Jump to content

User talk:Courcelles/Archive 97

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90←Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100

Zombie section

For this. Though I do hope the RFC is closed by then...discussion has been slow. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 21:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan

...asks to be unblocked. Since a lot of time has passed, would you agree to an unblock? Max Semenik (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. THe original week of the block was up, and he was well into the extra block time he asked for, so no real reason to force him to live with that for another 10 days. Courcelles 20:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul page

I'm concerned that the Ron Paul page is approaching edit-warring over the Gallup Poll issue. TwoNumbers is reverting deletions of it without Talk page discussion, calling removal with Talk discussion based on WP (SYNTH, OR) "vandalism" etc. Would you mind taking a look if you get a chance? I see that you're the admin who semi-protected it. thanks! Msalt (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestions, I learned something new (sincerely, I've never really grasped conflict protocol.) I also posted a note on his User Talk, so maybe that helped too. Or more likely, your stare alone calmed the room. ;-) Msalt (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Canberra Capitals

Hi. :D Hola! :D I'm working on some articles on my user space about members of the Canberra Capitals. When I get them copy edited a bit, I'd like to move them over to the main space and if you help copy edit them in prep for DYK nominating, that would be awesome. ;) Two articles exist already in the main space but I've put them in my project space as a draft just to make life simpler for DYKing. :D

--LauraHale (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Adolph Rupp Page

I wanted to alert you of an ongoing situation I am having with another user on the Adolph Rupp page. The situation has been ongoing for a few weeks now. A few weeks ago I went on the Adolph Rupp page to read the history of the coach. I was curious about his past and I did what I usually do to learn about something quickly, I checked his wikipedia page. When I read the page, I found it loaded with points that were not cited, extremely subjective, not in a neutral point of view and just generally slanted towards making the individual looks as good as possible. Many of the points that were cited were cited from a popular UK basketball blog.

I began to make some smaller edits and removing content that was not acceptable to an encyclopedia. Every edit that I made was reverted immediately by the same user. I also attempted to add in a section about some serious violations of NCAA rules that happened when Adolph Rupp was the coach at UK. Essentially, UK basketball was the first school to receive any penalty from the NCAA for rules violations. I added what I thought was a fair and objective section on the event that I cited to a few unbiased sources on the web. My edits were again reverted by the user. He claimed that my edits were not factual and completely inaccurate.

At this point I became frustrated and alerted another editor of this situation. This editor went through and made some changes to the page based on the same issues that I wrote about above, the article was not meeting academic standards at all. He was very helpful and neutral in his edits. However, the user who was reverting all these edits became angry and combative to the changes being made to the page. Eventually, we were able to reach consensus on a few points. However, this user kept changing the page even after we agreed on the edits to be made. He also added all the other sections back in that were not written in a neutral point of view. A few days ago, he made over 45 edits to the page.

This user has a long history of making biased edits to UK basketball pages. He also has a long history of reverting any other edits to the pages that he personally disagrees with. He literally owns the Adolph Rupp page. I have since given up on trying to make the page historically accurate or meet Wikipedia's standards for content. No matter what changes I make or anyone else makes, he will revert them or rewrite them later to suit his own point of view. Why is a user like this still able to make edits to pages on wikipedia? Why is a user who has a long history of making biased edits (and other violations that have brought him temporary bans) still able to freely edit wikipedia?

Leochews (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I see, I appreciate your help. Honestly, I didn't think I would get responses from most of the messages I sent out. I might go through the dispute process but I doubt it would do much. I would guess the user I'm speaking of would just rewrite the sections later like he has already done when the disputes were mediated with another administrator. I was just curious as to why someone like this could keep doing this activity, especially with so many violations for the same thing over and over. Thanks for a quick response though. Leochews (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this list know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on January 23, 2012. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/January 23, 2012. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sonja Henie, three-time Olympic figure skating champion, won her last Olympic medal in 1936

Ninety-five athletes won at least one medal at the 1936 Winter Olympics, held in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. The Games featured 17 events, including alpine skiing for the first time, which was the first women's event that was not part of the figure skating programme. Of the 28 participating National Olympic Committees, 11 had athletes represented on the medal winners' list. Medal winners included Sonja Henie (pictured), who won the last of her three gold medals in Olympic figure skating, and Ivar Ballangrud, whose four medals in speed skating took his career tally to seven. Just 9 of the 95 medal winners won more than one medal; 5 of the 9 won at least one gold medal in addition to their other medals. The British men's ice hockey team were also among the medallists; their gold medal remains to date the sole British Olympic title in ice hockey.

Page deletion

Hi,

Please could you reply to the below. We're still trying to understand your reasons for deletion as there are plenty of references to David online and we've provided links to some of them. Please could you check the links we've provided and let us know what you think?

Many thanks,

J

Hi. Someone created a page about my brother-in-law David Grant on Wikipedia but you have deleted it and I just wondered if you could tell me why as I'm not sure of your reasons. All the info that was on the page was correct and there are plenty of references to him online if you look on sites such as MediaUK (http://www.mediauk.com/radio/174/real-radio-xs) or the free library (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/INCREDIBLE+SAGA+OF+DJ+ANNIE%27S+CHANGING+AGE%3B+I%27m+45,+she+said+-+but...-a0121319020) or the Evening Time (http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/dj-bans-ac-dc-from-rock-radio-for-scots-tour-snub-1.963813) or Bebo (http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=10054391567) or Classic Rock Magazine (http://www.classicrockmagazine.com/news/the_dirt/bnbnbn1/) and there are even references to him on other pages on Wikipedia (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/96.3_Real_Radio_XS) so I really don't understand why you couldn't find any references to him online.

Unfortunately I didn't create the page so I don't have access to it to modify it so we're stuck. It's no big deal but it was quite nice seeing my brother-in-law on Wikipedia. If there are genuine reasons for you to delete it then fair enough but I really can't see any from the text you added

Many thanks,

Jono PS- Please could you put me in touch with whoever did create the original page? Thanks 

   The deletion log merely points to the discussion that decided to delete the discussion, click on that link ]]Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Grant (broadcaster)\\ to view the discussion and rationale for deletion. If you have any questions after that, feel free to ask me. Courcelles 00:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've looked at the discussion notes but they seem to say that you could not find any references to David on line. Please could you check the links I have copied across above as there are quite a few on line references to David. Please could you tell me how to get the page un-deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.90.201 (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.90.201 (talk)

  • What it comes down to is that you seem to be mistaking "references" as simply "mentions". At Wikipedia "references" has a specific meaning, see WP:RS. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, we cannot have a biography on anyone. Several of what you provide are just random website mentions, and not reliable, just like Wikipedia cannot be a reference for itself. If you can find some sources that meet that standard, feel free to proceed to WP:DRV. Courcelles 18:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently the are 1141 submissions waiting to be reviewed.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. Are you autoconfirmed?
  5. Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

20:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi Courcelles, a quick heads-up: I've just restored Messianic Israel Alliance – an article you deleted – per a request at WP:REFUND. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

RevDelete request

[1] —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 04:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Just a comment

Personally, I would have blocked both Icairns and Intoronto, since stopping exactly at 3RR to let the other guy break it so he can get blocked violates the spirit of 3RR. I consider Intoronto to be edit warring too. Just my thoughts, and cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you did block them both now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

RE: ANEW

I noticed that in your resolution of this you forgot to put the result in the title. I can't edit noticeboards so all I can do is make you aware. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 00:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, though it really isn't that big a deal or important; it doesn't effect the archiving, and (like me) some admins always seem to forget it. Courcelles 03:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Email

Hello, I have been asked by User:Intoronto1125 to let you know that he has emailed you to discuss his block. Regards, Snowolf How can I help? 01:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sock back?

See User talk:Bornder. Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Hmm... yeah... strikes me as it could be, but I can't find any of those socks that aren't stale to check... I wonder if the last CU to run him might remember something to look for, though. Courcelles 03:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Found this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99/Archive so probably not worth bothering with unless something new turns up. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that (and sort of assumed you had already, sorry about that). I can't find anything that makes me any more confident than Tiptoety was last month. Courcelles 17:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

stopping the trolling

I just wrote a suggestion here. Do you think it would work?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

NawlinWiki added it. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

21:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!

Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! LauraHale (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

Cathy Olesen

Hello. Over a year ago I PRODed Cathy Olesen, because I thought a municipal mayor wasn't notable enough for an article. Although she lost the municipal election in 2010, it seems she has not quit politics, and will be running in the upcoming provincial election. If she wins, she will be getting an article. I would like to ready the articles for some of the election nominees, and if you could send me a copy of the deleted article it would be much appreciated. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Totally unreferenced, you're right not much help. Thanks anyways. 117Avenue (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Anytime. Courcelles 21:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Who got added?

The ∆ edit, here shows the 11 in green. Greg L (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Answer your e-mail

Discussion closed. Courcelles 16:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please answer your e-mails. Your lack of attention to them indicates to me you don't care and shouldn't be blocking people if you can't respond to their e-mails. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I respond to almost all civil e-mails that merit one. Your unblock request was declined on-wiki, you know why you were blocked, and you were acting rather aggressively on your talk page. Engaging you off-wiki was a zero-sum game, as I had absolutely no intention of reducing your block. Further, e-mail is there only for conversations that should not be held on-wiki, and discussing a simple edit warring block is not one of those. Courcelles 21:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
So you could have at least taken the courtesy to write back saying that instead of ignoring it. It is administrators like you that cause editors to leave. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 22:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Intoronto1125: Not everyone has huge amounts of free time with which to respond to emails and edit Wikipedia. Courcelles is right to not respond to emails they feel are not worth responding to. Also: Have ANY editors ever been driven away due to lack of response to emails? Maybe you should consider taking a week-long wikibreak and get the stress out of your system. Hmm? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The point is they saw the e-mail and did not respond to it. Come on it takes a couple of minutes to respond. I don't think I will be editing here for a while and might be done. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 23:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Look; even if they DID respond to the email they would probably just be saying something off-wiki that was already said on-wiki. If you want to take a wikibreak for a while then by all means go ahead, you probably could use one anyway! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
A non response came off as arrogant and a "I don't care" type of person. Another thing why was I blocked for a week when the editor breaking the 3rr rule was blocked for 24 hours. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
You cannot determine anything from a non-response. A non-response could mean he has other things offline to deal with. (Personal health problems, family problems, internet connection problems.) It could mean online issues. (Desire to take a break. Notifications not working. E-mail not working. Taking a mini break. Dealing with some other problem. Having 500 other people e-mailing him asking for a response.) A non-response is just that: A non-response. If you read any more into a non-response, the problem is yours. We're volunteers here and we all have different schedules.--LauraHale (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Also Intoronto1125: The incident was the first such violation for that user and we usually let people off easy for first-time offences. You on the other have an extensive history of edit warring and you were blocked accordingly. Just let it go. Holding grudges gets you nowhere on here (Another thing I have learned from experience). Why do you think WP:STICK exists? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 04:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Typical response to my above question (a no response). Honestly the worst administrator I have come across here at Wikipedia. Thankfully there are much better ones. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 16:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You edit-warred for the third time, and this after an incident of highly abusive socking. There is nothing else to say to that, if you don't change your behaviour, you will soon be indeffed. Courcelles 16:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence of socking at all accusing me of socking is wrong. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Your block log begs to disagree. Courcelles 17:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Sorry for the revert. Entirely accidental, and my apologies. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 17:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

José Eduardo dos Santos

Hello Courcelles: as foreseeable, Gabirro the sniper has again appeared on the talk page of the JES article, trying once more to sell his spam stuff about the man not being Angolan. What is the action you would recommend? Aflis (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation

Hello! You noted that the "party list was likely made too long by Noetica's additions", but a clerk just opened the case with everyone's name intact.
Please see my statement for an explanation of why I regard my inclusion as inappropriate. (I suspect that this applies to others' inclusion as well.)
If I'm to remain listed as an "involved party", I would sincerely appreciate a clarification of my role in the case and what participation is expected of me. Thank you! —David Levy 15:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tora Dojo

Hi Courcelles, I see that you closed the AfD on Tora Dojo as per nom "non notable martial art without any third person sources to support". A quick search found the following RS. I'd like to hear your thoughts regarding undeleting and fixing up the article.

Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A question...

Hi Courcelles. I was wondering whether it would be the right time to engage you into considering standing for the bureaucrat position. I personally believe that you have all the experience — considerable, I should add — that I should expect from a bureaucrat. Is there a requirement for more bureaucrats on the English Wikipedia? That's a question that is debatable both ways; but personally, I feel that it is quite important for the number of active bureaucrats to be much more than it is currently - and I also personally feel that bureaucrats should be leading by example in motivating editors across our project to also additionally contribute to Wikipedia's administration; an area where you might excel. Your contributions to this project have been nothing short of exemplary, still there is but one step missing in this whole sequence that I'm attempting to build - and that is, your acceptance. I realize this is quite an elongated request to you, but I sincerely hope that it finds its mark; and if it does, it would be personal privilege to nominate you. Kind regards. Wifione Message 13:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, as I've been thinking about this all day, but on balance, I'm not of the mind that sitting arbitrators should be running for 'crat. Although I'm honoured (And wouldn't mind at all being able to help with renames and such), I think I should decline. Courcelles 00:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision

Cross posting to all five of the names at the top of the page (except Risker, who's talk page is locked)

Sorry to bother you, but in case you haven't seen it there's a lot of complaints here that it's now well past the Proposed Decision date and nobody has made any kind of announcement, even to say "there will be a delay, the new expected date is...". This isn't fair on anyone involved, as nobody can start work on anything until they know what the likely decision will be since nobody knows who's likely to end up blocked or under some kind of sanction. I appreciate that you don't want to rush the decision, but is there any chance someone involved in the case can post an update as to when a decision is likely to be made? At the moment, the closest thing there is to any kind of response from the Arbitration Committee is a sarcastic comment ("since when is a target a promise?").78.146.193.88 (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thnaks for drawing my attention to that. I've made a comment there. Courcelles 21:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User Rights

My user rights were changed twice. I'm new and don't understand what this means. Can you explain? Thanks. --AVR2012 (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In this particular case, it means that you were granted the "confirmed" right, which gave you the same privileges most accounts have after ten edits and four days of editing. After you crossed that threshold (ten edits, four days), you became "autoconfirmed", which meant you no longer needed the "confirmed" permission, so it was removed as a matter of housekeeping. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. There is a database report that reports if anyone holding the "confirmed" flag no longer needs it because their account has naturally become autoconfirmed. When this happens, the flag is removed in pure housekeeping. Courcelles 16:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

For your attention

My RFAR has nothing to do with an appeal.
Please read what I have written and review the closure of an discussion. Granateple (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I did read it, and focused on the matters as concerning AE, because that was really the only part of your filing that could be within ArbCom's jurisdiction, as we are a designated appeal body for sanctions imposed at AE. Reviewing a close on RSN or ANI isn't part of our jurisdiction in the vast, vast majority of the time. (For the record, I'm using the word "jurisdiction" in a very, very loose sense here.) Courcelles 05:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your swift reply. I am surprised that ArbCom has been given so little power. I think I will travel to Denmark this weekend and read Shakespeare. Granateple (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom has a good deal of "power", but what we don't do is act as the first step of dispute res, toolution. As the top of WP:ANI says, that venue is not part of the dispute resolution process. ArbCom is designed to, as one of my colleagues once put it "break the back of a dispute". What you're looking for is an uninvolved view of the closes made, there are other, much better, places for that. (You're asking for an ArbCom case, a process that has been known to take months.) Courcelles 06:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Chris Foss Pyramid Book of Alien.JPG

Yes you deleted my file. The file, File:Chris Foss Pyramid Book of Alien.JPG, was associated with the articles Alien (film) and Chris Foss. Why was the image removed from the articles? It's removal from them was the justification for the deletion. I want to know WHY. -- Jason Palpatine (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC) This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

  • I did not remove the image from the articles. You'd have to check the history to figure out who did that. If you have consensus to restore the image, please go to WP:REFUND and it will be promptly restored. Courcelles 17:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_97&oldid=1171650497"