User:Proofreader77/BastilleGG

Bastille Day (my birthday) reflections of (our) exchanges past on Gwen Gale's page
''Not a topic for discussion, just taking a few moments for reflection of our exchanges here ... after I somehow noticed your userpage (must have noticed something you said somewhere), liked the painting, and decided to note you as someone I'd ask if I ever needed to ask anything ...'' I.E., Diffs of a different color :)


 * 2 Sept 2008 "Vague aspersions of prenatal endangerment" // (current events wrangling)
 * re 08:34, 2 September 2008 Gwen Gale (→Vague aspersions of prenatal endangerment: cmt)
 * (in a subtopic I originally created then later corrected title) 02:19, 2 September 2008 Proofreader77 (→Excess details about Trig's birth) //Adding talk subtopic with sarcastic suggestion of article subtopic to clarify issue under heavy discussion

(to be continued ... I think you can count exchanges on one hand ... note: "little case studies") Proofreader77 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL Well, it was a little more than five.


 * 19 December 2008 (low priority / for my enlightenment) What would you do ... (Two Winnie the Poohs) what would you  do]]


 * 25 December 2008 birthdate of (minor) children in biographies?


 * 6 January 2009 (COI) When an artist's article gets a PR upgrade


 * 21 January 2009 (Stupid question :) -- deleting stupid redirects


 * 2 February 2009 James Ibori (a warning re it being used to legitimate a scam) // (RC) BLP (little) CASE STUDY ... When a notable name is notably used in a scam which the person is not responsible for ( "Interesting little case, issue-wise, huh? :)


 * 9 February 2009 Photos: Creative Commons license(s)?


 * 14 February 2009 (5 years subtopic) Complete and Perfect Tutnum of the Encyclopedia

re: slippery slope" arguments, etc. GWEN GALE: Many of Wikipedia's highest profile articles, moreover those which in any way brush into the humanities (ever more so mainstream politics), show a highly skewed consensus, a canny brew of emotions and hard core COIs, often coming from the smash-up of two sweeping sides at once. This is somewhat owing to flawed weight in the reliable sources themselves, which the encyclopedia is more or less bound to echo. Moreover, otherwise reliable sources may be thrown away as unreliable for these articles, by skiving takes on weight even more. It also gets stirred up by WP's own systemic bias. Highly nettlesome as this may be, it's very hard to get by until the sources themselves overwhelmingly sway otherwise. This can take years. Sometimes, it'll take decades or longer. The only way to try doing something about this would be on a policy talk page. I should hasten to say, I don't think this is a worry stemming from open editing. Closed tertiary sources can wind up with skews which are much worse even than some of the stuff seen here. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 17 February 2009


 * Picking an admin-to-ask by their user page painting, turned out to be an excellent strategy. (I.E., I have made a copy of 1st reply ... to study. (wow:) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 23 February 2009 disruptive waste of time (Comment I made about contentious spectacle after emailing Gwen Gale to ask if it was OK to stick my nose in on her talk page.)


 * 3 March 2009 5,000 (I reach 5,000 edits) INCLUDES: (RC) Categorization vandalism? Bible - Fiction novel > Fictional novel > Fantasy novel and God as imaginary friend

A ' NONSENSE MISCATEG'RIZATION ' ? Patroller(s) beheld this relation: "The Bible's a lie!" A poke in the eye. (A red-button instant cremation.)


 * 10 March 3009 Poetic jousting for milady's amusement :)
 * Included a sonnet about contention with dab-cleaning administrators (I removed to declutter) note: besom
 * PS Follow-up: God as Imaginary Friend


 * 20 March 2009 Lawrence Sperry (Mile High Club reference)

GWEN GALE: It could be that en.Wikipedia is now going through the "pangs" of growing into its "late teens." The 10,000 or so core topics are covered (sometimes only with the dodgy, flawed sources to be had on them but at least covered) and the trail blazing thrill is dwindling. The truth is, building out thorough, sourced, neutrally-put articles is either boring (or not the pith of being here) for about 90% of editors. One of Wikipedia's great strengths and draws of volunteer time is that it indeed spins up like a very high traffic MUD (never mind the soapboxes) for many users, but it could be that the weaknesses this brings are catching up with the project and its output.
 * 10 April 2009 (aside: rhetorical theory analysis and other b.s.) (re Mein Kampf and "testament"?)
 * 5 July 2009 A challenge to the tag brigade

Altogether, I see too much time put into global and meta projects which output only shreds of widely spewed code, like importance ratings, infoboxes, style templates, wlinking boxes, almost without end, cluttering up articles with all kinds of content-weak stuff which in themselves stir up sundry bickering (and even arbcom sanctions) and meanwhile, not enough time put into building out the hard core text content. I think the free market (of content, web traffic and users) will take care of these worries for the world, but meanwhile there is never any guarantee en.Wikipedia will be the world's lasting bearer of this kind of content and ongoing, open editing, so yeah, I think this all could get out of hand sooner rather than later and will need some talking about. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Drive-by commentary I would like to nominate Gwen's first two paragraphs for the Too Good for a Talk Page Award. :) Carry on. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 13 July 2009 Sarah Palin current events wrangling (again)

A pleasant time-travel experience. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)