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.
Unfortunately, User:Verbal has been disrupting the templates on that page as well, in the face of opposition and lacking consensus. Those are part of Wikipedia's User Interface and main navigation system. He has been delinking the Outline of Knowledge from them, or tagging the Outline of knowledge links with his own POV inside the menus themselves:
Thanks for letting me know. Looks like it's headed to an overturn. As a philosophical matter, I don't care for second bite at the apple DRVs, but I'll stay out of it since it is overdue for closure. Courcelles (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Oops. my browser crashed while Twinkle was protecting, didn't realize it has gone through. Let me look into some blocks. Courcelles (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Someone already blocked everyone I saw. IP ranges are so not my area of expertise, you'd need to find an admin who has some understanding of rangeblocks. Courcelles (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh something is going on, but SPI's into IP's without any name accounts are usually a waste of everyone's time. Checkuser won't reveal everything, and it comes down to whether a rangeblock can be applied. I know there are some admins who advertise that they understand rangeblocks. Might be worth seeing what one of them thinks. (I know nothing about IP's. Not even if these folks are anywhere near the same "range".) Courcelles (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I figured that part out :) Against this crop, I wouldn't do it even as an independent observer, there's at least two really unique lists, and another one of a type we don't see often to pick from. I'll write something there tonight. Courcelles (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Please fill in the blank you prefer (and that's mentioned in the article) and cut and paste onto the DYK page there (linked above). Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I've never met you, and didn't know about the "reviewer" user permission until recently, and I found out that you gave it to me. Thanks a ton for taking the time to do that! Awickert (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The new show hasn't aired yet, so the only page it has is it's main page. None of those pages would link to the new show, it would link to the original. Jayy008 (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I've done the run with AWB. While I have the technical ability to fulfil your request, I don't want to stop on MRG's toes, so I'll let her make a final decision to do the move or not. Courcelles (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
While I'm loathe to get you to stop doing something such that it will create work for me, but if you like, Xenobot is approved for CFD/W work so I can set it to "auto" when doing Image-File replacements. –xenotalk13:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thanks, but I'm actually finding some where a straight Image->File substitution is not desirable for the entire page, so finishing the run manually is likely better. Courcelles (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
*phew* Dodged a bullet there. Carry on, then =] –xenotalk13:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[FWIW, I was planning on using regex to target the specific things that need replaced rather than simply replacing all instances of File and Image]
Sure, if there's anything else that is within my level of ability- all I did was move everything from Category:Image-Class articles to Category:File-Class articles. Actually transitioning all the subcats is going to take someone who really understands template mark-up, though. (Didn't even know there was another page, the things I did were marked as NOBOTS on WP:CFDW.) Courcelles (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
That huge list there might screw up CydeBot, so feel free to remove it until the categories actually start to empty themselves. –xenotalk20:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
That's why I've been putting my closes at the top, hoping the bot will run them. If nothing happens on them, I'll copy your huge list to a subpage and let you know where I put it. Courcelles (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not like the picture of Jason Reitman from the Toronto International Film Festival. The picture is not from an awards ceremony, it does not have a clear context, and it is not a very good picture. I would rather go with a picture of George Clooney from BAFTA or the Academy Awards, a picture Anna Kendrick or another picture of Jason Reitman, or possibly crop the picture of Vera Farmiga. The chief advantage of the Vera Framiga picture is that it is clear that it is from an awards ceremony due to the dress. On a related topic, Up in the Air was on the Top Ten list of a large number of film critics. I do not know of a single citation that states this other Paramount Pictures Up in the Air website. I do not know whether it would be reasonable to list all of the major critics (with citations) who had Up in the Air in their top ten list. --Dan Dassow (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Meh, missed this. (My head is really not here today.) Crop, or forcing size would be possible options. The edit I just made there will help, as well. Courcelles (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I found an existing cropped image Vera Farmiga wearing the same dress. I replaced the previous image and forced the size so it no longer squashes the table. Let me know whether this sufficiently accomplishes our objective. I may still enumerate the major critics that listed UITA in their 2009 top ten list. So far found citations for Roger Ebert and Ken Turan. There are quite a few more. --Dan Dassow (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Today has been so unproductive for me, I've made like six edits. I blame the weather, I wish it would hurry up and rain. That being said, I have been working on the prose and I'll add it in a minute (apologies if it's terrible). Dan, the top ten lists could be mentioned in the prose, but I know we didn't include them in the table for The Hurt Locker (and I didn't for Inglourious Basterds). They are not nominations or awards are they? - JuneGloom07Talk? 23:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I would not consider appearing on the top ten of major critics to be an award. I was thinking of something along the lines of: "Up in the Air also appeared on the 2009 top ten lists of Roger Ebert[1], Kenneth Turan[2], ..." --Dan Dassow (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The Top 10's are worth a sentence or two, not much more. We don't need an exhaustive list, the AFI because, well, they're the AFI, and one or two more is plenty. A full list would dominate the actual topic of the list. Courcelles (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Is the prose okay? I may have repeated myself or certain words a few times, so get your thesauruses out just in case (I used the word "saw" too much in Gosford Park). - JuneGloom07Talk? 23:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Just saw this page. Who usually does the moving/merging of categories required? Is anyone allowed to do it? sonia♫♪12:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Sonia. We have a bot that does all the work, a sysop just has to load it on the page, and wait. CydeBot will edit each article in a category and move them over. Thank goodness, as yesterday I added a 1,000 article category to CFDW, so moving it by hand would have required 1,000 edits. Instead the bot did it in 15 minutes. The bot is even a sysop itself, so it deletes the old categories after the move is complete! Courcelles (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that's good. It looked like a lot of work and I was wondering if (like AfDs) the closing admin had to do the job as well...! That's useful. sonia♫♪12:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a reason many of the old-time CFD admins have well over 100,000 edits. Some rare things, like double merges, where contents are distributed to two categories, have to be ran by hand, but those are usually small enough the closing admin just fires up AWB and does it. Before the bot, CFDW used to be openly editable, to allow non-sysops to help with the moving, but since editign teh page now gives instructions straight to the bot, it has to be fully protected. Courcelles (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I was going to say, if it was manual, that I could possibly help. (I have a semi-bot on simple which does the same sort of thing... couple of days ago I set it to fix archives, left it, then came back to find it hadn't done a thing. Then I realized that the reason I'd been asked was because the pages were all protected! Needless to say, I felt rather stupid after that...) So I'm "the short one" now? :P sonia♫♪13:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Whoops! I've never operated a bot, so i'd imagine I'd make the same mistake. You could always help by commenting on CFD discussions- commenters are few, so sometimes discussions languish. Anything listed on WP:CFDW in discussions awaiting closure needs more input to determine what to do, all the cut and dry stuff has been closed by now. Of course youre the short one. It's a term of affection, trust me ;) Courcelles (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
UAA- of course non-admins can clerk and provide input. Just don't remove any reports, and don't be surprised if an admin does something else than your input- i.e., just because you suggest WP:COIN wouldn't constrain an admin from just blocking if it is an obvious violation. You didn't do anything like that- the one I saw was spot on, and I removed it from the list. Courcelles (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
All right. Does the same apply for AIV? And do I have to append (non-admin) to my comments, or avoid the templates (since they are "administrator notation templates"? (Sorry for all the questions...) Affection accepted with thanks :) sonia♫♪13:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Clerking AIV, on the other hand, is usually a waste of non-admin time. The obvious ones will likely be blocked by the time you've looked into them, and the non-obvious ones are usually pretty easy to spot. AIV also moved a lot faster than UAA. The templates... well, I'm not sure there is any codified rule about that. Common sense usually applies. But, indent your comments right, and the bot will remove them if an admin decides to block. Courcelles (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
DYK for List of Chicago Cubs first-round draft picks
TY for rollback privileges. You are appreciated!
BTW: Why don't you post your barnstars? You sure earn them! Namaste!...DocOfSoc (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm one of those that feels like praise and criticism have to be taken when they come, and I really wouldn't feel right displaying one while letting the other archive in 36 hours- I get a good bit of both. Therefore, they both archive in 36 hours, and while the barnstars make me smile, I've never collected them into one page. Maybe it is time to collect them on one page, even if they're not displayed on my user page. Something to think about. Courcelles (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Please do. For those of us who put some thought in finding the PERFECT Barnstar we like to see them.LOL Also, as an FYI, when an admin piques my redheadedness, I go and read their barnstars and learn more about with whom I am dealing, it helps! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of occupations. 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. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The conventional wisdom at DRV is that AFD is not a vote. Therefore, when there is some policy-based debate pro and con, a detailed judgement is required to explain why one reading of policy is superior to another (or why we should IAR and not follow policy at all). If editors think they have a good argument and present it, then per WP:DGFA the closer should "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants". A summary response of "The result was X" is inadequate because it does not do this - it seems to treat the detailed discussion with contempt. The result is then to lower the quality of discussion because discussion is seen to be ignored and so then you get perfunctory voting rather than a proper consideration of the topic. Please see User:Uncle G's contributions for a good example of non-voting discussion which actually engages with the topic. His sage observations are worth any number of Delete per X votes and such quality work should be encouraged. Do you not agree? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
What are you getting at? There was absolutely no other way that AFD could have been closed any other way, both in numbers and strength of argument the !voters advocating keep per CLS were soundly rejected per SALAT and being an indiscriminate collection. I really only see the need to write out a closing rationale when uninvolved administrators could quite reasonably come to different conclusions- a good majority of AFD's are simply read the discussion and click the button. In this case, a keep close would have been summarily overturned at DRV, and I don't think no consensus would have fared much better, the arguments were so largely on one side, with the keep side having little to fall back on but CLS, which even sates, "At the same time, there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia." This happened here- this list was too indiscriminate, and too disorganised. Courcelles (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've gone over the lead and the plot section (in between getting distracted by AIV, UAA and Wikinews!) and made some comments. Are you doing this solo? I'll get back to it at a more sociable hour. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
From Heath - I just think after 10 years as a independent singer.songwriter that I should be able to have a wiki page. I'm signed to a label that is distributed by Warner Music, I've performed as the opening act for internationally renowned artists, I spend almost 3 years at the top of the France charts with my cover of "Billie Jean", I've been on numerous international (major label) compilation albums, and have licensed my music to various films, tv, and commercial interests. It's been a slow year or so, musically, so I have not had a reason to update the wiki page.
Additionally, since the page was created, I've become a working actor - namely a commercial voice over actor - and I am currently the voice of AMEX - OPEN and Honey Nut Cheerios. I've spend the past few years as a comedy/improv actor and have created a website for my work at www.swimnaked.tv
The confusion with Brandon Heath has been the bane of my existence, but I don't think it's fair that since he and his new dominate google searches, that I would considered inappropriate to have my own wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathbrandon (talk • contribs) 19:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
What can you show that you meet WP:ENT? What reliable sources have discussed you? The bottom line is that you have to become notable first, and then you get a Wikipedia entry- you're not consider "inappropriate", merely not notable enough yet. Courcelles (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
We have the WP:REVDEL tool available to delete offensive revisions, but ordinary vandalism is an explicitly not allowed use of the tool-n that is simply reverted and ignored. ArbCom is keeping a pretty close eye on the new button due tot he potential for abuse. Courcelles (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
it seems every year on List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman episodes the page get vandlized when new episodes are being put up. New episodes are going to be realsed soon for the show and I would like to know is it posbile to protect right as the episodes are realsed. It seems after the episodes are added it is an edit war and vandalism by the ip's. Or will it be best to wait intill it gets vandlsies. Also is there a way to just say protect for at least a lttle bit intill after the season is over. it wil,l oly be a mounth for it to air. I guesssing the episodes will be realsed withen the next 2 to 3 weeks. I just would like your opion on what to do, so we can provent this. thanksSaylaveer (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi mate i believe your protected Floyd Mayweather's article page, if you did then how come people are vandalising him article, so whats the point and meaning behind protecting someones article.
i would really like to know because im confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balagonj786 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Balagonj786 (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I only move-protected it to prevent anyone from moving the page. HJ Mitchell(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) applied the semi-protection, but that only stops edits from accounts less than four days old and with less than then edits. The present problems seem to be between users who are already past those thresholds, so they can freely edit, though I will monitor the situation. Courcelles (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You made a mistake
HalfShadow was clearly reverting vandalism. As such, he is exempt from 3RR. Just look at the spelling that he reverted. It's at best bad spelling or at worst a parody of ebonics or whatever. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ02:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
To quote the 3RR exemption, "Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." The edits he were reverting were non-constructive, I agree, but they weren't obvious vandalism- and reverting them without comment didn't help the situation one bit. Courcelles (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) FWIW, I don't think the edits were especially helpful, but they don't qualify as vandalism. I believe HS when he says he wasn't consciously edit warring, but the edits weren't vandalism and nobody could really believe they were, so they don't get HS a 3RR exemption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You know, you could have just asked me to stop and I would have.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. - JuneGloom07Talk? 23:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Any chance you can take a look at RFPP? There's quite an amount of unfilled requests at the time being. Thanks again. Connormahtalk04:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
...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... sonia♫♪04:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
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. :) Connormahtalk04:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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[3]. 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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*
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)
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)
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)
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)
I move protected it- because some vandal moved it to a nonsensical title. That's fairly standard practice, and it's a high-profile enough article that it shouldn't be moved anywhere without discussion anyway. He's a boxer, and that's where my interest in the sport pretty much ends- it's not my game at all. What country am I from? Complicated answer, that I'm not going to provide. Courcelles (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
