User talk:Proofreader77/Archive 04

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)

Talk page work > American warning

 * (NOTE: Change of initial topic name to one descriptive of issue in dispute.)
 * --Proofreader77 (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (NOTE: Link to retitled section on Jerzy talk User_talk:Jerzy
 * --Proofreader77 (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the midst of cleaning up the mess on the talk page, which will be more feasible before archiving than after. Could you please defer your archiving work, which we have survived without for a long time? --Jerzy•t 22:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE: Making copy here of Proofreader77 response below from Jerzy talk (in prep for archiving)Proofreader77 (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[Former section heading "American talk page archiving"]
 * The undue burden of wading through years-old 6, is inappropriate to place on new editors. Let us see what can be stored away, so that focusing on reaching consensus on the cleaned version can be more easily attained. (Excuse terse response) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're giving a very good impression of WP:OWNERship. It's time for you to slow down and give colleagues a chance to be heard. I am in the process of making the previous discussion more accessible so that colleagial discussion how to refactor will be feasible, rather than just hide it. --Jerzy•t 22:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My editing there is a collegial balancing of what is perhaps alleged. My eyes are new eyes. Not my page. Perhaps "belongs" to others. Proofreader77 (talk)


 * My impression is that there was a lively discussion, on the talk page, and cautious collegial editing of the Dab page recently, then a blizzard of talk contribs from you accompanied by a blitz of unilateral edits, presumably explained in on talk but implemented without the opportunity for others to affect them. This impression can be examined in the right atmosphere, and it may be mistaken, but at this point i am warning you that you that you need to overcome the impression you are creating of disruptive editing, starting by addressing what i have already said rather than dismissing it, or face a block. --Jerzy•t 23:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * RESPONSE:
 * The warning of block has been respectfully noted.
 * The assertions of disruptive editing are noted with exception.
 * The use of administrative authority in this matter while editing is also noted with exception.
 * Finally, let it be noted that the collegial contention between more than one perspective on the disambiguation page is producing good results. Respectfully, Proofreader77 (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

process

 * 1) Informally - email + User_talk:Jerzy (status; awaiting response in progress) Proofreader77 (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem with my posting the EMail i received from you on one of our talk pages?
 * Can we agree to consolidate the discussion from the two talk pages to one of them?
 * --Jerzy•t 18:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * re 1. Agreed (no problem with posting email) re 2. Agreed (assume here is fine, consolidate at your discretion) --Proofreader77 (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the "Talk page work" section of my talk page. You can [ remove this notice], generated w/ User:Jerzy/tbcore, at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends " < !-- START Jerzy/tb... -->" and " < !-- Jerzy/tb... END -->". --Jerzy•t 13:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Hello,. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the "(consolidate User talk:Proofreader77#Talk page work)" section of my talk page. You can [ remove this notice], generated w/ User:Jerzy/tbcore, at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends " < !-- START Jerzy/tb... -->" and " < !-- Jerzy/tb... END -->". --Jerzy•t 09:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk page work > American warning

 * (NOTE: Change of initial topic name to one descriptive of issue in dispute.)
 * --Proofreader77 (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

process (2)

 * 2. Formally &mdash; begin formal dispute resolution trajectory -- Proofreader77 (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(postponed edits to American)
THEN --Proofreader77 (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * undo (dif) (revert my hidden comment re American University - in preparation to restore American University to Organizations)
 * undo (or revert manually) (diff) (Revert my removal of American University from "Organizations" group, lack of broad recognition of "American" implying American University notwithstanding. Because (1) American University (disambiguation) in "See also," (2) Allowing some slack re recognition level.

Haha
Heh, I have to say its not often I see some one geting reported for vandalism to only one article ^^ 05:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The dangers of huggle-riders in a row seeing where the other rode. (sigh:) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My recent comment on Talk:American

 * You don't have to excuse yourself for anything. It's all good. But let me ask you this: I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you're English (Since I noticed a "cheers" and comments about having tea). When you and your mates are out at the pub for a pint, and one chap says "I'd like to really shag that American girl I met the other day." Are people confused whether he is talking about someone from the United States, Chile, Canada, or Mexico? Or does everyone everyone just nod their head, sip their bass ale until your mate Gavin speaks up and says "you bloody wanker, that's my cousin from across the pond! Mine your manners or we'll scrap." LOL Skeeter08865 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See "sealed information" (click "show") here ... i.e., spies never tell. lol


 * (P.S. WIKIPEDIA STYLE: It is not "standard talk format" to use a "bullet" (*) to begin a comment (only for items in a list of some kind.) But it is kinda cute. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

People of Ethiopia
Hi. I was wondering why you undid your edit here. The user whose edit you intially reverted removed an entire section's worth of sourced information, so your original revert made sense. Please explain. Middayexpress (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, see the talk page for the article. I stopped to analyze the situation as the remover requested. I have restored the information now ... but the issue is legitimate to consider. (see that talk) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for restoring the sources. But I must disagree that the issue is legitimate. It isn't. The user complains here that he objects to the inclusion of the information because "no other ethnic group is metioned like this". However, a visit to other ethnic group pages (e.g. Basques, Berbers) shows that genetics are often mentioned. They're also not against Wikipedia's policies. Removal of sources, on the other hand, is a form of page-blanking vandalism. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * lol I hear ya. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
...for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Glober
Hi, I´d like to know why you reverted my edits on the Glober page. Why did you consider it vandalism? Thanks, WandaWeigert —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC).


 * Hi I didn't report it as "vandalism." (If you check your user page, you have no warnings from me.)


 * The page is however not within Wikipedia guidelines for an article (and certainly not a disambiguation page), so I reverted it. Another editor has redirected the page to Globant, but it may be appropriate that the page be deleted altogether as a form of advertising. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up
Careful on 3RR, amigo. We may need to take Illustria to WP:NPOVN, he/she is really persistent. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 06:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have noticed some people reverting for vandalism, which is incorrect. :)


 * Reverting for cause (with clear explanation) is another matter. In any case, I have already made a note in my list of special attention items. (I.E., it is not just a matter of differences of opinion.)


 * But thanks. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and I yield to your superior wisdom and patience. :) Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 06:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done on Talk:Al Gore. And yes, multiple editors bearing the same message can get an offender's attention quickly, I try to watch for those occasions & assist.  Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 06:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors here are expressing anti-religious POV
Documented criticism of a bill to regulate the catholic church in CT is being erased by editors at will. It should be the readers decision whether the proposed bill is good or bad; not a Wikipedia vigilante —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.194 (talk • contribs)

Mike Lawlor misplacement of information
You will have to discuss with the other editors above the issues of reliable source. My reversion was based on the information being randomly stuck in an article without considering where it should go. E.G., if it's about 2009, put it after 2008. There may be more required to work it into the flow of the article, but at least start with the correct placement in the timeline. Sincerely, Proofreader77 (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Pisco sour
Please, read the article in spanish http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pisco_sour. Elliot Stubb invented "whisky sour" not "pisco sour". Arafael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.12.81.45 (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the Spanish wikipedia page you linked to, but it appears the changes you recently made have already been removed. Since I have little knowledge of Spanish, I must rely on the maintainers of that Wikipedia to have responded appropriately.


 * I also see that the English article is more contentious than I would have imagined, but the disagreement does not appear to be about calling it a "whiskey sour." So, can't help you. (But I looked.:) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Joan Turner
Hi,

I see you reverted a change I made to the Joan Turner article - where I seemed to have changed some date formats you had altered.

I think what happened was I was slowly putting in various links offline and eventually posted the result not noticing you had, in the meantime, posted a new version of the article which had changed the date format. The result was that I posted my changed article with the new links but also inadvertently stymied your date format changes because I was using the text which had been there before your change. (If that makes sense?!?)

Was it only the date change you objected to? If so, I'll add in all the new links again.

If it was the links you objected to as well, no problem - I'll survive!

Best wishes,

John —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejohnfleming (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. The issue is changing date format of British citizen to U.S. format. The WP guideline is don't do that. :)


 * NOTE: I was dealing with undoing a lot of those changes by one determined person when i undid yours (I think:). Got an email apology for that one. lol Cheers! (signing later) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) misc notes

 * NOTE: Special:Contributions/Bratz_angel14 changing image sizes in file after file. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina - population stats percentages seem to be POV edited. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Check for POV edits by new editor Special:Contributions/Illustria Proofreader77 (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Maharaja Of Jodhpur

 * Someone erasing the Maharaja because of democracy (ie. he is "decommissioned") ... the issue is should be be erased, or clarified as being decommissioned. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Issue has been beautifully clarified by my asking for clarification. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Antifeminism
Ponder which parts of that to revert. (Note second paragraph is stripped of sense by that edit. But the other changes may be OK. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Left-wing politics

 * Take a look later and see if it's an odd POV change. Proofreader77 (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Steevan Glover

 * Check later what's up with this new bio. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) an edit summary for reversion that doesn't fly
"Unnecessary editing" Yeah, says who? :) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Jalebee Cartel
PR "upgrade" (?) for new album. Look back later. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) File:Iraqipeople3.jpg
Look into Free Art License Proofreader77 (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Sam cripe
Bio that probably needs erasing Proofreader77 (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Chhina
Check back and see if all the erasures make sense or not. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Special:Contributions/Edditor4lyfe
What the editor did on the first edit, does not give confidence the changes to Lebanon are correct. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Special:Contributions/70.111.185.133
Unsourced/unexplained changes. Take a look later. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(RC) When "wikifying/prosifying" is not helpful
(longer term issue) A list of items are much easier to deal with than forcing them into a a paragraph. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

6,000
(will summarize data when system isn't overloaded) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

TMZ.com Logo
Hello, I recently uploaded a logo for TMZ.com using a free software screenshot. Wondering why you opted for speedy deletion - "blanked or requested by creator". BigBrightStars (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. The only time I do a speedy tag like that ... is when the creator blanks the page. :) So, I'm guessing you blanked the page, and I tagged it for speedy because the creator blanked it. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks. I'll fix that. Thanks for your help! BigBrightStars (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)