User talk:Proofreader77/Archive 01

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Cheers for the help with the sandbox editing. I haven't had all that much time to keep working on it recently, RL stuff going on, so any help is appreciated, thanks! TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 10:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Very welcome. Felt like a home-invasion of some kind going into your private sandbox, but figured if I washed the dishes, you'd be OK with it. lol Cheers! (I'm so tired. Ignore foolishness:) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. For what it's worth, I'm trying to puzzle out exactly why that article seems to be a really persistent target for anonymous-IP vandalism of the type you reverted — more so than many far higher-profile topics that I'm aware of. Bearcat (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Very welcome. And yes, it's an interesting question as to the whys of this kind of vandalism (I scratched my head, too). lol just caught myself about to launch into an in-depth exposition on head-scratching vandalism ... Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just a heads up...the guy in this article is actually named John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Not the JFK of course, but the name is exactly the same. I sourced the Skylar Deleon (Jennifer's ex-husband) article and I checked that name about forty times to make sure I was seeing it right. Strange but true :) I'll get around to sourcing that one once the IPs and new users go away again. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Undid my removing of JFK the perp. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What? No balloons drop for reaching 1,000 edits? lol Proofreader77 (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(smiling and munching) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done - no apparent instances of undocumented reversion of good faith edits. Be sure to use the tool appropriately Fritzpoll (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Just what I wanted for Christmas. :) Thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is blanking a page not vandalism? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If the page should not have been created, then blanking it is good. Of course, it really needed a deletion tag on it too, but what was blanked was an attack. That's good blanking. (I think that's what happened.) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Of course, they then went on to vandalize the Tony Romo page... Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw they weren't behaving well. :) It was just that one blanking that was OK. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a Christmas miracle.  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! :) (NOTE: Let me know if you got a notification for my responding to your response here. I wasn't sure Wikipedia software was smart enough to do that. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I got a notice that I had new messages on my Talk page, and did a check on the latest edit, and found your comment. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now it's clear to me -- if you respond underneath someone's comment on any talk page, you will be notified with a message (note: you weren't notified on your talk page about this comment, but rather in a message box that appeared at the top of your window, something:). Thanks again. Now I know. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

NOTE TO SELF: Well, that's not true. lol I'll figure it out someday. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Doh! lol Now I see what you said. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Im very sorry to do that, however Im the my friend is a managing editor of ABS-CBN in Manila, inform to me and to anyone that do not allow or to removed the future TV schedule of the said network at the bottom of the upcoming programs. I might be subject to changes without prior notice or any advisory and there's is no Digital TV launched as of this time exist. We don't want to include this because it is violate the rules and regulations of the network any post of the TV schedule is stricly phohibited especially on the net without permission of the network. The future programs of ABS-CBN will reveal during the last week of the year or early next year during ASAP'08 as soon as possible. This is not a vandalism at all. Merry Christmas! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.168.45 (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And please excuse my warning. (I've left a message on your talk page, and removed my warning). I see you added an explanation when you reinserted. Merry Christmas to you too. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you now automatically reverting changes (and posting accusations of vandalism) without even reading content? People like you are a blight on this project. 173.32.47.35 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The error was reverted immediately -- both from the page (dif), and from the your talk page (dif). Your response is inappropriate. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

DOCUMENTATION (note to self 12/22/08): The editor at that IP made exactly three edits on 12/22 -- two of them were initially reverted, and then the reversion undone. An hour before I performed a revert-then-undo, an admin had also reacted to a large erasure (also with edit summary), exactly as I did (see bottom four entries on that talk page).

LET US KEEP IN MIND ... if you or I had made just three edits, and two (with edit summaries) had been reverted and then reversion undone by two volunteers (both using Huggle), we might be grouchy, too.

YET, ON THE OTHER HAND (looking back at the short history of the ip), if your volunteer editing on Wikipedia is most often deletions of what appears to be good content on its face, it would be better to have a named account with an established record of trust.

FINALLY, it should be noted that the admin and myself both immediately realized we should undo our reversion (pending further analysis); however -- keeping in mind the context of the never-ending torrent of vandalism -- let us clearly understand that the automated tools make reversion and warning so easy, there will often be (caught, and uncaught) errors in reversion. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, with a name like yours, you'd be welcome as a reviewer of Criterion 1a, among other aspects of the candidates. Tony (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Tony. I'm still learning my way around Wikipedia, and didn't even know what FAC stood for. I'll be delighted to take a careful look at the project and see if I'm Wiki-smart enough (and in general:) to be an asset in that area. Looks interesting. Again, thanks for noticing me and pointing there. (I'm not very articulate today. lol Happy Holidays!) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

RC REMINDER: Reverted deletion, added neutrality tag and talk page question, message on talk page of other reverter of deletion (who, I see, is also the creator of the section (diff). Proofreader77 (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the section

Changes have been made which captures the sense of and reflects the differences between the Manhattan Project and Germany’s nuclear energy effort in the last years of the war. I believe these changes warrant removal of the tag on the section. Please do let me know if you have any other or further concerns. Thanks.

Bfiene (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(Removed POV tag) See my comment on that talk page. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

BEGIN COPY OF MY Talk:Ulster_Scots NOTE:

“

Noting the (mostly) undocumented deletions/changes of 12/23/08 While recent changes patrolling, it is always troubling to see chunks of text vanish without an edit summary. Initially, let us focus on the introduction -- with most of the deletions occurring in the first six (no explanation) edits of 12/23. introduction BEFORE (NOTE: The introduction had been in this longer form since August 2006). “ Ulster Scots, also known as Ullans and Hiberno-Scots, refers to varieties of Scots spoken in parts of the province of Ulster in the north of Ireland. It is used in East Antrim, north Down, north-west Co. Londonderry, the Laggan area of Donegal, and also in the fishing villages of the Mourne coast.[1] It is one of three Anglic dialects, apart from standard English, which are spoken in Ulster, along with Mid Ulster English (around the Lagan and Clogher valleys) and South Ulster English, which is transitional to Southern Hiberno-English. Although Mid Ulster English is everywhere influenced by Irish Gaelic, a substrate is particularly evident in Donegal, the Sperrin mountains and the Glens of Antrim, areas close to former or current Gaeltacht districts. [2] Native speakers traditionally called it simply Scots, Braid (or broad) Scots or Scotch (see Scotch) - as did James Orr in The Irish Cottier's Death and Burial: "To quat braid Scotch, a task that foils their art; For while they join his converse, vain though shy, They monie a lang learn'd word misca' an' misapply". Ullans is a portmanteau neologism merging Ulster and Lallans - the Scots for Lowlands - coined by the physician, amateur historian and politician Dr Ian Adamson[citation needed]. The magazine of the Ulster-Scots Language Society is also named Ullans, ostensibly from "Ulster-Scots language in literature and native speech" but ultimately from the other contraction[citation needed]. The German linguist Manfred Görlach differentiates between the term "Ulster Scots" (the historical spoken variety) and "Ullans" (the revived literary variety)[citation needed]. Hiberno-Scots, unlike "Ulster Scots", refers only to a linguistic tradition; it also mirrors "Hiberno-English"[citation needed]. The novelist William Carleton refers in his author's preface to the first edition of his Traits and Stories of the Irish Peasantry (vol. 1, 1st series, Dublin, 1830) to "Scoto-Hibernic jargon". The linguist James Milroy used the term "Hiberno-Scots" as early as the 1980s[citation needed] ” AFTER (the 12 edits of 12/23 + the 1st on 12/24) “ Ulster Scots, also known as Ullans and Hiberno-Scots, refers to varieties of English or Lowland Scots, spoken in parts of the province of Ulster in the north of Ireland. Ulster Scots is used in East Antrim, north Down, north-west Co. Londonderry, the Laggan area of Donegal, and also in the fishing villages of the Mourne coast.[3] It is one of three dialects of English, apart from standard English, which are spoken in Ulster, along with Mid Ulster English (around the Lagan and Clogher valleys) and South Ulster English, which is transitional to Southern Hiberno-English. [4] As with all Ulster dialects, boundaries intermingle, and some Ulster Scots useages (such as the complex use of wee) have spread throughout the whole of Ulster. ” NOTE: Ullans and Hiberno-Scots redirects to Ulster Scots. They were merged here (see discussion somewhere above on this page); and, it would seem, the "elaboration" of the introduction is (was, until recently) why deleting that information (especially without edit summary) is of concern. ALSO NOTE: (1) The word Anglic has only recently come into question, and while it was (recently) replaced in the introduction, the linked word remains in the sidebar and in the History section. (2) The removing of the sentence containing "influenced by Irish Gaelic" that was included in a referenced section. GENERAL COMMENT: Glancing back through the history of edits to the page, it is clear that the complex political issues of the history of the region have sometimes inspired editing of this page. (The ones reducing it to one sentence, draw the lines very clearly.) That is not to say that the recent changes here are influenced by anything other than a desire to accurately write the article -- yet, when wearing the hat of a recent changes patroller, that is one factor that must be kept in mind. QUESTION: Is there consensus on the recent change of the introduction? Proofreader77 (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

”

END COPY Proofreader77 (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted definitions/slang accumulating under short Biblical personage article.

NOTE: There are mentions of other kinds of Buzi in Wikipedia (but only one is linked to from Buzi page).

SO: Should a disambiguation page be created? Proofreader77 (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done FOLLOW UP: Created Buzi (disambiguation) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Added {{Unbalanced}} tag after today's rewrite of introduction and overloading with citations to make a case. Note bolding of POV. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Added the {{tl}} template which allows one to display just the template name and a link to the template, without worrying aoubt arguments and nowiki code. Very useful! Best of the season.--papageno (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Proofreader77 (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

HANDLED: Changes reverted by another editor (who removed tag) Proofreader77 (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Benjamin Karney - academic/researcher page (recent research articles listed in introduction.
  •  Done FOLLOW UP: added format (left nonstandard placement of new scholarship)
• Jack Rose (disambiguation) (May be ...)
  •  Done FOLLOW UP: corrected date, and added link (note, exception for piped)

Proofreader77 (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• ~1,300 edits before using automated vandalism tools.
• +700 since. (From 12/12/08 to 12/26/08) NOTE: 412 with HG / 288 normal
• Yes, this one makes 2,000. :)

Proofreader77 (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Look back at this tomorrow and verify changes (reference was misdone) Proofreader77 (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Rolled back by another editor. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

 Not done What do to with something like this? :) Ponder. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could fix them all ... if there was nothing else to do in life. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

PS ... perhaps just the G#1 ones? nah Proofreader77 (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

His wording "I own it" ... is perhaps causing him problems in his deletion. But I believe he has the right to delete his own content, of no one else has significantly contributed. Look into this. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

After and erase/restore tug-of-war ... the page was deleted. Correctly. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Check later. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone reverted it ... for the moment. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably should be deleted. Check. NOTE: Already in Google. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• NOTE: This translated page Proofreader77 (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• NOTE: The page now has several tags on it ... including nomination for deletion. COMMENT: If this woman was characterized negatively on national TV (in that country), then perhaps that earns you a page ... for a more balanced view. :) Leave notes on talk page? Proofreader77 (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

NOTE that someone was deleting "member of fundamentalist Wahhabi sect, and leaving it simply Muslim. Is that an allowable edit? It has been reverted, but let's ponder this. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

FOLLOW UP: Another ip editor has removed the (referenced) information re "member of fundamentalist Wahhabi sect (without using an edit summary).

QUESTION TO CONSIDER: Biographies of Living (Villains). I.E., notoriety based on negative information. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: On January 18, someone turned the BOL(V) into the story of his life. NOTE: This will probably be reverted, but it should be noted that a biography should not be just a couple of lines, then a documentation of their sins. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: INTRO: The word "masterminding" (inserted into existing sentence 11/30/08 diff without discussion) has incorrect implications to many.

• See p 148 and 426 of The 9/11 Commission Report which lists Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Bush admin spokesperson Perino correcting a journalist for calling Bin Laden the "mastermind of 9/11" [1].

ACTION: Removed the word from the article introduction, and explained on talk page. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Check back to make sure it's deleted. (Speedy was marked.)Proofreader77 (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Closing end of 2008 ... (apparent reason) for "erasure battle" -- check later. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

For Proofreader77.

I am sorry I lost my temper, but if the Twin Towers II is a high approval among the public and support for the Freedom Tower is dropping, then they need to switch to the Twin Towers right now, otherwise nothing will ever be rebuilt. Can you please answer me immediately when you can and help answer my questions. Why won't they just decide to change or not? How can it take so long to find the final status of the Freedom Tower. Please respond immediately. Bob--75.4.142.129 (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Questions should be directed to Mark Pagliettini at www.wtcprogress.com, the Port Authority’s special Web site for its rebuilding programs at Ground Zero." NOTE: Oct 8 2008 report pdf Proofreader77 (talk)

FOLLOW-UP (NOTE): The lede should be rewritten. (It is an alternative idea. It is not being "negotiated.") Proofreader77 (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)  Done

FOLLOW-UP: Removed list of donors to the WTC memorial. (Not for this particular plan.) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: Removed developers from infobox. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is not developing this particular proposal. Trump supported the idea in 2005, but is not actively developing it. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

Hey, Proofreader77, can't you just tell Port Authority that they are to switch to the Twin Towers 2 right now? Then the people who like the idea would be happy. Respond immediately. Bob--76.238.3.223 (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I must decline such a request. Advocacy is not within my purview. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1/9/09 Follow up

Noted that Holden_yo deleted link to official information from WTC 2 Talk ... and that they put an unsigned comment on an ip editor's page claiming inside information on the project. I reinstated the link to official information and placed the following comment on Holden_yo's talk page:

Please note: Claiming inside information regarding an article as you did with this unsigned user talk page comment (diff) is not allowed. If there is public information, cite it. Private information carries no weight in Wikipedia. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT: (1) Claim of private/inside information. (2) Deleting talk page information, rather than discussing. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears Gary Husband has "updated" his entry into PR. Ponder. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: Asked Gwen Gale, and she added these tags: {{advertisement}} {{cleanup}} {{COI}} .. and the problem was fixed. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: The artist does not understand the process. Some communication needed there. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those cases in which an ip editor is (most probably) an expert on a "topic" (actually a list, which is part of the "problem" -- one of those "exceptions" that are allowed)... but what RC patrollers see is unexplained changes (including large deletions ... AND SO appears as a vandal. Ponder ... Proofreader77 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Check into this. Do they think it means "now" (rather than ever)? Antipathy to Spears? Proofreader77 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the news. But he is 93. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: An RC patroller reverted the (unsourced) information without comment. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP - An established editor added a link to a BBC piece (in Welsh) for the obituary -- confused me at first because the date cited for the piece was 2008. An error I corrected: 2009. Done. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Review what was done. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

THEN: ip editor redirected Latin European peoples to Latin Europe. All this is probably fine ... but a lot to be done by an ip editor WITHOUT discussion. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

ALSO changes to Latin Arch. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A NOTE I HAVE NOT LEFT YET

Just a quick note with respect to your rewrite and how it appears to Wikipedia volunteers ... Here's what catches our (my) attention:

1. Initial deletion of 75% of existing content
2. 78.147.42.94 does not appear to have participated in talk page discussions
3. also merging of Latin European peoples to Latin Europe

Everything you are doing may well be perfectly reasonable. But such a sweeping change (without Talk Page discussion for consensus) ... gives recent changes patrollers pause.

Proofreader77 (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Check intent of removing links to original source. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Another RC patroller reverted deletion. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

IP editor added category Democratic organizations to this template. Check recent edits by 76.116.148.99 re: things like this. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Tammany Hall was a democratic organization, but the "Leaders of Tammany Hall" isn't. A small point, but not sure how nested categories should work. Study categories. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

piping categories

Check contributions of 76.116.148.99 later. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: A lot of small edits to a lot of political pages. May all be good editing, but check for any bias. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

CONCLUSION: The ip editor is apparently doing mostly updating for Republicans politicians in an organized way. Would have check for any bias in Democratic pages (implied by Tammany Hall edit, i.e., they're clearly working for the Republican party etc ....) BUT life is short. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just look this over. Some unhelpful edits, and odd placement of references within external links. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE: Someone needs to wikify their references. (And note the edit war.) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Page creation ... now only a link to the official site. (Study how to handle this) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: A user is attempting a good-faith edit ... which could be a bit improved, but is not wrong... yet it is being repeatedly reverted by patrollers. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Unsourced bio upgrade ... Removal of no references tag ... etc. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this, but note the issue of updating of BLPs. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Information added about a local team with an external link section inserted mid-page. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted by another patroller. Whether the information could have been inserted appropriately is another... ? Proofreader77 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs intro wikified ... and check to see if this is not a copy of imdb. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Some people revert changes to PNG back to jpg. [2] Check what's the rule here. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The unreferenced UD version. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

ACTION: Research references etc and upgrade + talk comments. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Make sense of the Gyp DeCarlo and other changes by JerseyBoys Proofreader77 (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Another PR upgrade. To follow-up. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: Added {{Intro-rewrite}}{{COI}}{{Advertising}} tags. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: Another editor has replaced the introduction appropriately, removed the tags -- BUT did not remove PR from the rest of the article. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Check for PR-self-updating... Proofreader77 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Beyond the 3RR issue on Stephen Appiah ... 81.102.233.188 is re-posting abusive responses diff1 diff2, diff3 (note different time stamps) diff3 on user talk pages and removing article talk page contentdiff 1, diff 2, diff 3. AND they are repeatedly erasing all warnings from their talk page User_talk:81.102.233.188 (see talk page history -- Proofreader77 (talk)

COPY TO: User_talk:Jake_Wartenberg --- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

81.102.233.188 - abusive Comment & repeated vandalism

{{}} User 81.102.233.188 is repeatedly vandalising the "Steven Appiah" entry. I am new to Wiki and didn't know about the 3RR rule - sorry about that one.

How exactly does one properly handle someone who repeatedly deletes correct information and replaces it with made-up nonsense. I want to do this within the rules - have no wish to be unconsturctive. I see from his talk page that he has had final warnings in the past for vandalism - are we supposed to simply leave the vandalising comments in place after making three attempts to remove the malicious information.

I don't want to get into an 'edit war' but is there any other way to ensure flase, malicious information is removed? This is not a case of a disagreement over facts - it it someone who is intentionally removing valid biographical information and replacing it with unsubstantiated nonsense he makes up - apparently simply to to 'wind up' supporters of a rival football club. By user Nagarjuna1980

Yes, I see what's happening and am documenting it (see above). Yes, avoid an edit war. Take a break from the page while the problem is sorted out. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Further vandalism since last warning at 19:16

Since you warned him at 19:16 about vandalism - he has vandalised one of your posts you left on my talk page (@ 19:18).

Is there any way I can block this user from editing my posts and/or editing posts other people leave on my talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagarjuna1980 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Further vandalised an entry on my talk page at 17:22 with abusive comments. ≤≠≥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagarjuna1980 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see it. I've shared the documentation I have with another patroller. Hopefully we'll get this handled soon. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - am I ok to remove the abusive edits he keeps leaving on my talk page? Does that violate 3RR or does 3RR just apply to proper entires? I'm loathe to leave foul mouthed abusive text on my talk page when he adds it under my name! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagarjuna1980 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You can always correct mess on your own talk page. REMINDER: Don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~ -- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

81.102.233.188 has been blocked

One week. (User_talk:ThaddeusB posted a request to the appropriate notice board.) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTES

• 81.102.233.188 has clearly played this game (avoiding blocking) before. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• While a user is allowed to remove warnings from their talk page, this user clearly (and knowingly) abused that "allowance" to perpetrate this huge waste of time and effort for as long as possible. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone created this page, and an ip editor blanked it. Check back on this. It may well need to be deleted. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of information with incomplete (or false) edit summary. Verify $25 fee. etc. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: Sept. "Cowboys & Indians" magazine is special re Willie Nelson. (ip editor falsely claims it doesn't) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: Analyze this more closely. Sept issue is about Willie Nelson. Is issue misrepresentation of article content (rather than existence)? ALSO: Appropriateness of removing "notable" people which was not misdocumented but may be correct to do. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced information about a religion. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that if people approve of the Twin Towers 2, then the Port Authority should switch right now. They'd feel better if they made the final decision right now, rather than just deciding to waste time. Please respond Bob--99.139.124.17 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

... have been suggested for a merge but no one followed up or even expressed an opinion. Ponder. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

An outdated word definition entry. Should be a disambig or gone. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Do POV analysis ... note "potential superpower" map etc. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP/ACTION: Added note to talk pages for Superpower and Potential superpowers re the difference between casual use of "superpower" in the phrases "food superpower" or "energy superpower" ... vs the category of "superpower" Proofreader77 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please respond. I mean that maybe if there are delays with the Freedom Tower that the port Authority would feel better if they just switched right now, otherwise they are wasting time. Bob.--76.238.5.64 (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

See my reply to your earlier comment. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Corrections, or vandalism? Proofreader77 (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: User blocked as ip editor (and most edits reverted) ... will be required to log in. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Note the creator added a tag dated Nov 2008 as part of the "cover" for it. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The false early-dated tag slowed the deletion process -- "requiring" a discussion. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just pasting a message I left at User talk:Catgut: The five edits for which Obymunch (talk · contribs) was warned concerned the removal of an infobox from Prestonpans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which in fact didn't belong to that page, but to Cork (city) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Although the editor might be at fault for not using edit summaries and not paying attention to the warnings, I don't feel that this merited a block (and an admin has already dismissed the report). I am also at fault, for the first three warnings were placed by myself. However, I think it would be courteous to remove our warnings for the user, and instead leave a friendly notice encouraging the use of edit summaries in the future. Gail (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the head's up, and will do. (Have left note on your page, too.) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The cookie seems (or tastes) like a good idea :) And I admitted as much (about it being my fault). Keep up the good work! Gail (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Page just created and populated ... with blue links to professional players ... NOT the players on this college team. A fraudulent page, or temporary to refill in? Check back later. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: Editor is using professional roster as a template .. filling in the roster with college team. WIKI-QUESTION: Should the entire roster of College team be in Wikipedia. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

AND THEN: Someone noticed all those blue links to professional players still to be changed ... and deleted the page. (Which may have been appropriate, but not as clear cut.) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Page to be deleted. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Check edits by Ummairsaeed. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: User blocked for 31 hours. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW UP: After block expired, user came back and began "playing at" (like) a vandalism fighter, badly. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A patroller (incorrectly) reverted an edit by an ip editor. Check back later. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The "issue" on this page is "drinking the Kook Aid" ... (including political variants: "Drinking the Obama(McCain) Kool Aid" Proofreader77 (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained ip editor changes. Look over later. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT: I do not know enough about the context of India... Proofreader77 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Look back over 74.232.109.75's edits, and ponder the adding/changing to "emo" -- accurate, or just a slam? Proofreader77 (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Check this later. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly been using Wikipedia a long time, this id is racking up points ... some of it in odd ways. Investigate. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ponder what's happening up top there. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I think he's having trouble promoting his novel. :) Check back about correct status of his entry re "Law and Order" (He is credited as co-executive producer... Verify that he helped Dick Wolfe "create" it.) etc. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

See all recent edits. (Blocked back in December.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at the January 18 changing of categories re mobile phones. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Will have to be wrestled about changes. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Merged without notice or discussion. Mostly OK, but verify. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

{resolved}

Ah the subtle local politics. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP The airline PR self-identifies as "Scottish" airline. So I reverted change. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP see that talk page. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

New editor vs redirect... Check back later. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: Another patroller redirected to the main article. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

See editing pattern of 198.173.15.250 -- are they unsourced POV adjustments? Proofreader77 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: Another editor reverted all the edits by 198.173.15.250 -- "rv all edits by anon IP - glosses over controversies, old version was better" Proofreader77 (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Has become about the Mausoleum and a judgment of the man based on accepting the appointment. Added talk page comment. Check back later.Proofreader77 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

128.230.163.132 [3] Proofreader77 (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done

Hi, with this edit [4] you inserted a "locateme" template which had been correctly removed by the editor who had added coordinates to the article. DuncanHill (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for catching that. (Misunderstood explanation as misleading, and editor had just been reverted and warned by another patroller.) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Another interesting field of "battle." Proofreader77 (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Very POV and inappropriate language ... would need to look back at all of Jan 20 edits. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)