User talk:Courcelles/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Courcelles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi, Courcelles. Because you procedurally opened Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 11#Ambarish Srivastava, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 14#User:Spjayswal67/Ambarish Srivastava. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Brad, do you think User:PeterbrownDancin is disruptive already? I've had my fill running around after them, and the questions I've raised were never answered. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd already had my fill, except that I think I can make Birgitta Trotzig a DYK based on the amazing number of sources available. He's clearly ignoring WP:BEFORE, and I've never seen an editor with ~200 edits carpet-bomb AFD with nominations before. Disruptive? I'd say borderline, but if he would stop I'd be more than happy to just forget about it. Courcelles (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets take another one i picked out at random (with eyes closed): Jens Harald Bratlie. Can he be saved or will this Norseman face elimination? On a side note, if 50% of all unsourced BLPs are non-notable, the selection of 4 worthy ones at random would have a probability of just 6.25%, no? PeterbrownDancin (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• What is this, a challenge? Go and source it! If the article is correct, of course the man is notable. I don't know where your numbers come from, but I do know you have yet to rightfully propose any article for deletion. So far you're 0 for 4, and you don't want to worsen that record. Get to work and start finding sources. If you've disabled your own Google (one of the weirdest things I've ever heard, and please don't explain), then go to the library and get some books. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I happen to think that perhaps all the unsourced BLPs are notable. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am done talking with you: you don't listen to anything but yourself. Sorry, Brad, that this has to take place on your talk page; perhaps you care to look at the edits I've made to Birgitta Trotzig and check my work. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, one more thing, Peter, after your grandstanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birgitta Trotzig. You claim there to have saved four articles and said, "These may not seem like much, but all together these articles represent hours of hard work and dedication that most certainly would have been summarily deleted without our intervention." Well, Jack, YOU didn't save anything, and the "hours of hard work", that's obviously not YOUR hard work. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that one I can't source without reading Norwegian. But, many BLP's that were deleted in the run-up to the current RFC looked much like this one- a sentence or two that anyone who knew to look for would already know everything there. Then there's this one, who is barely notable if the info here is true. (Though the article, at present, doesn't actually prove notability under WP:ATHLETE. Then there's this, which doesn't indicate any notability, though as a non-Serbian speaker, I can't prove anything. (Anyways, how did my talk page get chosen as where to discuss this?) Courcelles (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I like your couch, that's really it. I don't mind if one- or two-sentence BLPs find themselves handled more rapidly and possibly with less scrutiny; that's not much of a loss. But Trotzig, she's obviously notable, as are the others singled out by our pointy vigilante. Athletes, I usually stay away from them: I don't care for the subjects, and find writing those articles tedious. Same goes for bad singers! Hey, there's definitely a DYK waiting to happen for Trotzig. I'll get back to it in the next couple of days. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note, the originator of this thread is indefinitely blocked now as a sockpuppet. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, understood.  :) The problem has been that the {advert} and {npov} tags have been around for sometime and nothing's been done. Maybe I'll do some of that. 70.23.79.203 (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For reverting the vandalism on my user page --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the same. I was reverting vandalism, but forgot to protect home base. Just teaches one that one must have a good defence. ;) ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 08:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Both of you are quite welcome. You might want to consider semi-protection of your user pages; it really cut down the number of personal attacks showing up in my user space, despite my talk page and sub-pages being openly editable. Courcelles (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I had just logged in to revert the vandalism on that page, you beat me by seconds! Good work! Hugorudd (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/gobbleswoggler 2: This user is on his 3rd RfA attempt in almist as many days. The second on was nipped in the bud. Could you or another admin do the user a favour and wrap this up early again with WP:SNOW? I think we may be dealing with a good faith editor who may be a child football (soccer) fanatic. --Kudpung (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not an admin-and editor can snowball an RFA that is clearly failing- and I wouldn't touch this one even if I were (I'd let someone act); this RFA is not transcluded on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and until and if it is, noone should be expressing anything on it at all! RFA's don't begin until the candidate or nominator transcludes it. Hmm... I'll post something on WT:RFA and seek guidance. Courcelles (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I got your point that this AFD business is not sitting well with you. I'll stop. Keep in mind, Jimbo has already stated that he would back an edict that all unsourced BLPs be deleted within a certain amount of days, however. [1]. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not saying don't use AFD, we're saying do some work before rapid-fire AFD noms. Birgitta Trotzig, especially, was trivial to source even without Google. You know what, 50% of the unreferenced BLP's I've looked at are non-notable, sometimes even rubbish; but without looking yourself, you've managed to hit on a run of those that aren't. If you look for sources yourself and strike out, then AFD is appropriate, but wihtout having at least a cursory look around, you end up making some noms that other editors will react badly to, even though your intentions aren't bad. I advise unblocking your web access ASAP if you're going to worry about BLP's. Courcelles (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. All I was doing was selecting random unsourced BLPs from my own list of them, see User:PeterbrownDancin/unsourcedBLP, and putting them up for deletion to show both how ridiculous it is to summarily delete them (which is where I fear this is headed), and how ridiculous it is to spend hours and hours on a weekend arguing about it rather than just sourcing them. I do, however, have major privacy concerns about google.com. Do you know they log each query you make under your IP address and save the information? They also plant tracking cookies on your computer as well. That's something I cannot abide. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You really should look before you leap, and you should REALLY take the advice I've already given you and read WP:POINT. Unless you do, and show that you understand that your actions were (borderline) disruptive as well as counterproductive, you are going to continue to run into trouble here and arousing the ire of contributors who want to save BLPs as much as you say you do. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

YOU SHOULD HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN ANNOY PEOPLE WHO TRY TO MAKE WIKIPEDIA AN UNRELIABLE SOURCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Losererer (talk • contribs) 01:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha. That's funny. Since you admit you were vandalising, though, I think my revert will stand. Courcelles (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on Francis Close. The article is much better now. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it still needs a great deal of work; for instance a list of publications would be nice; but as it is it was good enough to nominate for DYK on behalf of the IP, you, and myself. Courcelles (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I Herby award Courcelles for his efforts in reverting vandalism on the English Wikipedia. Written by GeneralCheese 06:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Vandalism never seems to take the weekend off, does it? Courcelles (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, LOL! Written by GeneralCheese 00:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting all that recent vandalism on my userpage. - Zhang He (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Anytime. You really got on the vandal's bad side tonight! Courcelles (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

me too. :) SS✞^(Kay) 05:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

its not my fault that i have to stop and rewrite the whole page over i have other things to do and it takes a long time to write the articals and my fingers be hurting from all that typing i have to do plus i have made mistake then i have to correct them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.117.2 (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You added the word "fucking" the the Endangered Species Act article [2]. You also removed all the categories from a sub-category, which orphans it [3]. Then, though I didn't give you this warning, you added a string of nonsense characters to an article, [4]. Of these three, none can be considered to "rewrite" an article. Courcelles (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

First let me welcome you to Project Medicine: Dermatology task force's missing article project, otherwise known as Bolognia push 2009 (should probably be updated to Bolognia push 2010:) ) For convenience, I set-up some links to some valuable areas to help assist you will working on the list of cutaneous conditions.

Project page Bolognia push 2009 project page

The Bolognia website login log in page

Dermatology categorization scheme Helpful for determining which categories the conditions belong in.

Dermatology task force participants If you would like to add yourself.

List of cutaneous conditions Main article page.

Dermatology task force assessment page Project's assessment page

If you have any questions that come up please feel free to ask. Also Kilbad leads the project and has been invaluable to the many questions I have had both starting and continuing with the project. A true testiment to the spirit of collaboration he is. And thanks again for offering to help. Your contributions throughout Wikipedia are outstanding and having such a dedicated user offering to come aboard is very appreciated. (E-mail incoming). Kindly Calmer Waters 05:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brad - thanks for your comments, and good morning to you too :) Would this be acceptable as a source? I can't find anything else I'm afraid - the only other one is an article on the French Wikipedia! Arctic Night 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I've found a nice PDF file. It turns out that I have to use the French word for Zaragoza (Saragosse). I'm adding it to the article now. Arctic Night 13:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Looks like the question has been answered, but I still have some concerns about the level of XfD work... only 22. Arctic Night 13:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Aha, you noticed! I don't know if you remember, but I also nominated the article for DYK. Due to the backlog at the time on T:TDYK it achieved GA status before being featured in DYK. I bet that doesn't happen often! Arctic Night 14:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a fast-growing article! Unfortunately Tillson Harrison doesn't have nearly as many pictures as that one. So you'd never conducted a Good Article review before that? Arctic Night 14:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ouch :) I'm currently reviewing some DYK noms and have seen a few copy-paste nominations. They concern me :) Arctic Night 14:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's true. Oh well, I guess it's back to the Members of the European Parliament :) Arctic Night 14:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some grammar mistakes in Xu Deshuai's article. I am not good at English. May you help us? Hoising (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I did some copy-editing, however, as I don't read Chinese, I'm not able to check the sources and truly get the article into shape. Courcelles (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

OIC... That's okay. Thank you very much. Hoising (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Believe I've addressed your concern. Sorry about the mistake. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 04:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Brad! Arctic Night 11:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that would be because it comes up in my watchlist! Arctic Night 12:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, the 'user rights log' showed up in my watchlist: 'PeterSymonds (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Arctic Night from Rollbackers to Rollbackers and Autoreviewers'. Do you know how to tweak the templates? I've got no idea! Thanks :) Arctic Night 13:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thank you :) You have a sharp eye: how did you notice that I was failing with my design skills? Arctic Night 13:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had a lot of time on my hands recently! My rate of creation will probably slow down in the near future. I find it relatively easy to create and nominate an article in under an hour, but usually I get distracted and it takes a lot longer than that! Arctic Night 13:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Courcelles! thanks for the closures of Valued picture candidates. The project indeed needs contributors like you to help out with admin work. Would be great to see you back at VP with further contributions. Please feel free to get involved in any other area of VP as well. Elekhh (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great. Elekhh (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Courcelles again. Probably noticed that you just promoted VP nr.100 - an important milestone you're now part of! Elekhh (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

But your AIV entry removed mine here. I'm sure this wasn't intentional, since you're using Huggle. Just letting you know. Cheers, XXX antiuser ^eh? 19:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense- and shouldn't have happened. Hmm, I'll post it on the Huggle bug page and see what those who can actually code software think. Thanks for letting me know and catching it. Courcelles (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, keep up the good vandal-fighting work! :) XXX antiuser ^eh? 19:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reported it here, we'll see if anything comes of it. Keep it up as well; the vandals are out in force today, I keep waiting for things to calm down, and it's just not slowing down. Courcelles (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brad! I think we've taken care of all of your comments at the Horses in World War I GA. If not, it's because they got lost in the shuffle, not because we're ignoring them. Would you mind taking another look to see if there's anything further that needs to be addressed? Dana boomer (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Courcelles. I noticed you have been filing redirect requests at WP:AFC/R. Thanks for helping us out! I don't know if you're aware of this, but we use the template {{subst:AfC talk}} (in the format {{subst:AfC talk|PAGECREATEDNAME}}) to notify IP editors/users that their request has been filled. Just thought you might want to know. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments regarding the proposal for a new page: "Ian Rogers". You question the notability. Please take a look at Wikipedia:RU#Criteria guideline for article inclusion.

There it has their criteria specified as "...at least one test match... as... umpire...". Ian Rogers was a referee in 10 test matches, including a Rugby World Cup. I suspect that this more than exceeds the criteria that this group is looking for in regards to notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.69.193 (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks- that was what I was looking for by trawling through WP:AFD's and not finding. It's sorted now. Courcelles (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated! — Hunter Kahn 05:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Courcelles. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

you're french arent you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.81.225.71 (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, and I'm not even sure what would make you ask, to be honest. (Though I have been to Paris half a dozen times, and wouldn't mind living there!) Courcelles (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

andyzweb (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thank you. Courcelles (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please allow the page patroller who corrected the error to assign the warning.--Morenooso (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. It made more than one edit. Sorry!--Morenooso (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It was the Loyola edits. I have your talkpage on my watchlist which the proper place to keep the conversation without bringing them to another talkpage.--Morenooso (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a matter of personal preference, actually- I find the orange bar useful, and always go to the other person's talk page unless they have a header indicating some other preference. Courcelles (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it's standard etiquette which most long Wikipedia editors follow. You stay on the same talkpage because this is not a tennis court or email delivery device.--Morenooso (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those reverts on Health care while I was blocking and suppressing a phone number. I appreciate the help! Keegan (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem- I know I spam the oversighters with work regularly. Not surprised Health care would be attracting vandalism today with the meeting in Washington being on every news channel! Courcelles (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

According to this edit you had an opinion about an WP:AFD argument. You may want to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Sills (American football)‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Courcelles. I think that the concerns you raised at Template talk:Did you know#George Hampel (legislator) were addressed a week ago. Is there anything else that I should be doing? If the hook, topic, or article is just inappropriate for DYK, I understand. I just don't want the clock to tick down if there's something else that I should have done which is preventing the nomination from being approved. Thanks, --BaronLarf 05:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I snipped the link a bit too much, that caused the error. All fixed! Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

On February 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Francis Close, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Check simple:User talk:Courcelles. Handy suggestion for ya. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the picture on that page is a pretty good reliable source to prove Gabourey Sidibe is a fat pig. 99.91.243.226 (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The policy on biographies of living people trumps your own analysis of a picture. Courcelles (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Loser. 99.91.243.226 (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Manually archived. Insulting someone on their own talk page is a blatant disregard of WP:CIVIL. Courcelles (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brad. I was wondering, what tool(s) are you using to revert vandalized articles so fast? Cutno (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Huggle. It requires the Rollback user right to work, which you can request at WP:RFPERM. Courcelles (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick revert on my talk page! Uncle Dick (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I also took the liberty of reporting your impostor to WP:UAA. What have you been doing lately to get someone to do that, I wonder? Courcelles (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

cool story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.147.211 (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

hey

Hello! Can I help you? Courcelles (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

On 4 March 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 3 March 2010 Baqubah bombings, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Dumelow (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Synchronised swimming at the 1998 World Aquatics Championships, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 12:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Olga Sedakova, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 12:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was. Appearance is an element of notability of a person. If you have issues with my vote, please discuss them in the vote page. Timurite (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, I didnt know that this was the next step, I wont make this mistake again, and that is thanks to you, I ll rerevert my revert, enjoy editing :-) MaenK.A._Talk 18:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I agree the page needs to go, but it has to go to AfD now. Prod, for all its value (avoiding clogging AfD), can be stopped by anyone for any reason. You're doing good work- keep it up! Courcelles (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :-)MaenK.A._Talk 18:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For Beating me to reverting Vandalism and Doing quite a bit of reverting too. Good Job and Keep It Up!! Floul1 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Courcelles (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brad...hope I'm doing this right as it's my first time submitting a question in this manner.

I was the person who submitted the "Rebecca Schiff" article which you reviewed.

The reason we originally submitted this article is because there was a link on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil-Military_Relations) suggesting that she be added as her own page. Her theory (if you scroll to Concordance Theory) is the most recent in the field. All of her colleagues, known for their own theories, have their own wikipedia pages, so we were just following suit.

So I guess I'm just a bit confused as to why the submission was rejected?

By the way, thanks for being a reviewer. I assume you spend your own free time doing this and it is a great service to all of us wikipedia users!

Seewoester (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)seewoester

Thanks Brad for your suggestions...I'm working with my colleague right now to beef up the entry a bit and will then submit it to the at-large community. Keep up the good work!Seewoester (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)seewoester

Hi Courcelles/Archive 3!. Every attempt to rescue a Wikipedia article is a noble gesture. However, there may be occasions when, with the best will in the world, it is just not possible to accord even a minimum of notability to an article or stub, or find a proper source for it. Most regrettably, even the most dedicated inclusionists will have to concede that the article may have to go if the creator or major contributors cannot justify their work.
For new and recent unsourced BLPs, some users are now working at WT:BLP PROD TPL on the development of templates that are designed to encourage contributors to source new BLPs, without scaring away the newbies who might not be aware of the rules. This template is certainly not another a licence to kill for the deletionists, in fact the very idea of it is to ensure that you are not fighting a losing battle. It would be great if you could look in at the prgogress and maybe leave a word of encouragement. The workshop page is essentially a template development taskforce, and is not a place to engage in a hefty debate on incusion/deletion policy. See you at WT:BLP PROD TPL?--Kudpung (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with this image? 300px It is a prime example of a Miniature Pinscher, and thus is a valuble contribution to the Miniature Pinscher page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.61.58 (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's also a sexualized image of a dog, and is not appropriate for the lead photo of the breed's article. In fact, I'd say it's not appropriate anywhere- the quality is bad, and it adds nothing to the Miniature Pincher article Courcelles (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks Brad for the quick respons to vandalism on the 2010 Turkey Earthquake artcle. Swordfish56 (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Anytime. You should drop by WP:ITN/C and held decide what goes on the front page's "In the News" section. Courcelles (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anna Kozlova, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, my verb "Emauneling" is a valid and constructive entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.128.205 (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP and WP:MADEUP. They will explain why unsourced negative information in biographies of living people; and things you made up are not suitable for Wikipedia.

I don't believe in rules never did never will —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.90.225 (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be so tardy in getting around to thanking you for this revert. And congrats on the DYK. Good work all 'round. Tiderolls 03:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks. Courcelles (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

On 14 March 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article March 2010 Lahore bombings, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanx for informing me, I'll request there next time! And sorry again! Coming from a medium wiki (el.wiki) I really feel lost here sometimes, and so I really appreciate your advice. Regards! --Egmontaz♤ ^talk 11:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. This place is easy to get lost in sometimes! Courcelles (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks I've replied. I hadn't thought of writing about women's cricket until I went down to Adelaide Oval and shot all those pictures of the Aus and NZ women (the security don't let you near the men). In any case, because I had to take many samples of the players I ran an ongoing vote to see which pictures go in the articles, per my user talk page and I would be honoujred if you participated, dear sir YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

done YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

for the reverts. ROBERT TAGGART is not happy in his retirement. Favonian (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Would it surprise you to say I've never heard of this fellow? The attakcs n your talk page were quite unacceptable, though. Courcelles (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Peppermint Chills Thanks you for removing vandalism from his User-page.

Peppermint Chills 15:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy to do so anytime! Courcelles (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry 70.115.79.20 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No lasting damage done- just please don't vandalise anymore. Courcelles (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick thank you for reverting the vandalism.  Mephistophelian (talk ● contributions) 16:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Anytime! Courcelles (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, so now random users are getting in on the "revert me with no discussion" action. I already got Clue-botted on my IP, so I log in, because the false positive page is autoconfirm protected, and now non-bots are reverting me. I just want to bring the article in line with the damned styleguide, is that too much to ask? [5] Riffraffselbow (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for undoing the revert, and sorry for going off on you. I was just annoyed, mainly by the fact that cluebot's false-positive page was autoconfirm protected, forcing me to log in. Riffraffselbow (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My perception is that it falls under the same line of thought that supports more restrictions on editing by IPs; Cluebot itself seems to use "IP editor" as strike one against you, without any accounting for, say, # of contributions, chronological spread of contributions, etc. By my perception, Wikipedia is becoming increasingly "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, just sign up over here first, and then do some counter-vandalism work until you get autoconfirmed" Riffraffselbow (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For beating me to dozens of mass vandalism pieces. I need rollback, but you and your fellow ninjas beat me to the punch. I congratulate thou. 2J Bäkkvire Maestro stuff more stuff 21:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the star. Have you installed twinkle yet- or are you stuck using Internet Explorer? I remember your rollback request- mainly because I'd never seen a paragraph request before! If you ask again soon, the answer might be different; I've not seen any of your humorous edit summaries lately. Courcelles (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Courcelles, you've probably never heard of me. However, I've seen you about and considering the backlogs I was wondering if you were interested in going through RFA and becoming an administrator? You seem to have the right stuff for the job, and I think you'll do great. Cheers. Aiken ♫ 16:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As someone who follows RfA fairly regularly, I believe running for RfA right now would be inviting a WP:SNOW closure- I've seen candidates with twice my tenure in the project get neutrals and opposition for short time around Wikipedia. I'm not sure I'd ever want to run that gauntlet, but I'd be open to seriously considering it in a few months if ITN, AIV, and CFD need more help. Thank you for the consideration- I just don't think I'm ready to run yet. Courcelles (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, you've not been active too long (for some). A wise choice to wait probably. Aiken ♫ 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting in here but I was having similar thoughts myself earlier in the week. Having poked around a little, I agree you'd be best to wait a little while but, just for the record, you'd have my support if or whenever you do stand! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, HJ; that means a lot. Now, the RFA I really want to see is your second attempt! Courcelles (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've decided it's a when not an if, but it won't be for at least a month or so. I'm not that masochistic! I think you easily have the potential to be a great admin and I'd even nominate you, but I think the RfA regulars would disagree with me. :( HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted this edit recent edit, which seemed reasonable to me. Was this a mistake or have I missed something? Grim²³★ 19:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone missed something, and that someone was me. I saw a section disappear, and didn't notice it was put back in alphabetical order. That was entirely my fault- thanks for letting me know; I've reverted myself and redacted the bad warning I gave. Courcelles (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on First Presbyterian Church (Columbia, South Carolina) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. SKATER ^Speak. 16:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you *blush*. It's pretty - perhaps I'll stick it on the cubicle wall. :-)

And believe me, I've done the "too many windows open" thing more times than I care to remember. (Actually, if you look at my edit history, it's a bit of a disaster sometimes...) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you don't mind me asking for your advice. I created the above article today about a Picasso painting that has become the "most highly estimated work of art to be offered at auction in Europe" and I was planning to nominate it for either WP:ITN or WP:DYK. I've seen you around at ITN and wondered if you thought the article/story would get any support? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 18:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 19:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Courcelles. You have new messages at Skater's talk page.
Message added 21:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SKATER ^Speak. 21:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not revert good faith edits and retreat under the facade of countering vandalism. Continue to do so and you will be blocked from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.226.38 (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Labelling a group "corrupt penises" is hardly something done in good faith. Courcelles (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		4 unique talkpage vandals in the past 5 hours, and 8 in the past week. Someone is really doing a great job on vandalism patrol! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, i hope you have a second to spare during the current assault of your talk page so you can see im an ally and not another vandal. Great job - having so many vandals here is a surefire sign of excellent vandalism patrol work. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I got hit four times in ten minutes there! I have my user page semi-protected, so anyone who wants to be juvenile has to do it right here. Thank you for the barnstar; it's always nice when the orange bar isn't personal attacks! Courcelles (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)