User talk:Courcelles/Archive 80
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 75 | ← | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | → | Archive 85 |
Willamette River
Honestly, I don't mean to be a spoiled sport, but please take a look at this. Thanks. 
--Jsayre64 (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to be taking care of this, as well as using the chance to help another user with their first GA review. Courcelles 21:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
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.
--5 albert square (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to help me with my first GA review. I've gotten the review started at the link above (though it's by no means done, especially wrt criteria 1 and 2). Please feel free to stop by there or on my talk and let me know what I've done right or wrong, or to fill in any gaps I leave in the review. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
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.
- JuneGloom Talk 20:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't seem to have it, June. Can you resend? Thanks. Courcelles 04:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Sortability
Do you think you could sortify the table at Iranian Embassy siege#List of hostages when you have time? It's much smaller than the field marshals' table, don't worry! ;) Thanks muchly, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm off for the night, but this should easily be doable tomorrow morning. Courcelles 21:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, the scopes and name sorting are in. Fill in the empty boxes for the "fate" column (the blanks should likely have "survived" in it or something), and figure out how the occupation field should sort, and I'll make those work, as well. (The fate column might work automatically, depends on what you put in the blank fields.) Courcelles 11:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
You've Got More Mail again!
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.
--5 albert square (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Joseph Urban: wrestler?
I see you've added a category to the article on Joseph Urban, the secessionist artist, that says he was an Olympic boxer. Are you sure about that? I've read 2 biographies of him and they don't mention anything about the Olympics. He was awfully busy working at art in his early years - I don't see how he could have trained to be a boxer. -- kosboot (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ugh, I see the problem. Josef Urban is the Olympic medalist, but instead of an article, we have an redirect. My bad... fixing: removed the category for the artists page, and repaired the link that was pointing there from List of Olympic medalists in Greco-Roman wrestling. Courcelles 10:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 July 2011
- From the editor: Stepping down
- Higher education summit: Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit recap
- In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting
- WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close
- Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems
ygm
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.
- 03:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
David r
Hi, with regard to this block, could you clarify on the block message the rationale? If there is evidence of sock puppeteering then this would be useful to add. My understanding of a preventative block is that it should be for current or imminent issues and I don't understand what the evidence for that is in this case. Thanks Fæ (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- The evidence is that this user has been violating BLP at every turn since at least 2008. The account's entire history is one BLP violation after another. Really, we should have indefed him many years ago. Courcelles 06:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying the block. Even with the long history (which I agree is a problem) I would have let it ride until there was a definitive SPI result or the account started contributing again rather than block a dormant account. The current interest in this account only exists due to off-wiki publicity, being seen to be reacting to that publicity seems a problematic precedent. This is a subtle point and I trust your experience in this area which is more extensive than mine. Cheers Fæ (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm as much against bowing to external pressure as anyone -- but anyone who flies under the radar like this fellow did, disrupting BLP's occasionally but persistently, needs to be shown the door. We actually have a problem with accounts that disrupt, but do it somewhat infrequently, and never get anyone to mash the button to remove their editing privileges, because they're never disruptive enough at any one time, never mind they never do anything useful. We have somewhat of a cultural mentality, that if an account goes away for a few days/weeks/months, and then returns, that the prior warnings about not disrupting the 'pedia are invalid. That's, quite frankly, wrong. Users that come around every couple months, make trouble, and then disappear, need to be blocked. When you have a multi-year pattern, a block isn't punitive, it's purely preventive, because their pattern is clearly that they will be back, and will be making trouble again. Courcelles 06:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying the block. Even with the long history (which I agree is a problem) I would have let it ride until there was a definitive SPI result or the account started contributing again rather than block a dormant account. The current interest in this account only exists due to off-wiki publicity, being seen to be reacting to that publicity seems a problematic precedent. This is a subtle point and I trust your experience in this area which is more extensive than mine. Cheers Fæ (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Wonder if you can help with...
Someone deleted ALL of the many references in the Bob Wills article. Can you, or someone you can point me to do a revert back to when all the refs were in there? Thanks Steve Pastor (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, wait, they just dropped in a huge bunch of unreferenced text. Sorry. No Prob. Steve Pastor (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused here, because the only edits this month, these, are fairly trivial grammar fixes. Can you point out the specific edits that are a problem? Thanks. Courcelles 04:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Notification
Hello... I've noticed that you semi-protected some of the favourite articles of the banned user Stubes99 (e.g. [1]), and as a consequence I thought you might be interested of this thread: [2] (Daccono (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC))
Re:Speedy Deletion Declined:TN SR 60
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Okay... where's the message? Your talk page is blank. Courcelles 21:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A favor?
Hi Courcelles, once you were kind enough to protect all my sub-pages. May I please ask you to indefinitely protect this new one too? User:Mbz1/Mbz1 gallery/Refraction in rain droplets. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Courcelles 21:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the revdel and the block on that account. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. Courcelles 20:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of 78.173.64.29 as well! W4chris (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 July 2011
- In the news: Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news
- WikiProject report: Earn $$$ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!
- Featured content: Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual
- Arbitration report: Motion passed to amend 2008 case: topic ban and reminder
- Technology report: Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news
Please undelete Randle McMurphy
The subject is an iconic character in both a highly notable novel and a highly notable film, as well as the related notable play, and is not only the subject of extensive critical commentary but has become a familiar metaphorical figure in social and political discussions. See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nurse Ratched for cites regarding a parallel figure in the underlying work, and the scores of Google Scholar hits [3] regarding this character. The AFD was clearly inadequate, and the outcome is quite clearly wrong. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea if you're right or not, but you'll have a week to convince the community that you are. Restored and relisted under today's log. Courcelles 20:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Could you please restore this file? I was waiting to see if anyone would address my concerns about the image being replaceable and since no one has I just added the image back and saw that you deleted it. I went to removed the orphaned file tag and found in between my hitting show preview and then hitting save page that you had deleted the file. Technically the file is only supposed to be deleted anytime after Tuesday, July 19, 2011 and that has not happened yet. Thank you in advance. Aspects (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Restored as used, however, on Wikipedia time, the 19th is over. Courcelles 00:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Please Undelete Michael Konopasek
Hi Courcelles, Micheal Konopasek was deleted, but I'm not sure why? There was plenty of notability. Plus, I added and edited the page, and I'm not Konopasek. I'm not sure why it was deleted. Thanks in advance for your help! Will you get this back up and running? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.126.79 (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thought I'd make a start by putting all the recipients into a table. Could you just check to make sure I've done it correctly. Scope col and row still confuse me. I also wasn't sure whether to let the recipients drift to the left of the column or make them align in the centre, what do you think? - JuneGloom Talk 23:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like a good start. I've made the table sortable, and fixed all the names so they will sort as well. Courcelles 01:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Could you help me with Paloma Faith? A discussion has been taking place for some time on the talk page about her year of birth. People have said and provided some not very great sources saying she was born in 1981 instead of 1985. I don't care when she was born, all I want is the birth date to be sourced in the article, which it isn't at the moment. Could you offer an opinion? - JuneGloom Talk 21:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, nevermind Off2riorob got there first. I've started adding references to the list, btw. - JuneGloom Talk 21:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- This has to be the smallest accolades list I've ever seen. I thought Gosford Park was pushing 3b with 61 noms. Anyway, I was thinking about the title for the Logie list. I had a look at similar lists and think it should be renamed either Logie Hall of Fame or Logie Award Hall of Fame. What do you think? - JuneGloom Talk 19:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, gosh. I'm may have to go oppose Victoria on 3b grounds. Yeah, it needs a rename, either one works for me, with a preference for the second one. Courcelles 19:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Harold Covington Dispute
I would like to inquire as to the status of the Harold Covington article and whether you will correct it to reflect the cited information regarding the subject's service or lack thereof in the Rhodesian military. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.11.81 (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Edit - Also, I believe the state of the article after the edits made by Your Buddy Fred Lewis and before the vandalism began reflected the most factual form that the article was in prior to the edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.11.81 (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I will not be editing the article, as that would constitute editorial involvement in the dispute. Courcelles 20:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
How will this be resolved then?
Can you please tell me how this will be resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.11.81 (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Either a registered user who knows the issues can make whatever corrections they see fit now, or you can do it in 3 days. Right now, it is probably on m:The Wrong Version, but I don't know what the right version IS. Courcelles 03:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Li Na
Why are you deleting the popular culture bit of this article? It refers to a recent much emailed chemistry joke in a way that does not vandalise or diminish from the main article. As such it expands the article and adds to the value of wikipedia.
Do you require the joke explaining to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.167.28 (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're inserting a silly joke into someone's biography. Really, come on, this is so blatantly inappropriate in a serious encyclopaedia that having it added three times really defies belief. Li Na (tennis) exists to document the woman's biography, not stupid internet jokes. Courcelles 02:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Please review this FLC. Pedro J. the rookie 04:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Paleoscience
Just my general comments: I think it is quite unethical to block someone and at the same time erase his page, effectively preventing him to react on the newest issues raised, although in essence I do not care whether the article is in wiki or dictionary. Also, I'd like to learn what was actually the main reason for deletion. I do not regard for very appropriate rule that people who initiate the edit wars on other topics and have all reasons for personal bias are taken into account. I think it is unlikely coinsidence that all pro-delete voices except one are coming from them. Personally, I would try to refrain from voting towards person I'd knew I had an edit war with, I'd feel that could bias my viewpoint, but of course everybody is diferrent and has differnet ethical standards. So, what was the ultimite reason for deletion? Thanx for explaining --Stephfo (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like you were blocked by another admin, for engaging in an edit war on another article, yesterday. Now, if you would like to make an argument here, and leave out the assumptions of bad faith and admin misconduct, I'll be happy to answer you. But, really, the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paleoscience for deletion are fairly clear. If you want to transwiki it to Wikitonary, I've no objections, but that version of the article was untenable. Courcelles 20:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I like your answer, at last some normal non-manipulative viewpoint in last days in here at WP. How can I transfer it onto Wikitonary?--Stephfo (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've moved the page to User:Stephfo/Paleoscience. I believe a Wikitionary sysop has to actually do the transwiking, so you'll have to seek one out on a page similar to this one. (Sorry, other than occasional chasing of vandals, I've never edited the Wikitionary.) Courcelles 21:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I like your answer, at last some normal non-manipulative viewpoint in last days in here at WP. How can I transfer it onto Wikitonary?--Stephfo (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)