User talk:Courcelles/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Wine cocktails

Hi there Brad, it was brought up on Cyde's talk page page here that it seems how you closed the wine cocktails discussion and Cydebot's actions don't exactly match up. Could you look into the matter? Thanks. — ξ^xplicit 06:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I goofed. Reprogrammed CFDW to do the right run now. Courcelles (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Discount Tire Company

I added a couple more sources. I'm surprised at how few there are for a company that got into Guinness. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Afd Self-deletion vote

Hello, could you please properly remove the nominator's vote of delete from this Afd entry. Thanks. Gage (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

While nominators don't normally bold their opinions- it being obvious- but it's not egregious enough to alter someone's comment, either. Courcelles (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia/archive4

I responded to your question at this FAC. I am still seeking for a source of the transliteration that is from a government source, but I strongly believe it was translitered according to the Wikipedia MOS guidelines of transliteration from Russian. I left the link in the FAC page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Courcelles. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Phoon (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:HORSEMEAT. Courcelles (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I read it and found it quite irrelevant. --Phoon (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is very relevant. You're the only one who believes HJ was wrong. That means it is time to drop the stick, go about your business for a month or so, and then think about reacquiring the rollback flag. It's a pretty meaningless flag to go through this much fuss over. Courcelles (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not about the flag, its about the cult of administrators that have censored me and intimidated me into silence. --Phoon (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. We're all members of a cult, who can't withstand even the slightest bit of criticism. Fair warning from someone who doesn't know you from Adam... this road leads to an indef block. Calling admins members of the Gestapo shows you as both historically uninformed- as absolutely nothing I can do with the admin buttons would be one-thousandth of the horrors of the Gestapo- and that you're too involved at the moment. Have a nice glass of Scotch, get some sleep, and see if morning brings new perspective. It always does. Courcelles (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nikita

Hello, I was wandering if you could help me. I didn't realise how messy things were overall with the Nikita articles. I've moved Nikita to Nikita (film). But I don't know if I've made it more messy. It seems that some La Femme Nikita's linked there too. What it needs to be is Nikita (on it's own) needs to link to the disambiguation page (I want to do it but it will cause problems). Also all "La Femme Nikita's" need to link to the 90's tv show. You have to means where I don't. Could you do it for me please using that feature? Jayy008 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The last run was pretty simple, I just sat a simple replace "Nikita (TV" with "La Femme Nikita {TV" and ran it. This time it sounds like there is actual subject matter knowledge required, which I don't have at all. I'm not familiar with the subject enough to actually disambiguate links. Courcelles (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I explained myself very well. Basically the only things that need to link to "La Femme Nikita" is that but with capitals and non-capitals. Other than that all that needs to be done is move EVERYTHING that linked to Nikita to Nikita (film). And move Nikita to Nikita disambiguation. That way Nikita moves to the disam page for everything to do with Nikita. And everything else has a specific name (film, tv, la femme). I hope I made it clearer. Jayy008 (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically all of THIS should all now link to "Nikita (film)" instead of "La Femme Nikita" all different caps non caps which should link to the tv. Then I can redirect Nikita to the disam page. Jayy008 (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed Template:Luc Besson, once the job queue works it's magic- give it an hour or two- I'll do the rest. Courcelles (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Briliant, thanks. Once nothing is incoming and outgoing from "Nikita" (plain) I'll move it to "Nikita disambiguation". If I'm allowed not being an admin. Jayy008 (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not just make Nikita the disambiguation page? You can edit the redirect and avoid having it at the ugly title of Nikita (disambiguation). Courcelles (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Courcelles (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hold on... we have a Nikita (disambiguation) already. That should get moved to Nikita at the end of all this. Courcelles (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I know we already had it, I just didn't want to move Nikita there until all characters/etc were moved to Nikita (film). If you think Nikita's better than Nikita (disam) then I'm all for that. But you'd have to make the change as I don't have the power. Jayy008 (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've cleared 59 in the article space, but there's another couple dozen that must be cleared by hand, because it is not at all obvious from AWB what they should be pointing to. Complete that task, and I'll do the move. Courcelles (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to cut a corner. I'm going to assume all of them should be pointing to the film as that's what they were doing in the first place. I haven't seen the movie or the old show so I won't be able to judge if they was wrong. I'll do it now though. Jayy008 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm so confused; I've never done this before. Where are these 25? Jayy008 (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What I've done is gone to "what links here" and all the ones that had "redirect" in brackets I've now redirected to "nikita (film)" and not Nikita. Are they all done? Jayy008 (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Look here. Most of these need to point to something else than the film article. Courcelles (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see that they link to anything though. They don't redirect to anything because they have their own pages? Jayy008 (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We're talking links here- words between [[ ]] in articles, not redirects here. Courcelles (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I feel stupid lol. I'll get onto it. Jayy008 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There are so many. It may take me a few days. I'll let you know when it's finished for the move. Jayy008 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

All done! Jayy008 (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved. I think that's the only need for administrative tools in this process. :) Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks for all your help! :) Jayy008 (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

QCQ

Done. Many thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Supported. Courcelles (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks

Hello Courcelles. Thanks for your message. In typical wikifashion I was posting my updated understanding of the ban proposal at the same time that updating me :-) Thanks again and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 06:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

All's well :) Courcelles (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Hey there. I addressed the comments you left a while ago; I just hope you haven't forgotten about it! Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Forgot no. Busy, yes. I promise to get to it today :) Courcelles (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

List of St. Louis Cardinals first-round draft picks

Thanks for finishing those footnotes. Saved me another day's work and probably makes it FLC ready now. :) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ha, sometimes me random, can't sleep stuff does benefit someone else! Courcelles (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  You can certainly try to do the Seattle one. Since the table's done already it should be too hard. As for years that have compensatory but no supplemental picks, I actually have no idea. I guess there were free agents that were at that level for a few years and they've since removed it. My next ones to-do will probably be the Nats; I was gonna do the A's but I think they have the most draft picks out of any team. Not too many left at least, so we should be able to wrap this up before the end of the MLB season. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You have mail

Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• And you have a reply. Courcelles 03:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Courcelles. You have new messages at Slon02's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For the bot. Courcelles 04:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A question about this edit...

Wasn't the RFA to go until August 13, or until a withdrawal by the candidate? I note that as of close, only 18 persons had commented. --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, that's pretty common practice, once it becomes obvious that an RFA is not going to pass, see WP:NOTNOW and the list of this year's unsuccessful candidacies. Courcelles 04:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

  Yes... I'm on that list (chuckle). That nearly 160 editors involved themselves in my RFA discussion and almost 90 supported was actually heartening, despite the occasional heat. Thanks much. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wichmann fix

I appreciate the fix you did for Tamás Wichmann back on June 30, but there was one little problem. On some of the ones that had one n, the swithc to two n's was good. When it went two n's to three n's, it created article redlinks. I got it fixed now. Chris (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Whoops. thanks for the fix. Courcelles 20:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 21:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Gosford Park

Now the awards list is out of the way, I've turned my attentions to the film's article because I like a challenge, apparently. That plot section is going to be a nightmare! - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Especially since there's a guideline that says plot sections should be no more than 700 words... and it is currently way over. So, assuming no major problems with Up in the Air, what's our next list to work on? Courcelles 21:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series

I think protecting it until 2011 would be better, because everything would be announced. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 03:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No; that wouldn't work at all. Leave it protected for five months and the page would be so retarded it would never catch up and develop. Courcelles 03:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. The article was deleted from 2007 to 2010, and maybe I shouldn't have asked to restor it. Oh well thanks for your decision. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 03:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted in 2007 for WP:CRYSTAL, which wouldn't really fit for something that will be starting in less than six months. It's more like the article should never have been started until recently. Courcelles 03:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 03:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Courcelles. You have new messages at Talk:2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 17:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Try getting consensus and then using {{editprotected}}, but it'll be unprotected before too long, and actioning your request through protection-by the protecting admin- would be improper. Courcelles 17:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay. I'll just wait. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 17:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 Badakhshan massacre

Thanks for posting this event. Should it have a Current Event tag? ie {{current event}} --220.101(talk) ^\Contribs 05:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• You're asking the wrong person! I'd be inclined to say no, per the documentation that states "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence." Courcelles 05:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

seconded, though with reservations. openstrings 05:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And did you really just snowball an RFA from your phone? That takes me 10+ minutes with a full keyboard and PC... camping sure has gone high-tech these days... Courcelles 05:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Point(s) taken, thanks Courcelles! & Openstrings (OMG that's Ms Sonia!) - 220.101-(talk) ^\Contribs 05:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

2h ago another party asked for medical help. no formal paramedic training but did all i could. waited with them for further help and edited in meantime! weather is nasty and its getting dark, deciding whether to carry on as planned. openstrings 06:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You deleted my article on Buzz Foto.

I wanted to place the hang on tag {{hangon}} on the page, I woke up late. Everything in that article was sourced with third party references including, ABC News, Extra TV, Federal Trademark websites, etc. Why was it deleted???? "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Buzz Foto". It is a company that proves a very important point for Photographers of the world, that their craft is art.

It makes no sense when other pages such as "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Nunez" with no references and of one who is not-notable are accepted????

Why???? Can I please have a chance to fix my page which I worked hard to reference? Can you show me if the page exists so that I can make a copy of it so that I can fix it?

--Mambopolice (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's not that the there were no references, it is that it was WP:SPAM; it was written in an entirely promotional tone, and, as such, unsuitable for Wikipedia. If you are willing to remove all traces of promotion from the article, I'll restore it for you. Courcelles 21:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please... I will look for and delete the promotional stuff... I did ask for help cleaning it up a few times since I am new to this. Can you please restore. I worked so hard to find references, I even learned the Wiki language because I believe in what they have done.

Thanks, --Mambopolice (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Restored to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Buzz Foto and held. Courcelles 23:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the chance. Can I work on it from now until Monday? I have to tile my bathroom. Thanks, --Mambopolice (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, Monday is perfectly reasonable :) Courcelles 23:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mambopolice (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at the changes that I made so far. I believe this subject is more important than putting tile on my bathroom for the time being. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Buzz_Foto ... Do these changed resolve the issues you had? Do I need to make more changes? Can this article pass inspection? --Mambopolice (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I have been modifying the article left and right and getting into and out of trouble here and there. :) I think it is finally done to Wikipedia satisfaction. The learning curve is long but I think I learned a lot with this experience. If you have time, please take a look at it. I am sure that you will be pleased. Thanks, --Mambopolice (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nick Robinson

Hi there,

I'm kind of working up this article to becoming a good article, and am wondering if you could have a look at it and give me some feedback? Thanks a lot,

Aiken ♫ 14:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Timestamp, because I haven't read the article just yet, and don't want the bot to archive this. Courcelles 23:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

• News and notes: FBI requests takedown of seal, Public Policy advisors and ambassadors, Cary Bass leaving, new Research Committee

• In the news: Wikinews interviews Umberto Eco, and more

• Admin stats: RfA drought worsens in 2010—wikigeneration gulf emerging

• Sister projects: Strategic Planning update

• WikiProject report: Chocks away for WikiProject Aviation

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib

Hello, Courcelles, May I please ask you why did you fully protect the article? There's no dispute. The article was nominated for deletion, and kept. There's only one user, the one, who nominated it to be deleted, who wants it to be split, which is disrupting editing counting that the deletion request was just closed earlier today. The editor actually started to split it in his own, and one more. So, I see no reason for protecting the article because of disrupting edits of a single editor. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• There was an RFPP request at [1] (old link, the VoA bot has removed it now). I protected it to prevent anyone from getting into a 3RR situation over a split tag, and to allow conesnsus either for or against a split to develop on the article's talk page. Courcelles 02:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, IMO articles get protected over edit warring, if there are few editors edit warring on both sides. In this situation there was one editor warring against 3, and even he stopped. So I still see no reason for a full protection, but anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected, for the reasons I put in the log. Let's see what happens. Courcelles 02:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope it will be OK. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Does Eric a santos fall under the spirit of WP:CSD#A10? It's a carbon copy of Grigori Rasputin with the Rasputin's name changed to "Eric santos". Dabomb87 (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• A10 or even G3, take your pick. I zapped it as A10 because it is more friendly towards newbies. Courcelles 04:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • On further thought, G11 would actually have been a valid call, as well for not providing attribution from where the words were copied. You sure you want to run an RFA and have to deal with these things every day? Well, not like you don't catch abuse when you archive FLC's... Courcelles 04:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Beaver

Thanks so much for the review; it was a pleasure. :) I don't think I'll ever take the article to FAC - mainly because the process freaks me out and the reviewers are basically impossible to please when it comes to prose quality - but I'll keep your notes in mind. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy Courcelles's Day!

Courcelles has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Courcelles's day! For your excellent balance in writing and administrative tasks, enjoy being the Star of the day, Courcelles! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 21:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC) If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

• Awesomeness. Thanks, Biblio. :) Courcelles 23:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! Well deserved. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy belated Courcelles's Day! ;-) --Dan Dassow (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you :) Courcelles 01:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark Tonelli

The penultimate QCQ cog is up. Thanks for your previous help YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I made one edit, and will do my best to give you a full review in the next couple days. Courcelles 03:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Vexorg

Mind telling me why you gave him reviewer because he could be "trusted"? He has a history of editing negatively towards Judaism topics; I mean, look at this! Please tell me that you made an honest mistake, because, honestly, that's the only reasonable explanation. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? You're asking me why I flagged an editor with a flag we were flagging EVERYONE with, and your present an edit from 8 days after I flagged said editor as your evidence? I think I flagged somewhere around 3,000 editors in 3 days that week, anyhow. Courcelles 05:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You should be more careful with handing out reviewer. At the very least, check block histories. If people have block logs for edit warring, they shouldn't get the bit. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You can hardly edit war with the reviewer bit. If block logs were so important to this flag, you'd have to go ask Karanacs why you were given the flag. I'll save Karen the trouble- the block logs just didn't matter. This flag did nothing but restore the privileges an account had before this flagged revisions trial. Nothing else. Courcelles 05:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Another false equivalence; I'm sure Karen knows me from around FAC, where I'm a content contributor even with, and despite, my block log. I learned from my mistakes. He didn't. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Courcelles. Just to let you know about my response to Sceptre on his talk page where he claims he's not sniping me. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sceptre&oldid=378831852 where I have pointed out that falsely accusing other editors of, in his words, of "anti-semitic bullshit' is not only way above sniping but is offensive hate speech. I copy his edit to you as he will probably delete it from his page. I have no wish to further a 'war' with this editor but I am highly offended by editors who spew hate speech by falsely accusing other editors of racism. I'm not quite sure of Sceptre 's agenda but I fail to see what 'Al Qaeda Attacks on Sept 11th' has got to do with Judaism. very strange. Thanks Vexorg (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

People who claim that 9/11 was not perpetrated by al-Qaeda, despite the overwhelming evidence, believe the U.S. government, and/or the Illuminati, and/or the Jewish banking conspiracy (who fund the Illuminati) were behind the attacks. Given Vexorg's editing history, I believe it to be the latter. Don't act cute and innocent, it doesn't work. Your edits are clearly anti-Israeli in nature, and it's not "hate speech" to point out that simple fact. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (after several ec's) You're talking about reviewer rights. Imagine every editor that's ever been granted rollback, and then abused it and gotten it taken away. It's not the fault of the admins that granted the rights in the first place. No one can predict whether or not someone will abuse a tool, and Courcelles was not in error here that I can see, at all. Jus' sayin. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hi there, I was wondering if you would consider revdel'ing these edits? [2] and [3] from User:Tbhotch's page? (You were the most recent admin to edit a page on my watchlist). Mauler90 _talk 06:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done. RD2/RD3, take your pick, they both fit! Courcelles 07:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, and thanks for blocking that second IP. Materialscientist blocked the first one before I could add the second IP on there. Mauler90 _talk 07:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I also protected his user page, as this seems to be a recurring problem. Courcelles 07:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

James Ellison (footballer born 1991)

Hi, could you please undelete this article. He has now (as of last night) played a fully pro game and is 'notable'? Thanks.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Courcelles 07:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Match report - in the team list at the bottom of the report - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/league_cup/8900921.stm

Also here http://www.football.co.uk/burton_albion/players/james_ellison_141653.shtml under the League Cup statistics.

And here http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/Sport/Burton-Albion-FC/Resistance-ended-as-Albion-exit-cup.htm about 9 paragraphs from the bottom

I'd be more than happy to put it in your user space, and let you move it out when ready and updated, as a mere undeletion could easily be deleted per CSD criterion G4 by someone else. Courcelles 07:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes please--Egghead06 (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here you go; User:Egghead06/James Ellison (footballer born 1991). Courcelles 07:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Add all those sources into the article before putting it back in mainspace, and you should be fine. Courcelles 07:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Nikita

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your help on the Nikita articles Jayy008 (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, and no problem :) Courcelles 21:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your user page

I've protected your userpage against IP's and new editors. I set it at indefinite because, well, you fight vandalism, and vandal fighter user pages get too much abuse, but let me know if you want it gone and I'll remove it in a few hours. Courcelles 07:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think its wonderful that you did it. Established home pages of user's should be indefffd always according to me. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for do it, but actually I prefer my talkpage semi-protected that my user page. I have no problem if vandals edit it, so if you unprotect it it would be nice. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 15:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected then. Semi-protected talk pages are discouraged per policy, though. Courcelles 21:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, unless exist persistent vandalism and the user has an alternative talkpage. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

(Nothing urgent.) Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Replied. Courcelles 21:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Solomon Islands general election, 2010

Hiya Courcelles, say did you forget your challenge on my talk page last night? The article is being questioned so drop in please. Standing by, thanks. Jusdafax 09:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Commented there. Courcelles 09:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Finn Diesel block

Hmm, I respect your choice, but I'm personally not a big friend of bureaucracy. Those discretionary sanction blocks are actually meant to be not bound to any particular process on any particular noticeboard. Any admin is free to impose them at any time – in fact, just like a 3RR block, which can also be imposed independently of if and how it was reported.

Independent of that, I personally find 1 week very much on the mild side – not to say ineffective. Given this editor's history, it is not only likely but almost certain he will continue right where he left off immediately after coming back, just as he did thee times now. I really hate the prospect of having to waste yet more time reporting him again next week, and cannot see a reason not to block indef at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Replied over on your talk page. No great lover of bureaucracy, either, but when considering an indef block/topic ban, it doesn't hurt to have a few admins consider it, either. Courcelles 10:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Arizona Diamondbacks first-round draft picks

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Colorado Rockies first-round draft picks

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Courcelles. You have new messages at AbbyKelleyite's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

tables

So I finally decided to tackle my fear of tables head-on, and the result was this. Could you take a quick look and see if it's all right? sonia♫ 10:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks good to me. Only issue I have is that sorting it messes with the sections. Maybe have a separate table for each island? TFOWR 10:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just realized that. I'd rather not have the sections and have the whole thing be sortable in that case... is there a way to anchor the sections or something? sonia♫ 11:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It offends my sense of normalisation, but you could add a column for the islands. I don't know off-hand if the sections can be anchored - I'll have a dig (later - got to go offline now). You could always have a parent table with the column names and sections, and internal, sortable tables for each section? (To be honest, though, I'd be inclined not to worry too much about any of this - right now it's a great, useful table). TFOWR 11:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I fixed up the prose a little. (It's still near-copyvio at points, though- which is terrible for a high-importance article.) Question #2: Do the pictures I just added clutter it up too much? Also: new question at the FLC. sonia♫ 12:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Good job handling the FLC. Hopefully someone will close it soon (If for nothing else than I've got three more 98% ready to nominate.) Regarding New Zealand, why not make Island a sortable column, instead of the headers that don't work at all once you sort it? I could see that being a credible FLC, but since it is a main article, not a list one, it is going to have to be a decent bit longer and better referenced before being nominated. There's a list somewhere on here of "Lists that should be featured but aren't"; this one falls into that category in my opinion. Courcelles 17:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Looking at List of National Parks of Canada, I could probably get it up to that standard with little issue- it's just sources for the most part. (And actually having a lead would be good.) What is the difference between a "National parks of New Zealand" and "List of national parks of New Zealand" article? The latter currently redirects to the former but not in the Canada case, and I'm wondering if the redirect should perhaps be the other way. (I intend to tramp/kayak/climb in every one of those parks at some point... 2 down, 12 to go.) sonia♫ 21:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that your New Zealand list needs to fulfil the purpose of both List of National Parks of Canada and National parks of Canada. With only 14 parks, List of national parks of New Zealand should not exist as a separate article. FL's can be the main article on the topic, despite this being somewhat rare; see Historic Chapels Trust for one that was recently promoted. Courcelles 21:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now. Thanks. sonia♫ 22:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

How would this have to look before it would be ready for FLC? Is it just needing a little more prose, or is complete restructuring of the actual list a good idea? You also have another email. sonia♫ 09:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's going to take LOTS of work. Taking a Commonwealth example, List of Prime Ministers of Sri Lanka is a 2008 promotion and looks like it. List of Prime Ministers of Luxembourg is a 2006 promotion and might need to go to FLRC soon for some "spit and polish". List of Prime Ministers of Canada desperately needs the same treatment. A recent promotion that shows some promise is List of Governors of Utah, though as a list of U.S. governors, it is hardly comparable to a list of a Commonwealth Realm's PM's. Get TFOWR on board, though, and I think the three of us could knock out both lists with reasonable ease, but the sourcing of both is going to need a major upgrade. Courcelles 09:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

And if we got through those two, my monarchical tendencies would insist on doing List of Governors-General of New Zealand ;) Courcelles 09:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Sourcing's something I can do, especially given I'm the only local one... I just can't write in fluid prose. (As my attempt at expanding the lead of the national parks list shows.) Just give me a couple of weeks- at the end of this month our orchestra is playing in the Auckland Town Hall again, and it's a reasonably big concert that we haven't prepared very well yet. sonia♫ 09:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Slumdog list

Hey, apologies if it looks like you're doing all the work with the list at the moment. I'm working on the table and some prose off wiki and I hope to get something uploaded by the end of the weekend (if I can tear myself away from photographing butterflies). :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't exactly been burning the house down with my speed either. :) It's more that my part of this job is easily doable in small increments. I'll see if I can finish the sourcing for you tonight, though. Courcelles 23:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Courcelles, re your note on my talk page, I don't mind too much when FLC regulars like you submit multiple noms, especially since yours are usually relatively low-maintainence and you do more than your share of reviewing. That said, you are the nominator or co-nom on three currently running FLCs, so perhaps it is better if you wait until at least one is closed. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Development of Portal:Contents

Discussions on the further development of Portal:Contents have been underway. During the discussion, Fram changed the name of the outline subportal page, and that steered the discussions in an interesting and useful direction. See:

• Portal talk:Contents#Objection to the title change of "Outline of Knowledge" to "Outline of knowledge"
• Portal talk:Contents/Outline of knowledge#Objection to changing "Outline of Knowledge" to "Outline of knowledge"
• Portal talk:Contents#Proposal: Use the same naming convention for all of this portal's subpages

So, we're making some progress. But there is still a problem...

Re: Four days full protection

We're still having a problem with User:Verbal edit warring at Portal:Contents.

Even though he has encountered more opposition than support, Verbal keeps removing "Outline of knowledge" from Portal:Contents, {{Contents pages (header bar)}}, and {{Contents pages (footer box)}}.

See these threads:

• Portal talk:Contents#Outlines
• Portal talk:Contents#Oppose removal of Outline of Knowledge link from this portal's nav bar

Basically, the name of the page linked to, and all the pages listed on that page, have changed to a title that Verbal does not like ("Outline"). But that is not a valid reason to remove links to them. The list of those pages has been linked to from Portal:Contents since long before that portal ever became a portal, and long before the pages listed were called outlines. Years before.

Why remove access to the content just because the names changed?

The names of the pages have no bearing on whether or not the content should be made easily available to readers. Holding links hostage to pressure editors into changing the names of pages is not an appropriate way to go about a name change.       See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Contents&diff=375338841&oldid=375280562

Besides, Verbal has failed to achieve consensus to remove the links. They need to be put back.

Please do the following:

1. Restore the entry for "Outline of knowledge" at Portal:Contents
2. Restore "Outlines" link at {{Contents pages (header bar)}}
3. Restore "Outlines" link at {{Contents pages (footer box)}}.
4. Please protect these 3 pages
5. Please ask Verbal to stop edit warring

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    21:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Unforunately, this looks like you're asking me to make a content decision... None of the pages are protected, if you think a revert is warranted, do it. Despite that I protected the pages several weeks ago, I don't actually care either way. As to your five requests, I'm not going to make content edits; that would involve me in the dispute. Right now, protection would lock in Verbal's version, are you sure you want that? ;) And 5) Verbal has had plenty of encounters with the 3RR and is well aware of the rule. Courcelles 22:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was asking you to check and enforce the consensus on the talk page of the portal. He lacks consensus to remove the links. How do we get the consensus on the talk page enforced? The Transhumanist    23:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You could tag it with an RFC tag, and let it run a while longer. Three comments isn't really "consensus". Someone should probably notify Verbal of the existence of the "poll" as well. Courcelles 23:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's opposition, which shows that he has not established a new consensus. That is, he does not have consensus to remove the links, and several editors have either asked him to stop or have reverted him directly, but he just continues. The Transhumanist    23:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the name of the RfC tag? {{RfC}} seems to be for user conduct. The Transhumanist    22:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There are many tags, all listed in the box on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. Courcelles 22:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

• News and notes: Book publisher apologizes for plagiarizing photos by Wikipedians, brief news

• Spam attacks: Large scale vandalism revealed to be "study" by university researcher

• In the news: Supportive communication and missing incentives on Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: A Pit Stop with WikiProject NASCAR

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom releases names of CU/OS applicants after delay

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't hate me...

...but I just finished and uploaded this and was wondering if I could take it to FLC before Slumdog? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Slumdog is going slowly... and I have three open FLC's, with 1956 Cortina, 1994 Lillehammer, Diamondbacks, Mariners, and Volleyball all within a minimal amount of work. I'm not hard up of FLC's at the moment... nominate away! Courcelles 23:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also taken it to DYK, since it's nice and new. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Closure of Afd, Crucible of Iron Age Scotland

Are you intending on providing any explanation of this closure? I simply cannot accept a one word closure of that debate, and you are going to have to make it clear how you came to that conclusion for me not to seek a review of it based on the fact that a local consensus in an Afd cannot over-ride the consensus inherent in things like WP:N and WP:FORK. At the very least, you need to clear up which of the two contradictory keep arguments - it is notable / it doesn't have to be notable, you are using to counter-act the delete opinions. MickMacNee (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How else could it be closed? Seriously, read the debate. One person besides you agreed with your position, while many had salient reasons for disagreeing with you. There's no strong policy-based reasoning for performing a "supervote" here and ignoring the discussion, which is what you are basically saying I should have done. However, you are wrong in one thing- a local consensus can overrule N (and FORK is irrelevant here), as WP:N says right at the top of the page, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." (bolding mine) Courcelles 21:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That's it? You are pulling Just A Guideline on me here? I will definitely seeking review if you are, because if the idea behind the closure was to endorse the idea that WP:N does not apply, only one, maybe two, people actually said that was OK. It clearly isn't, because if this press release gives automatic notability by association, then any teenager who has a trial at a top football club is also notable - and whether you realise it or not, that's an absurd outcome. If you are counting the 'JN' opinions as the 'salient reasoning' in the Afd, by ignoring the evidence to the contrary, then I will absolutely be disagreeing, because the coverage, if you look at it, is a disgrace. Did you even look at it? MickMacNee (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like expansion of the idea that FORK is irrelevant. Are you saying that FORK can never be a reason to delete an article? Because I am pretty sure you are wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

CFORK can be used to delete something in certain circumstances (FORK cannot. If you're going to throw acronyms at me on an hour's sleep, please throw the right one). By all means take this to DRV-but I strongly suspect you will be wasting your time- there was absolutely no way that debate could have led to a delete close. No consensus would have even been a stretch of discretion. You seem to be confusing the purpose of the closer in the AFD process. It is to evaluate the discussion and close it accordingly. If the closer has to decide if the sources are enough, then we need to stop wasting time on AFD discussions. The community clearly wanted this article kept, and outside of a major BLP reason to go against that desire, the debate must be closed in accordance with the discussion. Courcelles 00:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I was of course talking about CFORK - the fact you didn't realise this gives me cause for concern. You are not required to qualatively assess the sources, but you are supposed to decide if the keepers are talking shite with respect to policy, meaning you have to actually look at them to judge. You are not there to be a dumb robot, counting votes if they just sound right, without any care for the source material. Otherwise, it would be pretty easy to game any quiet Afd with a bit of crafty canvassing. And it's frankly odd that you consider less than five people to represent 'the community' anyway, given that it must be over a thousand or more that drafted and consent to WP:N. All things considered, I am not convinced you've given this Afd more than a cursory look, or really thought about the implications of endorsing the keep votes without making absolutely sure they have the wording of WP:N on their side. Infact, I'm still unsure what position you've endorsed here, whether notability is satisifed, or that it doesn't matter. MickMacNee (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm tired and sick, don't give me grief like I'm supposed to read your mind towards which document you were trying to invoke. The keeps don't really agree with each other. So what? The matter at debate isn't "Why is this worth keeping" Not at all. You had to win the argument that there was a solid reason for deleting it- You need a consensus to delete something at AFD barring a damned good reason. You and User:Tom Reedy against everyone else doesn't make a consensus. You wrote a lot of words on that AFD, but apparently you didn't make your case. You're not going to convince me to change the close here, as I can't see the argument for even a no consensus close, much less the delete outcome you apparently desire. Courcelles 01:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You weren't supposed to read my mind - it was patently obvious from the Afd that CFORK was the issue, not FORK. Can you not see how this sort of remark gives me serious concern that I have just wasted many hours of my life making detailed policy based arguments in an Afd, as the deletion policy requires, only for them to simply be apparently ignored in what looks like - if you are going to assert that 'it doesn't matter if keep votes contradict each other', nothing more nuanced than a simple vote count? You claim I did not make my case, yet in your one word closure you haven't for example explained how anybody made any better arguments after the point at which two people independently said that my nomination had not been adequately addressed by the keeps registered up to that point. I do not participate in Afd's for debating skills kudos - so the only way that can be read is that nobody countered the deletion rationale, and therefore, you should take that into account, and with the delete opinion that did agree with me, call this a delete outcome. Otherwise, as the closer, you absolutely have to declare on what basis this article has been kept, and explain which of two completely contradictory cases have defeated the deletion rationale, and given the complexity - how, given the evidence. Cite any precedent you like if it helps, I don't mind. I'll say it one last time, it is your responsibility to ignore keep votes that patently do not conform to policy. You cannot close something as keep if the rationales go against the evidence, and are simply based on personal assertion. If you are sick, then please just set aside your closure and find a volunteer who will be willing to do this. I've no wish to go to DRV and question your thought processes, but I can't see what choice you've left me if you won't do this. I'm honeslty happy with any closure that lays out in detail how this article is notable, per the actual policy wording, or whether the one or two people chancing their arm at an IAR/JAG opinion, can over-ride the inherent consensus in WP:N and WP:P&G. If not, I will go to DRV, and I seriously am also going to have to open up a site wide Rfc on the WP:N guideline, lay out the actual evidence of this case, and simply ask, 'WTF?', and ask if this even comes close to a situation where the guideline can simply be ignored, or if the three or four votes that were made came anywhere close to a strong consensus that this article's references met the guideline, per it's wording, or per any precedent anyone can come up with. I've been here three years, and I'm struggling to think of an even remotely comparable conclusion on such flimsy evidence. MickMacNee (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Then take it to DRV already. I don't even think you had a real shot over ever getting this deleted, and the debate bears that out. Redirected somewhere else? Who knows, but that's not an AFD matter. You absolutely have to have a consensus to DELETE something, and I don't think anyone can read that debate as producing a consensus to delete. No consensus at all would have been within discretion, but the outcome would have been the same. I stand by my close, the next step is DRV. Courcelles 08:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd also have no objections if, treating this outcome as de facto no consensus, you wanted to renominate in a month or so with a restated argument. Making your best argument the first time could have led to a different result, but that's impossible to know for sure from here. Courcelles 08:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)