User talk:Courcelles/Archive 98

Alison Weir
Hello Courcelles!

Long time no see!

I came across a really strange edit on ClueBot's talk page before. You will see that someone has simply posted that they are Alison Sharon Weir and that is it. I know that there was trouble not so long ago on the Alison Weir page, if I remember correctly someone was claiming to be her and, even though it's a different name, I'm wondering if the two are connected? The person claiming to be Alison Weir has had usernames in the past like 'Alison's back', and if I'm honest that comment reminded me of just that. When I've looked under the Alison Weir page, I think ClueBot has reverted one of her edits before, could be because the page is now locked and she can't edit it that she's started on ClueBot?

Just thought I'd mention it in case you need to look into it.--5 albert square (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, 5asq, long time, no talk. It is Sockpuppet investigations/Sarah 1940, and I've ran a few checks to try and stem the problem. Courcelles 02:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
You have been nominated by User:Sonia for your work at Category:Persondata templates without short description parameter. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  08:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm A New User Who Has Been Blocked
Hi Courcelles,

I just signed up for an account today and edited out a citation on Thor Heyerdahl's Article that I felt was frivolous and defamatory. It reappeared and not knowing why I edited it out again. Then after a 3rd time I realized it was another user and not something I was doing wrong in the editing process. I've done a little ore reading of the policies, instructions and how the system works but I apparently was blocked for violation of the 3 edit - 24 hour rule. My talk page is blocked also by someone. Please unblock me and I know now how to resolve these issues better using the other utilities and procedures.

Thanks, DixieDear — Preceding unsigned comment added by DixieDear (talk • contribs) 22:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not blocked. If you were, you would see a message like this when you tried to edit. You were advised by another editor that you had made three reverts and would therefore likely be blocked if you reverted again (in accordance with the three-revert rule, which prohibits making more than three reverts on one page in 24 hours). The best thing to do would be for you to go to Talk:Thor Heyerdahl and explain why you think the material you were removing shouldn't be there, then wait for other editors to comment, and discuss it with them if they disagree with you. You haven't done anything wrong, you just need to stop and talk about it (we call it the bold, revert, discuss cycle. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing to add to that, but feel free to ask if you have any questions. Courcelles 22:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You are an arbitor
You wrote "it would be improper for any single admin to undo this block and it needs to be discussed on AN before it is done." . You have the ability to move to strip users of the buttons. I do not. Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct me (and perhaps a link), but I was under the impression that any established editor was free to either initiate a RfC, or request a case at wp:rfar. Is that not the case, or am I misunderstanding the meaning of "move to strip users of the buttons"? — Ched :  ?  13:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can ask that arbiters move to do something. I cannot move something myself, so yes, you are misunderstanding the meaning of move. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies then sir - carry on, and have a great day/night all. — Ched : ?  19:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * oops .. or ma'am if that's the case. I try to have a short wiki-memory in many ways.  Either way - no offence intended. — Ched :  ?  20:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm involved in this mess up to my eyeballs, so I could never hear i as an Arbitrator. I'm still considering whether to let this one go, or bring a wheel-warring case, however... Courcelles 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in this conversation which actually started above. My thinking right now is that the more we "let it go", the more uncontrollable it becomes.  It's not that I ever want to see anyone embarrassed, defrocked, or sanctioned - but this cowboy mentality is damaging to the stability of the entire project.  These young admins. (and I mean no disrespect) need to understand there has to be a measured response to things.  I'd prefer to see it done with the least amount of drama and sanctions as is possible, but NYB's post on AN the other day clearly indicates that some steps must be taken.  There are such things as mutual respect and proper protocol that need to be adhered to if we are to operate in a mature fashion.  Oh my - I've started off on one of my long-winded rants again haven't I?  Sorry.  Anyway - feel free to let me know if there's anything at all I can do.  Best — Ched :  ?  00:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to leave a statement as the declining admin, were this to be helpful. --Rschen7754 01:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Courcelles,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
please assume good faith please? *kitten eyes*

 Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  04:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 

14th century AH and 15th century AH

 * Courcelles, I noticed that you deleted these two articles as part of a "Delete all" decision that you made in the discussion Articles for deletion/320 AH. However, I cannot see where a mass nomination had been made, nor whether there was any discussion on these.  It is possible that these were nominated, but I cannot find any discourse.  Hence, I need you to explain when these articles were nominated, with links to the discussion.  As an administrator, my policy has been to not rule on a discussion without determining (a) whether the articles had been tagged and nominated in accordance with the procedures for nominating and (b) whether contributors to an article were given fair notice of the nomination so that they could participate.  At the very least, however, I would not have deleted any article that was not specifically nominated.  Your explanation will make things more clear and will be appreciated.  Thank you.  Mandsford 16:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole list of articles is in the AFD (check the collapse box), and the few deleted ones I spot-checked were AFD tagged by the nominator in an AWB run, so I assume all of them were.
 * I'll see whether they were or not.  If they weren't, I'll restore the ones that weren't.  I was active in AfD back in January 2011, and I think I would have seen this one if it had been properly nominated, regardless of whether the nominator extended anyone any courtesies.  We'll see.  Mandsford 21:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Koavf is very clever, using a collapsible box and giving no notice to any contributors about what he's doing. Collapsible boxes are just fine for compacting large discussions, but never to conceal what's actually on the table in a deletion nomination. I have to admit, I've never seen that maneuver before.  I'll have to watch out for that one in the future. Mandsford 22:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is actually common for bulk nominations when the test case has already been proven to et rid of a system of articles. (and it was at Articles for deletion/1114 AH). Further, for the record, your saying you will restore any articles that weren't tagged is rather improper. Even though you have he buttons, admins are expected to use DRV to overturn an AFD close, just as other editors. Courcelles 22:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I just saw this. It was an unfortunate decision. I see that none of the participants in that discussion seem to realize that AH to Gregorian transformation is extremely difficult to do in your head. You really need a table. But that's not the only issue. Many events from Islamic sources that only have an AH year can only be assigned to two consecutive Gregorian years, which makes their presentation unnatural in that transformation. There are quite a few issues like that when dealing with the chronology of Al-Andalus for example. Oh, well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From an area of history I'm more familiar with, I know the same issues come routinely in the history of the Peloponnesian Wars, esp. on the Athenian side, leaving things to be dated 427/6 BCE as the best we can do.  The question then becomes, is an article on every year in every calendar useful for this encyclopaedia, and that's what I really thing this AFD was saying, is that theyre not.  Could a USEFUL article be written?  Maybe, likely on centuries, but adding to the AGF was that most of these were basically "xxxx AH was a year in the Islamic Calendar corresponding to YYYY and YYYY+1 AD" Courcelles 15:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case not much was lost. I assume merging them by century was given consideration but rejected for lack of enough meat. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just letting you know ...
There's a thread at AN/I requesting your attention. It's located here. — Ched : ?  14:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just got home (I've been driving quite literally all day) and I'm noticing it is already closed... okay. If anyone cares to have me explain myself, I can take questions here, but I can't see the benefit in commenting in a now closed ANI thread. Courcelles 00:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Perhaps the ANI reform pendulum has swung a bit too far towards celerity. (Risker complained similarly about the BB unblock, by the way.) One thing that was not clear to me from your prior statements is whether you think anyone else besides MSK was substantially responsible for the drama surrounding that event. Using a civil court model, what percentage of responsibility for that event would you assign to MSK, BB, and [ANI] community as a whole? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta RfC
I see you're an admin on meta too. Maybe you give some input on Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom
In your arbcom candidacy, you wrote the following statements: "If there is no need for privacy, the Committee shouldn't be doing things in private." Could you confirm that there is currently no action taking place on the "Civility enforcement" arbcom case, now frozen for 3 weeks+? If there is action, why is it taking place in private? What is the need for privacy? If you disagree with said privacy, why have you not posted a proposed decision? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Really the problem with this case, from everything I've seen, is three drafters who are very busy in real life more than anything privacy related. Courcelles 03:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dan Leno
Hi. I see that you had contributed to Dan Leno in the past. He was a well-known British musical comedy and music hall star around the 1890s. His article has recently been expanded and is headed for FA consideration. If you have time, please be so kind as to take a look at the article and comment at this Peer Review. Thanks for any assistance! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This article appears to be one I just reverted some childish vandalism on once two years ago. I'm not familiar with the subject at all, but if I get a chance, I'll take a look at the PR or make some edits. Courcelles 03:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Irony of Your Perfection album by Asking Alexandria
This got recreated, care to delete it once more, please? • GunMetal Angel  14:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Recreation of a WP:PROD is a valid thing to do, so I have no grounds o delete this new article. Courcelles 17:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day

 * Hey, Sarah! Happy Valentine's day to you. Courcelles 22:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you know help: Australian women water polo players
Hey! :D Do you remember how I did the Canberra Capitals and took every player on the current squad to WP:DYK? I'm drafting articles about the current Australia women's national water polo team 2012 Summer Olympics squad on my user space. I'm hoping to take these articles to WP:DYK in a week or two. (Trying to get pictures for the articles first.) If you could help improve the article drafts in my user space in preparation for eventually moving them to the main space, that would be fantastic. The articles I'm working on are:
 * At length
 * User:LauraHale/Sophie Smith
 * User:LauraHale/Ashleigh Southern
 * User:LauraHale/Nicola Zagame


 * At length - Existing article merge
 * User:LauraHale/Gemma Beadsworth


 * Not at length
 * User:LauraHale/Kelsey Wakefield
 * User:LauraHale/Zoe Arancini
 * User:LauraHale/Jane Moran
 * User:LauraHale/Hannah Buckling
 * User:LauraHale/Holly Lincoln-Smith
 * User:LauraHale/Glencora Ralph
 * User:LauraHale/Rowena Webster
 * User:LauraHale/Victoria Brown (water polo)


 * Require merging DYK check elsewhere
 * User:LauraHale/Bronwen Knox
 * User:LauraHale/Alicia McCormack
 * User:LauraHale/Isobel Bishop
 * User:LauraHale/Melissa Rippon
 * User:LauraHale/Rebecca Rippon
 * User:LauraHale/Kate Gynther

They are all properly cited. They need help fixing the grammar, the flow, the organisation and possibly with information box info. If you can help improve them in my user space before they are eventually moved over and nominated, I would be happy to help give you credit on the DYK nomination. :) --LauraHale (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Please may I have your attention?
Please have a quick read through this thread (not very long), and this bit here and discuss with your fellow Arbs some better wording. I really do understand this stuff in-depth; I'm HFA myself, my sister has worked professionally in the same environment, and I've taught many, many people with the same kinds of mental-processing differences. This is so important to get absolutely right. Please? Pesky (talk ) 09:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to get a few people to look at it (on arbcom-l). Courcelles 23:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

RevDelete request
Hey Courcelles, do you mind if you RevDelete this edit summary? I don't know who the IP was talking about, regardless, it doesn't belong. Much appreciated. --   Luke      (Talk)   03:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 04:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Courcelles 04:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You Have Mail!
--5 albert square (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Courcelles, just checking, did you get the email?--5 albert square (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything from you, Albie.Courcelles 21:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK weird, I sent it through Wikipedia. Anyway to cut a long story short, are you able to check and see if User:Dodgechris and User:EndersFan2012 are the same person?  I suspect EndersFan2012 of being a sock of Dodgechris but at the minute don't have enough really to take it to SPI.  The edits are similarish now though they weren't last night, I'm suspicious though because the editor has shown a lot of interest in why Rodhullandemu was blocked and because they seem to know so much about Wikipedia, things that normally new editors wouldn't know such as to add hidden comments.  I'm not the only editor thats suspicious but I don't want to raise an SPI at this stage in case it comes across as not assuming good faith lol.  Are you able to help at all?--5 albert square (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I opened an SPI for EF2012 earlier today. - JuneGloom    Talk  21:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I just found it. I had no idea about the EastEnders 2008 account lol.  As for Rodhullandemu, I thought he might've blocked him previously haha!--5 albert square (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You ladies are more familiar with the case than I am... are there any known socks that have edited within the last 90 days other than this one? Because I can't find anything to even consider running a CU against... Courcelles 23:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't think there are. The last known sock that Dweeby123 used was . - JuneGloom    Talk  00:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't know of any either, but I think the editor has a habit of creating additional accounts to use in the future which is why I think CU was requested.--5 albert square (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you link to the right 2005 case?
I see no mention of Will Beback in the Rangerdude one, although he perhaps had a different account name then? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He indeed did. It was User:Willmcw. Courcelles 17:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, perhaps that should be said in the FoF somewhere. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your support at my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible Sock Puppetry
I need help from an administrator. User:StlBoy32 is suspected of sockpuppetry with 99.62.166.41 and StlBoy32. It is getting pretty bad and annoying, please help. Kairportflier (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

IP Background
Hi Courcelles,


 * Background at WQA on the IP that you just blocked. He uses one IP during the day and another at night (Pennsylvania time). ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  23:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've protected his recent targets, and if he branches out, let me know, I'll be happy to apply evasion blocks or more protections. Courcelles 23:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice work
Wanted to commend you for your work on tennis articles. -- James26 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I wish we had a few more GA's on tennis players, but it takes so much effort to just keep things reasonably up-to-date and uncrufty, it seems.  Anything you'd like to push up the ladder, though, I'd be happy to help. Courcelles 23:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've been cleaning up a few in recent months. I generally avoid including an overabundance of early-round losses, and restrict scores to notable wins (to avoid cluttering up the article with numbers). This seems to be in line with Project Tennis. I've done a few things on Kvitová and Radwańska.


 * It seems a bit odd that the community is sort of neglecting the Azarenka article, especially now that she's no. 1, but I assume someone will polish it up in time. :). -- James26 (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That surprises me as well, but then again, people mostly ignored Wozniacki in her run there. The last #1 I noticed a good deal of editing on was Clijsters.  (Which is unsurprising, she is, in my estimation, more popular in English speaking countries, esp. Australia, than either Wozniacki or Azarenka) Courcelles 01:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page of main page
I think it needs to be semi'd for like 12 hours, and Chanakyathegreat's socks' underlying IP range blocked.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection done, but the range is too wide to block. Courcelles 05:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, don't you think (from a CU point of view) that all of them are the same?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course. That was obvious without running any CU's.  Courcelles 05:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of thing that an edit filter should be but can't be made for :( .Jasper Deng (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth, in the academic sense"?
An RfC has been created at Genesis creation narrative. Since you have been involved in this discussion, I'm informing you about it here.  This is not an attempt to canvass, because people on both sides of the dispute are being notified.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Only involved with my admin hat on, to put an end to yesterday's edit war. Courcelles 16:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about banning
Hi Courcelles, I just saw this edit where you marked He to Hecuba as a sock of a banned user. I'm not very familiar with the way the banning policy works, but He to Hecuba had reviewed and passed a good article that I nominated. Does this mean that I should submit the article for reassessment or is it Ok to leave things as they are in this instance? Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a tricky question. I've looked over it, and don't see any issues with the Good Article Criteria as written, but I've not looked at the depth of a full review, either.  Maybe ask the Good Articles Wikiproject, as this sock did do a few reviews? Courcelles 19:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense, thanks for the advice. I'll bring it up at WT:GAN. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Query
Hey Courcelles. There is an editor, User:Sheep 2009, who was blocked last year. Since then they have returned on various IP's to carry on updating there fictional character tables based on their userpage - as well as disrupting as per. I was wondering if you would (or think it is a good idea to) protect it from anon edits. I am unsure if this request goes with the norm - but maybe it would act as a deterrent? Rain  the 1  03:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Better solution. I deleted it. Courcelles 03:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was about to do the same thing; I also salted it, should he be tempted to return to re-create it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  03:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for dealing with this guys. I never understood what they got from updating that thing. Rain  the 1  03:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Once More, with Feeling
Hey. I believed you worked on Once More, with Feeling and was wondering if this was any use to the article - ? - JuneGloom    Talk  21:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I'll take a look. Courcelles 03:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When you have a spare moment would you take a look at List of accolades received by My Week with Marilyn and let me know if it's ready to take to FLC? I have a feeling the prose might let it down. - JuneGloom    Talk  00:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do that tomorrow, June. Courcelles 00:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anti archival note for when I'm awake tomorrow. Courcelles 05:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Help needed
Since only admins can edit the userpage (which is protected, from which OKbot updates monthly Alexa rankings), I need your help in clearing the long list in User talk:OsamaK/AlexaBot.js, perhaps you may add it in the watchlist so that in future it does not become another big list. And secondly, I see you have protected your talk page, consider if any IP or a new user wants to ask you something, they have no resort, though I see its history (and that is really a mess), howver you can have a subpage for them to edit. extra 999 ( talk )  07:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, when I touch Javascript, I break our in hives. Not literally, but, still, it's a lot of work I am not skilled at and have no interest in.  Formatting looks simple enough, might ask a non-admin to set it up and then you copy it over?  And the idea of having a separate talk page makes sense for long-term protection and general threat of trolling, but when a page is protected to stop a specific problem, I've never seen a second page do anything other than move the target over one click. Courcelles 06:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to look into this to see if I can help, when I have fresh eyes of course, but give me a chance to make sure i'm not breaking the wiki and i'll see if I can take it off of both your hands. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  07:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Question
is there a way of blocking a certain user from editing my page, who is autoconfirmed but I can still edit it? 23:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry. The only protection options are 1) All unblocked users may edit; 2)Autoconfirmed may edit and 3) Only admins may edit.  There's nothing else, and no "specific user" protection, I'm afraid, possible in the software. Courcelles 00:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the user (Bradkill2) is banned now. I wanted to block him from my page. 17:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Couric
Regarding this, it's just too bad you can't swing the axe on the equally-irrelevant "Santorum" thing. (And to be clear, I like Couric and loathe Santorum, but that's not germane to BLP issues.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh. At least the Santorum thing can be secondarily sourced.  Either way, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a "list of ways notablethings mock notable people" list... Courcelles 00:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Now, if Santorum manages to weasel his way into the nomination, it could be trouble for wikipedia. Or, he might use wikipedia as an example of "moral decadence" in America. We'll see... Keeping in mind that most of us are college graduates, hence we're "snobs"... Where have I heard that before? ... Oh, now I remember... He's channeling Spiro Agnew! He of "effete corps of impudent snobs" fame, or whatever it was. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, Sarah, yeah, it is rather odd, how people vandalise such obscure articles... Courcelles 00:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)