Jump to content

User talk:Courcelles/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer

Thank you. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer status

Regarding this, please read this. I am very disappointed in that user at this time. Please explain your action! SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer is being given liberally to people who won't vandalise, because the trial starts in 20 minutes and not having enough reviewers would cause a backlog very quickly. It is unlikely that Courcelles knew about the diff in question at that point in time. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 22:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I consider that user's recent conduct highly inappropriate and disruptive to en.WP as a constructive project. It is not beyond doubt, in my opinion, that this new authority will be abused. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
That user also very often writes an English that is not of an acceptable standard, due to heavy Swenglish (I spend a lot of time trying to clean such things up) - and is then supposed to review what? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't have any authority, it just allows him to be one of several hundred or even thousands of editors who have the ability to screen out vandalism and libel. It's not a seal of approval on the quality of the writing, it doesn't give him "authority" and if it's abused, it can be removed, but there's very little one could actually do with it that would be abusive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This is just a trial period. Please see WP:Pending Changes for more details; these are the only pages that he will be able to review. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 23:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I can't really do much at this point other than echo Sonia and HJ's points- Reviewer; as a flag, isn't in any way, shape or form a seal of authority; merely one of 1,500 or so editors (and 1,700 sysops) who can screen edits under WP:Flagged revisions for vandalism. It is not an license, and if he finds someway to abuse it- yet to be dreamed up- it can be removed in three clicks. The Sophia Magdalena of Denmark page almost surely will not be subject to this trial, and further, an editoral disagreement is grounds for seeing dispute resolution, not removing an editor's flags. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all sincerely for these helpful clarifications! Btw he is a she as per her own info. Phew! She contributes some valuable stuff from time to time, but this latest turn of events really set me off. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Closed CfD

Please explain You closed this CfD with the summary, "Broadly, not a bad idea, but no consensus to do this, and should really be discussed somewhere else, and then brought to CFD" But where? Please respond on my talk. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums to gather input from the editors that are concerned about album related articles/categories. Courcelles (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
You could add a |single=yes switch to the {{Non-free album cover}} template which would then place the album in Category:Single covers instead of Category:Album covers. This would make it so the template would continue to work as it currently does unless you included that switch. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pumpie, as a reviewer

Though I don't want to review pages as much as others, I'll won't be reviewing but not as much. I will review some or a few pages (not as many) but I don't want to be a reviewer. I will still do some links when I see them that are not linked. Pumpie (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed. just ask if you want it back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Should I just redirect your talk page to mine? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Your talk page is admin's noticeboard/misc, mine is requests for permissions/misc today. Works fairly well... Courcelles (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Wil you please go over by edit history[1] and contributions[2] and grant me Reviewing rights? Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuke's already done it for ya, Mike ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep, or I would have! Courcelles (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, and thank you. Didn't realize that it was done. Best of luck to us all. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will see how the trial goes.--MacRusgail (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Lots of messages about reviewer rights!

No thanks. I don't think I would enjoy being a Reviewer. Can you remove it for me?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer Rights?

Got notice that I now have "reviewer" rights, but not sure what that actually means in practical terms. Have written quite a few good articles; however, haven’t done much editing of other people’s work. Can you tell me what reviewer rights authorize me to do and what is expected of those who hold reviewer right?--Orygun (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically, when you edit one of these pages, it approves your edit automatically; you can also--Orygun (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC) choose to approve other people's edits. Do see Help:Pending changes for more information. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 00:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep, Sonia is right... again. I need to give her a barnstar or something. If you've got any questions after reading her links, do let me know. Courcelles (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Am always grateful when reviewer quickly revert vadalism, but don't think I'm very good candidate for reviewer responsibility. Am always busy working on new articles. Also, have periods where I'm off-line for weeks at time. What happens if I don't do any reviewing? Does that mean specific articles won't have any chgs approved? If that's case, I shouldn't be reviewer. If level of participation is optional, am willing to accept review right and participate in test, but you probably won't get many reviews out of me.--Orygun (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Nothing happens if you don't do any reviewing. It's just optional, and will save people reviewing when you're working. Like rollback-good to have, but doesn't mean you have to use it, only that we know you will not misuse it. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 01:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Alright,thanks.--Orygun (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 02:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer rights

Unexpected but looks intriguing - thanks! HeartofaDog (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem- happy editing! Courcelles (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer rights 2

Thanks for the rights. I was too busy laughing over your user page to understand exactly what that means. Eventually I will figure it out. It is nice to see some humor around here. Ciao.Dave (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer status

Thanks for the confidence. I hope I can be of help.Thelmadatter (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Likewise! Seascapeza (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I was just about to request reviewer status. Good thing that I looked in my user log before hand. Joe Chill (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Courcelles, thanks for give me that useright!!!!! I promise to do my best to deserve it. Aldebaran69 (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for review rights, but I am still confused what to do with it. I will find it out. Shivashree (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Tim Song II

Oh well, thanks, I guess...you did realize that it is my alternate account, right? T. Canens (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks interesting.

I'll have to look over the policies in more depth, but thank you for the opportunity. Mkdwtalk 06:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for the review rights, I appreciate it. --Bruce1eetalk 09:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks: Reviewer rights

Thanks!!! --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 04:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A Thanks from me. --Saki talk 05:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Jweiss11 (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate it

Courcelles:

I received you message, and I'm honored.

Please let me know if I can ever be helpful with anything.

Again, thank you.

Sherlock4000 (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer userright for CeeGee

Hi! Thanks a lot indeed for granting me the "reviewer" userright. I'm gonna prepare myself to fulfill that duty. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Also me

Well I suppose it is an honour to get some work to do so will look out for it - thanks Hugo999 (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewer

I was informed by HJ Mitchell that you were the admin who gave me reviewer rights. Thanks! Could you also please give reviewer rights to my sock account? Also in case you haven't already noticed, there are still edits in this contributions list. You might need to contact a developer to fix the problem. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 14:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Thanks for this powerful feature. This will be so useful! With some problematic and disputed pages, this will be pure salvation! Thanks for rights! :) --Tadijaspeaks 14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Merci. I have added some pages in the queue in my too-France-centric watchlist. Ciao. Alvar☮'s saloon. 15:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Thanks for this. I'm glad that I can help wikipedia. jjmihai 17:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for trusting me as a potential reviewer. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Diolch yn fawr

Thanks in my language (Cymraeg). Seriously - much appreciated.Rosser Gruffydd 18:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional military organizations (3rd nomination)

Thank you for the nomination

Thank you for your confidence in naming me a reviewer. I also look at the World Cup so I am answering only after the South Africa - Uruguay match finished.

I am not sure I understand all the steps but will try to learn them. As far as I understand, until there is not yet a list of articles which have to be monitored. For the time being I am only looling and the pending changes queue to identify the articles which are to be included on the pending changes protection list, which I am doing and writing my comments and proposals. If there is anything spefic you would like me to do please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards Afil (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't need my own section repeating what the above editor has written. My boss just resigned and my wife left for a month (sort of the same as my boss resigning, but sort of different) so my life is a bit more crazy than normal. However it seems to me that I'm going to more-or-less continue doing what I've always done, review edits on the 1300 or so articles on my watchlist and perhaps re-read some of the Reviewer Literature to see what, if anything else needs to happen. Feel free to peek over my shoulder and whisper in my ear at any time. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

To everyone above

No problem, and happy editing. Flagged revisions is a big change for most of us, so hopefully we will work together to make it work. Courcelles (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I am very excited about the opportunity. Cheers!Donmike10 (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

To everyone below also! Haha! But yes, many thanks. Cs-wolves(talk) 11:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Reg. reviewer right

I’m highly obliged. Thanks -- XETELI (HELLO) • FOOTAGE) 14:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from me, also. Jack1956 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And me! Midway (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Me too. scope_creep (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights

Could you please explain to me in more simple term what being a reviewer is?

Thanks a lot,

Ymron (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove reviewer right

Please remove "reviewer" from my user attributes. I didn't ask for it, don't understand it, don't need it and won't use it. What little I've had the patience to read sounds like an incredibly bureaucratic solution to a problem of little importance (to me, anyway).--Wtshymanski (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi and thanks for making me a reviewer, even though I'm not actually sure what it involves yet. Oh well, just need to do a bit of homework and I'll soon get to grips with it :) Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. :) Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost a double reviewer

Thanks anyway ;-) Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Finally I get to beat you to something! :P HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
So fast you were that you misspelled the edit summary :-) - Thanks, HJ. DVdm (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Please remove the right from this account and User:Yomangan (they are both me). It's already been removed from Yomangan once, and the reason I swapped to Yomangani was that this account didn't have it. It seems it's rather hard to resist. Thanks Yomanganitalk 23:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

For all your hard work...

Sonia has given you the second movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony! listenⓘ Symphonies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by sharing Beethoven (or Chopin!) with someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 01:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you delete my user page please?

I am not using it anymore, can I request you delete it?, Thanks a lot.

Fairbanks Legacy (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

please remove reviewer and other labels

Thanks for your notification. I didn't spend much time trying to fathom all this stuff, but I would prefer no label to be appended to my account. If you are interested in my reasons let me know, but would you mind removing that, and any other 'ranking' from my user status. Regards, cygnis insignis 11:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, no apology necessary, I can see you are very busy. Regards, cygnis insignis 02:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Alvin Greene

I have took Alvin Greene picture from official cite of South Carolina Democratic Party. http://www.scdp.org/candidates/federal/ It is a public domain since he is official Democratic nominee in the 2010 United States Senate election. I have got email from SCDC with permission for Alvin Greene picture to be shown on Wiki, and I have submit it to WikiCommons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greene1.jpg#filelinks But nobody approving it for 2 days already. Also, I want to rename it to another name like GreenAlvin.jpg because there is an editing conflict between WikiCommons and Wikipedia file with same name "Greene1.jpg" Please help, reply to my talk page. Innab (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It is fixed now. Thanks for help, this is my first time uploading picture with permissions to the wiki. Innab (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Good. Sorry I had to take a punt on this one, but you needed help I just couldn't give. Courcelles (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

I know it is a thankless task to add this userright to such a massive scale for so many users. That's why I wanted to thank you, at least on my behalf, for taking the time to do it. Your efforts are appreciated. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, they seem to be getting plenty thanks ;p –xenotalk 18:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, we've flagged 2,200 editors... and there's still 5,300 on the database report... Oh, well. Back to flagging. Courcelles (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Amalthea has written a script that will semi-automatically flag editors. They just need a vetted list. So you might consider going that route... –xenotalk 18:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
You've told em about that script two days ago, and I've been using it since. Then there's 3 database reports of users. Even then it's still busywork. Busywork that's getting done, but it's not helping my to-do list get any shorter! Courcelles (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I mean something even more automagic than having to go to the user's talk page and pressing the 'make reviewer' button. It will simply go down the list and do the same thing but with little-to-no human intervention. –xenotalk 18:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Ahh... oh, well. I'm good at pressing buttons, not so good at writing computer code. (Though, I do wonder, in the end analysis what difference there is between autopromotion and Karanacs and myself pressing so many buttons. The ability of a sysop to remove the flag?) Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
What I was suggesting is you just make a big list and give it to Amalthea to flag. (Yes, the difference is in the removeability, I don't think it's possible to have an implicit userright be removable, but I could be wrong). –xenotalk 18:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You are right Xeno. As soon as I saved my comment I noticed the flood of thanks in the sections above! But my thanks still stand, sans the "thankless" bit of course. :) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
=] –xenotalk 18:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
You're still quite welcome. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

← Lol: [3] –xenotalk 18:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Really, what's the problem? Is there some reason I'm unaware of that admin's alt-accounts shouldn't be flagged? I've been flagging them whenever encountered (including my own)... Courcelles (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
No real problem. Just wouldn't be used - that account basically only does semi-automated editing. (For clarity, I was referring to myself in a self-deprecating way, not you!) –xenotalk 19:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh good. You had me worries there. I flagged my own alt account. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer bit

Hello... just curious as to what criteria are you using when assigning the reviewer bit? For example, why did you assign it in this case? --Ckatzchatspy 02:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There's been a couple of us working through 4 pages of database reports like this one, and assigning this flag to everyone on the automatically generated list- VitasV was on that list, and I didn't check the block log. If you want to remove it, that's perfectly fine with me. Courcelles (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I've reverted it for now; VitasV can certainly apply for it if he feels he needs it. --Ckatzchatspy 03:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I've had to reinstate the right per the rules. Except for reviewer rights removed at the request of the user, removal of the permission is only possible after review by the community or the arbitration committee Please open an WP:AN thread if you feel the user should not have the right. Q T C 04:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
So, even though it was simply assigned based on the database report, even though there wasn't a check of the block log; despite the sockpuppetry and problematic editing, it still has to go through the process? --Ckatzchatspy 05:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
That, at it's logical end, would require the flagging admin to go to AN to correct a mistake and undo their own flagging, which seems extreme.Courcelles is travelling (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your message on my talk page, I'm honored for this, but I'm also curious on how the user's choice was made and if this is the famous review process the media was talking about? Thanks! --Vlad|-> 08:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I was coming to ask the same question, since User:Tai kit was just granted them[4] despite having an active sockpuppet case against him, fair certainty he is editing warring with sock puppets, and his obsession with putting large paragraphs about penis in articles...but from the above remarks, it looks like it can't be undone now? :-( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I've posted a question about the matter here. Courcelles and OverlordQ, please note there's no issue with you personally as I'm sure you're just following the procedures in place. I'd just like to examine (and possibly question) the procedure itself. --Ckatzchatspy 19:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough- I'm not sure I care for admin's being trusted to give this right out like day old newspaper that stinks of dead fish, but ArbCom being needed to take it away. Courcelles (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Thanx a lot! Oh, and I'm busy with the World Cup too :) - Al Lemos (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Peulan

Thanks for the DYK credit; I was just trying to avoid the "why he's awarded himself a DYK credit?" question arising (not that anyone would probably have noticed, or cared, but you never know....) Regards, and happy editing. BencherliteTalk 15:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

  • No problem- I also spend time over at ITN, and it's almost a weekly event for someone to template themselves- whihc I always find a little odd when I see, so happy to play postman for five minutes. Courcelles (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Review role

Thanx for the reviewer role. How will it work? Will other people's edit come up in my history page or watch list and then I'll get the option to approve to avoid vandalism and WP:POV? Thanx! ATC . Talk 15:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

another Thank you header

The Admin's Barnstar
To Courcelles, for cheerfully tackling the tedious task of building the Wikipedia reviewer corps. Thanks for all your hard work. Karanacs (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer accepted. I would also like to be autoconfirmed

Thank you for your recent note. I would also like to be autoconfirmed, whcih I think I qualify for based on my edit history. Admittedly, I don't create a lot of new articles, but all of the ones I have passed muster. Please consider this as a request. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Stan

Reviewer rights

Thanks for adding this ability to my account. While I'm not as active here as I used to be (or, indeed, would like to be), I will do my best to ensure that when I do have the opportunity to use this capability, I will use it judiciously. Dewelar (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

  • You're welcome- I'm not even sure if you'll encounter a use for the flag during the trial, but we are trying to build a legion of reviewers to make this trial go as smoothly as possible. Courcelles (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Thanks for making me a reviewer. I'll be glad to do what I can. Bests ever. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahrar Party (India)

  • Hi, please take a look at the article isn't it look like an advertisement?I had put tag to propose deletion two times, so that administrator can review it.but the author deleted it twice.Please give reply.$Max Viwe$ (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Quite frankly, no, it doesn't look like an advertisement. Also, you cannot re-add a WP:PROD tag when it is removed by anyone- even the page creator. To pursue deletion of this page please nominate it at WP:AFD, but my experience says it has a good chance of being retained, as lng as the content is truly verifiable. Courcelles (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer, rollback

Hi, thanks for giving me reviewer rights. I was wondering if you could also give me rollback privileges? Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Courcelles, I just wanted to thank you for granting me reviewer privileges. --Xero (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of RevDelete on your talk page

Hi. There's a thread that somewhat involves you here. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

It is currently very cold in this office and my comprehension span is not the best this am - how embarrassing - thanks for reminding me - low edits at the moment - will be back in the swing of things later next week - cheers thanks SatuSuro 00:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Original Barnstar
For being an great admin, I, award you with this barnstar! —ΩpenTheWindows™ 01:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Falguni

  • Hi,

Would you please review the article?$Max Viwe$ (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Am i a reviewer?

It seems U made me a reviewer @ 2010-06-19T02:00:04 & User talk:MSGJ#Am i a reviewer? removed it @ 2010-06-19T15:16:52. Please consider responding on my talk page so that this doesn't become a messy 3-way. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 10:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I don't see anywhere that MSGJ removed it. Your rights log is here: [5]. Could you clarify? {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 10:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank U for the clarification. I was responding to this edit but now i see that it was inconsequential. Thank U for your patience. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 11:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yes, he was (I assume) just removing the message itself, because you structure your talk in such a way that semi-automated notification gets to the wrong place. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 11:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Have I said today how much I love my stalkers. Issue resolved before I even read it. :) Courcelles (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your quick response in userifying User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Sheikh Sanif terrorist camp. Geo Swan (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

Hi, I didn't know you changed your name! Scared me for a moment when I couldn't find <redacted>! Anyhow, I was interested in moving the recently created Dj black to DJ Black, but that title is protected from creation since 2007. Could you consider unprotecting it? Or do I have to ask the protecting admin? Thanks! PrincessofLlyr royal court 18:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I'll save you a step- I just moved it myself. :) I know NOTHING about music- I avoid the subject like the plague- so I've no idea ifhe's notable, and the referencing needs work; but no reason I can see not to have it at the correct capitalisation. I've changed your post slightly- trying toa void folks using that name on here these days. Anything else I can do for you? Courcelles (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry! And thanks for moving it! I'm not all that great with music myself, but I like improving new articles. I think he's probably notable and I've already mentioned to the author that it needs more references. Looking back now, you gave me the reviewer right! I didn't recognize you then. I haven't used it yet, but thanks anyway! That's all for now. I'm trying to wind down - going on wikibreak Monday and need to tie things up, but it's not working too well! Thanks again, PrincessofLlyr royal court 18:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

I am gobsmacked, thank you very much.l santry (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: You are now a Reviewer

Thanks very much! Andrea (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I was thinking of requesting Rev right

a couple of days ago, but it slipped my mind since! SamEV (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer: Re: Thank you very much

Thank you very much. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:You are now a Reviewer

Thank you very much. Soxwon (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: You are now a Reviewer

Thank you! I will accept the userright with the utmost responsibility. —Umofomia (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Review

Thank you for the reviewer capability. I don't know if I will be able to do the job, but will look into it. Rpyle731talk 22:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer Status

I noticed that you have granted me "reviewer" status, and I would like to know what the difference between a "reviewer" and an "administrator" is. Please post your reply to my question on my UserTalk page or leave a note there indicating that you have replied here. --TommyBoy (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

An administrator, like me or Courcelles (whose talk page I stalk!), has the ability to block editors, protect and delete pages as well as a few other things, like modifying user rights. Admins are selected via a comunity discussion. Reviewers just have the right to accept edits from new and unregistered editors to pages protected with "pending changes protection". Admins already have that right automatically. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Adminstratorship requires running the gauntlet, whereas reviewer is a simple tool that is being given to all and sundry to make the flagged revisions- or whatever we're calling it these days- trial go well. HJ got it pretty well, to be honest. Courcelles (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
More technically, you can see the various user groups and their associated user rights here: Special:ListGroupRights. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"Reviewer" status

I note that you've posted a message on my talk page that I have been granted the "reviewer" user right. Please could I ask you to disable this for my account? Thank you. I also feel that I should make some sort of protest about such "rights" being handed out to users who have neither asked for them nor intend to use them. If this is official policy, where would be the best place for me to register my disapproval? Tevildo (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the very quick response. :) Is there any way I can request that my "User Rights" level is kept permanently at "(none)"? Tevildo (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's what I can do, if you're open to it- I can grant one of the flags, and then remove it, linking to that diff above. That should prevent a re--occurrence. Also, put your name on this list: Wikipedia:Database reports/Potential reviewer candidates/Exceptions so the enxt database report won't show you on it. Courcelles (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. I've added my name to the Exceptions list. If this is going to be an official record, can I state that I never, in any circumstances, want to have any sort of rollback/reviewer/admin/arbcom/bureaucrat/steward/foundation member status on Wikipedia? Thanks again for your help - it's very much appreciated. :) Tevildo (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guarantee you no one that looks at your rights log will ever add anything except by your request now :) (Sorry for the clumsiness of documenting this- if you ever change your mind, I'll be happy to put the flags back.) Courcelles (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
If the situation _does_ arise (in other words, if, at some time in the future, I need a flag to continue my normal pattern of editing), I'll let you know. Would you like another barnstar? I'll second the one above, if necessary. :) Tevildo (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
And all I was going to do today was look up the dates of Ethelred the Unready's reign. It's a funny old world. Tevildo (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Ha! I've done that before, came to actually use the encyclopaedia, and got sucked into something entirely unrelated. I'm not a huge fan of barnstars- I'm one of those folks that just smiles, says thanks, and lets the bot archive them 36 hours later. Maybe I ought to look into gathering them somewhere. Courcelles (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could you improve your algorithm for handing out this userright and posting on the talk page? I notice that RobHar received a message from you even when he/she already had the reviewer right. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no algorithm- it's a database report, Wikipedia:Database reports/Potential reviewer candidates. The script we're using is too simple to know not to leave a message if the user is already flagged.... Amalthea wrote it that way, it think... Courcelles (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
You're still leaving duplicate messages for people (example). Could you please clean up after yourself? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I had new data base run done... They get out of date quickly. This was bad script design- It ought to only leave the mess age if It flips the bit.... I'll talk to the author in the morning. --Courcelles is travelling (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Courcelles, I've checked through your contribs and fixed it right up to 18.00 UTC yesterday, except for cases like this, where they've already seen it. This editor needs the right removed, as they're blocked. And... wow. I think I now have a greater respect for you doing all that. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 09:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
fixed, thanks. (as hard as WP is to use on an Ipad....)--Courcelles (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer right

I have no idea why you made me a reviewer, but I'm definitely not the person for the job. Please remove me from the reviewer list.Superior1 (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, I haven't got the time for this role. Thank you, but i refuse. SJ (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you supposed to be just upgrading anyone? Isn't there some kind of process? Weakopedia (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer, really, is no big deal. He's using a script to flag users from here, and if they don't want it they can have it removed. If only those who specifically requested were flagged, there would be a backlog here and the trial wouldn't be very useful. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 10:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'll tell you why I asked - someone who is on my watchlist just got the reviewer right from you, someone who has been recently involved in what could was considered edit warring, or tendentious editing. Then I saw the post below that a blocked user had received the rights, so I wasn't sure if this was all a bit more haphazzard than it should be. But since I am only seeing a small part of this, I haven't really much to say, I just wondered. Is the intention that eventually all people who are confirmed (10 edits or whatever) be given review rights? Weakopedia (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I found the page for 'potentials' now, I see that it only takes account of edit count, and first and last edits, which really gives you no choice in this case. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
In answer to your questions: Autoconfirmed- I certainly hope it isn't, that would render reviewing obsolete and nearly identical to the old system. It would also be a hassle to implement if flagging is done manually. The tendentious editor- I think that even if they don't actively review, the intention is that others don't have to review their edits. So if their edits are uniformly fraught with issues, they shouldn't have the rights. If the user starts edit warring on a flag-protected article or otherwise misusing the rights, then they'll be removed. Feel free to comment if you think they are poorly suited to the user. Disclaimer: I'm not an admin, so what I'm saying has no authority whatsoever. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 10:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Oops, my previous comment may make more sense if you mentally visualise that I was responding as if Courcelles had answered my question, and not Sonia. Sorry about that, and thanks for the reply. Weakopedia (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem, and thank you for being so polite. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 10:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
And now, well, after four hours of sleep, I'm back to answer questions... but, yeah, Sonia is right, the flag is being given to everyone that list. A blocked editor getting it, while not really supposed to happen, is also no big deal because they can't use it whatsoever. We've been ignoring even 3RR blocks for this flag- the flag does absolutely nothing that the editor in question couldn't do before this trial began. In a very real sense, handing the flag out like candy floss is being done because to not have it is a downgrade in your permissions from five days ago. Courcelles (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: You are now a Reviewer

Thank you very much! Stormedelf (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. I am flattered and honored. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I hope that I'm in good company, and thank you very much!--A.S. Brown (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou! andycjp (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Me too, many thanks. Not exactly sure what it means, but I will read through the pages carefully and come back with questions. --BwB (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you guys beat me too the thank you. lol. Thank you for granting me reviewer status, quite an honor to be able to help Wikipedia with other respected editors. Bhockey10 (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto - thank you Springnuts (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer status

I'm sorry, but is "Reviewer Status" something that editors actually have to have some positive qualifications to get? You granted User:Bandurist Reviewer status after he was blocked indefinitely for tendentious editing. --Taivo (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops... Blocked editors are supposed to be removed from the list we're using- Wikipedia:Database reports/Potential reviewer candidates. Not quite sure how that happened. Flag removed, at any rate. Courcelles (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark Kirk Wiki

Hello, I believe that you placed a full lock on Mark Kirk's page due to an edit war I was involved with. Could you please tell me how I can edit the pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.186.30 (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Q about "editor" vs. "reviewer" (and many more ...)

project reviewer editor patroller etc.
en Green tickY autoreviewer
en-labs Green tickY Green tickY
de (Green tickY)
only Brion VIBBER 		Green tickY
de-labs Green tickY Green tickY
test Green tickY Green tickY
pl (?) Green tickY
ru (?) Green tickY autoeditor
hu Green tickY trusted
commons Green tickY autopatrolled
no Green tickY autopatrolled

Hi Courcelles, the granting of reviewer status made me check for the different user bits on different local projects. To be honest, at the moment I have no plan wbout all those different names ... I always thought, the wikimedia software is developed centrally and released to the different projects whenever those decide to make use of it. But now we have at least three user bits that actually do pretty much the same: reviewer, editor and patroller ... Can you bring some light into these different user rights? Regards axpdeHello! 09:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC) P.S.: Why does class="float-right" not work in en-WP? axpdeHello! 09:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

From testing on en.labs, "editor" rights there and on wikinews etc are the same as our reviewer rights. Reviewer rights then means patrolled revisions, being able to mark the quality of any given revision as well as just approving it. I have no idea what the others are, but I'd guess that they are similar just with a different name. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 09:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
And Autopatrolled on Commons is a permission given to all auto-confirmed users here, but there the ability to approve your own edits is a separate flag than the ability to approve other edits. The rest, I don't know about, and as rough as my German is, are unlikely to learn about. Courcelles (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

All those "auto"-userrights are the "passive" versions of those without "auto". And as far as I understood all those rules "reviewer", "editor" and "patroller" are pretty much the same ... but why all those different names?!? axpdeHello! 18:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Why am I sitting on the "second floor" right now, but if I was back in Britain, I'd be on the "first floor"? I've found that expecting English to be consistent is a futile hope- I didn't get any input into any of these names, and had I been able to do so, I would have suggested they be called something else entirely. Courcelles (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_8&oldid=1251201461"