User:Proofreader77/RC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

(RC note) Bible [[Fiction novel]] > [[Fictional novel]] > [[Fantasy novel]] [edit]

NOTES/DIFFS:

REVERT BY PATROLLER, then:

  • [1] "(reverted back to pre-vandal version)"

REVERT BY PATROLLER (Proofeader77 w HG), then:

  • dif (undo / standard undo edit summary)

REVERT BY PATROLLER (Proofeader77) w HG)

  • Revision as of 02:50, 26 February 2009 -dif "(you have yet to explain)"

REVERT BY PATROLLER (HG)

  • dif (undo / standard undo edit summary)

REVERT BY PATROLLER (Proofreader77 manual) "(Nonsense miscategorization is vandalism. When you have been warned, stop and take it the talk page.)"

  • Revision as of 02:57, 26 February 2009 diff "(it is not nonsense, therefore not vandalism. if YOU have a problem with it, YOU take it to the talk page)"

...
(reviewing) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


user page communication (by Proofreader77)[edit]

  1. (level 4 warning HG)
  2. "Nonsense miscategorization is vandalism. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. "Make a case for that on the talk page if you believe the bible is fantasy novel. Bring reliable sources classifying the Bible as a fantasy novel. Etc. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC) (dif)

NOTE: Editor removes #3 (dif)

(...) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"vandalism"[edit]

1. "good faith" vs provocation

(...) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

2. provocation / disruptive

(...) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The reasonable person rule[edit]

  1. Would a reasonable person consider classifying a religious text as a ("Fiction novel">"Fictional novel"> "Fantasy novel" believing such a categorization was an attempt to improve the encyclopedia?
  2. If not, then the assumption of good faith does not apply.
  3. I.E., A patroller may treat/categorize such a categorization as a provocation.
  4. Can an intentional provocation (note: "reasonable person") be categorized as vandalism?

MY ANSWER: Yes. (...) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"religious text"[edit]

Which "religious texts" does this apply to? Proofreader77 (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Huggle effects[edit]

  • Note: first warning (by another patroller) re Bible was a level 3 (evaluate)

(...) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Procedural errors?[edit]

For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is.
1. Should the first reversion of the insertion have been done with Huggle (with warning) -- or manually?
  • If the the original insertion was an intentional provocation, ...
2. (What is the context of the first insertion? Earlier edits and warnings, etc)

(...) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC) (...)

(RC) misc notes[edit]

(RC) Maharaja Of Jodhpur[edit]

  • Someone erasing the Maharaja because of democracy (ie. he is "decommissioned") ... the issue is should be be erased, or clarified as being decommissioned. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Issue has been beautifully clarified by my asking for clarification. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Antifeminism[edit]

Ponder which parts of that to revert. (Note second paragraph is stripped of sense by that edit. But the other changes may be OK. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Left-wing politics[edit]

  • Take a look later and see if it's an odd POV change. Proofreader77 (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Steevan Glover[edit]

  • Check later what's up with this new bio. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) an edit summary for reversion that doesn't fly[edit]

"Unnecessary editing" Yeah, says who? :) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Jalebee Cartel[edit]

PR "upgrade" (?) for new album. Look back later. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) File:Iraqipeople3.jpg[edit]

Look into Free Art License Proofreader77 (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Sam cripe[edit]

Bio that probably needs erasing Proofreader77 (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Chhina[edit]

Check back and see if all the erasures make sense or not. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Special:Contributions/Edditor4lyfe[edit]

What the editor did on the first edit, does not give confidence the changes to Lebanon are correct. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Special:Contributions/70.111.185.133[edit]

Unsourced/unexplained changes. Take a look later. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) When "wikifying/prosifying" is not helpful[edit]

(longer term issue) A list of items are much easier to deal with than forcing them into a a paragraph. [2] Proofreader77 (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Réseau de Résistance du Québécois[edit]

  • "political and unjust" (re other patrollers reverting their edits) [3] - Check later. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

copy of warnings to editor User:Philbox17[edit]

Edit warring at Réseau de Résistance du Québécois[edit]

[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Réseau de Résistance du Québécois. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Réseau de Résistance du Québécois. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Closedmouth (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[[Image:Information.png|25px]] Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Réseau de Résistance du Québécois. Thank you. Closedmouth (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(Editor's article talk page comment)[edit]

Vincent Federalist Vandalism[edit]

Hi,

All my posts are remove by Vincent, he always erase what I write, always! Even when it's source. I write the exact same thing as in the reference and I also put a link to the Journal de Québec proving many RRQ members were manifesting at Québec 400th anniversary and he erase it! Philbox17 (talk)

In January 2008, the Réseau de Résistance du Québecois launched a campaign against Québec City’s 400th anniversary celebrations and accused the organizers of being revisionists. Here is the source http://www.canoe.com/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2008/01/20080101-094532.html Philbox17 (talk)

A spokesperson for the Réseau de Résistance du Québecois, notable Quebec filmaker Pierre Falardeau had warned that, "some people will get their asses kicked" if the re-enactment took place. The RRQ had promised visiting re-enactment spectators "a trip they won't soon forget". The victory rightly belonged to the small Réseau de résistance du Québec and its spokesman on the re-enactment. http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=1296374&sponsor= . Here is the other link, evrything I write is the exact same thing as in the reference. It's not write that the RRQ make threat, it's write that Falardeau and the RRQ warned, Vincent dont seem to be neutral he erase evrything I write. Philbox17 (talk)

The victory rightly belonged to the small Réseau de résistance du Québec, this is what the source said, the Gazette, read the source please. http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=1296374&sponsor= Philbox17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

patroller edit summaries[edit]

  • "(Fast revert: COI, POV, uncooperative editor)"

(RC) Black Mass linking of Host[edit]

... perhaps should be something else than Eucharist in this context. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) notes[edit]

Réseau de Résistance du Québécois[edit]

  • "political and unjust" (re other patrollers reverting their edits) [4] - Check later. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Economy of Cuba[edit]

Telugu Desam Party[edit]

  • How best to counsel the editor about wording and sources (appropriate for an encyclopedia) ... Noting English appears to be a second language. (Did not revert for the moment) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Gopal Singh Nepali[edit]

  • "Controversy"? (over Slum Dog) Check later. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bokeh[edit]

72.198.210.215 (inappropriate linking)[edit]

64.126.53.97 - false information, check other edits[edit]

  • 64.126.53.97
  • NOTE: Changes characterization of Wallace to a false one - [6]

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

edit war Baby boomer[edit]

Sierra Leone - military[edit]

  • NOTE: there are articles on the military ... New section here should be linked, etc Proofreader77 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(noting for nice work)[edit]

Schnapps edit war over German spelled section[edit]

  • But also note that Schnaps does not mean Schnapps in German. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry-Alex Rubin vs Henry Alex Rubin[edit]

  • Editor is apparently asserting hyphenated version is official, but isn't documenting/sourcing.
  • Editor is making both spellings an article rather than one a redirect - check later.

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


Rabies[edit]

  • Good faith edits, but not in the flow (connect with sources, and another source needed) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Steve Leven[edit]

Inappropriate paragraph break insertions[edit]

For example. See many recent such "copy editing" edits by "new" user. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"New" user adding paragraph breaks in many articles[edit]

E.g., this example. Most of their edits have the edit summary "(Copy editing)," and most "copy editing" paragraph breaks inserted appear, um, not well-motivated (except on the basis of x-number-of-words then next paragraph). Of course, arguing with someone about paragraph breaks is not something I would inflict on anyone (especially myself :) ... and surely no one hates long paragraphs more than me:) ...

The problem is not that every break is "wrong," but that enough of them are questionable that "what they are doing" should probably be restrained a bit. ...

So, of course, I will ask you :) for good phrasing for addressing the matter (or advice to leave it alone—e,g,m leave it to editors watching the page to determine if the changes were inappropriate case by case). Proofreader77 (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)