User talk:TRTX

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction
Pulp Fiction is going through a GA review and has been placed on hold for seven days to allow issues to be addressed. Talk:Pulp Fiction/GA1.  SilkTork  *Tea time 19:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of songs in guitar hero smash hits


The article List of songs in guitar hero smash hits has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Current article Guitar Hero Smash Hits is not long enough to require a separate article for the soundtrack; it is also not as notable a tracklist as compared to the main GH games

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. M ASEM (t) 00:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

BLPN
Hi - I reverted your last edit at the BLPN - it removed the comment of another user. Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Bieiber
FULLY SUPPORT ADDITION

Hi - I don't know if you realize - that discussion is pretty much resolved and an addition has been added ot the article already. Off2riorob (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Your desired Beiber expansion
Hi, I saw the consensus. However given the developing nature of the story I felt it disengenuous to leave out the info coming out of Bieber's camp that they will submit to a paternity test and potentially countersue. TO that effect I added an unbiased piece about that and included a source from ABC (Who is fairly reliable). Hopefully we can reach an agreement on that part without getting into an edit war. This is done in the interest of "being bold" of course. -- TRTX T / C 01:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi - I have reverted your expansion of the Beiber content - there was a large discussion and clear consensus - please don't expand without more discussion at the BLPN thread and a new consensus as such expansion was largely objected to. Off2riorob (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it somewhat unnerving that I would have to clear any and every edit on the matter with the masses in a manner similiar to the previous discussion. However I will do so if I can be assured that the discussion will remain civil and not go the route of the previous one with accusations of "smear campaigns". 24.118.188.220 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally - I wouldn't bother, as the type of expansion that your are desirous of was rejected after lengthy discussion and at this time, without major changes, I don't see any chance of a consensus for such an expansion. Off2riorob (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

← That's my concern with this current situation. Any attempt to form a consensus that doesn't conform to the view of a very select group gets fillibustered into submission. Is there any place this situation can be taken to hopefully pull it out of the mier? Or is it just waiting until things blow over and revisiting it in a few months? -- TRTX T / C 03:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Following on what Rob said, I doubt it will be very long before the rest of the story comes out and is settled. But until something actually happens, other than press releases about what someone intends to do or not do, anything beyond what's in the article amounts to undue weight and fomenting gossip. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it "fomenting gossip" when multiple outlets (citing Bieber's camp as a source) report he is in fact taking a paternity test? -- TRTX T / C 21:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I have seen, its usual that in such cases, celebs don't take a paternity test without being legally forced into it. Bieber with likely go down that road - if he take a paternity test we will report that - until he does, we wont report that he might. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Hand Signals
You moved Occupy hand signals to Hand signals used by Occupy Wall Street movement. I do not see any discussion proposing such a move. I've been active on the page and the talk page and it certainly seems like you have made a unilateral move to a convoluted title. Yes, we probably do need to improve the title. Other articles are using the phrase "Occupy movement" but "Occupy Wall Street movement" is a limiting phrase, specifying the New York City, while the article is more expansive. The article has the potential to explain other variations used around the hundreds of movement locations. I personally added a youtube video source that showed different variations in San Francisco, which would be completely inapplicable under "Wall Street." And the "Hand signals used by" portion is more wordy than most encyclopedic titles. Occupy movement hand signals is a much more open title. That's my opinion, which I would have expressed had you brought it up. Instead, improperly, you just made the move. You should step that back and discuss, as is proper wikipedia procedure. Trackinfo (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You make a valid point, and I apologize for being a bit too bold. I assure you the move was done with no mal-intent. -- TRTX T / C 14:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)