comfort with a merge and the manner in which that proposal came up right at the end of the AfD and then gathered steam during the DRV, I think this was definitely the right way to go. So, for whatever it's worth -- possibly nothing at all -- I salute you! /salute :) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 14:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it means a lot to hear this :). I'm also happy to note the merge proposal looks to be going well, and that we may avoid AFD 3 on this topic. Courcelles 05:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)