User talk:Proofreader77/Archive 05
 | 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. |
re: American (notification of involved parties, re prospective dispute for resolution)
HOUSEKEEPING NOTE: To keep reference/discussion record clear:
- copying-inserting topic/original message replied to from User_talk:Cuchullain (dif) to above
- adjusting Cuchullain's topic (below) to subtopic
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
|
re: American (notification of involved parties, re prospective dispute for resolution)
|
Dispute resolution
Proofreader, you are very unlikely to see this dispute resolved in any civilized way with nonsense like that little warning you left on my talk page. You say you are "looking forward to a convivial examination and resolution within the context of policy re disambiguation cleaning", but I think you will find it is hard for anyone to be convivial when your discussion of the subject is so supremely DICKish. Coming across that strongly - about such a minor issue - is not the way to see any dispute resolved. Your best bet will be to follow one of the first steps of the dispute resolution process and disengaging for a while. I am sure once everyone has had time to simmer down cooler heads will prevail and we will be able to come to an understanding we can all agree with.--Cúchullain t/c 00:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
(analysis)
re: American (notification of involved parties, re prospective dispute for resolution)
RHETORICAL INTERACTION 
ORCHESTRATION/ANALYSISRHETORICAL ANALYSIS (NOTES)
RE RESPONSE BY: User:Cuchullain - Revision as of 00:46, 15 March 2009-- Proofreader77 (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- "civilized" (casting aspersions of not)
- "nonsense" (usually an inappropriate categorization of others' communication)
- "DICKish" (res ipsa loquitur, noting irony, and noting for the record)
- Mis-categorizes: THE PACE of dispute resolution (Ignoring the leisurely pace of events so far, see: User_talk:Proofreader77/American_warning_Archive)
- Mis-categorizes: THE TENOR of dispute resolution (Casting aspersions on the professionally executed, now-concluded, 10-day first stage of two-party Jerzy/Proofreader77 discussion.)
- Suggestion of "disengaging for awhile" is based on mis-categorizations 4-5 (noting for the record)
(a sonnet on the occasion of an un-convivial response ... to a sonnet)
See User:Proofreader77/American_warning#003 -- Proofreader77 (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
(housekeeping note re: User:MiszaBot_III talk-page archiving)
- (As part of a user/talk page renovation/upgrade,) Code for User:MiszaBot_III to achive all conversations older than 7 days has been installed for this page.
- MiszaBot is in the process of being upgraded to archive on the basis of a {{resolved}} tag, but time frame for that feature's inclusion in functionality has not been announced.
- Until (2) is in effect, timestamp notes may be added in this sub-section to prevent premature archiving of this topic.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
(clarification - reason for notification at this time: as promised on User_talk:Jerzy)
HOUSEKEEPING NOTE: Copy of original topic/message posted to User talk:Cuchullain (dif)
| “ |
|
” |
(Quotation is an excerpt from this diff: Revision as of 12:29, 10 March 2009)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
(perfectly timed ... in this week's Signpost ... an article on dispute resolution)
Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009— 16 March 2009
- News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- TO READ: Wikitruth Through Wikiorder
- Every other processing step ...
| “ | Hoffman describes the origins of the study in a recent blog post, which also includes a flowchart of Wikipedia dispute resolution in which every other processing step reads 'Shower them with Wikilove'. |
” |
(wikilove, e.g.?)
Proofreader77 (talk) has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
(next step: construct time-line record/map re: American/Talk:American 2/25-3/18 2009)
Designing an effective structure and completing a mapping of the edits and interactions in question will take a few weeks—User:Proofreader77 to provide a link to involved/interested parties before May 1, 2009. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- FOLLOW-UP: Postponed to broaden mapping scope to include PD (Boke). Estimate Sept 1. :) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
misc American events
- 3/27/09 Stephen Colbert fan defines American :) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
NOTE (14 April 2009): Jerzy archive of phase 1 discussion
- User talk:Jerzy/Proofreader77 DR -- Proofreader77 (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
My userpage
Thnx for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 17:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Need to be contacted by you or edbever concerning edits to a specific pages. It's important that you contact me. Ruthie818@neo.rr.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by OhioRuthie (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- (I will leave a note on your talk page about this) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
note: removers
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
note: "edit war" (patroller reverting removal of sourced info)
- note patroller blocked for 3RR (too) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- note: patroller's request for unblocking was declined.
- note: patroller User:EdBever lost roll-back rights
- note: patroller userbox was removed by someone immediately
- note: (ex-patroller offended) (duh)
- note: patroller has gone on a long wikibreak (events have cost them sleep)
- response to patroller was: "In that situation, you should have requested protection. There are other, and better, tools than rollback." [1]
FOLLOW UP: Ed's back April 10 (rollback is restored, apology on his talk, but note said he's doing "other maintenance work") Proofreader77 (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
How about fixing the title of the page instead of jumping the gun and changing everything back? --12.108.255.76 (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Moved: Hi, a tricky case. The one original reference has the town misspelled which caused confusion (to say the least), and normal Google hits don't help on this one. (See Mannfield talk page for more comments). Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- My assumption was that the article title was correct and that the changes that didn't match it had to be vandalism. I understood that the issue was the article name as soon as I saw the complaint from the editor in question. My first look at the sources said that "Mannfield" was correct, but I didn't want to make a hasty judgment on an article title. Thanks for looking into this during the rare time slot when I am "off duty". My appreciation for your efforts and for keeping me informed on my talk page. Alansohn (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The notice
Since I am only a casual and infrequent editor/contributor to Wikipedia, maybe you could explain something for me. Today when I logged on to wikipedia for the first time in about a week I see “Warning001” thing on my talk page. I really don't know what it means. First I thought it was a warning for me then it just looked like it was you fighting with some other dude. Cheers Mate! Skeeter08865 (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
What does it look like? :)
re: your message -- Certainly not a warning for thee. :) Just an FYI re what took place there. And the ongoing discussion ... and its trajectory. (If I remember correctly, you were seeking "common sense." Perhaps it lies on the vector above. Perhaps not. :) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- After a full day of work then an evening of classes I start seeing things. I do like that picture at the top of your talk page with the guy being knighted. I almost bought a framed copy of that pic/painting to hang in my house. Skeeter08865 (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's right, you've been gone during "the renovation." (Went "shopping" in Wikipedia featured pictures.) The right clothes are sometimes appropriate ... especially in the context of the picture beside it. ;) AND OF COURSE, nice to see you back. Don't get eaten. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK I just took the time to read about your little fued with Jerzy. Very interesting. Skeeter08865 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
7,000
(updated edit stats) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Family Court With Judge Penny (2) (contact)
Hi you offered that I could talk to you once the block was lifted. I've gone to helpdesk to try to get email confirmation. For some reason it isn't working for me. So far you seem to be the friendliest editor I've encountered with my situation. I'm also emailing with wikimedia so I'm not sure if one is more powerful than the other. Are you able to send me a email confirmation request? It seems we are unable to speak freely without threat of another block when posting on the talk pages. OhioRuthie (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Will reply shortly. (Time for dinner, here.) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have replied to your email. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
email contact note
Excuse the complexities of the machine.
NOTE: Wikipedia allows the sending of email via the "Email this user" link (see the list under toolbox) in the left column. In that way, users can exchange messages without revealing their email address.) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
(after dab-wrestling ...)
Hello, Proofreader77. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the "(after dab-wrestling ...)" 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 17:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
(NTS) B&O merged to BO
- Check later. Proofreader77 (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- FOLLOW-UP: Undone. And removed suggested merge tag. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
(WL) King Alfred Plan
- Info about conspiracy theories were removed, but rather needed new ref, e.g., [2] Proofreader77 (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
A few things
A few things:
- I notice you seem to be talking to yourself on your talk page. While you are wholly entitled to do so, it clutters the page for other users, and they will find it harder to see what other users have posted to you. Consider moving that content to your user page, or a personal subpage.
- Regarding B&O: I added hatnotes.
- Regarding Bo: Please use the templates for hatnotes, not raw code (
:''text''), per WP:HN. - Consider also using the preview function when editing a page. Looking at the page history of Bo, you seem to have made about 15 edits over one day. Again, as a courtesy to others, please try to make as few edits as possible. I find wikEd a real help; you can enable it at your preferences (Gadgets tab). It shows previews without having to reload the whole edit page.
Sorry to be a bother. — This, that, and the other [talk] 08:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
re: multiple edits in one day etc.
(copy on User:This, that and the other)
Due to the contentious nature of dab editing (smiling, but not kidding), I make one editing step at a time ... and carefully document why I'm doing each step. (I find that when someone makes sweeping changes with one edit, they rarely give an edit summary to cover everything they did, and the controversial change is most likely to be unremarked.)
Doing that produces a diff that can be discussed and undone (or analyzed by 3rd parties at a later time).
But it is understood that each editor has their own style. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
B&O merge with Bo (COPY from User_talk:This,_that_and_the_other)
I thought about it a long time, but decided not to.
I'm curious to see where you'll put those entries. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
FOLLOWING UP:
Bo, BO, B.O., bo, .bo (is confusing enough:)
Yes, the page is "messy" (for many of the reasons disambiguation pages get that way, and that's after I took out the "first/last" initials entries) ... BUT a page that organizes/lumps all those different things on the same page ... is not going to be as "clean" as less complicated disambiguation pages.
NOTE: While there is no choice but to have the above on the same page ... we must remember that we should attempt to make it easy for people looking for particular forms to spot it easily. That is not a trivial information design problem.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
B&O
- The most well known (American, of course, and much more so historically) reference is B&O Railroad. (If you put quotes around it in a Google search, that's what you get.)
- Bang & Olufsen — this may be too much a promotional link. In the public realm how well is it known as B&O? A Google search without quotes gives you this company, but that may just be SEO. (Note the different Google results for with and without quotes)
- Business and occupation tax is a partial match, since it needs "tax" before B&O means much.
BUT we should be discussing this on the talk page(s). :)
Bottom line: As you can see, there are things to discuss. The B&O page should perhaps be redirected if we remove the (two) questionable entries... but then the redirect would be to Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, not to Bo (which is complicated enough). SO: For the moment, I'm undoing the merge to Bo.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
B&O hatnote to BO etc
I left them off because anyone searching for B&O will not be looking for BO, and so will not need a hatnote. But it doesn't bother me if you want that hatnote there. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. hatnotes on disambiguation pages
The official line (apparently) is that a disambiguation page shouldn't have hatnotes.
I know this because I have recently spent a hundred hours and thousands of words to keep a hatnote on a disambiguation page that an administrator kept removing because he insisted a disambiguation page "shouldn't" have a hatnote.
As I indicated above, a hatnote doesn't offend me on a disambiguation page (although I do think you should ponder why someone might need a BO link if they had specifically searched for B&O). But others disagree. Just FYI. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- WP:IAR, I think. — This, that, and the other [talk] 08:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- And the related Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Break_rules ...
- But to apply WP:IAR (and Break rules), one must be prepared to defend those rules against those who dismiss those rules (who always use the word "consensus" in the dismissal).
- But it can be done—if you're willing to dedicate your life :) ... to the spirit of WP:IAR ... and the true meaning of "consensus" (which is not, despite what you will often hear, embodied forever in the guidelines). LoL Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
re: multiple edits in one day etc.
Due to the contentious nature of dab editing (smiling, but not kidding), I make one editing step at a time ... and carefully document why I'm doing each step. (I find that when someone makes sweeping changes with one edit, they rarely give an edit summary to cover everything they did, and the controversial change is most likely to be unremarked.)
Doing that produces a diff that can be discussed and undone (or analyzed by 3rd parties at a later time).
But it is understood that each editor has their own style. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: my User talk and MiszaBot_III
User:MiszaBot_III is supposed to be keeping my talk page cleaned/archived, but apparently I have it configured wrong. It's not supposed to be that long. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bo - disambigation formatting of headings
Excuse delay of full explanation regarding disambiguation (not an article) pages and topic headings on the D6 bot page. Will discuss fully later today. (NOTE: My edit summary did say I would do that. Just not this minute. :) - Proofreader77 (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I'm holding my breath ;) -- User:Docu
- (edit conflict: I was trying to post the subtopic below, while you were replying above:)
- P.S. Do you want the discussion here, or on the D6 talk page? Proofreader77 (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
request: please undo your revert (why: inappropriate edit summary for this case)
To keep issues clear, please take another look at my edit summary (diff) for the undoing of a bot's actions. Perhaps you will agree that for a bot owner to immediately revert the undoing of a bot's actions with an edit summary of "unexplained edit," is not appropriate in this case.
- Why ask for you to undo your reversion before discussion on bot's talk page?
- Because: then your good name (as a administrator running a bot) will not be attached to a revert with an inappropriate edit summary. :)
Cheers. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
As you started it here, I don't mind discussing it here. The absence of an explanation from your side is a perfectly valid reason for a revert. To make the story short: is there another reason why do you want to undo the bot's edit? -- User:Docu
- We now have two issues:)
- Discussion of (complex rather than simple) disambiguation page formatting — and how exceptions will be handled in the context of bots. (Which is a longer and more interesting discussion).
- A bot owner reverting the undoing of a bot's actions (which had an edit summary explicitly saying that the bot's formatting change was being undone and would be discussed with Bot owner) with the inappropriate edit summary of "unexplained." Such an edit should be graciously reverted as a matter of course ... and good manner, dear sir. :)
- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- We now have two issues:)
- You still haven't provided any explanation for the first part of #1 -- User:Docu
- I am waiting for an appropriate response to #2. (smiling but sincere — your reversion with that edit summary implies bad faith on my part—implies I do not keep my word.) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I will provide you reply in due course. --- User:Docu
#2 resolved (#1 to be continued)
ResolvedSO: That's out of the way ... and we can focus on #1. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
#1 "===" vs "==" on disambiguation pages (before/after bot)
COMPARE:
VS
Intricate discussion in due course :) (if necessary). Proofreader77 (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- The later seems consistent with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Longer_lists and its Aurora sample. -- User:Docu
- NOW: The issue of whether topic level "===" may be used instead of "==" to organize a disambiguation (non-article) page (without unsightly and space-wasting lines and HUGE HEADLINES) ... is not definitively defined :) ... and is the issue at hand.
- ASIDE: When I'm through picking a fight with your bot :) ... perhaps you'll consider letting me pick your brain about bots. (Very interested.)
- (to be continued)
- -- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
(nutshell) case and proposal re bot and disambiguation pages
| “ | Section headings may be used on longer lists instead of, or in addition to, bold subject area headings, but using more than a single level, as on Aurora (disambiguation), is rarely necessary. | ” |
- The guidelines for disambiguation pages explicitly allow some flexibility—and in this case, the matter of section headings is an afterthought rather than a carefully considered definition of preference.
- (I posit) For short (and probably medium)-length complex disambiguation pages, skipping the "==" level topic specifier — using "===" instead, in order to eliminate lines and excessive-size headlines for short lists within categories — should be allowed, if not normative.
- The D6 bot (and other such bots) should be programmed to accept that alternative for disambiguation pages, or provide a mechanism for explicitly flagging a disambiguation page for that exception.
- It is understood that this case may require repetition and elaboration ad infinitum beyond this talk page. :)
Please do not consider this presumption. Just (at last) cutting to the chase, to save the gentle bot-owner's time (for the moment, anyway:)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss amending the suggested formatting for dab pages, it might be preferable to do this elsewhere, e.g. on the talk page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Longer lists or rather Wikipedia:MOSHEAD#Section headings. In the meantime, I will try to avoid changing pages you recently re-formatted.
- An easier solution for the Bo page might be to remove some of the lowest level headers. -- User:Docu
- Many thanks, and much appreciated. (And yes, time to get this off your talk page —assume you don't mind if I copy to the Talk:Bo).
- Closing notes:
- That one sentence quoted above is as much as the guidelines say about section headings, and it is useful (and about time:) to clarify this.
- The guidelines appear to assume that simply bolding some category descriptors will be the norm. And probably that is the way to go for "short" (complex) disambiguation page. Long (especially very long) disambiguation pages like Aurora) would certainly use the normal section headers ("=="). Medium length (like the current state of Bo) are the tricky ones. It depends.
- The issue of "levels" ... let's assume will be discussed elsewhere. :)
- SO (for the current discussion at this moment on this page) (The issue to be addressed more formally in the appropriate venue as you suggested).
Resolved - Again, my thanks. Cheers. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
(WP NEWS) WP Disambiguation pages (in general) are highlighted on Rachel Madow MSNBC
LOL :) See the time stamp for this message for the date. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Iambic pentameter
If I hadn't tried so hard to dissuade you from going to so much trouble, I'd feel slightly guilty that you went out of your way to sonnetize that. Bravo.
I think I understand your goals with that page now, but in the end, I agree with the others that your unique format was probably not the solution. I don't think I've got anything to add to the conversation at WT:WPDAB that hasn't already been said (I think David Göthberg had some excellent advice), but I did want to drop by to say nice to meet you, and tip my hat to your poetry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- (answered on your talk) Proofreader77 (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks from Prof.rick
Hey, Proofreader!
Thanx for the message left on my talk page. I don't blame you for sitting back awhile... I've reached the same point on many articles concerning Music! You have contributed SO MUCH to the disambiguation page, "American", which will always be appreciated. In fact, you "saved my ass" by eliminating those subsidiary links in the opening of the American article, and daring to state that "Prof.rick might have a valid point" (not your exact words). You've also corrected by Wikipedia syntax several times, for which I am most grateful.
I've taken a good look at your home page, and just love your sonnets! (I write sonnets, too.) I also love your book title quote, "Justice is Conflict".) There is nothing more dangerous than "Peace at Any Price". "Without Justice, there can be no Peace!"
I realize that you've also encountered many challenges from fellow editors, many of them simply spiteful and irrational...determined to "own" Articles! Editing Wikipedia can be not only challenging, but a threat to one's mental and physical health! No doubt, articles dealing with politics or religion can be the most exhausting. This is why we all need breaks, sometimes from specific articles, sometimes from Wikipedia.
Looking forward to the resumption of your forthright editorial skills,
Cheers, Prof.rick 23:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- That is simply beautiful. Bless you. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
And bless you! "Riding off on your hobbyhorse"...I like the sound of it, too! No doubt you've read D. H. Lawrence's "The Rocking Horse Winner". In this case, let us replace the phrase, "There must be more money", with "There must be more understanding." ;-)
Best Regards, Prof.rick 00:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: redaction
There are two problems here. One is that repeating this objectionable text over & over only complicates your goal of getting rid of it. Linking to the relevant diffs is enough to make your point; you can always direct the reader back to them for emphasis. My actions were intended to save you from your mistakes & make it easier to get rid of this objectionable text.
The other, if I may be blunt, is that you need to learn to make your point far more succinctly. The longer an online post is, the more a reader is likely to skim -- or skip -- what is written. And I have the same problem of writing far more than I need to, so I know it's a bad habit worth breaking. -- llywrch (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(COPY OF MY REPLY ON LLYWRCH TALK)
Excuse delayed response (power outage here, earlier).
- RE: repeating the lead/lede of the attack text which appears in Google result snippet
- The diffs don't tell you what the Google snippet was, and that's what started all this.
- The attack text unambiguously conveys what "all the fuss is about." (Clearly we all agree that that text would never be allowed in Wikipedia, and why it is reasonable for the person attacked that way to attempt to prevent repetition—appearing at Google#1 can cost the target their livelihood, e.g., contract work. Who would want to work with such a person?)
- Repeating it at intervals was because I don't expect anyone to read all this page ... but it all there for reference. A framework of terminology and concepts, etc.
- re: the long text I've created (quickly) ... In day-to-day handling of common situations, an exchange of a few words is enough. But in a situation like this, which is a combination of several semi-new issues (and unique handlings) ... and a new participant which most have never encountered ... yada yada yada :) ... i.e., For the moment, long texts. Hopefully, (eventually) short. But we're not there yet.
- Also re my long texts. Beyond the content, the amount is a communication of how much careful attention I am giving to this. Yes, that comes at the cost of creating some bad perceptions, but it is a balance I have weighed, and, at this time, believe is worth that cost.
- PS long texts :) -- Part of the length is due to the dab-cleaners refusing to pause to discuss my concerns. And THAT has become another issue altogether (which causes even more words ... which SHOULD have not been necessary).
In any case, thank you for your time and attention amidst this strange experience. :)
Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(note) Dab challenge (hmmm:)
Monthly Dab challenge. Ponder.:) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(note) American ethnicity (now linked from American)
- New link from American. To be discussed. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
His Highness The Maharaja of Jodhpur (Gaj Singh, Maharaja of Jodhpur)
Article 18 of the indian constituion simply stops the goverment from confering titles but does not make the already existing titles illegal. The Maharajas signed the Instrument of Accesion with the Union of India using these very titles and When Maharaja Gaj Singh ascended the Throne his titles were recogonised the by the President of India. I have explained the case of Royal Titles with SUPREME COURT refrences along with the historical backdro. please read carefully. - During the period 1948-1950, some of the princely states that joined India were either incorporated into existing former provinces of British India. Most of the others were formed into unions of new states, or if large enough, single unit states. The senior ruling prince within the union was usually appointed to the new position of Rajpramukh, an appointment designed to be for life. In return for surrendering the government of their states, together with their revenues and military forces, the former ruling princes were guaranteed their hereditary styles and titles, certain privileges of rank and honour, as well as privy purses to cover the living expenses of themselves and their families.
The guarantees and undertakings given by the Union government of India were gradually withdrawn over a twenty-year period after independence. By 1956, the system of voluntary unions of states was dismantled and the position of Rajpramukh abolished. New states were created along linguistic and ethnic lines, which tore apart the traditional ties that existed in the former princely states. As the princely rulers died out, more and more time was being taken before their successors were recognised by the Government of India. When they were recognised, this was usually after they were persuaded to accept lower privy purses or reductions in privileges.
The successful entry of several prominent princes and members of their families did not always endear them to the governments of democratic India. Eventually, the government of Mrs Gandhi tired of their increasing involvement in opposition politics and sought to curb their influence. The abolition of the privy purses, guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and the elimination of the princely order itself, became the policy of the Congress party. After a year-long battle, this was finally achieved by an amendment to the Constitution at the end of 1971.
Although some parties have attempted to portray the constitutional changes as an abolition of the princely order, this does not appear to be the legal position. The changes merely removed official recognition of the position of "ruler", as defined by the 1950 Constitution, and enabled the ending of privy-purse payments. The amendments did not touch upon any aspects of the treaties and engagements made during the accession of the princely states, nor did they even address the matter of rights to styles and titles. Since then, there have been a number of decisions and cases of the Supreme Court of India, where the court itself has continued to use the styles and titles enjoyed by the princes, the nobility and members of their families. Some prominent examples are: "Colonel His Highness Sawai Tej Singhji, Maharaja of Alwar vs. The Union of India & Anr." (1978), "H.H. Sir Rama Varma vs. C.I.T." (1994), "The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal vs. H.H. Maharani Usha Devi" (1998), "Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Prince Muffakham Jah Bahadur Chamli Jan" (2000), "Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi P. Gaikwad vs. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel & Ors." (2001), "Union of India & Another vs. Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan" (2005). It is hard to imagine that the highest court in the land would have accepted the use of these titles had they been contrary to law.
Karan112 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You might like to see these places where HH's full titles are given - http://www.royalark.net/India/jodh16.htm and http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/ips/j/jodhpur.html Karan112 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ur Welcome :) It was this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaj_Singh,_Maharaja_of_Jodhpur . This one man seems to have a serious grudge against the Maharajas and keeps changing HH's name back to Mr. I have provided him all the information as well but he chooses to ignore it. I suppose i'll have to be vigil with the article. Karan112 (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you kindly
Hi Proofreader, thanks for the quick vandal revert on my user page! Cheers, ponyo (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
RC NOTES
(RC) Huggle note User_talk:209.250.179.214
Huggle is acting up. Timed out, then appeared to issue two notices for same vandalism incident (but only left the 2nd notice on the page beneath a Cluebot warning -- this made it a 3rd notice.) Proofreader77 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Done FOLLOW-UP: (3rd notice had overwritten 2nd. Undid last.) Proofreader77 (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
(RC) Rapidspace52 replacing "Wikipedia" with NAMESPACE
Special:Contributions/Rapidspace52
NOTE: {{NAMESPACE}} Proofreader77 (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Resolved
- FOLLOW-UP: Rapidspace52 blocked as a sock. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
(RC) Confusing redirect of Talk:Yae
Check back in awhile and see if this is fixed. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
(NOTE) transwiki ... into a black hole
e.g.,
- Mirliton
- NOTE: Has been marked for transwiki, but too complex for bot ... bot asked for human to do it.
- NOTE: Dumped directly into Wiktionary by Wikipedian without processing (rather than to Twanswiki space)
NOTE: To find the material being transwikied, you must click the checkbox "Transwiki" on Wikitionary -- Proofreader77 (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
other vanishing acts
Purple Cow (follow the redirect back)
Re: Transwiki
The {{ManualTranswiki}} template is used by my bot to flag articles that are very long - I can't recall the exact size limit off the top of my head just now, but the intention of this is so that Wiktionary isn't getting articles that don't fall within their scope. The users who asked me to write this bot wanted some sort of check on the massive articles that required a substantial amount of work to convert from encyclopedia articles into dictionary entries. Sometimes I'll review these myself, although usually someone from Wiktionary will take care of it. There are a few users, most prominent among them User:Goldenrowley, who handle the articles my bot tags like that. Aside from this, there isn't any manual review between the articles being tagged for transwiki and my bot importing them (unless I take a look before running it, which again, I do on occasion). Once on Wiktionary, users there assess the worth of the imported article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- And just so you know, I've taken a look at that article and flagged it so that my bot will finish importing it on its next run. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Many thanks, and Happy 4th! :) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Palin quote
If your real objection is to the presentation of the quote rather than its inclusion, the appropriate response is to edit, not to delete. This helps foster wikicivility and limits the damage to WP:AGF. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
response (my edit summary )
| “ | Revision as of 01:33, 6 July 2009 (edit) (undo) Proofreader77 (talk contribs)
((yes,hard) A WP editor can't themselves characterize a primary source as contrary to 2nd source (although X, media reported Y) Undid revision 300504416 by Simon Dodd (talk)) |
” |
COMMENT: There is nothing uncivil or contrary to good faith in a revert with a clear explanation of why, (especially which begins "yes,hard"). Raising those issues when they don't apply, is bad form. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
(NOTES) copied from Talk:Sarah Palin (re primary vs secondary sources and SP vs "the media elite")
If Wikipedians are going to distill/paraphrase primary sources, perhaps a preamble :)
| “ | From the "at times rambling speech in which she compared herself to battle wounded American soldiers in Kosovo and said only dead fish go with the flow" [1] a clever Wikipedian with a transcript and time on their hands might construct a sensible paraphrase as follows: She described as “insane” the amount of time and money that both she and the state have been expending to successfully defeat the many "frivolous" ethics complaints filed against her.[161] She also said that announcing her intention to not seek reelection would put her in the position of being a lame duck which would decrease her effectiveness further, and she therefore analogized her resignation to a basketball player passing the ball in order to win.[161] Palin said that her decision was fortified by her family’s support, by the expectation of continued public involvement as a private citizen, by observing selflessness in others, and by considering the best interests of Alaska.[161] She said that she loved her job, that it hurt to leave it, and that she deplored “politics as usual” and the “politics of personal destruction.”[161] | ” |
- COMMENT: While the above is a rhetorical parody of Wikipedians and primary sources, let us be clear that the documentation of the history of what happened is not cherry-picking an elegant talking-point summary from a transcript by Wikipedians (who argue, it appears, Wikipedia editors may select and paraphrase from political speeches at will.)
- NOW: I see that the Washington Post did produce a report which did not contain commentary on the "rambling" nature of the announcement. Perhaps someone may want to shift to that secondary source.
- primary/secondary personal anecdote In 1999 I attended (along with Todd Purdum, then west coast bureau chief of the New York Times, and scores of journalists) an event where Warren Beatty was going to announce whether he was running for president or not. What I heard: Beatty said he wanted to open the door for some fresh blood to enter the race, but not him ... What Todd Purdum wrote: "He didn't say he would and he didn't say he wouldn't." (RHETORICAL QUESTION): If Wikipedia had been around, could have have linked to the primary source and paraphrased what I heard? Or would I have had to find a journalist who heard what I heard?
- BIG PICTURE: Interesting times. Newspapers going bankrupt. Who counts as a journalist? Twitter ... etc etc. Personally I don't care if Palin supporters distill sense from spaghetti or not in Wikipedia, but the role of Wikipedia in "mediating" such things .. is "interesting." :) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
(diff - the attack on defense of secondary over primary sources as "bad faith" "POV pushing")
diff NOTED with objection. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
(analysis/big picture) Wikipedia in the context of the theme: Sarah Palin vs "the media elite"
A recurring theme in the Sarah Palin "story" (and her popularity, and "meaning" of her public identity) is Palin vs the media (and more specifically, "the media elite"or "elites" in general) or, THE MEDIA ELITE vs SARAH PALIN.
The Wikipedia process (for very good reasons) requires the mediation of "reliable" secondary sources — which of course, translates into "the media elite."
NOW: This can lead to a defense of the requirement of secondary sources (in preference to direct quoting or paraphrasing from primary sources, e.g., a political speech) being labeled POV pushing. (diff)
ITEM: On ABC This Week [6], Conservative columnist George Will (a member of the media elite, of course) said regarding the Sarah Palin resignation announcement:
| “ | I've read it once and seen it twice and I still have no idea why she did this. | ” |
Of course most of us can extract and summarize (a set of) "reasons," for her resignation. But "we" (WP editors) are not a reliable secondary source. We can't just point to the "primary source" (the speech) and extract and summarize as we wish. But some disagree. Hence the "natural contention" of this article.
What must not be done amidst this "natural contention" is allege "bad faith" and "POV pushing" for defending the Wikipedia requirement for basing articles on secondary sources. You cannot play tennis without a net, and requiring reference to secondary sources is "the net" we play with here.
(something to be wrestled with in appropriate forums, and in culture at large, eventually:) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism
Good catch and follow-through on the vandalism by user:172.164.168.80. I've added a template warning to his user page.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
[EDIT: consolidate from Talk:Simon Dodd] I didn't have Huggle running, but wanted that vandalism gone quickly... Was about to go look for templates. (Need some template links on my user page, but it's so pretty without clutter. LOL) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Re looking for templates, Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace has the most useful ones for dealing with user problems like vandalism of various kinds and disruptive behavior. Wikipedia:Template_messages has lots of links to various categories of templates. Some users are pickier than others about templates - having learned the hard way, I tend to want people to select with some care (e.g. this diff), since templates can be a bit of a blunderbuss, but most editors and admins are more liberal about it. The rule of thumb is to just read the template and consider whether it's a good match: is this the right message? Is this too strongly-stated, or not strong enough? And remember that the templates are just a shorthand; if you can't find one that matches the message and tone you want, just say what you want to say, particularly outside of articlespace. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- [EDIT: consolidate from Talk:Simon Dodd] And thanks for templates and suggestions.
- {{Givepie}}
- (LOL only template I know how to use without automation :) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- [EDIT: consolidate from Talk:Simon Dodd] And thanks for templates and suggestions.
Manual v. bot archiving
I saw this when going to that user's page to leave a note and thought it might interest you.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks(3) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Sarah_Palin/Article_probation
User:Proofreader77/SarahPalinTalk54
explicitly prohibit? / yes (next edit) rollup
diff timeline
|
diff timeline 2
|
We're here to improve the encyclopædia, not nurse grudges
None of this stewing is helping improve Wikipedia. It would truly behoove you to read and digest WP:DEADHORSE. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Enjoy my sandbox. There are even some sonnets in there ... might even get around to some more about this. And, as always, thanks for another diff. LOL Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
notes
- leaping to negative mischaracterizations (as usual) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Horse puppet :) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Pruning e.g. [44] (survey all) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- "fandango" :)
you say it's your birthday (tomorrow)
Happy b-day tomorrow, Pr! If you find a way to have your cake and eat it too, please let me know! Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Many happy returns, Proof. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Yup, what Killer said!
Enjoying the diffs... Keep up the good work!
Quote of the day: "Legal writing is one of those rare creatures, like the rat and the cockroach, that would attract little sympathy even as an endangered species." - Richard Hyland (but not the one with the BLP on WP). Writegeist (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Now that it's indeed your birthday (ansi que la fête nationale de la France, prise de la Bastille), hope you're having a happy one! Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Bless you all :) (It's still my birthday here in California. Perhaps I'll just unplug the clock. lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
link
Thank you...
Humanity, kindness and understanding see no significance in silly political boundaries... in real life, I have tried to hold close to the ideal that what one sows in their dealings with others, one will ultimately reap. Fcreid (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Beautifully said—and the spirit of which is reflected in your participation. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Quiet applause quietly appreciated. Thank you.(olive (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC))