Misplaced Pages

User talk:Proofreader77: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:56, 21 January 2010 editProofreader77 (talk | contribs)14,527 edits →Documentation: ANI (resolved by Nihonjoe note: who responded to Proofreader77's motion) Revision as of 17:11, 21 January 2010 Nihonjoe (→Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight: resolved← Previous edit Revision as of 00:04, 22 January 2010 edit undoProofreader77 (talk | contribs)14,527 edits →Documentation: ANI (6th edit by Daedalus969 to fix un-resolving) Revision as of 22:42, 21 January 2010 Daedalus969 (→Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight: fix?Next edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 476: Line 476:
===Documentation=== ===Documentation===
* ANI (resolved by Nihonjoe note: who responded to Proofreader77's motion) * ANI (resolved by Nihonjoe note: who responded to Proofreader77's motion)
* ANI Daedalus969 (taking 5 edits to un-resolve it)
*: ANI (6th edit by Daedalus969 to fix un-resolving)


== 2nd Notice - RfAR preparation in progress == == 2nd Notice - RfAR preparation in progress ==

Revision as of 00:04, 22 January 2010

Veteran Editor II
Veteran Editor II
NOTE 1: Most-enlightened comment re Proofreader77 {serious smile}
NOTE 2: Wiki-age for this ribbon includes old account User:Boke usa
Bored?
Don't blame me - I voted for Jehochman

Yep, I voted for William M. Connolley, too ^;^
Well now, who's this Proofreader77?
 01:08, 18 January 2025 UTC

"Heureux sont les debonnaires"

To begin a new discussion, click here.Template:Archive box collapsible
Communication is not mechanical ... it is miraculous.
File:Phenakistoscope tiny animation.gif


© Adam Cuerden
.

File:Phenakistoscope tiny animation.gif
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 15 January 2025
Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Lifted, cool

Hi Proof, congratulations on the lifting of the restrictions . I am grateful for your tweaking on my talkpage, are you any good with archives, I have been attempting to alter mine, it is almost correct but when I press show I still don't see all my archives but they are there..as a model I have been attempting to set up the same situation as Jimbo has on his talkpage, it you have time have a look and see if I can improve just a little, that red link seems incorrect or perhaps I can not combine all my archives from my old bot to my new bot? At least I didn't blow them up..Off2riorob (talk)

Thanks, Off2riorob. ... About archives, I have to add the links manually myself, so I clearly haven't solved the problem yet. But I can add yours manually, too. NOTE: My problem had to do with manually coding in underscore, I think. The bot should be smart enough to do this by itself ... .BUT I do see that at ANI etc and elsewhere, people have put in redlinks ahead of the bot, so perhaps we're not the only ones confused. :-) Proofreader77

Please be aware

Proof, stay away from ANI and Jimbos talkpage and stop attracting attention for the wrong reasons, although this report had little merit there are stilleyes and ears watching your contributions for useful edits, as I told you, there are over fifty thousand uncited BLP articles in need of appraisal, this is a useful work and someone has to do it and why not you. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Stay tuned. :-) Psst: Do you see the cool new talk page edit page? Just learned how to do that. ^;^ Proofreader77 21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Here it is.. Category:All unreferenced BLPs over fifty thousand Bios of living people without any citations, ask me if you need any assistance as to what to do, basically go there and have a look and either prod for deletion or add some citation to support the content, add twinkle to your Special:Mypage/monobook.js as it will do most of the work for you, its easy work, let me know if you need any help or have any questions, oh, by the way...it is unpaid... but it will keep you busy and off the drama pages. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Proof, Rob's given good advice there. You seem to be good humored and sociable, yet it's important to balance sociability with a fair share of heavy lifting on the site's serious side. Best wishes, Durova 06:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
(Graciously acknowledged and responded to via email.) Proofreader77 07:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Check your email for the response. Durova 17:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
(Ditto:) Proofreader77 18:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am refering to the thread by Tombaker, kinda funny he called everyone and their brother but I guiess I wasn't important enough to merit a notice. Oh well for the most part it was bullshit anyways, Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Making sure you knew WHO went to ANI. LoL Proofreader77 06:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Chaos controllers and content creators

(BOKE NOTE: CHAOS CONTROLLERS AND CONTENT CREATORS
ARE BOTH REQUIRED FUNCTIONS TO MAKE WIKIPEDIA WORK.)

(A long-standing general misconception, to be addressed.)

See also: User talk: Jimbo Wales (Archive #52):
Content contributors Vs. Vandal fighters.

Recent changes to a case

Note: Flagged revisions

I'm tracking some of the conversation of the tech team on this. Note that few people really know what the day-to-day feel of using this will be. More complicated matter than most think. (I am thinking about that.) -- Proofreader77 21:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Good design ...

Good design ...

DIETER RAMS
Former Design Director, Braun
Kronberg, Germany



In my experience, users react very positively when things are clear and understandable ...

That is what particularly bothers me today — the arbitrariness and thoughtlessness with which many things are produced and brought to the market.

Not only in the sector of consumer goods,but also in architecture, in advertising.

We have too many unnecessary things everywhere.

Good design should be innovative.

Good design should make the product useful.

Good design is aesthetic design.

Good design will make a product understandable.

Good design is honest.

Good design is unobtrusive.

Good design is long-lived.

Good design is consistent in every detail.

Good design is environmentally friendly.

Last but not least, good design is as little design as possible.

We designers, we don't work in a vacuum.

We need businesspeople, as well.

We are not the fine artists we are often confused with.

Today you find only a few companies that take design seriously, as I see it.

And at the moment that is
an American company.

It is Apple.

Haiti

Help Give Care

NOTE: To donate $10 to the Red Cross, text "HAITI" to 90999

Re:Learning Chinese ...

Hi Proofreader77. Well, to be honest, I have never used programs of any kind to learn Chinese; I only know a bit of mandarin because of the several classes I've taken in an attempt to learn the language. Sorry, FASTILY 05:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, anyway. Was hoping you would know THE SECRET to INSTANT mastery. LoL Cheers. Proofreader77 05:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See also

Shake rattle and roll

How are you doing? Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

All is flowing as it should here, but let us be sure to direct some prayers toward Haiti. Proofreader77 23:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes indeed, civilization is a fragile veneer. Good work with the donation, as we sit in our gilded cages, being waited on hand and foot it is the least we can do. Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
It is certainly no blessing, but it is beautiful to see America stepping up boldly to act in a good cause (rather than all our military adventures, necessary or not) Proofreader77 23:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I thought that too when I saw the troop numbers, there is hope for humanity.. and for wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Amen. (That's a heart-felt one.) Proofreader77 23:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, heres a good page to keep you amused, all the most recent changes to articles and a good place to see find vandal additions to wikipedia, check em and if is vandalistic then revert then and slam them with an automatic warning template with twinkle, great fun and very rewarding work, did you get twinkle working yet? Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I know that page well... I did 1,000 manually before asking for rollback, then about 4,000 more with and without Huggle (before turning in my rollback bit — I'd done enough of that). And just this morning did this one by hand (with, in this case, a personal note, since a template wasn't really right on this one).

Note: The next phase will be about flagged revisions, and "Reviewer group" will be key. etc. Proofreader77 23:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just watching this comedy mobster movie, I recommend it as a cool movie Be cool . Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
My favorite, but strange movie, is Zero Effect Proofreader77 23:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll have a look at that movie, I want to be a reviewer, I agree with you there, that flagged revisions could well be on its way soon-ish. Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Re "reviewer group" ... Someone already put together a list of people who have the experience to be on it ... I'm listed. I'll see if I can find the link, but I'm fairly certain you'd be on it too. Proofreader77 00:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: Reviewer group - There was a list compiled back in May of last year, I'm on it, you're not, but a new list will likely be created before the group is activated. Proofreader77 00:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed reviewer group criteria:
Users with more than 1,000 edits, their first edit more than a year ago, and their latest edit within the past month. -- Proofreader77 00:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Proof, very interesting, I am just looking to download the soundtrack from this cool movie, musics real good. Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
You're very welcome Off2riorob ... And yes, music is VERY important... especially when THE ENTIRE WIKIPEDIA WATCHLIST breaks. LoL Proofreader77 04:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Panic button (watchlist lag!!!!)
Panic button (watchlist lag!!!!)

Stop your vandalizm!

What you have done on Jimbo Wale's talk page is simply unacceptable. Misplaced Pages is not Censor! I have linked to major news media sources, and even the District Attorney in the case, who refers to Roman Polanski as a child rapist. Dream Focus 12:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

1/2 thanks, 1/2 aaackk

"it would appear she shall prevail anyway"... Aaack! I'm not superstitious, but.... you're gonna jinx it! The margin ain't that big, and there's a lot of time to go. Don't taunt 'em, please.

BTW, with actual serious stuff going on at the RFA, fun and games would be inappropriate, but take a look in my sandbox. And a quick note, "Support because Floquenbeam wrote a really bad sonnet" is probably going to be discounted by the 'crats, so I'll settle instead for a cookie on my talk page instead. :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you underestimate the value of the support of a $1,000 donor to Misplaced Pages — who will emerge from under the current cloud ... in due course. (Note: I would have undone the comment for you, but fate has made that too late — and so shall remain.) Proofreader77 21:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Misplaced Pages Birthday

Hi, Happy Misplaced Pages Birthday, No problem at all using that medal, actually I am very happy that you did it, it was meant to be given on 15 January and ...well, you did it for me, thank you for taking responsibility for something that I had forgotten, besides technically you couldn't steal it, I had gifted it to you too, I mean to all contributors in English Misplaced Pages, I would be happy if you do the same anytime I forget anything , I am very happy that you actually liked that, also thank you for your friendly message, it makes me feels good, cheers.   ■ MMXX 05:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And bless you for making it! It certainly made me remember the day. :-) It brightened my page and Jimbo's. But mine first! LoL Cheers. Proofreader77 05:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Coren's Arbcom logo

Clearly, music always helps :-)

Unrelated interesting ...

Re:I believe you just blocked a sock (of a blocked SPA)

Hello, Proofreader77. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY 03:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

beauty

Proof,

I have to admit to you, when I saw there were three separate new sections on the RFA's talk page, all created by you, my heart sank just a teeny tiny little bit. There are those who don't value your rhetorical flourishes. I have to say, though, that once I realized there were no sonnets, and few interesting-to-puzzle-over-but-difficult-to-parse bits, I am really impressed, and touched, by the effort you put in, in my defense. Indeed, your middle section has got me thinking from a new perspective, which is valuable whether or not the RFA passes. Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(And you have just taught me about the {{clear}} template, which I have sorely wished for in the past)

And, oh yes, I figured there would be much trepidation regarding the appearance of BOKE scripture on the RfA talk page ... but the rhetorical moves I make are inspired by matrix calculation probabilities that even I do not comprehend completely. As for that middle section, it is TRUE that I have only recently come to understand that ... based on the expansion of my watchlist to embrace "the community."

LoL Well, there were plenty of words already ... All I can say is that "the universe demanded" that rhetorical response to the situation, and the effect on the result will always be indeterminate ... as it should be. :-) Cheers. (NOTE: All your fault. You wrote a sonnet.)
-- Proofreader77 04:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

The Original Barnstar
For an excellent analysis of the distinction between adminship and content creation. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Bless you, bless you, bless you ... You have made my 3:33 AM spectacularly perfect ... with that barn star. Perfect. Thank you. Honored. Proofreader77 11:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: SPI

ah, my sincere apologies, I didn't notice your note (still rather new to SPI clerking). I've removed my comment directed at you on the SPI page, as I relise it was unfair since you had added a note regarding the addition. But I'm still unwilling to endorse a check on PeshawarPat. Let me know if you have any questions. Kindest regards, Spitfire 12:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Even the clerk-bot has been out-of-order tonight, so we mere humans can't expect to be too perfect. :-) Many thanks. Proofreader77 12:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion/aftermath

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 18 January 2010

 Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You called it

:
(User rights log); 16:45 . . WJBscribe (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Floquenbeam from Rollbackers to Administrators (Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam)
Proofreader77 19:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

Hmmm. I guess your processors are functioning properly. Maybe I am Majorly's mother? Lol. Thanks for your vocal support there, Proof. I appreciate the effort and the trust. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what you get for posting a sonnet in an RfA! LoL See ya 'round, ma. ^;^ Proofreader77 18:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Excellent defence on the RFA. You really owned that talk page! FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! And yes, I own it — somebody charged my credit card for buying it somehow. LoL Proofreader77 19:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
So big brother know about operation apostle do they? We will have to play this one very cagily. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Amen, to that. :-) Proofreader77 20:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey Proof, let's let S. Finland leave whatever message he wants to on my talk. I'm a big boy, I can handle it, really. Thanks for looking out for me, but I'll handle it in my own inimicable way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
(Replied by email.) Proofreader77 02:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool3

Have you followed the Cool3/ Kohs thing and the Arb proceeding about MZM? It has something to do with unwatched BLPs? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Have been peripherally keeping track of the MZ/BLP drama (aka ".en drama of the week" on the Tech email reading list:)... a fascinating moment in Misplaced Pages history as flagged-revisions are flogged into reality on .en Misplaced Pages. Haven't read the Cool3/Koh's story ... but I'll finally catch up all the soap operas soon enough. :-) Proofreader77 18:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

More fun fragments from the tech mailing list

  • Since there's no effective way to watch a million pages, probably it's not useful, no.
  • ... enwiki happens to have a pathological and poorly-defined process for making config change requests, ...
  • We've made significant changes to existing features in the past without asking communities first.
  • We don't ever hold up global development/system administration decisions on community consensus. It would be impossible even if we wanted to -- how do we go about getting consensus from several hundred wikis? Do we have to have a poll on Meta?

Interesting, but perhaps not a good idea ... What happens in tech-land should stay in tech-land, yes? But having fun today to celebrate the satisfying conclusion of a dramatic RfA in which a sonnet appeared (drum roll please) that wasn't mine. :-) Proofreader77 18:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I think I read the RfA talk page you're referring to , but I don't think I saw the sonnet. I'll have to check again and see if it's on the main RfA page. Is it any good? Bad poetry is a much bigger problem than unreferenced BLPs IMHO. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll find you the diff, but it's in the green box under question #13 (cool, huh?) Quality? The composer has not written PR77's 1000, but it is beautiful. Proofreader77 20:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm... Sort of a sonnet haiku with lots of wikilinks? Is that allowed? A for effort. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
A-men. (But questions have been raised about the "men" part. ;-) Proofreader77 20:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are my ears burning? Oh, shoulda guessed. Now, I'm off to create Category:Poetaster Wikipedians. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're going to have to buy a pair of ear-fire-extingushers (like ear-muffs, but with CO cartridges. :-) But, ah no,

No poetry allowed! (serious LoL)

Rhetorical verse. Hmmm ... I'll have to ponder categorization before pontification. :-) Proofreader77 21:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Priceless (Doc blocked himself LoL)

  1. (Block log); 03:53 . . Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) unblocked "Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs)" (oops, out of process block)
  2. (Block log); 03:36 . . Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) blocked Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (out of process deletions )

Dayewalker

Your warning here is rude and without base, given that first, anyone can comment on any RFC and second, the diff you cite was not made by Dayewalker. Please be more careful in the future.— Dædαlus 04:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The correct diff can't be edited in due to erasure. We'll deal with this at Arbcom in due course. Proofreader77 04:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Documentation of "discussion interference" (CoM RfC talk)

(All diffs to come) Proofreader77 04:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Warnings (given) for "discussion interference"

“ "I am currently on an extended wikibreak for the foreseeable future.

You are welcome to leave a message on my talk page, but I cannot guarantee a timely response. Thanks."

”

(additional diffs may be added) -- Proofreader77 04:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Related issue - editors acting while claiming to be on wikibreak

-- Proofreader77 05:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation of ANI (after incident was concluded)

-- Proofreader77 06:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 1 weeks for edit warring on an RFC talk page. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Misplaced Pages:Appealing a block. MBisanz 05:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Proofreader77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As I have already responded at ANI before this block was issued: "Incident concluded. - The improper reverts have been undone. Warnings have been issued. Everything has been documneted for Arbcom.)" SO: Improper block for a resolved matter - Notice: last edit to RfC talk indicated documentation for Arbcom.

Decline reason:

Trying to "illustrate the problem for Arbcom" is not a valid excuse for edit-warring at and disruption of an RFC. Abecedare (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The "improper reverts" were undone by you three times. That is edit warring. MBisanz 05:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I reverted 3 instances of "discussion interruption" (yes, a matter for Arbcom to address) for purposes of documentation for ArbCom. Proofreader77 05:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The existence of old revisions negates any claims of exception from the edit warring policy for presentation of material to arbcom. MBisanz 05:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Interference with legitimate comment in (and on) an RfC is not protected as a legitimate edit. Interfering with such comment is the equivalent of vandalism (and will be so discussed). As I said, I reverted it 3 times to illustrate the problem for Arbcom. Proofreader77 05:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
See documentation in previous topic (Including warnings for "discussion interference")

Documentation of "discussion interference" (CoM RfC talk) Proofreader77 05:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Related edits (after block)

Note - Edit summary of administrator Jayron32 in recollapsing" - "(Bring it...)"

Comment: A schoolyard taunt, not appropriate for an Misplaced Pages administrator's action.-- Proofreader77 06:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notation for 3rd parties

Improper hat/hab closes (disrupting discussion) are vandalism.

-- Proofreader77 06:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is "fitting" that User:Abecedare declined the unblock,

... since they have previously performed discussion interruption (at AN)-- Proofreader77 06:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding COI of administrator declining unblock

Edit summary of my edit on unblock declining administrator regarding previous matter
“ (→You beat me to respective talk: COI revert? (consider) - Given my comment discusses your actions in choosing to shut down the conversation (rather than, e.g., block discussion-disrupting premature closer), ... perhaps other should revert) ”

-- Proofreader77 06:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Proofreader77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

(I usually only make one unblock request, but since this is for one week let's get this done correctly without taint of COI) REASON FOR 2nd REQUEST: COI of administrator declining unblock. See Revision as of 20:52, 21 December 2009 - Proofreader77 (→You beat me to respective talk: COI revert? (consider) - Given my comment discusses your actions in choosing to shut down the conversation (rather than, e.g., block discussion-disrupting premature closer), ... perhaps other should revert)

Clarification of issue: Not edit warring when undoing vandalism (which collapsing a legitimate comment on the talk page of an RfC is.)

(Repeating initial rationale) Request reason: "As I have already responded at ANI before this block was issued: "Incident concluded. - The improper reverts have been undone. Warnings have been issued. Everything has been documneted for Arbcom.)" SO: Improper block for a resolved matter - Notice: last edit to RfC talk indicated documentation for Arbcom."

Clarification: The fact that I reverted the improper collapses 3 times does not mean I was making a point by doing something wrong. Vandalism (which includes improper hat/hab collapses) is not bounded by 3RR — but I undid the improper actions and issued 3 warnings as part of legitimate documentation of a problem.

Decline reason:

You were actually edit warring on an RFC page. I agree with the blocking admin and the previous admin who declined your request. It's unfortunate that you chose to do this, perhaps this block will be something you bare in mind in the future. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You're completely missing the point. Again. It was not vandalism to begin with. WP:VANDALISM classifies vandalism as a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. That is clearly not the case here, as various editors agreed your comments were disruptive, and hatted the section appropriately.— Dædαlus 07:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
And you're completely missing the point, honorable Daedalus969, that a group-think designation of speech which "they don't like" as disruptive rather than we don't like to hear that is precisely what cannot be collapsed to remove from sight. That kind of collapse is vandalism of the public discussion area, which I am referring to as: "discussion interference"

I assure you this is a serious matter, and I strongly advise all editors involved in this incident (3 of whom were warned on their talk page), to consider their actions and rationales well.

BOTTOM LINE: Since I had already posted at ANI that the incident was concluded, it is also clear that the block is not intended to prevent continuing anything, but a punitive act. Proofreader77 07:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You can argue that it is vandalism all you want, but that doesn't make it so. Misplaced Pages has a very strict definition of vandalism, and that is not vandalism. Further, I can guaranty that you are not going to be unblocked you keep pointing fingers at other people. Consensus is that what you did was disruptive. Why do you think you were blocked? Try reading WP:NOTTHEM, then, if you so choose, attempt to re-write(or request another if this one is declined(it wasn't at the time of this posting)) the current one, explaining how your behavior was wrong and why you won't do it again, rather than pointing fingers at others. You were blocked for your own behavior. Not theirs.— Dædαlus 08:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
We have reached an impasse, honorable Deadalus969. We have each expressed our positions, and they are incommensurable.

(From the position of rhetorical analysis, I will characterize your position as the usual defense of constraint of speech the group does not like ... and the usual assertions about "blaming others" ... for which there exist reasonable replies which many may find persuasive. We shall see.)

We now await an administrator to rule on the current unblock request. Our debate at this stage is concluded. Good evening to you, Deadalus969. Proofreader77 08:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

“ I have declined the unblock. If he makes another unblock request, best to lock the page for the duration of the block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC) ”

Hmmm ... What would Google think? -- Proofreader77 10:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


“ Request reason: "(I usually only make one unblock request, but since this is for one week let's get this done correctly without taint of COI) ... ”

Request for uncollapsing of Proofreader77 comment on talk CoM RfC

-- Proofreader77 06:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notice of email sent to User:Nihonjoe (who sealed CoM RfC)

Copy of email sent toNihonjoe - Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:09 PM (GMT-8)
Copy of your message to Nihonjoe - Misplaced Pages e-mail - Note - Improperly collapsed "Motion" on CoM RfC

Please inform the RfC evaluator of the (I assert, improperly) collapsed comment at the bottom of RfC talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/ChildofMidnight#Motion_to_nullify_RfC_.28procedural_fouls.29_aka_What_would_Google_think.3F

(I will be submitting a request for Arbitration regarding such "discussion interference" - i.e., it is improper to hide comments that some do not like. )

Sincerely,

BOKE www.boke.com

(Note my full real life identity is provided on my user page)

Nihonjoe's summary of CoM RfC


“ While there have been a small number of editors disagreeing completely with the whole concept of this RfC, ... ”

-- Proofreader77 09:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Response by Nihonjoe to (collapsed) motion by Proofreader77

-- Proofreader77 09:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Rhetorical questions regarding "the incident at the close of the CoM RfC"

  • Who created the drama in this "incident"?
  • Who were the editors who created the impression that Misplaced Pages is problematic with respect to speech?
  • Why did anyone feel it was necessary to collapse the motion by Proofreader77?
  • Why did anyone feel they could collapse the motion by Proofreader77?
  • Why was Proofreader77 blocked?
What would Google think?

-- Proofreader77 09:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

PS/Coda ("socialization")

Hmmm: Tonight's talk page debate card: ...
The well-chastened vs the un-repentant?
OR The cows vs the cowboy?
See also: Misplaced Pages Western (musical)

Amen. Selah. Next stop ... Proofreader77 09:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notice - RfAR preparation in progress

If you have issues regarding recent events, save them for the appropriate public forum. Discussion here is concluded. Proofreader77 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Note,

I am now pushing for your indef block at ANI, I suggest you answer my inquiry about you stalking my edits, as that is what you are quite clearly doing so above when you mention my most recent interaction with Gwen.— Dædαlus 22:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notice to third parties

Check Proofreader77's edit history. Determine if Gwen Gale's talk page is likely on Proofreader77's watchlist. (Also check the history of Gwen Gale's talk and see if Proofreader77 is discussed there.) Proofreader77 22:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Calming down would be good, someone is blocked, leave them alone, wiki and utube take copyvio very seriously and as far as I can see there was no problem with what was removed, the content had been on utube for long time and was not a copy vio, proof is blocked for a week, move on. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Ya, right. Even if it was, you have no good reason to mention my interaction with her in this at all.— Dædαlus 22:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Harassment? Oh right, your harassment of myself. All I was doing was trying to help you, and you turn around and throw it in my face.— Dædαlus 22:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Documentation

2nd Notice - RfAR preparation in progress

-- Proofreader77 22:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


Barnstar re Child of Midnight RfC

The Socratic Barnstar
For bringing humor and surrealism to an already unintentionally humorous and surreal situation. For this and your long history of engaging in the Socratic spirit of humorously acknowledging idiocy when you see it, I award you this barnstar. They made him drink hemlock, the worst they can do to you is issue a block. That's 2500 years of progress for you. Trusilver 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Most recent barnstar re comments at RfA

The Original Barnstar
For an excellent analysis of the distinction between adminship and content creation. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI $1,000 donation to Misplaced Pages

For those who do not know, I recently donated $1,000 to Misplaced Pages (and yes, Jimbo knows) -- Proofreader77 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding discussion to lock this talk page (during RfAR prep)

During RfAR preparation? Interesting. Proofreader77 23:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Documentation will continue here.

-- Proofreader77 23:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Outline of the RfAR

Three improper blocks

(to be continued)

Some historical notes re Proofreader77 account context (for RfAR)

Real life identity

Note: Response to CoM RfC ANI by Proofreader77 (the first) one minute before block

Reminder: Barnstar re CoM RfC

The Socratic Barnstar
For bringing humor and surrealism to an already unintentionally humorous and surreal situation. For this and your long history of engaging in the Socratic spirit of humorously acknowledging idiocy when you see it, I award you this barnstar. They made him drink hemlock, the worst they can do to you is issue a block. That's 2500 years of progress for you. Trusilver 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Proofreader77: Difference between revisions Add topic