User talk:Proofreader77

To begin a new discussion, click here.

Template:Archive box collapsible

© Adam Cuerden .

Roman Polanski 3RR acknowledgement (documentary edits)

Roman Polanski has a complex NPOV issue which I am working to resolve. Part of that is documenting the problem. In doing that today I acknowledge I have hit 3RR. (The first time as an editor here).

Resolving the matter is my current top priority. I am investigating best path to proceed now. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning on Roman Polanski

Your recent editing history at Roman Polanski‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Using my talk page as your personal journal. (see comment)

You posted the below in my talk page, while I appreciated your need to journal or take notes, please refrain from doing so on my talk page, please use your own resources for logs and whatnot. Thank you. --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Documentation of disruption by editor amidst NPOV dispute - copy provided to them as addendum to warning

(Copied from other talk page)[Documentation] POV tag removed 3rd time amidst dispute Gatoclass: support POV tag NOTE (following appearance of admin support for tag, editor quickly withdrew. TomBaker321: "POV tag ... should be removed" WITHDRAWN Removals of POV-section tag 12:20, 8 November 2009 01:41, 9 November 2009 04:46, 9 November 2009 Warning - You are edit warring to remove a POV tag See WP:3RR. Note other recent 3RR re condensing of summary (apparently mistakenly believed to be part of NPOV dispute) 08:48, 6 November 2009 NOTE: characterizes exp. editors condensing of overgrown summary as "weed whacking" 21:41, 6 November 2009 NOTE: Mistakenly believes condensing is part of NPOV process 02:27, 7 November 2009 (ditto) 3RR warning issued (acknowledgment by removing) (signing) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Information above is documentation placed on the editor's talk page in the context of warning for disruptive editing. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

• Fundraiser: Controversial "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser to start 10 November

• New pages experiment: Wikipedians test the water at new page patrol

• German controversy: German Wikipedia under fire from inclusionists

• Multimedia usability: Multimedia usability meeting concludes in Paris

• Election report: Arbitration Committee candidate nominations open 10 November

• Book review: Review of Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning

• News and notes: Ant images, public outreach, and more

• In the news: Beefeater vandalism, interview, and more

• Sister projects: Meta-wiki interview

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for more eyes on this

Hello, Proofreader77. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 23:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Let the record show that this ANI notice is Benjiboi's first message on my talk page. Proofreader77 (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

We already have a record of that: it's called the "history" of the page. So, the record also shows that this is my first message on this talkpage as well :-) Using phrases like "let the record show" and requesting someone's "recusal" is making Wikipedia more legalistic than it is. You may get accused of wikilawyering soon. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The point being it shouldn't have been her first message on my page. Messages should have been here before a trip to ANI. What happened isn't the way it should be done. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What you failed to notice is that it's a simple template: Benjiboi may not have been involved, but, having seen the discussion on ANI, they may have notified you so that you were aware of it. It's no big deal, I advise people of ANI and WQA discussions all the time, even though I may not have been involved. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish I'd known about you earlier. I had never been summoned to ANI, and the topic title was misleading — sounded like she wanted an "interpreter" (interpretation — have it explained). Better to have talked to you first.

Oh, and yes the template was Benjiboi's ... The problem is she should have talked to me about her concerns first, before ANI. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Markup at ANI

Could you please try not to ABUSE markup as if you had only just learned that such a thing even exists? It doesn't just make you look like a moron, it also makes your post completely unreadable. I have never seen that at ANI before. Hans Adler 14:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me, it needed some clarification. :)

NOTE ADDED AFTER REACTION: re markup at ANI
A submission to Signpost "opinion" request. Read the one on the left:
User:Proofreader77/Two Wikipedia opinion sonnets linked by "civility" Proofreader77 (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Trauma (TV series)

Thanks for cleaning this article. Does your name give a hint about your interests? In that case you may be able to shed some light over the ongoing controvery over a grammatical detail in that article. --Ettrig (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: AN/I Polanski

No. -- llywrch (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI - editing restrictions

Following this thread at ANI, I'm putting you under some editing restrictions.

• You are not allowed to make any talk page contributions longer than 1000 bytes (or 100 words, whichever is easier to gauge/enforce).

• You are not allowed to make more than 10 contributions per day to any one talk page.

• If you exceed these limits any editor may use {{collapse}} or alikened templates to redact the breaches.

• Admins are asked to modify or remove the tags and templates of any post you make, specifically those relating to color, bolding, all caps, small caps or underlining on any wiki page.

• If you seek and successfully obtain mentorship for help with your idiosyncratic style and make meaningful progress improving your communication skills, these restrictions may be lifted by a consensus of editors.

• If you stray from any of these restrictions, I (or another admin) will most likely block you from editing. Blocks will lengthen if you carry on beyond the bounds of these restrictions. You can appeal this at ANI or with arbcom. However, there seems to be a consensus that you've abused ANI already and if you do this again, you'll be restricted from posting there too. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I still support the tag for the reasons I gave earlier. Was consensus reached that the tag should be removed? Gatoclass (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Complicated story. :) Let's just say that's part of the complicated NPOV BLP issue — assertive denial it is POV. And "consensus" is a complicated matter. :) Let me stop there for the moment. But many thanks for your reply. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

HBO documentary

I'm sorry to hear you're in the doghouse. I spend a goodly portion of my time in it myself.

The HBO documentary is a reliable secondary source. Anything in it may be used on Wikipedia, including any primary source material it refers to e.g. interview with prosecutor, descriptions of in-chambers discussions. There are no OR issues so long as it's in the documentary. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)