User talk:Courcelles/Archive 107

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100 Archive 105 Archive 106 Archive 107 Archive 108 Archive 109 Archive 110

06:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sleeper?

It looks possible to me that "Boone jenner" is a just-awakened sleeper sock of the indef blocked "Johnny Squeaky", whose sock "Taco Viva" was blocked not too long ago. They have the same pattern of behavior, tagging popular culture sections as "trivia" (which is what JS was blocked for), or removing "trIvia" from articles. BMK (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Doesn't look like it. Similar behaviour, but technically completely unrelated (different country, several thousand miles apart, etc.) Courcelles 05:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for checking. BMK (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Gary Barlow

Hi Courcelles!

Looking for some help please. Could you please look at this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Barlow&diff=prev&oldid=608750064

Is that picture allowed?

To me on my mobile it looks photoshopped plus I think it may have been uploaded to disrupt Wikipedia. I did look on Commons but I can't seem to do anything on my phone on there.

Could you please take a look?

Hope you're well.

5 albert square (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Courcelles I couldn't see that on mobile for some reason 5 albert square (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #110

07:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive

Hello Courcelles:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2700 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (tJosve05a (c) by {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Cymatic therapy

Hi,

Can you userfy both the article and the talk page to my space? Valoem talk contrib 20:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #110

08:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Gday Courcelles. I have just stated to Jim Cartar that I did not believe it appropriate to utilise massmessage for a trawling post, rather than opt-in. I would hope that we can look to our guidelines for massmessage, and the assignation of that right, that would indicate that generally the right to use that facility is opt-in. That any alert messages where the person is not opt-in, should be limited and would generally have an approval process, usually through a discussion achieving consensus. While it is not a huge issue, setting the practices and expectations for the use of the tool is one that needs to telegraphed. [Reason that I am here is that you gave him the right, so more aware than I of why the right was granted.] Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the trouble, trust me I used it assuming good faith. But from now I will only use it for our project purpose only. I'm sorry again. Jim Carter (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, Jim, this wasn't the world's greatest idea, but no real harm done; it wouldn't be bad to have some guidelines set up for when it is appropriate to do such a large non-opted-in messaging, so something good might come out of it all. Courcelles 01:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #111

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

08:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #112

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

07:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Potential BLP issues at Talk:Marion Zimmer Bradley

Hi! There's some potentially problematic stuff over on Talk:Marion Zimmer Bradley, mostly related to her daughter Moira Greyland (aka Moira Breen and Moira Stern). Moira responded to some old talk threads about a month ago and was immediately reverted for not being knowledgeable in the ways of our tribe (poor formatting). I restored those comments with formatting today. Some of what she responded to was about MZB (her mother), but some of it was responding to claims about her which appear potentially libelous, or at least, rather derogatory.

So, as an uninvolved party, could you look over the talk page, particularly the "litigation/settlement" section, and see if any of it needs cleaning up? Argyriou (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #113

07:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #114

07:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Central Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.

1pm–8pm at southwest section of the Great Lawn, north of the Delacorte Theater.

Also, before the picnic, you can join in the Wikimedia NYC chapter's annual meeting.

11:30am-12:30pm at Yeoryia Studios, 2067 Broadway.

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #115

06:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to Florida 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for taking care of the BeyondMyKenDoll/Ksoileau situation. BMK (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Re your tag revert - I see your point. I wasn't trying to inflame the situation, but just trying to "do [what I thought was] the right thing". Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

In case you felt like reading any more constellations.....

We've now got Pictor and Serpens at GAN...and Telescopium will be there soon......cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #116

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

07:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think 2Tm2,3 is non-notable?

They seem notable to me because of their status as a supergroupRobert Friedrich played in Acid Drinkers, Kazik na Żywo and Luxtorpeda, all notable; Dariusz Malejonek played in Izrael, Armia, Moskwa, again all notable, and for Tomasz Budzyński we even have an own article… Did not deserve deletion in my opinion, at least under this rationale. � (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Ashk Dahlén

I have written a new page on Ashk Dahlén. Could you please check if I have submitted it correctly? Many thanks. / James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameshagelin (talkcontribs) 18:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #117

07:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Re draft articles

Can you please check the headers on these draft articles to make sure everything is Wiki-compliant? There is a history of involvement between the contributing editor and the intervening admin which is a concern, and leads me to conclude this intervention needs independent oversight. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #118

Saturday: NYC Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon

Jefferson Market Public Library
Please join Wikipedia "Art and Feminism Editathon" @ Eyebeam on Saturday February 1, 2014,
an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists!

There are also regional events that day in Brooklyn, Westchester County, and the Hudson Valley.
--Pharos (talk)

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March:

I hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride

Upcoming Saturday event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC

You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:

11am–4pm at Jefferson Market Library.

We hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Deletion review for 2Tm2,3

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2Tm2,3. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. � (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

07:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

Pliant page deleted a few years ago

I found a copy of this page on a Princeton site (the page is https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Pliant.html), and it's a useful article.

The page looks pretty accurate, and is cited. Since the language is part of computing history and didn't become mainstream, it won't have a lot of sources. But the sources there seem fine. (One of the links isn't working at the moment -- http://fullpliant.org/ -- but http://hc.fullpliant.org and http://hc.fullpliant.org/doc/language/overview do work.) The other source has a heading called "meta programming," which is a focus of the Wikipedia article.

It's not the best-written article, but better to have some reference to the language than none.

There are some other sources that seem to confirm the content. http://zhar.net/projects/pliant/whatispliant/ http://www.academia.edu/2834647/Pliant_more_than_a_programming_language_a_flexible_e-learning_tool http://computers.interactiva.org/Programming/Languages/Pliant/

I would have left this in the Talk section for Pliant, but the page has been deleted. It says that if you have comments about the original page to contact the user who deleted the page. I'm not a Pliant programmer so I don't feel qualified to edit the page myself, but would leave comments in the Talk section for others.

It just seems odd to me that references to Pliant have been deleted. There is a Simple DirectMedia Layer binding for Pliant ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/pligame/ ), but a reference to this in the Simple DirectMedia Layer wikipedia article was deleted. (It's still on the Princeton page -- https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Simple_DirectMedia_Layer.html .)

Unless the language was a hoax, I don't get why it was removed from Wikipedia. The articles on Wikipedia are of mixed quality, but that's the nature of the site. I didn't see a clear reason for removing this one. As a stub, at least, it encourages others to add to it. It's intimidating to create a page from scratch, and I'm not qualified to create this one (but can verify the gist).

That's my take, anyway. I note the health issue, so I hope you are feeling better. I have dealt with some health issues myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.99.218 (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #119

08:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #120

07:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

2pm–5pm at Yeoryia Studios at Epic Security Building, 2067 Broadway (5th floor).

Afterwards at 5pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided).

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

WP:JSTOR access

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

07:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Those newsletters...

Hey Courcelles, was passing through and saw your edit summary here. The newsletters get posted to users' talk without a UTC timestamp - that's the easy answer. Now the Why of them arriving without that timestamp is another matter... Shearonink (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Heh, you're absolutely right, one would have thought that unarchiving clutter would have gotten fixed (by the bots and people leaving it) by now! Courcelles 14:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Your CU of "William AAAAA‎"

Did this Mazzso (talk · contribs) user really not show up in the CU? The articles, edit summary and type of edits (even restoring edits by the previous socks) is a 100% duck. Nymf (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Nope, I just checked them though; their IP's are not in the same range, though they do share an ISP. Technically it would be  Possible at best. Courcelles 18:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #121

Need your help

Hey Courcelles, I could really do with your help - I was creating an official Wikipedia page for Kezia Noble when I came across this message "This page is currently protected and can be edited only by administrators." So I realized that the page had been previously deleted by yourself, I did see the reasons for deletion and I am fully aware of them now. However, I'd like to very kindly ask you for guidance on what to do next? I'd like to compose a new page for Kezia and this time it will strictly follow the guidelines and rules and it will in no way be promotional material - as well as be backed up by fully reliant well known sources. Here's the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Kezia+Noble&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=

Appreciate your help!!! Wiki.017 (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  • The first step would be to go to a sandbox like User:Wiki.017/Kezia and write the article there, it is going to be hard to figure out if the sources exist without seeing them. Once you've made a credible draft article, then come back here. Courcelles 21:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Marathon at the Olympics

Category:Marathon at the Olympics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Requesting page protection

Hi Courcelles. Requesting page protection for Neymar. Very busy traffic on this article (which will only increase with the league season about to start). and since page protection ended yesterday there has already been ip vandalism on the page. Requesting a more long term protection. Cheers.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #122

Wikidata weekly summary #114

Kezia Noble

Hi Courcelles, I appreciate your message, I have gone ahead and created a draft as you have said, feel free to check it over and let me know your thoughts! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wiki.017/sandbox#Kezia_Noble All the best. Wiki.017 (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

07:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am considering accepting the draft, but need advice on whether it is too similar to the version you deleted. Please Ping me when you reply. Fiddle Faddle 11:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Looks different, yet somehow worse than the one User:Ged UK deleted and salted. User:Joe Decker shuld also be asked about his opinion on the draft. Courcelles 16:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Fields Medal page

Hello there,I'm that user who's been the victim of editing the Fields Medal page(i.e.I got blocked with charge of Vandalism.).I've got three question:1)When the current protected status of that page ends,Does the page current contents remain in place or they are replaced with the old version? 2)I've prepared a new and somehow comprehensive table about Fields medalists.I posted this table on the discussion section of the Fields Medal page,and I request for comments about this(If You come there and see my that table I will be really glad,and don't forget to put your comment about it down there!;-)),but so far,just one person did so.Is it normal? 3)Should I submit a request for edit to replace the new table with current one?Or should I wait for reaching a consensus?Thank You. Rezameyqani (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezameyqani (talkcontribs)

  • Sorry, I was out of town and offline for a few days. Are there any ongoing issues, or has time resolved everything? Courcelles 17:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Kayvon Zand

I notice you closed an AfD for Kayvon Zand back in 2011 and think the title may have been SALT'd (I'm unable to move a draft article from AfC to mainspace). Could you check Kayvon Zand and de-SALT if needed. Thanks. Sionk (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Desalted. Anyone should be welcome to start a new AFD if they so desire on the AFC article, though. Courcelles 17:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure whether that is a helpful suggestion or a threat, haha. Sionk (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Neither, more like 'I only made sure it gets around G4, any more than that is the domain of usual processes after this long.' Courcelles 17:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #123

09:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

In early 2011 you deleted a prod Mike Vaughan

Would you mind userfying that link so I can take a look at what was there? As a consensus All-America, he may not meet WP:NSPORTS as a professional, but he likely meets that criteria as a college student athlete. I see several journal articles and a couple of books which more than mention the subject. FYI, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football has been trying to fill in all redlinks for consensus All-America, and my query is part of that effort. Not all college athletes are notable, but members of the the project believe that sources sufficient to warrant inclusion could be found about all consensus All-America football players. I personally believe a presumption of coverage of any consensus All-American, since that would imply national and direct coverage of first team members, though perhaps in offline sources. BusterD (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done. Coincidentally I was the one who PRODed it. Jenks24 (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

WikiCup 2014 August newsletter

The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:

  1. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
  2. Scotland Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
  3. Nepal Czar (submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
  4. Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
  5. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
  6. Florida 12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
  7. Colorado Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
  8. Canada Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. Herm Matty.007 (submissions), Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions), United States WikiRedactor (submissions), Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), Portugal Prism (submissions) and Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #124

07:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Category question

Courcelles, I need a second opinion: do you think this category is appropriate: Category:Gator Football Ring of Honor? There are only five recipients of the honor to date, the award is mentioned in all five bio articles, and it is described at length in the Florida Gators football article -- which includes a list of the recipients. There are no similar categories for team-level (e.g., University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame) or conference-level (e.g., All-Southeastern Conference) honors or awards. Without being able to put my finger on a specific category guideline, this category strikes me as the odd man out. Thoughts? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Heavens, no, Courcelles -- the last thing I want is to start another round of navbox and category cruft creation for more relatively insignificant team-level sports awards. Several of the sports projects have been trying to curtail the proliferation of navboxes, etc., for "Most Valuable Rookie" and similar honors, but some editors specialize in the creation of this cruft. We should not encourage them to morph their energies into categories. I'm always amused by editors who can't be bothered to write a sentence of sourced text for such minor awards and honors, but will fight to the death to save a navbox or category on the same subject. I think OCAWARD is all the justification/rationale I need to nominate this category at CfD. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Just for the avoidance of doubt, I was never suggesting creating more of these, my "needs a lot more subcats" was merely a rhetorical statement! I agree this one needs a trip through CFD's spin cycle. Courcelles 02:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #125

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

08:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

I noticed that you fully protected the redirect page Ultra High Definition Television two years ago. I'd like to ask you to reduce the level of protection from full protection to semi-protection. Semi-protection should be enough to prevent vandalism and other troublemaking while still allowing editors like me to perform maintenance on the page.

Thanks for your consideration. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Better just to unprotect it all the way; if someone makes trouble, easy enough to reprotect; though I have no idea off he top of my head why I full protected it back then! Courcelles 03:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

Undeletion request

Hello, Courcelles. Think another article may need saving right now.

Went to Waterbury's Bronson on Monday afternoon, and serendipity struck with something that we might use in resurrecting 20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection (see December 2010 AFD). Several dozen individual volumes already have their own pages, but not the series itself (for quite a long while).

  • "Billboard 200 – Entry #134: The Best of Aerosmith: 20th Century Masters". Billboard. Prometheus Global Media. September 13, 2014. p. 74. {{cite magazine}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
The series has sold 62 million units, 97% in the CD format.

Notable enough for you? (I was about to take it to deletion review, but followed the instructions there first.) With that in mind, please undelete the contents, and then add the ref to the existing material. Let me know how well it goes as soon as you have time. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No, not really notable enough for me. One line of sales figures over hundreds of releases doesn't seem to mean much by itself, really, even though the number is high taken in a vacuum. Courcelles 04:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Matt Cooke

please recreate him with the content that was there. He won the sprint jersey of a mahor race, so he is notable enough. no-one even put their opinion on it.Bold text

  • Matt Cooke exists (and is pretty obviously notable). What article are we discussing? Courcelles 04:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
the cyclist --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
What was he title? Courcelles 18:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
i got confused with someone else. i never created him. i wasn't on wikipedia in 2010. wrong person.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #126

Kezia Noble

Not sure if you got a chance to look at the new Kezia Noble article I have composed but will be very thankful if you could let me know your feedback and potentially approve of it. I'm positive it will meet your expectations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kezia_Noble Wiki.017 (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Scotland Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

On the Crimea Crisis article

Hi,

I noticed you disabled editing by IP's tho I didin't catch why? There are a couple russian editors in that and related articles who are abusing the system to implement pro russian bias. Also, the russian mod Ymblanter is very abusive in this respect, as he blocks anyone who doesnt adhere to HIS specific understanding of the rules ( that includes posting information about Russian involvement), but at the same time he permits all pro-russian propoganda, like unofficial "Crimea Council", "pro-russian rebels". It's bleeping disgusting to look at the article now thanks to the abuse of wikipedias editing rules.

If you take a look in the history of that article, you'll see that pro-russian editors have a monopoly and easy time spreading lies. Also, It's pointless to edit it reliably if Ymblanter removes everything and blocks me. And now if you disable editing by IP more so — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fueg (talkcontribs) 12:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • The problem I found was just simple evasion of blocks. If any of what you can say can actually be substantiated, it should be brought to the attention of one of the noticeboards, but you would need hard evidence, not just accusations. Courcelles 16:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Mentoring

Courcelles, are there any examples you can recall where ArbCom mandated an involuntary mentorship that resulted in a successful outcome? I'm asking because I'm filing a case soon. There's no point in asking for a remedy that doesn't work. Btw, please run again if you are willing and able. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I can think of at least one instance where this worked very well, the motion regarding Cirt and a particular list he wanted to edit, where an FLC director was the mentor. (motion). There have been a couple more of those limited mentorship type things that worked, but I don't know of any off the top of my head that were direct remedies, as opposed to amendments after tensions had died down, that ended up being really successful. A site-wide involuntary mentorship is a pretty large commitment from whoever would accept the job of mentor, as well as something that won't work unless the person who is placed under mentorship is welcoming to it (which, reduces the 'involuntary' sense quite a bit.) Courcelles 20:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, this helps a lot. I would like to implement as targeted a remedy as possible, but one that gets the job done so we don't need to keep coming back for amendments. Ignocrates (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning my case, Courcelles. I'm quite grateful to The Rambling Man for the mentorship and we successfully took Dan Savage bibliography all the way to Featured List status. Hopefully at some point in the future it may be possible for me to repeat a similar sort of quality improvement project. — Cirt (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, it was a pleasure to work with Cirt in this situation. It would be impossible to suggest that the same experience could be guaranteed from other mentoring exercises, but I would advocate it (if you can find a "suitable" (and obviously, amenable mentor) as a first step to restore any perceived lack of community faith. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, The Rambling Man, it was most fun working with you as well, and it had a successful outcome of a WP:FL page added to Wikipedia. I'd appreciate advice from Courcelles on how it may be possible in the future for me to be permitted to attempt such a Quality improvement project again in the future and hopefully further restore perceived lack of community faith, as The Rambling Man put it, above. — Cirt (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
While I can't say for sure, I'd imagine if you have any specific article you'd like to improve that are under your topic ban, just ask for an amendment to the case, mention the last one, and how seamlessly it worked. (NB: I wrote the motion that granted the exemption, so grain of salt.) The beauty of the formula was that there was literally no risk of disruption to the project. Either things went well (and they did) or if things had gotten too far off track TRM had the power to shut it down without getting 15 arbitrators to re-review things, which is somewhat difficult (and the committee of the day would have, I think, had close to zero interest in meddling in any of TRM's decisions regarding that mentorship.) That's a point I forgot to mention, @Ignocrates:, the selection of mentor is very important. It needs to be someone that all three of the individual under mentorship, the community, and the Committee trust to handle things, to guide, to sift through actual issues that might arise, to be neither too lenient or too intolerant of small mistakes.
@Cirt:, your topic ban is, I think, fairly ancient at this point (I know it was in place when I was elected, so it was enacted in 2011 at the latest.) Further exemptions really should be no brainers if you decided to ask for them. Courcelles 04:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Courcelles, please see a different amendment request at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466#Request_for_amendment_.28March_2014.29. It wasn't quite like you said, I didn't start off asking to edit one (1) article, but rather a bunch that I'd previously brought to WP:GA and WP:FA. Unfortunately, it didn't go so well. I suppose I could try, again, but just ask to edit one (1) article. What do you think after reading that at that link? — Cirt (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Courcelles, let me know what you think if you have a chance, I'd value your advice. — Cirt (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at that (I had never seen it before, I was out when it went down), I wouldn't try anything related to Scientology for a while. I think that request had no chance, though, when you asked for a user-space list of articles, rather than a fixed, small list, and without a "safety-valve" like the initial exception had. If you were to try again, I'd consider both of those being included, and it being far away from anything that even smells of Scientology. Courcelles 01:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, perhaps you could give a suggestion of something that is both not within that topic you mentioned, but within the scope of my current restrictions, perhaps from User:Cirt/Contributions or something else? Not necessarily gonna try again right now, but just so I could get an idea by an example of what sort of article you mean? — Cirt (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking at that list from the bottom, I found one on that list that could use pretty substantial work, that you are banned from, and that goes nowhere near the NRM stuff -- Theodore Hoskins. Whatever he is doing now, he isn't in the MO legislature anymore... Courcelles 02:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
A most interesting suggestion, thank you, I shall take it under advisement. — Cirt (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #127

File renamings

Hi Courcelles. I noticed you do a fair amount of file renamings. Do you always check whether more edits than just a file renaming are needed? I'm asking because I just made this edit where I noticed that the image used in the Édouard Dujardin-Beaumetz article was showing his father Georges, not him. I was puzzled how this could have happened, and I noticed that the file was uploaded with the wrong name and you fulfilled a request on Commons to rename the file (I think the Commons page over there needs some corrections made to it as well). Do you then run some script that helps you fix the filenames here, resulting in edits like this? If you look at that edit, it makes no sense. You are renaming the file to a new name, but failing to see that what really needs doing is removing the image completely. Which I've now done.

The edit history of that article shows that the article was created by Riffle in February 2012, and then Magnus Manske added a free image (in April 2012) (but fails to see that the birth and death years in the filename don't match the birth and death years in the article - another automation error?). You (Courcelles) then change the filename used here from Édouard to Georges in July 2013‎. I then turn up in September 2014 and remove the image. So for 2.5 years we had this article with an image of his father and us saying it was an image of him? At least it's been fixed now, but it's at times like this that I dread to think how many other errors like this are out there that haven't been spotted yet. Are there ways to avoid errors like this in future, or even find the ones that are still out there? Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Yeah, there is a script Commonside that replaces all the usage when an admin/filemover there processes a move request, that goes through all the usage and makes those edits. (Because file redirects really don't work that reliably, a redirect on Commons can show as a red-link on the other projects quite often). CommonsDelinker used to do this work, but it was added to the move button during a long Toolserver downtime some years ago. Ironically, I made the same edit on fr.wp where the image was being used correctly.
  • It likely isn't that big of an issue, as most renames are so very pedestrian (typos, unused files, meaningless names, etc.) That said, I think we do try and look over the usage, given how many different languages there are, sometimes mistakes will be made, and this was one of them. Courcelles 18:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, hopefully not a big issue. I'm hoping Magnus (when he sees the ping) will have an idea of how many files like that he might have added in error. One of the issues is that I think the user who asked for the file to be renamed on Commons (I think this is the same user who created fr:Georges Dujardin-Beaumetz) might have assumed that those fixing the filename would also fix everything else. It might be worth pointing out so that he or she realises that in fact it is always worth fixing as much as you can yourself and not assuming others will do it (I've not checked to see if the Commons image page has been fixed yet, for example). The ideal outcome to all this would be that someone translates the article on Edouard into French (or better still, create a better article based on the best available French sources) and that the article on Georges gets translated from French into English and the image used here in that article. Oh, and that someone finds a free image somewhere of Edouard. Maybe that will all happen eventually. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


El Clásico article

Hi Courcelles. There's an issue on the El Clásico article. I first noticed it on 1 October when I came across the edit history of the article and the two opposing sides concerning the historic divisions section (I have no affiliation to either of the two teams and my knowledge was/is very limited on the subject). I'm requesting that the page be locked as its highly contentious. Also a possible topic ban for those making the counter edits back and forth (they seem to have a vested interest either way)...if not a topic ban then ensure they take any issue to talk and gain consensus before renewing the constant back and forth edit warring. Cheers. Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue continues Courcelles, just reverted another different ip edit (making the same edit). The article needs a permanent lock. Any assistance?Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
This will likely be the last time I touch Wikipedia until Monday, but I've locked the page for a few days to stop the immediate problem, which to my rather quick eye appears to be entirely too much edit warring by both sides, but given I can't quite decide exactly what the point of contention is this early in the morning... Courcelles 13:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Courcelles. I don't grasp the issue myself (I haven't touched the historic divisions section) and have called on various parties to go to talk and gain any consensus. What little I thought I knew about the historical ties of the two clubs (Madrid linked to the Franco dictatorship, FC Barcelona being somewhat oppressed) I've since discovered was a rather simple way of looking at it after reading an article on the subject from Spanish based journalist Sid Lowe. I'm not informed enough to get involved. The issue I have is references from other parts of the article are being deleted (most likely accidentally) as the various editors restore their previous edit and in doing so change the entire article. New ip editors seem to be cropping up and looking at page history this has been going on for some time. This is why I have requested page protection as it prevents that from continuing. Plus the subject matter of the historical divisions section being so contentious it is constantly changed by new editors who edit without discussing. A lock would solve this issue. Cheers. Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You were mentioned

Just as a courtesy, on this post in ANI you were mentioned, not by name, but, post you made during an Arbitration case, when you were an Arbitrator, was referenced (see Callanec's post near the bottom). It doesn't look bad, or pulled out of context, but since it's your post, I thought you might want to make sure you're not being quoted out of context. Thanks KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #128

08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Stalker account back from a couple years off

Mind taking down Ywreuv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Thanks in advance –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nothing conclusive. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand. They stalked me back in 2012 and avoided a block simply by going dormant (for a couple of months, before making a handful of edits unrelated to me and then going dormant again for 2+ years). Now they're back and have made literally no edits unrelated to harassing me. What about this is inconclusive? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, I think I miss read your request last night as "Mind taking a look at" vs taking down. I looked through the contribs and found enough to run a checkuser to see if there were more than one account operating (as what you explain is common to what we see in sockpuppetry), and nothing conclusive is just the result of that check. Sorry for the misunderstanding. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, DQ. (I've not been online since the 7th due to unforseen circumstances.) Courcelles 03:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks both. Dougweller has blocked (after an EW block by Dianaa). –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

13:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #129

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

Wikidata weekly summary #114