Jump to content

User talk:Courcelles/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41→Archive 45

Chelsae Tavares

why have you deleted chelsae tavares she just started here succes and she's young — Preceding unsigned comment added by Questchest (talk • contribs) 15:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Chelsae Tavares has never existed. Can you check the spelling, please? Courcelles 20:56, 12 December 2010 (

ok it's chelsea tavares why have you deleted that page are you player hater (Questchest (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC))

I deleted it per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Tavares where the concerns were notability and sourcing. Do you have any sources to help with those concerns? As to the second half of that sentence, I have absolutely no idea what it means. Courcelles 22:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

it doesn't matter anyhow cause she's still young here career she should make it a succes (Questchest (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC))

Edit summary

Hello. Someone left me a message in an edit summary yesterday, does this qualify for a RevDel? January (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

RD3 done and level 4im warning left. Anything else I can do for you today? ;) Courcelles 23:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Been meaning to drop you a note to let you know I haven't forgotten about the skating articles we discussed a few weeks ago, I've got hold of a book which I'm reading through and have another one on order. I keep meaning to plunge in and start editing but I get sidetracked too easily. January (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Same here. I'm hoping this will be the week of making progress of some mainspace projects. Must forget to check CAT:AB when I come online, because that seems to lead me to doing that kind of work instead of writing anything. Must get over the flu, too. And get downtown to the library. Maybe not all in that order. Courcelles 00:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Inadvertent deletion of a userpage — probably a fraudulent U1 request

Hi, since you’re available, please check this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User:Schweiwikist/subpage/test3

The admin who performed the delete (User:HJ Mitchell) responded to a U1. Wasn’t me. Vandalism? I’ve reconstructed the core code on the above-referenced page here:

User:Schweiwikist/subpage/test0 (Is the list self-explanatory?)

I could probably reconstruct the deleted page in its entirety there, but getting the page restored as I left it still looks easier right now.

Thanks for your research and help. Schweiwikist (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If it was I who put up the U1, it was by accident. But I’m sure I’d have noticed such a blunder a week ago. Thanks again.

UPDATE: Thanks! Schweiwikist (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the pages transcluded onto your subpage was tagged {{Db-g7}} without being wrapped in noinclude tags. I've restored your subpage. Courcelles 07:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
When you tag portal pages, tag them <noinclude>{{db-g7}}</noinclude> instead of using just the speedy tag. This will prevent further mistakes like this one. Courcelles 07:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha! Great tip—will do. ----Schweiwikist (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Florence Nightingale

Well done with the semi-protection. I would like the period to be longer. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC).

This is on my "school subjects" list, that I'd like to leave as open as possible... but if this continues, the periods of semi-protection may very well escalate. It's hard to place a terribly long semi on a first-protection in years. Courcelles 10:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesús Fernández Sáenz

I can't tell if anything has changed as I don't recall reading the original page, but I suspect not as he doesn't appear to have played yesterday. Logs show you G4 deleted this page yesterday. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesús Joaquín Fernández Sáenz de la Torre was the original discussion. I have tagged as a copyvio in the interim --ClubOranjeT 10:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is getting old, fast. G4'ed the new creation, and salted the four variations of his name I could find deleted entries for (check my logs.). Courcelles 10:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving Dhobi Ghaat to Dhobi Ghat (film)

Please see Dhobi Ghaat discussion page. If it is appropriate to move article, I request you to do the same. Thanks! रामा (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles 13:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. रामा (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

The Fat Man...

... has agreed not to e-mail you again. If he does, from any account, please bring it to my attention. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks. Courcelles 18:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Where did you come from?

Well thanks, anyway! I was getting sick of deleting all those compilation albums and the huge mess left behind with all the redirects and talk pages of redirects and the odd redirect to a talk page of a redirect! Good job we have CSD G8 or that would be one hell of a mess! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I use G8 more than any other deletion rationale. But, if you don't do the G8's, it just leaves a mess for some other poor soul to come in and clean up when the nightly database report runs. Cleaning out the PROD's is up there with history merges when it comes to boring admin chores, though. Courcelles 18:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
There's always the unsourced/unlicensed images, which is basically the filespace equivalent. History merges aren't so much boring as fiddly and requiring more attention than I have to give after yet another thoroughly pointless trip to the job centre. Now, if people would pay attention to what they're moving and bother to clean up after themselves, all our lives would be much easier! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete again please?

Sorry to trouble you, but I make a silly mistake moving the new draft to Intellectual disability. Can you bear to delete the redirect again? I've restored the db-move request. I'm asking because you are still active, it is past my bedtime and I'd like to get that move sorted out before I go to bed. Thanks... Mirokado (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

G6'ed again. Courcelles 00:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I've moved the draft successfully now. --Mirokado (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Xu Deshuai

Hey, friend. I need help again. Please! ^^ hoising (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I nee something to go on here. What needs doing? Courcelles 18:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyediting! Maybe there are some grammer mistakes. hoising (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

On 30 Rock season four passing. I'm glad the "process" is over. So, since it was promoted the next likely thing to do is nominate the season at the GT page... right? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct. And to get that FTRC closed down... for six months or so. Hopefully we'll be able to get a better jump on season five. Courcelles 18:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The talk pages have been tagged. Ha! :) Since you created the book I figured you go ahead and create the GT nomination page. I'd like to take a break from that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Leave me the easy part! Done, Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/30 Rock (season 4)/archive1. Courcelles 21:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for creating it. I got that vibe that you were going to create it so I figured I'd leave you to it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, Mr. Admin. :) Well, now it's off to expand the season five episodes... fantastic. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sock

Could you please review this? Thanks.

I would send you to Sarah, but she hasn't edited in three months. You need to produce more evidence, as this is long stale for checkuser, and I wouldn't really know what to be looking for, anyway, as I never encounter the accused master. Courcelles 06:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...the cleanup was appreciated. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 09:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Courcelles 20:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

file:AIPTI.png

Dear Courcelles, thanks for your message regarding the file:AIPTI.png. I know that it is not being used in any English-language article; it was actually meant to be used in the Spanish-language article :es:AIPTI. Afterwards I uploaded another similar file, but in Wikipedia Commons, and that is the one I am using right now for the article.

So, in short: if the file you pointed out has no use, it may be deleted. Should be there any further question, please contact me. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, went ahead and deleted it under G7. Courcelles 20:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Kbthompson

Hi. I noticed that you protected Kb's userpage. I'd like to add there that he was born in 1955. His wife would rather that we did not add his exact birthdate but his year of birth is ok. Thanks, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Done by Iridescent. Courcelles 20:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

RFPP

Hi Courcelles. There has been some confusion at RFPP due to botched edits (not by me). Please see this and please change the protection level for George Papandreou. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles 03:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
And for the record. Thanks again. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci

Hi Courcelles, I see you're online and adminning. Do you have any interest in commenting on this situation? Problem is that the blocking admin blocked, then went offline. No worries if you'd prefer not to look at it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Commented. Not exactly in love with this block, but I don't want to "go cowboy" and unblock Mathsci on my own (non-existent) authority, either. Courcelles 04:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
That's fair enough, and thanks for looking at it and commenting. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
No problems. I don't watchlist ANI anymore, but I'll monitor this conversation. Courcelles 04:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Brumby pp

Hi Courcelles. I see you locked down Brumby due to Kelly's edit warring. Can you be so kind as to fix it so it is locked at the last "clean" version before the Kelly's edit warring began? What's in there now has removed sourced material that had presented a balanced NPOV article (good and bad points) and replaced it with an unsourced "all bad" negative POV bias on the article. However, that is of course my opinion, I'll simply ask that you assess for yourself. Here's the diff, and here is the last "clean" version of December 4, before Kelly's first edit that started all this. All I ask is to edit the locked article to reflect that version until this dispute with Kelly is resolved. By the way, this is not "ownership" on my part, I am not the lead editor there, Cgoodwin, an Australian editor with vast knowledge of horses and livestock in Australia, is the lead editor and this was Cg's first GA, by the way. Montanabw(talk) 04:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Montana... I normally can revert to the last version before the edit war broke out if I feel it is necessary. I was considering that, until I noticed the last clean version is by Dana. Seeing as how I nominated her RFA, that wouldn't look proper. If you can track down an admin who isn't me or her, you might get somewhere. But, maybe not. There are quite a few admins that won't ever revert through full protection. (Also, I note in this case, the material that is the locus of the dispute is currently out of the article. That's probably better until the dispute is settled.) Courcelles 04:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
G'day Courcelles, thank you for protecting the wiki from Montanabw. She is being very difficult to communicate with as she will not discuss anything on the talk page, she just keeps reverting the page back to a poor state with no references and no discussion. Cheers again. Kelly2357 (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
EXCUSE ME! Kelly, do not twist other people's words! I asked you to take the discussion off of MY talk page and to the appropriate place, which is the Brumby article, something you have done today, but not until today. You are also not telling the truth about the material you removed-- the material IS sourced, as shown in the diff above. You only today are beginning to discuss the actual content, prior to this you just flat-out distorted the truth and said it was unsourced. Courcelles, if you wish, you may choose the last "clean" edit by Cgoodwin, in fact, reverting to Cg's last clean edit might be best, as Cg is the lead editor, not me or Dana. Further, by leaving it at Kelly's last edit, you are condoning an unbalanced view of the article, the previous version had positive and negative aspects both discussed. Now it's all negative. Kelly -- you apparently have not been reading the talk page of Brumby where I have REPEATEDLY told YOU to DISCUSS your changes and so far, all you keep doing is claiming that "your mates" have never heard of the brushfires issue. The burden is on YOU to provide sources for what you want to do. You may challenge other sources, that's fine, but that's what the {{dubious}} tag is for. Given that the editor whose material you removed is a mature editor of longstanding respect here on wikipedia and you have, so far, claimed (falsely) that there was no source for the material when in fact the material you deleted had multiple sources backing it, I can only conclude that you are as blinded by your biases as you claim the other editors to be. Now, I shall review the sources in question and offer my views there. But Courcelles, how about as a compromise, you restore the clean version but add a "dubious" tag so we know what's at issue? Montanabw(talk) 02:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit through full protection. There's really no pressing demand; ie BLP; for the rules against it to be bent. Courcelles 06:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, I understand. However, next time may want to consider if there's a need to research back to the last clean edit prior to a lockdown. Montanabw(talk) 19:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Read the text at the top of RFPP. Admins do not normally revert before protecting, except to fix obvious vandalism. And Kelly's edits are not vandalism. Courcelles 19:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
And, as m:The Wrong Version says, "there are no known cases of a sysop protecting the right version". Any full-protect means it gets locked on one person's version, and reverting away from however it lies when you show up is easily seen as taking a side in the dispute. Courcelles 19:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. I'd seen some RFPs where there had been a reversion to a last clean version. Well, we'll see. Montanabw(talk) 22:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_39&oldid=1173547804"