Jump to content

User talk:Courcelles/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

I wanted to add the new teams the American Basketball Association (2000–present) just announced

However, you protected it, so I can't add them (that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater). Could you please either unprotect or just semi-protect it (so established users like myself can add these new teams? Thanks, Tom Danson (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  • The page was protected due to an edit war, not vandalism, so it needs to remain protected until the report on WP:ANEW is acted upon. At any rate, the protection will expire shortly after midnight this evening. Courcelles (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

IP unblocked

Hi. Yesterday you blocked 72.215.200.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 36 hours for vandalism. This is to let you know that I have just unblocked following an unblock request which said that it was in a public library and the current user wanted to set up an account. As 24 hours have gone by, yesterday's vandal has probably gone away, but I'll watch the IP's contributions just in case. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

MP balance

Hey,since you're looking at that, I'd appreciate a second opinion on the OTD/DYK balance- on my screen it looks like an item should be trimmed from OTD, how is it on yours? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm less bothered by OTD v DYK balance anyway, especially when it's marginal. If it's an issue later, someone else will probably sort it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, someone is always watching the balance. Since ITN is "above the fold", we have to watch our length more closely than DYK or OTD. Courcelles (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

<insert informative title here>

Could you delete my userpage please? Thanks, {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 07:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. (As to why: Long story short, I've been outed based on what was in the history of my page and it was not pretty.) Thanks again, {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 07:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you!

Courcelles - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  23:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheikh Sanif terrorist camp. I request userification of the article, its full revision history and it talk page to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Sheikh Sanif terrorist camp.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Adenocarcinoma?

I did not make any edit and I have never heard of that article.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.35.33 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a "stale" warning from a few months ago - this happens sometimes when users have dynamic IP addresses (the IP address your computer gets from your internet service provider changes often). I've removed the warnings - and welcomed you! I dare say Courcelles might pop over to say hello, too! Happy editing! TFOWRidle vapourings 18:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I've done just that. Nothing to worry about. Courcelles (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done!

Thanks for blocking Jack Straw's fan- I would have done it myself but you an TTTSNB beat em to it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I didn't pull up any of the first two from RevDel, but if they were anything like the third edit I examined, I'm somewhat surprised you didn't just give them a twelve hour "vacation" on sight. Courcelles (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
They were identical (and I deleted the third as well), but I figured a "one and only" warning would have sufficed- if they do it again, block 'em, if they hop to another IP, protect the article. I see you protected Pixie Lott earlier as well- are you just working your way through my watchlist? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little quick on the block finger for BLP issues than some, I'll admit it. I drew Miss Lott at RFPP... I have the feeling that will end up at true long-term protection in August, the amount of BLP violations in that article's recent history is, to be perfectly blunt, absolutely unacceptable. (You do have a thing for the pretty young ladies, don't you? ;) ) (On a totally unrelated matter, I'm beginning to wonder when the rest of my 57,000 edits are going to catch up with this account.) Courcelles (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
That's a good thing. I tend to be reluctant to block for a "first offence" (unless they use the C word, in which case they get a very long, enforced wikibreak, especially if it was directed at me!) but to doing that for a second time is equivalent to screaming "block me, block me, block me"! It's a shame, but she'll almost certainly be joining the ranks of the indefinitely semi-protected BLPs. there are a few good edits from IPs and new editors, but she gets more than her fair share of unsourced crap, BLP violations and just petty vandalism. And yes, I do have a thing for pretty young ladies! The article part of my watchlist is comprised mostly of problem BLPs and pretty actresses/singers! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of BLP's like that- they attract nothing but vandalism, but slowly enough that few admins would protect them. Lindsay will never be unprotected, but I wonder if Karen will fade out of our readership's minds in ta few weeks if her best-known character's career in the TARDIS ends. Lily, however, seems to be obscure enough that no-one touches the article much. I'm not in the camp of ending IP editing, but if something came down from ArbCom or the Foundation that all BLP's be semi-protected, I wouldn't protest one bit. (Well, except for wearing out my protect button, that is.) Courcelles (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
That's what Twinkle's for- just go to Category:Living people, press 3 buttons, enter a reason and revisit that tab in a few hours! Lindsay indeed never will be unprotected, Karen doesn't seem too bad (nothing that can't be handled by close watching) at the minute but I'm always surprised at how little vandalism Lily gets, but it's nice to be able to make 232 edits to an article where the vast majority actually are content edits, not just whacking rollback. I think Pixie's profile is likely to get bigger over the coming months and so she'll just continue to attract the same old crap, mostly from horny teenagers and will sadly end up indefinitely protected. Hopefully she'll give a few convenient magazine interviews so the gaps in her article can be filled in- Lily seems to have a habit of giving nice detailed interviews to reporters, making her very easy to write an article on! Btw, I'm informed Grawp (or one of his sycophantic moron followers) is about, so don't be surprised if AIV and RPP suddenly back up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Ever considered using Huggle? No, not for vandal fighting... for clearing AIV backlogs. It makes it much easier to quickly see all the edits of the reported user, and then blocks and notifies with one key stroke and a mouseclick. Hence... speed! Courcelles (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

TFD

Thanks for closing the TFD on Harvcolnb. How about HarvCol on the same page? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops - looks like you just did it, thanks. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Already done. I really think the nominator had a point on both of these, but there wasn't a chance they were going to be deleted by this discussion. Courcelles (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it was much of a point. If it was just a colon instead of a comma, then maybe. But there were other differences between Harv and Harvcol, and the Harvcol format is in some of the style manuals and often used in printed literature. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essential Records (Christian)

Hi,

I was a bit supprised to see the above AfD closed, as none of the editors advocating Keep had addressed the issue of the lack of "Significant coverage" in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as per General Notability Guidelines. Would you consider re-opening and re-listing it ? Codf1977 (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind me butting in, but I'd say that was a good close- nobody but yourself was advocating deletion and "non-notable company" isn't much of a reason. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, HJ gets to my talk page before I do... scary. But, he is basically right- in a week, three people advocated keeping the article, and only you deleting it. Noone made a great argument either way, to be honest. Relisting is for those discussions that aren't attracting much attention, which this discussion did. Courcelles (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

RfPP

Note for you on RfPP about a recent protection conflict, and on the talk page, in case you don't see it. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk contribs 04:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on my talk page! P. D. Cook Talk to me! 18:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular cat names

I'm not sure the early close was appropriate. The new rationale, that the sources all disagree with each other and are essentially unreliable, indicating that it is not possible to know the most popular names, deserves some consideration. Questions of wp:OR and wp:SYNTH are raised when trying to make sense of these conflicting sources. "What are the most popular cat names" is kind of an interesting question, but I don't know if it makes sense to have an article about it if the answer is unknown. This issue doesn't seem to have been dealt with at the earlier AFDs, and the presence of very recent AFDs doesn't mitigate the seriousness of the problem. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

  • It wasn't closed because of the last AfD, I closed it because the nominator had just taken the last AfD to WP:DRV and been rebuffed there, with the prior keep closure endorsed. Three runs at deletion in less than a month is "keep nominating it until the committee of whoever shows up deletes it", a behaviour that isn't conductive to collaborative editing. Courcelles (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your note. Yes, I read your rationales on the AFD and ANI. "It wasn't closed because of the last AfD, I closed it because the nominator had just taken the last AfD to WP:DRV" - ok, I'll rephrase so we can get past this: "the presence of many very recent AFDs and DRVs doesn't mitigate the seriousness of the problem." Do you feel that they do mitigate it? Or do you feel that in some sense the nominator's actions should simply not be encouraged, and you closed early to teach him a lesson? Or is it more that there ought to be some kind of temporary double jeopardy protection in order to respect those who work on that page? I think your interpretation of the motives behind this AFD are unfortunate, even if true. I think things run much more smoothly if we assume good faith - it minimizes defensive behavior and in the rare cases where you are wrong, you will avoid needlessly offending anyone. (If the nom reads this, anyway; I appreciate that you were much more tactful on the AfD and ANI.) ErikHaugen (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transportes Rápidos de Veracruz

I actually agree with your close here and I've proposed that deleting such AFDs as uncontested prods be written into the guidelines twice in the past. It was rejected both times. However, in the case of this AFD, I was just about to close it the same way I closed this similar AFD. Just to be consistant, perhaps both should be closed the same way. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, I'm not going to overrule your close and delete that article, though I haven't checked if that article had ever been prodded. The only reason I made that close is that if a prod tag had been applied, the article would have been gone seven days ago without anyone noticing, so after no one wanting to keep it for 14 days, it seemed a logical close. Courcelles (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. I made a similar call at an AfD last week after Ron brought it up on AN. That was a BLP, though... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
HJ, if you want to re-do Ron's close, feel free. I'm just not inclined to revert experienced NAC's unless I would !vote to overturn them on DRV, and that doesn't apply here. Courcelles (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I've no intention of riding roughshod over anybody's close. The only time I would overrule an NAC is if it was blatantly improper, which isn't the case here. If it matters to anyone, they can renominate it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

[1]

I've asked him about any sources about this sentence. He didn't provided, though so IMHO it's obvious it should be removed from article or stay with {{fact}} template. Regards, Sir Lothar (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He kept removing this template without any given reason, so it's rather plain vandalism, Sir Lothar (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Removing citation needed tags is not an act of "obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." and so, not an exception to the three revert rule- and you made four reverts in a 26 hour period- just within the letter of 3RR. Hopefully in three days, someone can source this comment, or you can come to some agreement with the IP's as to the tag's suitability. Courcelles (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that I touched 3RR, my fault. But still, there are no sources for it (for a quite long time) so either sentence should be removed or stay for some time with {{fact}} tag. If he doesn't provide source for this 3 days (as you wrote) I don't see any other options. Regards, Sir Lothar (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao back up, better than ever

Hi,

Some time ago, you reviewed St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao. I wanted to let you know that it is back up for FAC, and is greatly improved since you last saw it. If you have some time to look at it, I would appreciate your feedback. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hurt Locker accolades

Hey. I've only just seen the new comments at the FLC page. I've now swapped the first two columns around, I just really hope no one asks if they can be swapped back again! Fingers crossed that the list will be promoted soon. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 2003–04 South Pacific cyclone season/archive1

Hello, Courcelles. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 2003–04 South Pacific cyclone season/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, I believe that Jason Rees has addressed all of your comments in the timeline. Could you look at the timeline when you have time?

Thanks! --Yueof theNorth 02:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, Courcelles. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 20:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: ITN for Armenian shoe

Thank you for putting it on the main page in the news! --Davo88 (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. monosock 03:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why am I getting this message? Mono's delivery method is random, so you probably showed up somewhere Mono went. :)

HELP!

Please stop (block) this user: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.251.255.12 or see: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

User has long history of warnings and is starting to make a real mess! Cit helper (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm inclined to block them now, on the basis that their last edit was just 10 minutes ago. It's only my second block, so I'll hold off and monitor them for now. TFOWR 09:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Would someone mind reviewing my contributions and possibly granting me revert right? I'm currently using STiki, but I would like to switch to something else...Cit helper (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much! In a few days, when / if you make a decision, could you please message me on my Talk Page... that way I don't have to watch yours ;)Cit helper (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
How about this- come back here on Monday. If your reverts look good, I'll flag you so you can use those tools. Courcelles (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Will do... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cit helper (talk • contribs) 10:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I created a formal request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback, I would like to have the flag even if I don't make any edits... I want to familiarize my self with Huggle (which I just downloaded) so that I an able to correctly use / understand it by Monday, when I hope to make "live" mainstream vandal reverts. Cit helper (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. monosock 18:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why am I getting this message? Mono's delivery method is random, so you probably showed up somewhere Mono went. :)

Mail, you have.

(Just so this one doesn't get lost ) Cheers, {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 10:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi

Wondering if you can help me on this one. How do I go about applying for autoreviewer rights on Wikipedia? --5 albert square (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Been wondering about that for a while now :) --5 albert square (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer right

Thanks :) ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 11:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  • No problem. I'm with Risker on this one- this should be handed out widely and liberally. If not, this thing is going to produce yet another huge backlog when fully turned on. Even if you only ever use it to review your own edits, that's work someone else doesn't have to do, so a good thing. Courcelles (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Ooh! Ooh! Me too? Hook me up - I won't abuse it... :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Sweet! Thank you :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) on my own talk page! Who needs Risker's list? I've got my own button! Done. Courcelles (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Risker may have a list, but yours is the name I keep seeing in the user rights log. You're a rights-assigning machine!--~TPW 13:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
We have two days to hand this out, or risk a mess developing. Accordingly... I've given you the flag. Courcelles (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Haha fair enough, I will do my best to seek out flagged articles so I can see how it works!--~TPW 13:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, this flag will also work passively, allowing you to review your own edits to such pages. So, even if you never patrol anything, giving you the flag will save others work. Courcelles (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Understood - it's a backlog-prevention drive to avoid a potential crash-and-burn. Should be interesting to see how this all pans out.--~TPW 14:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
That it will be. Courcelles (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Reviewers" - quick question

I've had a request from a wikifirend to grant them "reviewer" rights. I punted it on the grounds that I'm not familiar with the right. Having noticed that you just granted that very right to Itsmejudith, could you steer me towards an idiots' guide to "reviewer"? Ta! TFOWR 12:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings and thanks...

Greetings Courcelles – for that. Please let me know if I put my foot in it. My heart’s in the right place but I’m a bit clumsy... Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewer status for me too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Clear

[2] wherever you copied this from only had 7 hook fields, but the clear template has eight. This is the 2nd time I noticed this, just thought I'd let you know. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewers group (again!)

Hi Courcelles,

Thanks for looking at my request. You marked it as done, but I don't see any corresponding user rights log entry. Should I be seeing something in there?

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  • D'oh!

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I earned that one. Sorted, now. Courcelles (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again and no sweat :) Thparkth (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think... 0;-D

Wow! Thanks for giving me new tools I didn't even ask for! I have read the relevant pages about Rollback, and I can see it will be useful - since I do "watch" a number of pages that attract vandals. I don't know anything about Reviewer and the link to it is red, but I assume there will be information available after it activates. What made you pick me as a recipient of these tools? For whatever reason, thanks for the vote of confidence! --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  • No problems. For the un-requested, I've only flagged editors whose work I'm familiar with- even if 95% of them will never have heard of me... so, any suggestions for other editors to flag would be appreciated. Courcelles (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
My request is still pending. Would you please take a look at it? warrior4321 17:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to flagged revisions... We've flagged 171 users and need to flag several thousand.  Done for you, though. Courcelles (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! warrior4321 18:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the "rights" - though I'm pretty doubtful about the necessity for this process - but that may just be a degree of general computer illiteracy on my part >: Fainites barleyscribs 20:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Like I said above- do nothing differently than you already do, and your having the flag will save other people work :) Courcelles (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
OK. Good. But what if - for example, it's not exactly vandalism but just a really crappy, good faith edit? Fainites barleyscribs 20:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, option 1 is always to do nothing and let someone else handle it. Option two is to revert it like you always would. Option 3 is to approve it and then improve it. This trial is only going to be on 2,000 pages for now, so you may not even encounter the system during the trial. Courcelles (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
OK. I think I get it now. Cheers. Fainites barleyscribs 21:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for giving me Reviewer rights Dormskirk (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Me too! And all in three minutes... --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks the tools. --CarTick 02:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What about me?

I applied for reviewer rights and my request has not been gotten to. Is there any lag? OpenTheWindows, sir! 21:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Alas, there are 4 users awaiting the flag. OpenTheWindows, sir! 21:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Was very impatient. OpenTheWindows, sir! 21:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you make of this?

I had a bit of a rant at WT:Reviewing#Removal of rights and wondered what you thought of the whole thing. Perhaps I'm taking it too seriously? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Gah. Not good. Not good at all. Can we just turn this whole mess OFF and allow a somewhat more liberal use of semi-protection? This sounded like a good idea once... all of a sudden, I'm not sure this isn't going to cause more problems than it solves. Oh well... we'll see in two days. Note that we've only flagged 330 reviewers so far... around a fifteenth of those that should be flagged. Maybe with sufficiently flagged reviewers this will work. Maybe. Hopefully. Medea had her Jason... Courcelles (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights request...

I noted that you have granted request for reviewer rights to a user above me. Wanted to know if this was by oversight or you thought my request was not in order. Just thought of letting you know.

Please ignore. It was eventually handled. prashanthns (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I see you made me a "reviewer". Thank you. I'll read up about it. Just to be sure I know what it means precisely. Debresser (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that ok. Debresser (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Courcelles,
Thank you for granting me Reviewer rights. I hope that the project works as well as hoped; hope I can play a role, howsoever small, whether failure or success, in it.
Thanks again! --Shirt58 (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Debrahlee Lorenzana

I didn't see any consensus to delete that article. I see you favored deletion.--Milowent (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This was quite a well-endowed bold deletion! Cheers, East of Borschov (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

  • No numerical consensus, sure, but in terms of strength of argument and those arguments foundation in our core policies- I think the consensus was quite clear. We can't keep an article based on some hope that she might become more notable in the future- especially not a BLP. Courcelles (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Dumb consensus (or lack of consensus) is still consensus (or lack thereof). I'm not overly chuffed though, because frankly i know that it easily could have been a crush of delete votes similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Uchitel (2nd nomination) right now, and for whatever reason this AfD debate didn't draw as much attention. Sometimes articles are kept that fall into this same neverland of instant celebrities, its hit or miss, but as a percentage of total AfDs, the number of these disagreements is pretty small.--Milowent (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
"Dumb consensus"? No, there's consensus and then there's counting snouts. We do the former here, not the latter, and closing the Lorenzana AfD any other way that I did would have been an exercise in snout counting- and that would have led me to a no consensus close, not a keep one. The second Uchitel AfD is getting so many votes because this article was a very contentious AfD and even DRV last time around, that led to deletion and endorsing that deletion. This time, people don't see anything has changed, so the deletes are coming in pretty fast, as so many of them evaluated notability of the subject last time around. Courcelles (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I find it interesting how the word "consensus" gets mangled at times in support of closings. The term simply means "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned." Consensus is a form of snout counting, but it is actually more biased against deletion than snout counting. E.g., a vote of 5-4 to delete would require a delete result in an AFD if we were simply vote counting, but that same vote demonstrates a lack of consensus if we are trying to determine consensus as to that article. Thus, one day an article on super fat Donna Simpson is deleted and, another day, its kept. That's what happens around here every day. People get more excited when it comes to BLPs, and no doubt Uchitel is a more extreme case. Even there, the first time around the keeps and deletes were so evenly divided that the closer of the first AfD found there was "no consensus." But he deleted anyway.--Milowent (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For giving me reviewer rights. Here, have a cookie :)

Acather96 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Acather96 (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Debrahlee Lorenzana

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Debrahlee Lorenzana. 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. Smallman12q (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Volleyball players

I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 23:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewers

Thanks for granting reviewer rights to Chris. Looking at WP:FLC and WP:WBFLN, there are a lot of good editors who do not yet have these rights yet. Do you think you could go down the list and take care of that (I'd help if I could)? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Consider it done- I've been working off database reports, so I'm not sure which Chris you're talking about here! Anyone who's produced an FL/FA and doesn't have an atrocious history of behaviour should have this right, so give me an hour or so! Courcelles (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, User:Sephiroth BCR is an admin, so I don't think he needs the reviewer right. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm going blind... since I can't assign sysop privileges, I see a very grey check-box that didn't look any different to my bad eyes. Courcelles (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like User:Karanacs has done a lot of these users, too... I'm giving out very few flags here. Courcelles (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going down the list at WP:WBFAN and making sure the active FA nominators get the flag, and there is likely a lot of overlap with the FL nominators. Thanks for getting to the FL list - that was next on my to-do list. You've granted access to a lot of the people on my list as well - thanks for your hard work! It worries me a bit that you and I seem to be assigning the bulk of these permissions right now, with a few other admins granting it a handful at a time. You'd think there'd be more interest.... Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 

// simple script to enable the reviewer bit and leave the user a note
 
MakeReviewerConfig = {
    groupReason : "User can be trusted with reviewer",
    sectionHeader : "Reviewer granted",
    sectionBody : "{{subst\:reviewer-notice}} ~~\~~"
};
 
importScript("User:Amalthea/MakeReviewer.js");

Config can be changed or omitted, etc. If user doesn't have right, it grants it, and in either case, it leaves the message. –xenotalk 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Do let me know if you work it out ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Smile!

Hello Courcelles, Thesevenseas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Also, thanks for the Reviewer rights. :) Set Sail For The Seven Seas 208° 10' 15" NET 13:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A smile from me too! =-) Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
A smile from me too! Thanks for your trust :) Srikanth (Logic) 18:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Greetings. Thank you very much for giving me the Reviewer status. I am very thrilled at being given this privilege. All the best. Maple Leaf (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer?

What exactly is going on with that? Abyssal (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Darned if I'm absolutely sure- it's getting turned on in a few hours, and the more reviewers out there-(even if they just use it to review their own edits) the less work this thing is going to be on everyone. --Courcelles (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I see an entry in my watchlist reading "(User rights log); 18:36 Courcelles (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Andy F from Autoreviewers to Autoreviewers and Reviewers (User can be trusted with Reviewer)" ... does Autoreviewer not include Reviewer then? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
From what I understand, from 23:00 UTC tonight, admins can add "flagged protection" to pages (limited to 2,000), which requires that edits from IPs and newly registered editors need to be "accepted" (reviewed) by an admin or someone with the "reviewer" permission to screen put vandalism and libel. It's a bit half baked and no-one really knows exactly what's going on- not even the people responsible for running it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

....for granting me Reviewer status :) I am flattered to be considered suitable for the privilige! --Aciram (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) – Alensha talk 19:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks also from me! I happen to know this flagged pages stuff from the German WP. I see User:PKM and User:IdreamofJeanie, two longstanding users watching many pages but unlikely to know of this yet, don't have this "reviewer" thing so far. I am not sure if this is the right way, but I thought this is the easiest way. Thanks again! Buchraeumer (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

  • No problems. My talk page is turning into requests/miscellaneous lately- I've flagged both users and left them the template. Anyone else that you can think of, just make a list here, and I'll flag if I agree. Courcelles (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer request

I posted the below at Administrator Markles's talk page, but though he is familiar with me, he was not familiar with the new reviewer function, so I bring this to you:

I'd like to be a Reviewer. I don't have rollback or autoreview because I've never seen how either could help me. (I already have Twinkle to do what rollback does, and I don't create enough new articles to have ever bothered asking for autoreviewer.) I do however think the pilot program is a worthy proposal and want to be a part of helping to see if we can make it work. What's more, I think this new tool would fit naturally with the sort of "gardening" I do regularly with respect to my Watchlist. I have read the reviewing policy and am aware that the tool is to be used only to protect against edits that violate BLP or otherwise put the project at legal risk or are nonsense, vandalism, or something else that clearly should not be in any Wikipedia article. Thank you for your consideration. -Rrius (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the offer. I suppose I could tryout rollback and ask for it to be removed if I find I don't like it, so please do. As for autoreviewer, I suppose that is more of a help to others, so on their behalf, thank you for doing that as well. -Rrius (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Done, then. If you decide you want the extra button gone, just let me know- but for vandalism (and only vandalism) it's faster and easier on the servers than Twinkle. (Fast enough that you'll notice the difference, actually.) Courcelles (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This may be a silly question, but will there be a way to practice before trying the reviewer tool on a real article (perhaps by making a "Sandbox/Pending changes")? -Rrius (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes- [3]. I can make you a reviewer there if you want to test a couple of pages first. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 20:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Sonia, yes, I would appreciate that. -Rrius (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for being a Reviewer

Hi. I have made a request for being a reviewer at WP:PERM/RW. My request says: "I have experience with rollback and reverting vandalism. I edit regularly (unless I am very busy), and I know what is and what is not a neutral point of view." If you have time, I hope you can accept or decline that request. Thank you. --Hadger 20:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: You are now a Reviewer

Thank you very much for given me the title of reviewer. Just a question, why did you give me it? No worries I'm just wondering. --TIAYN (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm going through and giving everyone that is active and is an autoreviewer the new reviewer flag, so that, if nothing else, the flagged revisions trial will have zero effect on your editing. Used passively, it'll cause your edits to be reviewed automatically on flag protected pages, saving other people work. Courcelles (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks from me too :) Akerbeltz (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Caspian blue as Reviewer

As Caspian blue hasn't edited for over three months (Special:Contributions/Caspian_blue), this seems less effective. I would recommend removing this right until Caspian blue returns to active editing. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Oops... I misread March as May. Now that I left a template on his talk page, though, I'm a little hesitant to remove it, but if you think it is best I will do so. (Also... any idea where the rest of my 55,000 edits are? They never transferred over when you renamed me...) Courcelles (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm just concerned giving it to an inactive account, especially one which seems to be targeted by a lot of people (I could regale you with torrid accounts from the past, if you wish). Since he is not an active editor, and given the history of attacks on his account, it may be best to remove the right for now, and leave a note indicating what happened. If he becomes active again, I see no problems giving it to him again.
Regarding the edits not transferring, you may well have to request a developer move the rest of them. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Popups has the right amount, but the edit counters don't. Weird. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 21:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Very well, Caspian's flags removed. If things don't sort themselves out, how do I go about contacting a developer? Courcelles (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the wayward contributions, you might consider voting for bugzilla:17313. –xenotalk 21:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_7&oldid=1173627861"