User talk:Courcelles

This page is archived by MiszaBot III 36 hours after the last timestamp. If your discussion was archived before it was complete, feel free to go retrieve it.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Up in the Air III

Continuing the conversation in User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_11#Up_in_the_Air and User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_12#Up_in_the_Air_II: I believe that List of accolades received by Up in the Air is now ready for an FLC nomination. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. If June agrees, one of you should write up the nomination. Courcelles (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if I can be of assistance. I saw the film the other day. Not the best film I've ever seen, but it was quite funny. Btw, I'm about finish reading through The Body, so I'll have some comments for you in a few minutes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Up in the Air (film) still needs a lot of work to get to the level of a good article. I would appreciate your suggestions on how to improve that article. However, I believe that List of accolades received by Up in the Air is ready for a Featured List nomination. Courcelles and June have done a lot of great work to improve that list. <** Smile **> --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not sure Up in the Air (film) need much more than a solid copy-edit to be a credible GA candidate, either... Courcelles (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a bit of work, but nothing that would take much more than a few days' work. It looks pretty well-sourced, so that's the most difficult part sorted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a draft of the FLC nomination:

Nominator(s): Dan Dassow (talk), JuneGloom07 Talk? , & Courcelles (talk) ~~~~~

List of accolades received by Up in the Air meets the six criteria for a featured list: prose, comprehensiveness, structure, style and stability. The article is well written and features professional standards of writing. The lead provides a brief description of Up in the Air (film), the venues in which it was shown and the nominations and awards which it has received. The lead clearly defines the scope and inclusion criteria. The article comprehensively addresses all of the nominations and awards that Up in the Air received with proper citation. The length of the list is appropriate for the subject, provides suitable supplementary information to the main article and does not duplicate information. The list is easy to navigate through and includes helpful section headings. The list fully complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and color. There are no red-linked items. The picture of Vera Farmiga on the red carpet at the 2010 Academy Awards properly follows fair use criteria and helps to illustrate the article. The article is stable. The content has not changed significantly during the last few weeks.

Dan Dassow (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've formatted the nominators the way the archival bot expects it to be, but otherwise it is fine- you could just copy and paste what is above into the nomination, as long as you remove the <nowiki></nowiki> tags from the timestamp. Courcelles (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, late to the party. I think the list is good to go and I like the nom. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a few minutes to finish my copy edit. I found a few of my pet peeves and some other minor things in the first half, it won't take me long to run through the second half. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done- who kept writing "the films" without the apostrophe? That's worthy of an FLC oppose !vote in itself! ;) The only issue I came up with in the prose was At the Kansas City Film Critics Circle and the National Board of Review, Up in the Air won each of the awards for which it was nominated. It might help to include what the awards were, or just one or two and add including... I left a hidden comment in there so it can be easily found. Other than that, I'd say your prose looks good. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The apostrophe thing was probably me, thank you for the copy edit. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might have some spare, here:''''''''! ;) You're welcome. I'll watchlist the FAC in case any prose issues come up. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never nominated an article for GA, FA, GL or FL. I'm not certain how to do so. If either Courcelles or June would like to do so, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I will submit the nomination as soon as I figure out how to so. --Dan Dassow (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions are on WP:FLC, but that's a s much help as I can be. I just stalk Courcelles' (and June's!) talk page. I've never nominated a featured anything before. GAs are much easier to nominate. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 23:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HJ, thank you for the apostrophes. Dan, just follow the Nomination procedure at FLC and give one of us a shout if you get stuck. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just submitted the nomination. Please review Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Up in the Air/archive1 to make certain I follow the procedure correctly. Thanks. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to add the list to the FLC page, but everything else is great :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it looks fine now :) Make sure to add it to your watchlists, and FLC has been slow lately, so doing a few reviews wouldn't hurt, either. Courcelles (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, FLC reviews would be grand! Courcelles, I feel your frustration, and will review that list tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dabomb. Sometimes the silence, as they say, is deafening when FLC's are concerned. They all get reviewed in the end, though... Courcelles (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that the FLC for Up in the Air will take longer than the typical FLC. The press coverage for UITA decreased dramatically after it failed to win any Academy Awards. There was general surprise that Jason Reitman did not receive the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay. --Dan Dassow (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion on BLP vio

Hi Courcelles, you had provided the Reviewer rights to me. I would like to seek your opinion on possible BLP violation : Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Possible_vio_reg_Francis_Xavier_Clooney. Since I am yet to receive a reply at BLPN, I am contacting you. If this does not interest you, kindly ignore this. Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never show my face at BLPN, but this case was fairly cut and dry. Courcelles (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt action. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention please..

I have noticed that some names of authentic Pakistani playback singers have been removed from Playback singer page and appears to be a war between the editors. Those names are Akhlaq Ahmed, Saleem Raza, Irene Parveen, Alamgir, A Nayyar etc and I dont undersatand why the editor has done so??Please look into the matter.Thanks Wings spread (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest letting you post on Talk:Playback singer go longer to see if anyone responds. There's nothing I can do as an administrator, and as an editor, I couldn't put together one intelligent comment on the article- as I've never heard the term before, and I don't touch music articles with a ten foot pole. Courcelles (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx sir,but can you help me out by guiding whom should I be contacting for this serious issue as I am new to wikipedia..?Wings spread (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The response on the talk page sounds good to me- add the names with reliable sources using a inline citation and see what happens. Courcelles (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RTV

I'm not sure if you have the tool or if it is appropriate, but if so, would you erase the edit history on this and earlier edits, and change the section heading so it doesn't continue to appear in the edit summary please? Anthony (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight might be able to do something, but as an ordinary admin, this doesn't fall into the guidelines for WP:REVDEL that we operate under, sorry. (I note someone who has the oversight flag has commented in the discussion, so this is likely as good as it is going to get.) This situation sucks in so many ways. Actually, there is one thing I can do... block that IP. Courcelles (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Anthony (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

At least he's not 3rring [1]! 68.28.104.241 (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And who are you using an IP sockpuppet? Courcelles (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel Request

Any chance you can RevDel the username of the user you just hardblocked for vandalism on Major urinary proteins? Thanks, Connormah^talk 03:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A steward locked the account, but I don't see how it fits any of the criteria for revision deletion- it's just ordinary vandalism, and that's not within either of RD2 or RD3 requirements. Courcelles (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the username - it's disruptive while looking at the page history IMO. Connormah^talk 03:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary disruption doesn't meet the standard for RevDel. I'll freely admit that I have a narrower interpretation of the RevDel criteria when someone's privacy is not at stake than some other sysops, so asking someone else may get you a different answer, but I don't feel it qualifies for redaction. Courcelles (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we on the same page here? :) I'm just referring to the username in the page history, not the diff. Connormah^talk 03:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are. It's just a standard username violation, I block a dozen like it each and every week. Courcelles (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more point, to redact the username, I'd also have to redact User:Gogo Dodo's edit summary or it would be a complete waste of time. If he thought this was needed, he has the ability to do it himself. Courcelles (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations as edit-summary fail. trying to abbreviate "Point Of Order" *redfaced* Courcelles (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after 3 edit conflicts) Fair enough - do keep up the good work though, you're doing great as an admin. Connormah^talk 04:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Didn't want my stupid mistake to show up on anyone's watchlists! Thanks for the compliment, the ironic thing is I'm trying to do less admin work and it just never seems to work out. Courcelles (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you can take a look at RFPP? There's quite an amount of unfilled requests at the time being. Thanks again. Connormah^talk 04:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and the even more ironic thing is, he just expressed his desire to get away from admin work, and you reply by asking him to do more... so nia^♫♪ 04:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course :). I'm pretty damn tired though - I tend to be a bit off when tired. Don't worry about it - I'm sure someone'll get on it soon. :) Connormah^talk 04:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone handled RFPP whilst I slept. And, Sonia, the irony wasn't lost on me either :) I don't mind, though... it's not as if I put myself through an RFA to not use the tools. Courcelles (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Hi, Courcelles! I do kind of enjoy SPI stuff ever since I filed a successful report on a banned editor, and I'm glad to see that I assisted (albeit a little) in catching a sock of another banned user[2]. I'm an amateur; and I can't find a really good definition of "sleeper" on WP. I think 70.73.145.207 would be considered one, since there was no edit in over a year. Any WP page you could refer me to concerning "sleepers" would be much appreciated. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any hard-and-fast rule as to what constitutes a sleeper, but I don't really think an IP qualifies. The term is usually used to refer to a "sleeper check" where a check-user checks an account to see if they have registered any accounts that haven't been discovered. Courcelles (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, thanks, Courcelles! It certainly makes more sense. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VPC

You are being contacted because you have in the past participated in the Valued Picture project. The VPC project is suffering from a chronic lack of participation to the point that the project is at an impasse. A discussion is currently taking place about the future of this project and how to revitalize the project and participation. If you're interested in this project or have an idea of how to improve it please stop by and participate in the discussion.

— raeky T 11:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

This user helped promote The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) to good article status.

Congrats! :) As I just said to Moni, I think it's almost ready for an FAC. You'll want to look at the prose in the critical reception section, though. It's easily good enough for GA, but it'll get picked apart at FAC. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The resolution for the video should probably be decreased to 300 pixels, too. I don't know how to do that. Thanks, HJ Mitchell, for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I think it needs a heavy-duty copy edit, and there's at least one more book I want to read. I'm not sure I did enough to earn that userbox (or topicon, since that's my style) though. The video is on my to-do list, and hopefully it won't take the hours it did to shrink Once More, with Feeling's... Courcelles (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was right. Only took me ten minutes or so this time. Courcelles (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Malleus to give it a copy edit. --Moni3 (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The benefit of fresh eyes, although it does make me think, "How did I not see that?" at times. Malleus does good work. Courcelles (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I took the courtesy to contact Gerardw regarding his acceptance of this edit at Jessica Alba yesterday. A future IP edit removed the material, which I was the one to then approve. The reason the movie should not be credited to Alba, as you may be aware, is because no source has been provided as to Alba's actual role, thus putting the edit in violation of WP:CRYSTAL if I understand correctly (if not, please correct me).

In response to my polite note, his only reply is to quote one of the Pending Changes guidelines. Specifically, this one:

A reviewer ensures that the version of the article visible to a casual reader is broadly acceptable. The reviewer checks the pending change(s) for an article and can then decide to either accept it, revert it or modify it then later accept it. Reviewers are not expected to be subject experts and their review is not a guarantee in any way of an error-free article.

Another editor also commented on another change that was either reverted or changed back later (I did not research that one). After a rather stand-offish reply referencing WP:RVW about three times, I further tried to make him understand that common sense should prevail over policy. He fails to understand this, only referencing me to his initial reply instead of saying anything else constructive.

Thus, even though we are nearing the end of this trial, I think it is proving to be quite successful as my latest reviews have shown no visible obvious spam. Hence, we need to consider a change to the policy in the final days of the test. Namely, let's reword the line he uses as his Bible, because he and possibly other reviewers are using it as an excuse to approve any edit they come across that doesn't add spam to an article even if the information might be unsourced or otherwise untrue. Common sense should always prevail. I myself was double-checked on a review that by second opinion was suggested to be incorrect, and I accepted the second opinion politely; however, while that editor was fairly polite as I was and me in exchange, Gerardw apparently prefers to be stand-offish in response to my equally polite concern. Of humour, both my comment to him and the one to me by the second editor in that case occurred at the same time. *LOL*

What are your thoughts either on this matter, on the suggested review of the policy, or both? CycloneGU (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

News and notes: Canadian political edits, Swedish royal wedding, Italian "right of reply" bill, Chapter reports

In the news: Gardner and Sanger on why people edit Wikipedia, Fancy and frugal reading devices, Medical article assessed

WikiProject report: Always Expanding: WikiProject Images and Media

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

Technology report: Major MediaWiki release, password security, vulnerable MediaWiki installations, and more

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Section

mate no disrespect to you, but if something is true isnt that fact supposed to be up there? the guy has accomplished these things, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balagonj786 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok mate i tell your something im gonna go, and leave you alone, but thats unfair people edit all day long, and some facts are crap dont even exist, my facts are true and backed up with references.Balagonj786 (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles, tell me im talking sense, you check the article and check the references, and you will notice that everything is true 100%Balagonj786 (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My job really isn't to decide who's "right" about Floyd Mayweather, Jr., that's why the article has a talk page. That should be used instead of getting into another revert war. I'm not the arbiter of anything around here, just someone with a few extra buttons that is telling you—straight-up, no sugar-coating—that yet another revert war on that article will not end well. You can choose to take that advice or not. Courcelles (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before i go i just wanna ask you one question, why did you protect floyd mayweather jr's article? and do u know who he is? and what country you from? after that ill leave you alone and you wont hear from me again.Balagonj786 (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]