Talk:Nurse.Fighter.Boy

Reviews

Please note that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, not an advertising platform. We do not only cherrypick the positive reviews, while pretending that mixed or negative reviews did not exist — if the film's critical response was mixed, our article's job is to reflect that its critical response was mixed, and not to highlight only the glowing reviews.

Also, ten Genie nominations didn't even make it the most-nominated film in 2010, let alone setting any kind of all-time record as was claimed by the editor who tried to bury the less glowing reviews. Polytechnique was the top nomination-getter in 2010, and the all-time record is still held by Night Zoo. Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The current full-protection clearly goes against Wikipedia:PREFER. I'm saying this because this is not the first time I see you go from 0 to 60 in 1 second in pages you commonly edit and that are minor/non-controversial edits that would normally not require indefinite protections. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 20:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

If the person whose edits are causing problems can already edit through the "autoconfirmed" level, then that level does absolutely nothing to control the problem at all — and "extended confirmed" is a level that can only be used as an absolute last resort if and when all other options to control the problem have failed, not as Step 2. And no, erasing real published reviews of a film from the article just because they aren't all unconditionally glowing is not "minor/non-controversial" — it represents a deliberate attempt to violate WP:NOTADVERT by turning the article into PR. So exactly what else is an administrator supposed to do, short of temporary full protection, in the face of unconditionally improper edits that can't be controlled with the lowest level of protection? Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

"Administrators who have made substantive content changes to an article are considered involved and must not use their advanced permissions to further their own positions". As I said, this is not the first time, and I know how the protection levels work—I am the one that constantly adds pps to pages—so, I've seen several times where protection is extreme, most of them are BLPs, so I can't complain. But non-BLPs are a different topic. The last time this happened was Talk:Kiki (2016 film), where you were having another edit-war with minor/non-controversial changes. But there's also Canada's Drag Race—where you even revdel alleged spoilers, which is not a valid reason to revdel. You ask me "So exactly what else is an administrator supposed to do", well, this talk page is red because there was no attempt to discuss the changes (is Sahil aware of this discussion?), you just assumed Sahil works for the production and went to fully-protect an article that has been edited by 14 people in 10 years. I'm only telling you this because at some point in the future someone will consider you are abusing the protection tools to win discussions rather than to avoid disruption, like in Gwen Benaway, which again, it wouldn't justify to indefinitely fully-protect a page solely because someone is removing some content. There are alternatives, use them before jumping to the admin action. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 22:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)