User talk:Proofreader77/Archive 03

Last archived: 2/1/09

{ BEGIN UNSECURE COMMUNICATION CHANNEL : STATUS / OPEN : TRANSMISSIONS FOLLOW BELOW }

re:Talk:Pooh's Heffalump Movie
You have stumbled into a real mess here. User:Kneehideep is actually banned user User:Bambifan101. One of his telltale signs lately is coming around and trying to prove he can do some good with his clumsy understanding of policy, and he only edits articles on childrens films and television. The fact that a user would even know what a sockpuppet is on their very first day of editing is another red flag of course. The approach that I and others who have been dealing with this problem have been taking is to revert, block, and ignore whenever possible, avoiding any direct communication as it only encourages him. This page will give you some idea of the scope of this problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. (Knew it was a mess, was pondering exactly what kind. Now I know.) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Potential superpowers
Hey. Recently a user readded Brazil as a Potential Superpower, without using sources that actually mention Brazil as a fullfledged superpower. I tried talking to him, but he insulted me, saying stuff like I don't understand English, or world events. But he will leave the article alone and me alone, and don't try talking to him. Looking at his talk page, it would be useless to argue with him. But, I'm having some slight problems with my computer, and I for some reason can't undo his edit. If I haven't done so by then, can you do it. Also, since you have helped the page, and look like you have some knowledge on the subject, would you be interested in joining the Power In International Relations wikiproject? Deavenger (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for the invitation. (Let me ponder my wiki-plate:) ... THE PROBLEM we face here is the way the media throws around the word "superpower" per category of influence -- see the article in The Economist they cited: "An economic superpower, and now oil too". "Superpower" isn't the magic word it used to be. :) The other issue is, of course, the word "potential" ... In infinite time, anything is possible, "potentially."


 * NOTE: Breaking that section out as a separate article is really the heart of the problem. Once you get away from the page which attempts to clarify what "superpower" means, it's harder to argue against, e.g., prestigious magazine headlines.... (But will ponder what to do about this.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Disregard my excess noise -- I see you responded (perfectly) to the person who added it. But yes, the problem is not resolved... Will ponder potential long-term responses. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah. If you have any suggestions, bring it up on the Potential Superpower page, and talk to other members like Nirvana888, or Hobie Hunter, who are both members of Power in International Relations.


 * Also, I agree with how you say that the media throws the word superpower around too much. While I don't think that there is such thing as an actual oil superpower, I know that there are such things as an economic, agriculture, and energy superpower besides the normal superpower. And, welcome and thanks for your help. Deavenger (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey. We're having yet another discussion on whether Brazil should be counted as a potential superpower or not. Please come and add your two cents. Not to mention, the reason why Brazil is being added seems more like nationalistic and tries to use the defense of how since the article is about a speculative topic, he's speculating. Deavenger (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is fascinating to ponder this question today, when I heard on BBC that Iranian president Ahmadinejad said: “The world recognized that we are true superpower.”  Pondering. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Like you said. Superpower is thrown around too much these days. Not to mention, there's only one expert or academic who I have heard call Iran a superpower, but that was in the title of his book, and for all I know. Within the book, he could have called Iran a great or regional power for all we know. I was thinking we should change the title to emerging superpowers instead of potential. What do you think? Deavenger (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, emerging ... My first thought is that word is (also) problematic -- implies they are already stepping into the "superpower" "baby shoes" :) Of course, the word "superpower" is the fundamental complication. Informally, my definition is that a "superpower" is a nation that can project its will across the globe, or (push-comes-to-shove) blow the whole thing up. Which I will try not to smile at, but any other definition of "superpower" just doesn't ring true to me (but I remember the days before the Berlin Wall fell).


 * Now, let's be clear ... that the days of accumulating "blow up the world" stockpiles of nuclear weapons are (hopefully) over. So, by the old definition (that I hold in my head), there aren't going to be any more real superpowers (which is not to say that various countries won't create enough nuclear weapons to make attacking it a very bad idea).


 * The US will maintain that level of force potential for the foreseeable future ... but economic realities might even force us, someday, to take off the superpower shoes. Will any other nation choose to buy a pair? The world has changed. If a nuclear bomb goes off in your capital city, who do you blow up? A thousand nuclear weapons can't stop that.... yada yada yada Very interesting topic. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah. The entire subject of power in International relations is what made me make my decision to go study in the field in the future. Deavenger (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice

 * Smiling happily! Proofreader77 (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:


 * Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
 * An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
 * News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
 * Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
 * Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
 * Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 21:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WTC Twin Towers 2
You are welcome. I have many issues with this article as an encyclopedic entry. I almost feel it should be part of Wikinews on those dates where this project was mentioned in a news media service. I do not find it particularly notable as it is an entry with unpublished and undocumented results. I do find it a very interesting project just as many others do however, that does not qualify it as a Wikipedia entry. I appreciate your knowledge of the Wikipedia guidelines and continue to read them to guide my own understanding of this forum. (Nytaxpayer (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC))


 * (See follow-up on your talk page) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(RC note) Bible Fiction novel > Fictional novel > Fantasy novel
NOTES/DIFFS: REVERT BY PATROLLER, then: REVERT BY PATROLLER (Proofeader77 w HG), then: REVERT BY PATROLLER (Proofeader77) w HG) REVERT BY PATROLLER (HG) REVERT BY PATROLLER (Proofreader77 manual) "(Nonsense miscategorization is vandalism. When you have been warned, stop and take it the talk page.)" ... (reviewing) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Fiction novels (no edit summary)
 * Category: Fictional novels "(fix)"
 * Category: Fantasy novels (no edit summary)
 * "(reverted back to pre-vandal version)"
 * dif (undo / standard undo edit summary)
 * Revision as of 02:50, 26 February 2009 -dif "(you have yet to explain)"
 * dif (undo / standard undo edit summary)
 * Revision as of 02:57, 26 February 2009 diff "(it is not nonsense, therefore not vandalism. if YOU have a problem with it, YOU take it to the talk page)"

user page communication (by Proofreader77)
NOTE: Editor removes #3 (dif) (...) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) (level 4 warning  HG)
 * 2) "Nonsense miscategorization is vandalism. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) "Make a case for that on the talk page if you believe the bible is fantasy novel. Bring reliable sources classifying the Bible as a fantasy novel. Etc. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC) (dif)

"vandalism"

 * 1. "good faith" vs provocation

(...) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. provocation / disruptive

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

The reasonable person rule
MY ANSWER: Yes. (...) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Would a reasonable person consider classifying a religious text as a ("Fiction novel">"Fictional novel"> "Fantasy novel" believing such a categorization was an attempt to improve the encyclopedia?
 * 2) If not, then the assumption of good faith does not apply.
 * 3) I.E., A patroller may treat/categorize such a categorization as a provocation.
 * 4) Can an intentional provocation (note: "reasonable person") be categorized as vandalism?

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

Huggle effects
(...) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: first warning (by another patroller) re Bible was a level 3 (evaluate)

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

(...) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTE: The first edit in a long time on this account was to Bible. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(...)

(RC)

 * All of user Cuak's edits probably need to be undone. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * List of smoking bans in the United States -- Check this diff No ref. And old info perhaps should not just be deleted. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 75.68.111.207 changing heights of players by significant amounts. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(note) "Consensus" and disambiguation pages (e.g. American)
(...) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If we reflect on the pages of those who have left Wikipedia, let us remember how unnecessary contention wears one down.

Toxic Zombie
Good morning, please note that at pages like this: Toxic Zombie, a db-blanked template is fine, cheers SpitfireTally-ho! 06:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * haha, no problem, this is the bit where I start lecturing on the virtues of old school style I believe :P SpitfireTally-ho! 06:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * lol Just had an edit conflict with you on this page, too.


 * Ah, I did 1,000 reverts by hand before I huggled. I was ready for new school. :) (Yes, thanks. I noticed what it was right as I clicked. Hit undo, and Huggle crashed. Took the warning off the users page first manually, and by the time I got back to the page, had an edit conflict with you reverting myself there. lol Cheers.) Proofreader77 (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:


 * Books extension enabled
 * News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
 * Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 20:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

5,000
(see above) :) Proofreader77 (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Judge Turpin DOB Edit
You reverted my correction to the Judge Turpin article requesting a cite. There is no cite for the date that was listed (1792), and I have no idea where that could have come from. The stage productions of Sweeney Todd do not mention any years at all. The setting has varied significantly in the various production, from late 18th century to modern times, but the original story that it is based on was set in 1785. Stage productions are generally not trying to be historically accurate or consistent with their costuming, but the Tim Burton film, while having some anachronisms, does seem to reflect the late 18th century setting of the original story. Personally, I think dates of birth for fictional characters are croft unless important to the story, but if they are going to be there I believe we should go with a "Early-Mid 1700s" for Judge Turpin as he appears to be in his 40s or 50s and the story was set in 1785. 12.40.5.69 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please excuse my slow response. (Lots on my plate, today.) My request for a cite (when the previous information wasn't cited) had something to do with the many unsourced changes that were flowing before my eyes at the time (a mix of ok, outlandish, and time-wasting subtle vandalism) and was hoping you'd have a source so I wouldn't have to go researching whether the changes made were correct.


 * Note: Any time you have source, please provide it ... so the volunteers who revert vandalism do not explode. lol ... And, do not be surprised if a certain number of unsourced changes, especially when made from an IP address (i.e., without an account  record to evaluate with respect to wikipedia), are reverted by vandalism patrollers who have their hands full. In any case, cheers! Proofreader77 (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)