Jump to content

User talk:Proofreader77/Archive 06

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

wrong page

Thanks. Hyper3 (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah talk

Your managing of the talk page is appreciated. Staying on-topic is extremely difficult. I have tried it myself, in the distant past, and it's like herding chickens. As I re-read yesterdays edits, I realize I am one of the chickens!--Buster7 (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(responded on Buster7's talk) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Roman Polanski Soapbox Accusation

WP:AGF, and try reading before reverting. I am sorry you did not understand the title, but thats probably your issue. WookMuff (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I did read the entire post—yes, it is WP:SOAPBOX (a matter you raised yourself, asking to be told if it was—raising the issue oneself does not grant a license to do it).
  • The title "Stop the hate II: This time its impersonal" is a windy cover title for what follows. (The first "Stop the hate ..." title was also non-informative with respect to the article issue raised.)
  • Raising WP:AGF is an "accusation" of not doing so—clearly without basis in this matter. Noted.
    -- Proofreader77 (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
No, you did not assume good faith. If you can't understand things, maybe you need to ask for help, rather than just "too long, did not read" reverts. WookMuff (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
(See previous response.) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

References

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Is there an Exploding Head Icon?

If so, would you send me a link to it? Arrrrghhhhh. (pop!) Oberon Fitch 03:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)

Yep. No need for an icon, just keep reading Talk:Roman Polanski. lol (Like in "Men in Black," some heads grow back. Hope you have one of those.) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, did not know how to do that (watch page). Thanks for cluing me in to that tool. Got it now. Not the re-growable head, though, which I could use given Polanski. Maybe it could be made up into a trophy "I survived Polanski!" Of course, that's presumptive too. (crying now) ;)Oberon Fitch 04:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)
As a new editor, I suppose some of the onus is on me. I'm withdrawing from the boondoggle. Oberon Fitch 18:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)
What?!? Before you get the T-shirt? :)

(Do keep in mind this kind of article in this kind of situation is not the most pleasant way to learn the ropes at Wikipedia ... but certainly the most dramatic.:) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Is it possible to remove all comments I have made on Polanski?Oberon Fitch 18:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)
I certainly understand the desire :), but unless you are removing something that shouldn't have been said (e.g., calling someone names etc) the rest should remain as part of the conversation. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, did it before I saw your response. As I read through, none of it made any significant contribution. That said, at the point where I want to shoot myself, I think it is time to quit :0 97.122.182.50 (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about early archival notification

Are you sure a template is necessarily the best long term solution for the community? And you also appear to alternatively suggest an unsigned notice, have you a sandbox or test page that you might use to demonstrate a simple mock-up?

I'd like to assist in producing a useful and replicable way of warning against circular argumentation of unresolved but prudently archived discussion.99.142.5.86 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Before we work on a notice, take a look at the template just above the contents at Talk:Sarah Palin. (And note that current setup on Talk:Roman Polanski has two sets of archive links. Need to standardize this to just the one simple list ... etc, but make sure not to break things. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up I have converted your note and my comments (stripped of extraneous discussion, and signatures) to a "Notice" (not a topic). NOTE: Did not change your words other than to remove "(not by me)" and signature. Still working out perfecting archiving (including whether an "index" is necessary). Proofreader77 (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there an alternative to templating? They tend to get lost, especially as the notice we're considering here would be applied largely in those very high turnover articles where open discussion does get archived without resolution before going circular.99.142.5.86 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at what I just did (adding copy of archive links beside copy of template). Keeping in mind this is probably temporary until things calm down. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
A work in progress. :) I lean away from blending in with the standard boilerplate template, and am also a minimalist. I may hold off specific visual suggestion for another draft or two if you don't mind. 99.142.5.86 (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Disagree about template. (Standarization etc, something normally done). The archiving "issue" is due to current-events overload—a notice won't be needed much longer. BUT as long as we need one, it should be a "notice" not a topic (the top topic would be considered an "old" topic, rather than a new notice) ... Proofreader77 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick Buckland

Sorry for the inconvenience, didn't check quite well the history. It is now tagged under CSD G7. Thanks. - RUL3R*trolling*vandalism 20:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done the same thing many times. lol Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Yup, guess it happens often with Huggle haha. Have luck. =)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Cats

The user who has been inserting it repeatedly without consensus could use a link to the discussion there, is it 99? If it is will you politely let him know? Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I was seeking information of which forum to take it to. I have specifically not mentioned any identifying information. I will certainly notify when the forum is clear. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
If it is suspected to be the same editor from different ips then treat them all as the same user and if he crosses the bright line its 3RR. regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Cool, you seem to be on the case, it wouldn't matter as he is totally recognisable under any ip. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Continuing discussion about Joe Wilson

Hi there, last month you were involved in the debate surrounding Joe Wilson's page. I have just posted a lengthy explanation of why Jimmy Carter was probably misquoted and for BLP reasons the "racism" charge does not belong in the "Outburst" section. I'd like to invite you to read through it if you have time and weigh in on the subject. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(Acknowledging reading) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for the statement made on User talk:Off2riorob. I was getting you confused with another editor. WookMuff (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Accepted graciously. I'll try to find you some pie. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I admit when I am wrong. For some reason I have that same problem in real life... I am so vehement in defending my positions and assaulting positions I find flawed that people think I can't admit to a mistake. Its kinda annoying... I always admit when I am wrong, I am just rarely wrong is all ;) WookMuff (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

why

did you have to be sooo mean and change what i wrote, i bet you like to smoke weed to :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.119.61 (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Because. (And no, it just makes me sleepy.) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Self-notice (acknowledgement) of 2RR on Roman Polanski

I hereby acknowledge I am aware of this. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I totally support your revert, such additions are exempt from 3RR and should be removed straight away. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
(scope concludes 20:45, 20 October 2009
(different issues await) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

For reverting vandalism in my user guestbook...

Pepperpiggle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks! *Pepperpiggle**Sign!* 21:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yum! You're very welcome. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

99

Hi Proofreader, is that the same 99 who is again at the 3RR board regarding the irish articles? The talk polanski is very big and a bit slanderous, can you archive as much as possible of the stagnant discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(responded on Off2riorob's talk) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps they don't now about the previous blocks, do you think it is worth pointing it out to the admin dealing with him? Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you got the other two IPs?, the ones that were blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
(responded on Off2riorob's talk) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Proofreader, very thorough as always, regards. 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ballet [why remove my edit]

why did you remove my edit? I used the word "arguably" to indicate that this was not necessarily a consensus.----

Your insertion ("arguably the gayest of all the art forms," is an unencylopedic comment of a kind which will always be reverted. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I hope you save this on some special page for special sorts of edits. Oberonfitch (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandal 121. Polanski

So, when someone posts that sort of edit, do you report the IP? Oberonfitch (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(responded on Oeronfitch's talk) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh...

You do realize you just reinstated a /b/ edit, right? -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 05:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Two Hugglers seeing the same error, clicking at about the same - Technically shouldn't have happened, but I didn't get a warning I was about to revert a whitelisted editor. Glitch. 06:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
No worries; I'd assumed it was a glitch or error. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 06:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't made an error I haven't caught myself in 5,000 edits. LOL Ooops ... have now. :) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk)
PS: Note the timestamps on this diff (same time left/right) ... I am infallible after all. LOL Proofreader77 (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for working on Polanski

-- 14:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And thank you. Just balancing the equations of the universe. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Read your collapsed post just now. Could not have said it better myself.Oberon Fitch 01:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)

Oh and this! "...simply the current summation of the most persistent ... who can play by the rules." Maybe I can learn this skill? Oberon Fitch 01:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)

Again thanks for gracious acknowledgment for my futile eloquence. :)
When your head exploded, :), rather, when you quite sensibly stepped back from the madness of contention over a high-profile current-events amped article, I was not pleased with those who had made the experience so disheartening. But that is part of the "game" (or whatever one wishes to call it) of Wikipedia.
When your head has exploded the second time, you may begin the path to enlightenment. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


lol. The ad hominem attacks...the horror, the horror....When the top of my head is healed, I'll try editing simple, nearly invisible articles, and then fight to keep them from being deleted. :)Oberon Fitch 17:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I was supporting your position in Polanski, which I consider to be the correct one, and apparently didn't word it nearly well enough. I completely agree that the confusion and her not looking like a "scared little thing" is very important. My opinion is that P was extremely damaged, probably has an ego the size of..well...Manhattan? Everest? Gates'? and wasn't applying a lot of thought to his actions. Of course, what I think does not matter, but I don't believe he got up that morning and said "Today, I am going to wreck several people's lives, including mine." Anyway, please see more recent post. Oberonfitch (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My internet has been unpleasantly reliable = entirely too much time spent wandering around Wiki. Cold winter weather here, which makes me feel like running around outside. Not really. :0 Oberonfitch (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
What, you gave them two choices? Angel or minion of darkness? lol Oberonfitch (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I sure hope you'll save 10,000th for Polanski. It could happen tonight! Oh, and congratulations, sincerely Oberonfitch (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you watching W&D? I'll have to watch it again today because I think the link TB gave to the transcript is from the hearing which was manipulated by the judge. Rossrs was kind enough to fix the problematic footnotes. Actually seeing the article improve is so much preferable to the endless cries of "13"Oberonfitch (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Waiting patiently for update; wings or tail? ;)Oberonfitch (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

<----So, I'm guessing I am going to be perceived as the "tail" variety editor. Oh well. Oberonfitch (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A few months ago, I had been casually researching the Manson family, and came across W&D on Netflix, and was astonishingly appalled. And this was after witnessing a not completely dissimilar (although thankfully a lot quieter), judicial "misstep" locally. (And yeah, the panties was a classic moment which made me cringe internally. Geimer handled that incredibly gracefully, btw. I think I would have thrown up.) Anyway, this is why I have pounded my tent stake in where I have on the article. Oberonfitch (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm off to look at the Pentti Linkola article. His book, Can Life Prevail, was recently released in English. Ah, the quotes! Suggestions that some organization (maybe the UN!) should selectively target cities for "reduction" using neutron bombs. I kid you not. Oberonfitch (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you just get up in the morning and think "I'll compose a little ditty on swinish rhetoric?" I was in a sincerely p.o'd mood, but now I'm laughing. Thanks. Oberonfitch (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC) (Still trying to figure out how to archive talk pages.)

<---Thanks for the bot. Have a great day :) Oberonfitch (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it's like you know me! Here's a link to some old silliness. http://rotteninlarimer.blogspot.com/2008/07/sheriff-announces-new-weight-loss.html Oberonfitch (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
re: blog. Yeah, I didn't really get any further with it, but I did think it was funny a year ago. Hope you had a nice weekend.  :) Oberonfitch (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Ha! I take it you're a fan of Dante as well. I prefer hanging out in the 5th ring, but I might try out different flavors of hell if you recommend it.  :) I got up Saturday morning and found fifty uninvited guests in my front yard. Well, it is a big front yard. And, as they left, cheerfully singing hymns, they attempted a three-car accident on my driveway. That sort of set the tone, as you might imagine. :0 Oberonfitch (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, just caught the reference. (Gee I am slow....maybe see previous post for explanation.) Did it float over your fuzzy little wiki head in a manner not dissimilar to that of a large home-constructed saucer purportedly with light-weight humanoid? Because, yes, one and the same sisy-sheriff. Never a dull moment here. (Fifty uninvited guests were not members of the media, nor in any way related to saucer incident, lest there be confusion. They were squash carriers. Or bearers of squash news. Or, "thank goodness they didn't get squashed!") Oberonfitch (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I opened my email, should you care to use it. Oberonfitch (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

<----Recommendation for reallocation? Oberonfitch (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Trouble Brewing

I suppose everyone (with taste) has a favorite Far Side. Mine is the one with the nursery next to the dingo farm. Caption, see caption.

And some (who may be crass), might refer to certain other editors as not the brightest crayons in the box.

I have to admit a preference for those who can use pronouns, punctuate with some consistency (although, I admit here that I have not done so because I haven't looked up Wiki Style), and especially those who know how to use a possessive "s." I cry for the days gone by when we doubled the consonant and added "ing."

In any event, I'm going to bed with the passionate hope that tonight is quiet. Which last night wasn't. No weight loss to report, however. Oberonfitch (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, nicely handled. Who knew a lock could be so handy? :) Oberonfitch (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I am once again thumping head on desk. It is so hard not to retort: "Yes! All 6 plus billion of us!" Oberonfitch (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Secret of Bots

I reset it for 2 days, and voila (forget the accent, no patience today, started off with computer crash, reformatting, etc.), everything is archived.  :) Tis one happy locomotive here.

Glad to see 99.infiniti is being addressed. Oberonfitch (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh okay archive links, bot, automatic, sounds good. Send tutorial or something like that. (Barely functioning.) Oberonfitch (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. I've lost all my links in my insane reformatting. So, how dangerous is this place? Oberonfitch (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

sup

sup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.44.167 (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

sup[erhero] :) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Roman Polanski's "Love Life"

Surely there are other options - "Marriages and relationships", maybe?! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I don't like Love life either. M&r is OK with me, but suspect it may seem too long for others. Feel free to try! :) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk)

Polanski Diffs

Alright, I'm lost. Perhaps you could clarify for those of us who are struggling to keep up. Oberonfitch (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

See if that helps. (And thanks, I had forgotten some formatting) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
As clear as mud. "You're a better man than I, GD" Oberonfitch (talk) 03:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The newer version isn't the most recent version. And, I'm not exactly certain what you want comment on, other than the point that I made. Which may not even be correct. Or is this in preparation for taking it to arbitration? (Just yesterday I found the legal center. Gasp.) I'm really hampered by my computer which I totally screwed up earlier, and everything is s...l....o....w Oberonfitch (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I see that they took out the David Wells comment and added the judge's white wash. Yeah, I don't think this is going to be easily fixed. 04:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)
Au milieu des herbes hautes, le tigre attend. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Joni Mitchell rather likes them. "Nice kitty." The numbered sections, which I had missed, help greatly. Oberonfitch (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
L'herbe est toujours en croissance. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

<---Did you hear a large thwump? That was my head exploding a third time. But look! I didn't erase all my edits! I can be taught! Seriously, forget NPOV. Let's try for simple sentence structure. Perhaps matching tenses. Rudimentary spelling (difficult even with spell checker.) I really am fairly easy to please. (Okay, that was a lie.)Oberonfitch (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Quand le soleil se lève, lampes de poche sont moins nécessaires. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Dawn is always nicest on the water. Oberonfitch (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, awoke feeling tired and under the weather. (Note that hyphens are too much trouble.) So, thanks for dragging me along. Of course, after viewing today's discussion notes, I was slightly more awake. Oberonfitch (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding aircraft: Why would someone go aloft in a wicker laundry basket tethered to a large sheet, furnished with a tank of flammable gas? I fail to see the appeal. Every bit as precarious as editing Polanski. Considered recreating one of these antique models, and using small child as anchor or pilot, only to discover that it had been recently done. But the drawings are very nice. Thank you. Oberonfitch (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Weekend less hellish?
Are you suggesting that I eject? See previous comment re: laundry baskets and flames. Conceivably the only thing more terrifying is to be strapped inextricably to a chair, dependent on a piece of technology to magically open a canopy prior to impact with terra firma. (Said the whale: "I think I'll call it earth...") Oberonfitch (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Ten points if you can name the source of the quote. Oberonfitch (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs) 05:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

<---So what happens now with the NPOV/Polanski case? Oberonfitch (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Un tigre donne du lait aussi. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[The great compression]

EDIT - ADD SUBTOPIC: Separate issue/humorous subtopic title added by me] Proofreader77 (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As stated in Discussion Page the Assault section is rested to where you last edit was. Which is disputed in the talk page. I believe you should support that while in dispute process you have created that changes from the base be discussed prior to their completion. I did make one other change which was long talked about regarding the "settlement" because it was talked about, you agreed, (then removed) but my edit was a simplification to what the facts say. If you want to dispute that change fine.

But going forward there should not be wholesale whacking with the claims of it being done for any reason. We have a steady state, changes and deletions should be reviewed. Would you agree? --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(Quick note for now: complex matter:) The compressing editor has close to 5 times my number of edits—and while that does not mean I will not disagree with him/her (especially on peripheral matters:), it should be taken into consideration that the editor may have a feel for what a "consensus" article edit would be (taking everything into consideration—which does not mean that no one would disagree). Proofreader77 (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Proofreader77, I agree with you that it would make things easier for editors if there were "hard" limits for something like this. That would take away too much flexibility though, and to be honest, you rarely see many hard and fast rules in Wikipedia. Just lots of guidelines. It's tough when you've got one view of the guideline, someone else has another and here comes someone else with a third. This article has had contentious issues since Polanski's arrest. Honestly, this isn't bad compared to some of the earlier debates.
Something to consider would be to look at some other articles that split material off. WP:SS uses World War II as example (the invasion of Poland in three sentences or less!), I keep an eye on Federal Reserve System which saw a similar pruning of the Criticism section a few months back. Here's the diff link - [1] Ravensfire (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Trust me, I would never have mentioned such a limit except for this special case (with the current contentions and level of experience of some of the participants). Many thanks for context of other examples. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ready for Update

Thus far, I have loved the surprises. So, feel free...(As long as it isn't a more graphic picture of P's wet pants. An oversight? Perhaps.) Oberonfitch (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to undo. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Blind men describing a bull? Very nice. Laughed at the artillery system; kid especially liked that. I'm off to participate in a futile enterprise; I prefer that my cyber and real life closely resemble each other. Less confusing for the aged brain cells.Oberonfitch (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Taureau? N ° Très éléphant ridée. :) Proofreader77
Well, yes, as I remember the story it is men describing an elephant, but the eyesight isn't what it used to be. It was my kid who noticed Polanski's damp pants. Seriously, can't we do something about that? Oberonfitch (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
(I agree, it's a very strange elephant—but bull's don't have trunks). I would never have noticed the pants. lol, But, yep. Perhaps they are very expensive pants made to look like you wet yourself as a fashion statement. :) Will try to see if there are any suitable replacements ... Proofreader77 (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that he is being assisted in putting on a jacket indicates likely not a Valentino off day. But I could be wrong. ;)Oberonfitch (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
And finally, an answer to my utter failure at farming! Wrong animal! 00:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)

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

Warning
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Roman Polanski‎. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 November 2009

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

Removals of POV-section tag
  1. 12:20, 8 November 2009
  2. 01:41, 9 November 2009
  3. 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)

  1. 08:48, 6 November 2009 NOTE: characterizes exp. editors condensing of overgrown summary as "weed whacking"
  2. 21:41, 6 November 2009 NOTE: Mistakenly believes condensing is part of NPOV process
  3. 02:27, 7 November 2009 (ditto)

(signing) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

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)

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)

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)

Many thanks for information and grace. Nice to know I'm not the only sometimes-fallen puppy around. :) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

your user name is suggestive!

No problem: they were testy days. Does your name suggest you are the person to go to for copy-editing? If so, do you have particular interests that might resonate with the temptation to refer FAC, FLC nominators to independent copy-editors? Tony (talk) 07:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

PS Ah, that's what doghouse means. I'm in it, too, although fortunately a restriction that will hardly ever arise. Tony (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Al Gore POV

I'd be happy too. At the moment I am busy with real life, so I will get to it as soon as I really have a free moment. Thank you for your feedback, Rbpolsen♦☺♦ 02:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(replied on Rbpolsen's talk) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Polanski and Tate

Hi, thank you for sending me a message about the most recent discussion. I'm a major contributor to the Tate article, and some time ago worked a little on Polanski's, so as you correctly noted, the subject is of interest to me. Recent events led me to remove Polanski from my watchlist because I was too frustrated by the attitudes being conveyed on the talk page to feel that I could contribute further, and if you had not let me know, I would easily have missed this. I appreciate your courtesy and the opportunity to comment. Rossrs (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(replied on Rossrs talk) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Archiving FYI

Hi, you seem to have the mistaken impression that two signatures are needed for a bot to archive a talkpage section. They only need one timestamp. -- Banjeboi 20:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I know I read a sentence somewhere that gave me that impression, but I'm sure you're right. (I will try to find that sentence in the documentation, and fix my eyes or clarify the sentence.) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

{{AutoArchivingNotice}}

Solution

You can add a switch: {{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |dounreplied=yes}}

{{Auto archiving notice}}

ssssssssSplat!!!

"Note that in Banjeboi/Benjiboi narrative structure, the "Vanity Fair libel suit" subsection topic has been subsumed into the section "The Pianist, honours and post 2000 work." Not clear this is a good idea." Yes, that was the sound of a coyote (moi) falling off a cliff. Oberonfitch (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what is intended here but it seems any perceived splatable issues can be addressed by (i) commenting on content rather than calling any version editor X, editor Y's, etc. which seems needlessly setting up a battleground mentality, and (ii) simply finding a better section title like 2000-present. -- Banjeboi 02:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Not commenting on your edit, but rather that the page has gotten messy, and we are in something of a churning whirlpool pattern. The comment was directed to P77 who understood what it meant in context. Which is to say, you can probably dig through his archives and figure it out, or not, as you see fit, or take a look at my user page archive for the fine example of my locomotive skill. The long and short of it is that I am a new editor, and have not gotten used to the process, and I really like people who have a sense of humor. Chill. Oberonfitch (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Well you can stop the cycle, this is something you have done before and to me it feels combative although you certainly may not mean so. As for the "Vanity Fair libel suit" it just may need to be shelved while the rest of the notable content is worked out. Then look to see what actually needs to be there. Likely it should be trimmed to a few sentences and the rest sent to the main article. -- Banjeboi 03:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      The change of structure "out of the blue" [(19 sequential edits without discussion)] created a basis for discussion on Talk:Roman Polanski. Discussion of which structure is best in this case is underway [([2],[3],[4])]. (Negative characterizations of talk page discussion are noted without response.) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a vote, I will be curious to see your tally on what is already being called "The Great Compression Part 2, Revenge of the Compression" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski#Undue_weight_to_legal_cases --Tombaker321 (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed. For the time being I am abstaining while the structural issue is clarified/resolved. Noting the thought that it is possible to imagine that an additional subtopic be added to personal life after Vanity Fair case for latter episodes of the Sexual abuse case. (An obtuse answer, I know, and perhaps merely a very late night thought, gone by morning.) Proofreader77 (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Polanski

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate you letting me know about your situation. I didn't realize you were on a daily word/edit ration, so I'll keep that in mind. cheers. Rossrs (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's ok. I'm not bothered by apostrophes. Rossrs (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, no I certainly don't want my messages to long-scroll and it's only the last few days that they have appeared like this. They're much more difficult to read, aren't they? I don't know what caused it, or how to fix it, so if you know what to do, I'd be grateful. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed side-scroll. But you might like it adjusted some more. Let me know. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It looks good to me. Thank you so much for fixing this. I should have realized it was the "leave message" link causing it, but I would never have figured out how to fix it. Rossrs (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll ponder indeed, and will be looking forward to reading your comments. I have to say, the discussion on Roman Polanski is high on my list of "most confusing Wikipedia talk pages". I hope we're making progress - I think we are. Rossrs (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I respect that you disagree with me, and I don't view that negatively, because disagreement often leads to deeper discussion than agreement. No, I can't name another director in Polanski's situation, but even so, I think his particular situation still allows for more than one approach, and discussion will hopefully lead to the most appropriate one. Some subjects are unique for one reason or another but each of the corresponding articles deserves whatever effort is required to make them the best they can be. I can't think of another actor who became President, but Ronald Reagan is a featured article. I can't think of another pop star who attracted controversy and ridicule throughout his life, and who died in such unusual circumstances, and who still managed to be revered by millions, but Michael Jackson is a featured article. I can't think of another unknown child who who lived and died anonymously, but who became a figure of history and a symbol of one of history's most devastating events, simply by writing something that resonated with a huge number of people who weren't even born when she died, but Anne Frank is a featured article. It's a matter of determining the most appropriate course, and we'll find one for Roman Polanski. Rossrs (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I agree with you, and it's very simplistic to narrow it down to two groups. I don't think there are two single editors with complete agreement, so in that sense each editor represents a unique viewpoint. I don't think it's achieving anything positive. Rossrs (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

this is not on

This post is longer than 100 words. Having broken it into little bits and signed each one doesn't skirt the bounds of 1k/100 words. Rather than block you from editing, I am banning you for two days (until this time Tuesday) from making posts about Roman Polanski topics anywhere on this website, other than in your own userspace, such as here on your talk page. If you stray from this very short topic ban, I may block you 31 hours for disruption.

This doesn't mean editors don't want to hear what you have to say about this topic, it's how you do it that stirs up the worries. Tip: Short and sweet posts are much more widely and thoroughly read than long ones. Deal with things one at a time, with no more than a few lines with each post, then go on to the next. Controversial topics can take awhile to settle down and more often than not, this happens through notched input from many experienced editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged and will comply. Documentation (No response required):
  • Rossrs said: (amidst several simultaneous replies) "We need to see strong case for the "against" and if that's not quickly provided, we should wrap this up"
  • I replied 1st: (edit summary) "Reply to Rossrs - Note: I specifically wished to wait to see if other voices would join the conversation, but if you too are demanding a rationale this instant, I will in 100-word chunks)"
  • ("too") Tombaker321 initiated the (object now or I will act (type)) sub-topic pre-empting discussion.
  • Notes: Talk page has long-post-ing discussants. Demand for "strong argument" "quickly" was made.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Proofreader, it's not just the length of your posts, it's also the way you are expressing yourself. Your contributions are very hard to read. If you write more than one or two lines most people will read less than the first line because you are so hard to understand. If you can't change your style so that people find it much easier to read your output, then the most important rule for you is: less is more. I.e., WP:TLDR applies to you even more than to everybody else. Everybody here is in a hurry. Nobody is going to print one of your posts, sit down by the fireside with a nice cup of tea, and spend a quiet hour or two pondering over it and trying to find out what the heck you are trying to express. Hans Adler 18:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Acknowledged without comment. (Documentation: Link to 1st/previous message from Hans Adler on my talk) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

A "strong case" doesn't mean a "lengthy case," quite otherwise more often than not. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged, and agree to the general case being quite true (without further comment on the specific instance at hand). Proofreader77 (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note, that I have seen an improvement in Proofreader77's discourse, since that ANI. Echoing what is said above, the guidelines he now has, makes his comments stronger because of the required brevity. He has strong command of the details, but may be erring on thinking he has to document everything he uses to make his comments, as opposed to just making the comment as a key point. I also believe my remarks for suggested resolutions in ANI to have been a bit myopic, given some more time interacting with Proofreader77. --Tombaker321 (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Timestamp

Any suggestions?

Wasn't sure if you were an admin., but do you have any suggestions about this kind of response and behavior?[5]. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I would suggest you read the question again, that I was asked to respond to. Since you may need more help, than just being urged to seek it....may I suggest familiarizing yourself with WP:FAITH WP:EP WP:NPOV WP:EQ WP:AWW WP:GFCA and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable Those should get you well on your way. I hope you find my response here adequate for your need and completed. --Tombaker321 (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) No, not admin ... Will refrain from making suggestions regarding user talk exchange. But as general comment I'd note "rhetorical environment" of Talk:Roman Polanski has blown rather hot since September 27th arrest ... Most editors have stayed away for good reason (e.g, Rossrs had taken article off watchlist until invited back).

    Tombaker321 and Proofreader77 have been contending for two months (several archives worth). Experienced editor Benjiboi/Banjeboi has been deux ex machina (with 2 "surprise" edits). You've joined process without knowing history since Sept. 27th (including full lock Oct 1-8). Suggestion (to all): Cut everyone much slack. No rush. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Self-acknowledgment of [3]RR on Roman Polanski

There has been aggressive editing on Roman Polanski regarding the structure under discussion. I am specifically making a "documentary" edit to revert preemption of discussion. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In this context I have made a 3rd revert, this time of Wikiwatcher1's stripping of lead description of sexual assault to incorrect version (and stripping references). Proofreader77 (talk)
This is NOT a 3RR event. You are responding to active vandalism. Other editors have had to do the same thing as you, after you, instead of you...as this editor continues to remove content. This editor first appeared on Polanski on the 5 days ago --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks, Tom. (Including spelling correction:) ... Yes, if I'd been on RC patrol, I'd have reverted that last one, too (but with non-vandalism edit summary).

Note: I've seen a vandalism rollbacker (who was also an administrator on German Wikipedia) make an error in categorizing something as vandalism ... and before you could blink, they'd been blocked, their rollback bit on en.Wikipedia stripped, and (to add insult to injury) someone removed their rollbacker user box. (Given the givens of the moment, I've voluntarily given up my rollback bit, to avoid any slips).

In any case, again, my thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Timestamp

Polanski and Vanity Fair

Hi, I am familiar with the case. I'm interested in Sharon Tate and so I followed the case more closely for that reason, than I would have if only Polanski was involved. I've never tried to diminish its significance to that of a trivial aside. My comment has been that of the various aspects of Polanski's life that are covered in the Personal Life section, this is the one of least significance. The article fails to weigh the different subsections and (IMO opinion carelessly) places them all on an equal footing. I don't think it's correct. That's all. It's a not a question of ignorance on my part. Rossrs (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

  • 1. There's been "Vanity Fair libel case" section since 7/2005.
  • 2. I've highlighted VF suit's connected to:
  • a. Tate murder (alleging Polanski's disrespect for wife traveling to funeral —an outrage Polanski wouldn't let stand),
  • b. sex case - from perspective of parallel of young model allegedly being promised something,
  • c. Polanski's fugitive status (since he'd be arrested if appeared in UK court ... Also connects to current appeals disallowed because Polanski isn't present),
  • d. sex case - due to VF case causing unsealing of 1977 grand jury testimony, which inspired public furor.
The above implies significance/connection (which should be grasped easily in structure).
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
That it's been there since 2005 doesn't make it right, but granted, I can see that in that time nobody has seen fit to remove it. When it was added in 2005 it was more topical. WP:RECENTISM may or may not apply, but there's a lot of info in various articles, added when the subject was "news" but not removed when the media attention had died down. I don't see it as a compelling reason to retain it in its current form. I'll put it another way - the murder of Sharon Tate will be with Polanski for the rest of his life, and it will always be a major event in his life. The sex case - same. They are defining moments in his life because they have each had massive impact in his options and choices ever since. The Vanity Fair case is linked to the two, and is largely influenced by the two, but that's all. In the overall context of Polanski's life, the event is important but not life-changing, not defining and is not a constant theme either in his life or his life story. It's far from trivial but I still do not see that it merits equal weight to the other two aspects. Rossrs (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
We profoundly disagree, but that disagreement is based on things which are going to be exhausting to work out amidst the cultural conflict which is exhausting enough. When I left you a note to come back and have a look, I remembered someone who had been treating the article fairly. The article structure was apparently not on the top of your agenda to change — as it appears to be now. You believe you have come in with an imminently reasonable plan which should be executed forthwith. But you do not have the understanding I have of all goings on. (100wrds) Proofreader77 (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

WL note(s)

I think you're losing it. A good's night sleep may or may not help. Cheers. Have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just holiday riffing off your revelation... But as I said: "We now return you to your regularly scheduled program." Proofreader77 (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The comment you removed didn't bother me at all. And I wasn't even referring to that one in particular, just a more general observation. Don't sweat it. If you're happy, I'm happy. Take care, have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Just calibrating the paralogic dials, CoM. Again, bravo for your grace amidst dramatic events. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Your message to me about recent edits, and my comments about Swiss residence

You said: Just a statistical note amidst your good work on Roman Polanski ... The Tate murder section is now back up to the size it was before the September 27 arrest (when negative flows came in ... e.g., "whittling down" tragedy.) Word count is surely not a measure of quality, but it does convey significance. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we that would should always aim for making any relevant topic or subtopic complete and comprehensive without being exhaustive. The word count will be whatever it needs to be in order to adequately address the topic. If the same approach is taken to all areas, the relative ratio and weighting falls into place. It's a little step, but it's a step. My personal view, which is based on some of the vitriolic comments made on the talk page (and elsewhere) shortly after Polanski's arrest, was that anything that personalised or humanised him was diminished in favour of language that squarely portrayed him as a monster - hence the "whittling down". That does not seem to be the prevailing attitude any longer. I've also commented about the edit regarding Swiss residence. I think it's a valid point, but the way it was written, without a reliable external source, could be interpreted in a number of ways, one of which is that it could be contstrued as editorial commentary. Not intentional of course, and if it was rewritten to make it clearer, plus sourced, I'd have no objections to it. I don't know the reason it was removed. Lack of edit summaries do nothing but test my psychic abilities, which are virtually non-existant. Rossrs (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

dot dot dot...

Not that this remotely surprises me, but I do now find it exceptionally ironic that people I specifically encouraged to take the night off from arguing have not created an even more massive mess. Actually, it's a mess that started in the ANI I closed. There are actually several other places they continue to argue, but that spot is quite precise. ...And ironically, an an admin closed that ANI as well because "nothing was taking place". Sounds oddly familiar. He then gets hounded to death for telling them to start an RfC... I think I'll leave him a message. Figured a good argument would amuse you, at least. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You read my mind. ^^ (Yes, observing it all. The perfect gift for the holidays. lol) Proofreader77 (talk)

Hey

I just wanted to thank you for doing that "talk" thing for the arbs. Good work. All my best, — Ched :  ?  05:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(Will respond on Ched's talk) Proofreader77 (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Great News!!!

Bacon Materializer

Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 before the New Year even starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who enjoy some sizzle, but object to or don't like messing with pig products. This year's event also includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P. ALL ARE WELCOME!!! The more the merrier. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Since I have the Polanski biography

Yes. There is a huge difference. The New York Post has taken the lazy way by trying to condense it into one sentence, and they've changed the meaning considerably. User:Tombaker321 has rightly quoted the text from their article, so his edit is 100% correct based on what he has to work with. The final quote from Polanski, attributed to Robert Caille is "We said we knew nothing about it." That's a denial. Azaria's comments are hedging and refusing to confirm, and saying that Polanski was not officially contracted. Someone should have asked "how about unofficially?", but I guess they didn't. I agree with you. Let's leave it for a while. If it needs to be reworded, I suggest that Tombaker321 finish his work, and then ask his opinion. It may just need to be tweaked to a small degree.

As for the drug. I'm assuming good faith, based on the edit summary. I've done a quick search and the FDA supposedly says that it has both sedative and hypnotic properties. I say "supposedly" because I can't find anything official to confirm it. Rossrs (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Nibble-negativing" - (1) The phrasing of the Vouge Hommes matter is to assert "Polanski's a liar" and using his autobiography to say it — which we can be sure Polanski didn't say. (2) Twiddling with sedative/hypnotic to pick the worst sounding thing. (3) The California penal code specification is "unlawful sexual intercourse." That's why the quotes end there in the descriptions that add of a minor. (A "minor" detail, but in keeping with "nibble-negativing.") Proofreader77 (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
1. I know. But again, I'll say this is taken directly from the New York Post article, so they are to blame for the assertion, not the editor. Yes, they seem to be calling a Polanski a liar. 2. The edit summary says that it didn't match the categories, and that's a fair point. I've left a note on the editors page with my thoughts. I'm not going to assume bad faith. 3. I don't know about this.
I looked at the Polish site. The translation is very idiosyncratic - it conveys the same point as Polanski's bio, re Azaria. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it comes from the bio as the same paragraph references Close Encounters of the Third Grade, which Polanski also mentions. Rossrs (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you believe the accuracy of the bio has been improved by tonight's changes? Proofreader77 (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
No. Rossrs (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Proofreader77. You have new messages at Unomi's talk page.
Message added 03:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If we do not speak out on that which we believe to know, how might others be able to tell us when we are wrong? Unomi (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(Replied on Unomi's talk) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Proofreader77. You have new messages at Unomi's talk page.
Message added 03:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No, I absolutely do not approve of that. I can only say that my focus on the perceived intent of the message left me blind to its other aspects. Apologies and thank you for making me aware of it. Unomi (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Unomi (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood. My rhetorical ear hears those discordant notes a bit louder — and we live in somewhat more delicate times with respect to some things (like that). Much appreciate your gracious acknowledgment. Happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

On account of because you so deserve this and plus then some

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Because you are amazingly kind, to all of the varied inhabitants of the wiki. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, this is just perfect. (Smiling from the inside out ... and beyond :-) Proofreader77 (talk)

indenting

Hi, proof..I need to read that article about indenting, I don't understand it at all. I am actually glad that you at least have the patience to resist, best. Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(brief reply here) lol, comment indention and intention, sounds like a (bad) song for the holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
A good sense of humor is needed here, I was also laughing at your earlier comments on the little dogs page, I was sorry too, nice one. Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
sence, common misspelling of sense. Off2riorob (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
And bless you for noticing, too. Yes, humor is good thing to have ... (Arbcom election has inspired some scenes like OK corral. I've been threatening to write a Wikipedia Western holiday musical review inspired by it all. lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
haha, another thing I am bad at is replying in the same place, I just decided to do it anywhere, it is only if there is an issue worth keeping in case of repercussions that I keep it all together, have you voted at the arbcom elections, I was laughing out loud today when I made my mark and read the q's and comments. Off2riorob (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I read and I read until couldn't bear to read any more. (Some exciting "stuff" going on amidst this one. See "barfights.") Yes, I've voted. (And secret voting is exciting new thing. We'll see if that works out.) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Only a few days left, some interesting candidates..depending on voting patterns, the whole thing is a pack of cards, hilarious. Off2riorob (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Did you see the "constitutional crisis" on Jimbo's page. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Holiday Offer

Awesome! :-) and Happy holidays to you too. (here's hoping you get out of the dirt and soap though) Shell babelfish 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Bless you for noticing my random grace of much foolishness. Honor! Dirt! Soap! Dumb. Happy holidays. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Silly me - usually I watch talk pages. I am so glad to hear that your lawn is safe ;) Shell babelfish 01:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Drama (filmmakers)

There is a discussion at wp:an regarding your edits at the Polanski article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, pardner, that's a pretty damn near perfect topic title you just wrote. :-) I'm working on my Wikipedia Western holiday musical review ... Sounds like I'll just have to write a song about not stepping in fresh cow pies lol Cheers (and thanks :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

RC (note to self)

Your note

Thanks for your note. It was [i]really[/i] informative and helpful. Steve Smith (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Pefect! :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Except for the part where I apparently believe Wikipedia is written in PHP. Steve Smith (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
And, um, that part where I spelled "Perfect" "Pefect." lol (I wish I had been clever enough to have done that intentionally. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving on

It seems like a waste of time to me. I would like to see you more gainfully employed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't we all. lol Are you volunteering to take over as NPOV sheriff? :-)

(Psst ... You mentioned someone, but didn't notify them. Of course, I wouldn't have known if not for CoM. See above. :-)

Note that I put summary back to Benjiboi-edit size for top. (New info at bottom, of course.)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, shall I notify? It is only recommended afaik, he should be paying attention. ..of course if it was a big issue I would notify him. As regards the volunteering..I have more than enough to keep me busy at the moment.Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Too late, now. (And good that you didn't. lol) ...

About volunteering — what if I make you a fancy "BLP-NPOV SHERIFF" badge, and a genuine bogus Get-out-of-ANI-free card? :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Now your talking.. Off2riorob (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Tea for 2?

Merry Christmas, regards, Justin talk 20:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely! And Merry Christmas to you! (lol I couldn't remember where the Tea came from... Funny how you forget what you've done between 4-6 AM :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Self-acknowledgment of 3RR on Roman Polanski

Noting ongoing contention with WP:SPA which must find better solution. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Timestamp

Proofreader77 (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Have Requested Checkuser

Please see recent thread at ANI, alleging that I am your sock.

I don't find this at all amusing.

I have requested checkuser. I do not know if that requires something from you.

Am leaving WP. Enjoy. Oberonfitch (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Checkuser: Doubt it will come to that, but nothing any of us has to do. That's up to the editor with checkuser power.

Ah, when your head explodes three times (allusion to archived joke) ... then, yes, that's the time to float away (your userpage reference :-).

May you be blessed in all your endeavors.
Proofreader77 (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Off2riorob. Always meant to ask if you had been to Rio? Oberonfitch (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Course I have. Off2riorob (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
(Doh!) Well, I am complete idiot. lol Everytime I typed you're username, it didn't cross my mind to actually read it. lol A REVELATION, at last! Proofreader77 (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Proof, Thanks so much for remembering head exploding episode, I was able to find a replacement which isn't as pretty as the last one, but will do. I'm touched. I'm working now on a story drawing heavily on my experiences with editing a virtual encyclopedia; (not this one, of course!), and hope to have rough draft by the end of the year. Hope that your Western Themed Musical comes together quickly, and let me know if you need any props. Oberonfitch (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Much better project. :-) Wonderful. I certainly will. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer about bathing in sulphur springs in Yellowstone. I believe the term is "parboiled." Oberonfitch (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have editing issues globally to deal with around the wiki, this amusing discussion is a welcome light relief...it is late my friends..he he..you guys. Off2riorob (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this has been fun... Must have an annual Christmas Checkuser Party. :-) Cheers! Proofreader77 (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Proofreader77/SandboxA

Resolved
 – withdrawn by nominator

User:Proofreader77/SandboxA, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Proofreader77/SandboxA and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Proofreader77/SandboxA during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pcap ping 14:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The list

I don't think it is notable and I don't think a reliable source will have printed the names, like the Guardian cite you found, they have some names that I suspect they had got verbal confirmations from the people but the list is a primary source and a BLP problem. The discussion has only just started, vote to keep if that is your position, that is fine by me but I feel that there are issues with the list and as I said I already had to remove the blp issue added by the ip 77... Off2riorob (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I just had to contest someone deleting my Sandbox. lol ... Now more time wasted on this. It is a notable petition. More holiday fun. :(OProofreader77 (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(Note to self) Ironic funny

Consider Clique problem... No not one you think. A comp sci problem. But some players are interested. (See the collection)Proofreader77 (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"a typical failure of the process"

Hi Proofreader77, thanks for your message. In the particular instance I was talking about, an editor made a complaint about an administrator's behavior, and all the replies (especially those by User:Baseball Bugs) were focused on the character/identity of the complainant rather than examining the validity/significance of the charge. Robert K S (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You cannot imagine how perfect that answer is. (Or maybe you can.:) Thank you very much. And again, happy holidays ... and many delights in the year to come. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute. Consider dispute resolution.

Happy Holidays...

...And thanks for this, I'm still laughing! SpitfireTally-ho! 21:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Me too, and bless you. (ROFL, you've made me laugh more ... that's wonderful) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the kind words! I do not believe we have ever had the chance to interact, which is a shame as it seems we share similar views. I am neither evil or good; I just do my best to improve those articles I have knowledge about, and hope that where I see someone feeling left out or disenfranchised by Wikipedia I can lend some encouragement and hope their voice can be put out there, everyone should be encouraged to voice their opinion, whether it be right or wrong. I get heated by those who tell others that their comments are "wrong" or that they "dont know Wikipedia policy and so shouldnt comment" (a real response I have seen many times).Camelbinky (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(smiling joyfully) I am very sensitive to beauty in idea and rhetorical form — sufficiently so that (too much information lol) that a tear will form in one eye or the other when witnessing it. Above, in your words (and those before), has led me to find the tissue box. lol (Over-the-top, I know, but tis true). I.E., I suspect you're "good." :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(Note to self) SirFozzie gives up silly for sociality :-) lol

Changing user page lede

Before ArbCom election
After ArbCom election
Comment

No more silly ArbComs! lol Proofreader77 (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI proposals

Waste of time :-) ... Hmmm, maybe not ;-)

I dispute that I should be topic banned from anywhere, you need to understand that actions like that have long term ramifications. Off2riorob (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But given we are all exhausted, I thought a magic solution for Christmas was for all to walk away.

Note: I've asked someone about a "subtopic ban" (lol) for just Roman Polanski#Sexual assault case. This is a special case. The most honorable topic banning in Wikipedia history. :-) Ponder a moment. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I have done nothing to warrant a topic ban and I will not volunteer for one, things like that go against you if ever you want a position of trust. Off2riorob (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
A ban aside (and I have already added an addendum at ANI), isn't it true that you have no interest in editing the Sexual assault section at this time? Aren't we all tired? Would you agree to, on your honor, say you would not be editing the article for the next few months? Proofreader77 (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
No.... Off2riorob (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Acknowledged. Proofreader77 (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Stats: 3939 characters lol

Note for Tombaker321

Well, if I'd taken you to AN3, you would have gotten 31? hours ... and you'd have been freed in 3. :-) We could have saved a whole lot of time. lol PS: 3939 characters at ANI (counting signature/dates) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Misc timestamps

  • 06:59 P
  • 07:00 G
  • 07:04 G

VHA

ip and spa

Useful template (ANI note)

AN thread

While I don't mind your starting the initial thread at AN, your recent edit-warring over it is getting disruptive. Please stop now, before you breach WP:3RR or WP:DE. It would be quite unfortunate if a thread started, I assume to spread holiday cheer, ends up with blocks being necessary. Cheers. Abecedare (talk)

I was composing a message here, when I received your warning. I believe we all know the rules of 3RR ... The leap to aspersion of WP:DE, following your expressed understanding here is inappropriate. I respectfully ask you withdraw the warning from my user [talk] page. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC) copied from my talk page to keep conversation consolidated. Abecedare (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I do hope you take my above message seriously. If I recall correctly, User:Gwen Gale had offered to mentor you and answer your questions when your activities at ANI had become too disruptive the last time - if you need a second opinion, I would highly recommend that you approach her (or any other experienced user you trust) on her talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your latest disruptive post to an archived thread. if you continue to violate your editing-restrictions, you are liable to be blocked. Please stop. Abecedare (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I have also requested a second opinion. Abecedare (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Acknowledged. (See response below restrictions topic below) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Documentation

(Further documentation bullets may be added to above. ) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Proofreader77 "disrupts" the following:

  1. WP:Vandalism (5,000+ articles)
  2. WP:BLP/NPOV attacks/imbalancing assaults (especially related to current events) (and more subtle attempts to unbalance) i.e., "counterbalance" strenuous attempts to unbalance.
  3. Discussion disruption e.g., ... who disrupt AN discussions they don't like
  4. Improper actions by anyone (bit or not)
  5. Online bullying
  6. ...
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Thou shalt not block for being mocked

In light of the ANI thread that was just closed, I've written an essay that sums up what I personally interpreted your post to be about. Feel free to add improvements at will. :) (X! · talk)  · @116  ·  01:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Self acknowledgment of 3RR on WP:AN reverting improper actions

There will be follow up regarding the behavior of editor Ryulong Note: 3rd prompted by this] Proofreader77 (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Timestamp

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

restrictions widened

Given the earlier thread at ANI, followed lately by this romp of yours at AN, I'm putting you under wider editing restrictions and lowering the allowed number of posts/day to 5.

  • Talk and project pages are meant only for talking about ways to help the project. Although trying to have fun with how one puts things can sometimes be helpful and is often welcome here, you've let this stray into unhelpful baiting, pointiness and disruption. Please don't do that again.
  • You are not allowed to make any talk or project page contributions longer than 1000 bytes (or 100 words, whichever is easier to gauge/enforce).
  • You are not allowed to make more than 5 contributions per day to any one talk or project 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, you've now abused both AN and ANI. If you do this again, you could be restricted from posting to those pages at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
(1) Acknowledged. (2) Will appeal at Arbcom. (3) Happy holidays. (All three, convivial.)

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A little discussion

Hey Proof, whats going on? Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

So? Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
See below. :-) Just got up, and will go consume breakfast etc. Oh, Good morning. :-) Talk later. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, Proof...forget about it, do not appeal anything to arbcom or anybody else, that is simply more of the same action that you are being restricted for and you will be further reprimanded and restricted there, stay away from ANI unless you are being discussed there, accept the restrictions and stay off of the radar. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me Off2riorob, I've been busy, as you see. I understand your point very well. Sometimes Arbcom is necessary. All I can say is, this is one of those times. We sometimes have different perspectives. This is one them. lol

PS ... I do have one reciprocal bit of advice to you. Remember the time that ChildofMidnight defended you (beautifully! and powerfully!) at ANI while you slept. You woke up and found you didn't have to say a word. I gave CoM a barnstar of integrety for that. It's still is so beautiful in my memory that tears are coming to my eyes now.

Remember that CoM put themselves in the line of fire for you and turned back the flames ... the next time it crosses your mind to join with the crowd in rebuking her. (Excuse my tone. lol We've been through a lot lately... More great adventures to come.) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't like to think of myself as joining the crowd...sometimes the crowd are correct, sometimes you support your friends by saying, hey, you need to stop doing this, I am sure you know that if this goes horribly wrong that I will be there to console and support you. Off2riorob (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Beautifully said. (Excuse brief reply. Busy holiday season. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

last warning

Most experienced editors know en.Wikipedia has its sundry flaws. Nonetheless, by far most volunteer editors here see not only the nettlesome stuff, but helpful sides to this project and are willing to find ways to peacefully edit articles and otherwise pitch in. Having looked at your contributions, I see you have mostly stopped editing articles and are now posting to many and sundry talk pages, where you are more or less baiting and taunting other editors. This is harmful and gets in the way of encyclopedia-building. I've thought about asking you, if you have ever edited this website behind another account, but that's not my worry: Rather, you don't seem to be here to edit an encyclopedia anymore. Moreover, I think you're gaming your talk page restrictions, which came about following a consensus of editors. I don't want to, but if you carry on like this I will block this account from editing, for talk/project page abuse, disruption and personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Gwen,you have gotten too personally involved. I urge you to leave further admin actions with respect to this editor to other administrators. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
DGG, you're mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Status

Documentation (in progress)


Misc/Policy

This user was a member of WikiProject Administrator, a group of editors who sought to address the role of administrators and their interaction with other editors.

  Joined. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Notice - I have added my RL identity and (11 edits) earlier account to my user page

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

Very merry Yuletide to you Proofreader and best wishes to you and yours for 2010. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
That is so beautiful ... my eyes are watering. Bless you, Off2riorob, dear friend. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(interlude) Holiday teatime entertainment ^;^

William M. Connolley's flag. (Dear Santa: Proofreader77 want's one for Christmas. ^;^)
Every Who down in Whoville liked Christmas a lot,

but the Grinch, who lived just north of Whoville - did not." (Dr. Seuss)

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Convivial holiday teatime conversation

Self-acknowledgment of 3RR of Roman Polanski

The issue of the SPA and support by an experienced editor and the effect on POV will be addressed in appropriate forum in due course. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Timestamp

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

A pleasant surprise!

Thanks for the comment left on my talk page. Have a most happy 2010 yourself! Prof.rick 22:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what you get for editing on Christmas! lol Cheers. ^;^ Proofreader77 (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

I hadn't heard of the Cordelia in Buffy before, but was interested to read about her :-) Happy holidays to you, too! Cheers,CordeliaNaismith (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles to link to make conversation more fun, don't they? :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(To all) Any suggestions for missing userbox (beside MI5)?

HThis user knows that EVERYBODY LIES.

Discussion of House userbox

no objections to checkuser (magnifying glass)

  • (Medical) Mystery (genre)
  • (The aforementioned) Black color matching for MI-5
  • Negative? - re "Everybody lies" — Exception: Proofreader77. (true, but LOL) ... Ah, perhaps a customized userbox. :-)
    -- Proofreader77 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
HHOUSE: "Everybody lies." BOKE: Though House is oft mistaken.

Now, that will be hard to beat. LOL Proofreader77 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

A sonnet in your honor for a better one

Suggestions?

talk page restrictions lifted

Hi Proofreader, in watching your contributions over the last few days I've come to believe that, despite the hopes of other editors who gave input, along with my own, that these talk page bounds which had been set for you following an earlier consensus at ANI (which I then implemented and later widened following that consensus), might help you and other volunteer editors in the building of this encyclopedia, they're not helping out as meant. Hence, I'm lifting them altogether. You're now back under the same consensus policies and guidelines as most other editors. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged

Cheers, happy holidays, wonderful 2010, Gwen Gale. Proofreader77 (interact) 12:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

FA team

Good, but I think the deal must be a quid pro quo: if editors receive help in bringing their FA up to standard, part of the learning process for them is to review X number of FACs during the process. It's a good way to improve, and ideal for getting to know the standards required. Tony (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(Commented on Tony's talk) Proofreader77 (interact) 05:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mindreading

Yes, we most certainly do, so look out. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
{{No citation needed}}
(Amen;-) Proofreader77 (interact) 10:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Free Roman Polanski" Petition

So, it fell to you to write a replacement for my article on the "Free Roman Polanski" petition? Or has it been voted down completely? Edgy DC (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is a more complicated matter than it might seem. For the moment the issue is decided, but perhaps in the future something can be done. (As I suspect you saw, I certainly believe that an article is possible — the thing that is particularly controversial is the actual list of those who have signed it — and (1) verifying those names are really all on there (2) if the names are famous names, verifying it is that person's signature, (3) preventing name-change vandalism. IE, some big problems ... but perhaps the future holds answers.

Meanwhile, enjoy the rest of the holidays, and best wishes for an enjoyably interesting 2010. Cheers.
-- Proofreader77 (interact) 05:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

It seems to me that, with numerous sources reporting these names, the matter can be simply dealt with by describing these folks as "reported signers," rather than "signers." And, of course, if anybody had denied their signature, or changed their position, that gets prominently noted in the article.

I deny that I violated any "lists" guideline. I didn't post these people's names based on my opinion, but based on their clearly reported public position, as verified by their (reportedly) signatures. It seemed safe as houses to me, but I guess I yield to the numbers and experience of those that disagree.

Edgy DC (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Back B4 new year.

Hey Proof, how are you doing? 2010 can be a whole new beginning...? Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel a Diane Keaton moment coming on...."Seems like old times...."Oberonfitch (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(Not saying anything ... Checking if you can read my mind ... Testing for psychic powers... Very hush hush. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 04:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, your unblocked at 6am tomorrow morning, are you looking forward to it? What you need is a job to channel your talents into, have you thought to ask CoM? he always has a lot of useful work waiting for helpful amigos. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, many interesting projects ... for Earth colonization. ^;^ Proofreader77 (interact) 19:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
That comment was actually very very subtle ;) commentary on the alternative accounts being used to see how noobs and their article creations were being treated. (That editor had received notification that they were a guinea pig, so to speak, in the experiment.
Anyway, I concur with Off2rio. If you push against a wall, it pushes back with equal and opposite force. Or that's what I remember from physics anyway. Although it doesn't seem like a good metaphor now that I think about it, since a wall won't knock you over (or block you indefinitely). Come work on some interesting articles and banter among friends. Cheerios. Good luck. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
(See blue image to left) You don't think I already know what you think? LoL (Scribbles on pad: CoM MI5-PMR trainee screening. Fail.) ^;^ Proofreader77 (interact) 21:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I assure you that your powers are no match for my tin-foil helmet. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL Child. Did it come with special Wiki decoder ring? Oberonfitch (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
If there's something that decodes all the acronyms used here I certainly haven't gotten my hands on it. And yet there are no wp:BYOB or wp:Don't take candy from strangers pages... (PR, watch where you point that thing. The seventeen straight hours in front of my PC is hard enough on my corneas). ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Extracting MI5 special-issue laser pointer from pocket and casually etching "P77" in the "H" of the Hollywood sign while sipping tea with some wanna-be celebrity who's caught Proofreader77's fancy, he smiles that smile and says:

Perhaps. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 00:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

CoM, An opportunity for a disambiguation page if there ever was one. Will begin work immediately, using the new powers conferred on me by fly-by ducking. (Cannot promise accurate results.) See also: Ducks that look like velociraptors. Muscovy Duck Oberonfitch (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06&oldid=1181785804"