This 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. |
Cheers for the help with the sandbox editing. I haven't had all that much time to keep working on it recently, RL stuff going on, so any help is appreciated, thanks! TheChrisD Rants• Edits 10:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the catch. For what it's worth, I'm trying to puzzle out exactly why that article seems to be a really persistent target for anonymous-IP vandalism of the type you reverted — more so than many far higher-profile topics that I'm aware of. Bearcat ( talk) 01:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just a heads up...the guy in this article is actually named John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Not the JFK of course, but the name is exactly the same. I sourced the Skylar Deleon (Jennifer's ex-husband) article and I checked that name about forty times to make sure I was seeing it right. Strange but true :) I'll get around to sourcing that one once the IPs and new users go away again. Pinkadelica ( talk) 04:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
What? No balloons drop for reaching 1,000 edits? lol Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Gwen Gale (
talk) has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Done - no apparent instances of undocumented reversion of good faith edits. Be sure to use the tool appropriately Fritzpoll ( talk) 08:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is blanking a page not vandalism? Little Red Riding Hood talk 05:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Im very sorry to do that, however Im the my friend is a managing editor of ABS-CBN in Manila, inform to me and to anyone that do not allow or to removed the future TV schedule of the said network at the bottom of the upcoming programs. I might be subject to changes without prior notice or any advisory and there's is no Digital TV launched as of this time exist. We don't want to include this because it is violate the rules and regulations of the network any post of the TV schedule is stricly phohibited especially on the net without permission of the network. The future programs of ABS-CBN will reveal during the last week of the year or early next year during ASAP'08 as soon as possible. This is not a vandalism at all. Merry Christmas! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.168.45 ( talk) 03:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you now automatically reverting changes (and posting accusations of vandalism) without even reading content? People like you are a blight on this project. 173.32.47.35 ( talk) 04:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, with a name like yours, you'd be welcome as a reviewer of Criterion 1a, among other aspects of the candidates. Tony (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
RC REMINDER: Reverted deletion, added neutrality tag and talk page question, message on talk page of other reverter of deletion (who, I see, is also the creator of the section (diff). Proofreader77 ( talk) 16:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Changes to the section
Changes have been made which captures the sense of and reflects the differences between the Manhattan Project and Germany’s nuclear energy effort in the last years of the war. I believe these changes warrant removal of the tag on the section. Please do let me know if you have any other or further concerns. Thanks.
Bfiene ( talk) 17:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
BEGIN COPY OF MY Talk:Ulster_Scots NOTE:
“ | Noting the (mostly) undocumented deletions/changes of 12/23/08
While recent changes patrolling, it is always troubling to see chunks of text vanish without an edit summary. Initially, let us focus on the introduction -- with most of the deletions occurring in the first six (no explanation) edits of 12/23. introductionBEFORE (NOTE: The introduction had been in this longer form since August 2006).
AFTER (the 12 edits of 12/23 + the 1st on 12/24)
NOTE: Ullans and Hiberno-Scots redirects to Ulster Scots. They were merged here (see discussion somewhere above on this page); and, it would seem, the "elaboration" of the introduction is (was, until recently) why deleting that information (especially without edit summary) is of concern. ALSO NOTE:
GENERAL COMMENT: Glancing back through the history of edits to the page, it is clear that the complex political issues of the history of the region have sometimes inspired editing of this page. (The ones reducing it to one sentence, draw the lines very clearly.) That is not to say that the recent changes here are influenced by anything other than a desire to accurately write the article -- yet, when wearing the hat of a recent changes patroller, that is one factor that must be kept in mind. QUESTION: Is there consensus on the recent change of the introduction? Proofreader77 ( talk) 09:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC) |
” |
END COPY Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted definitions/slang accumulating under short Biblical personage article.
NOTE: There are mentions of other kinds of Buzi in Wikipedia (but only one is linked to from Buzi page).
Added {{ Unbalanced}} tag after today's rewrite of introduction and overloading with citations to make a case. Note bolding of POV. Proofreader77 ( talk) 05:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
HANDLED: Changes reverted by another editor (who removed tag) Proofreader77 ( talk) 17:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Proofreader77 ( talk) 02:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Look back at this tomorrow and verify changes (reference was misdone) Proofreader77 ( talk) 07:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Not done What do to with something like this? :) Ponder. Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
His wording "I own it" ... is perhaps causing him problems in his deletion. But I believe he has the right to delete his own content, of no one else has significantly contributed. Look into this. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Check later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Probably should be deleted. Check. NOTE: Already in Google. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
NOTE that someone was deleting "member of fundamentalist Wahhabi sect, and leaving it simply Muslim. Is that an allowable edit? It has been reverted, but let's ponder this. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
FOLLOW-UP: On January 18, someone turned the BOL(V) into the story of his life. NOTE: This will probably be reverted, but it should be noted that a biography should not be just a couple of lines, then a documentation of their sins. Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: INTRO: The word "masterminding" (inserted into existing sentence 11/30/08 diff without discussion) has incorrect implications to many.
ACTION: Removed the word from the article introduction, and explained on talk page. Proofreader77 ( talk) 04:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Check back to make sure it's deleted. (Speedy was marked.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Closing end of 2008 ... (apparent reason) for "erasure battle" -- check later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
For Proofreader77.
I am sorry I lost my temper, but if the Twin Towers II is a high approval among the public and support for the Freedom Tower is dropping, then they need to switch to the Twin Towers right now, otherwise nothing will ever be rebuilt. Can you please answer me immediately when you can and help answer my questions. Why won't they just decide to change or not? How can it take so long to find the final status of the Freedom Tower. Please respond immediately. Bob-- 75.4.142.129 ( talk) 23:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
FOLLOW-UP (NOTE): The lede should be rewritten. (It is an alternative idea. It is not being "negotiated.") Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Done
FOLLOW-UP: Removed list of donors to the WTC memorial. (Not for this particular plan.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
FOLLOW-UP: Removed developers from infobox. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is not developing this particular proposal. Trump supported the idea in 2005, but is not actively developing it. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Proofreader77, can't you just tell Port Authority that they are to switch to the Twin Towers 2 right now? Then the people who like the idea would be happy. Respond immediately. Bob-- 76.238.3.223 ( talk) 02:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Noted that Holden_yo deleted link to official information from WTC 2 Talk ... and that they put an unsigned comment on an ip editor's page claiming inside information on the project. I reinstated the link to official information and placed the following comment on Holden_yo's talk page:
Please note: Claiming inside information regarding an article as you did with this unsigned user talk page comment ( diff) is not allowed. If there is public information, cite it. Private information carries no weight in Wikipedia. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
COMMENT: (1) Claim of private/inside information. (2) Deleting talk page information, rather than discussing. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It appears Gary Husband has "updated" his entry into PR. Ponder. Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This is one of those cases in which an ip editor is (most probably) an expert on a "topic" (actually a list, which is part of the "problem" -- one of those "exceptions" that are allowed)... but what RC patrollers see is unexplained changes (including large deletions ... AND SO appears as a vandal. Ponder ... Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Check into this. Do they think it means "now" (rather than ever)? Antipathy to Spears? Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Nothing in the news. But he is 93. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Review what was done. Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
A NOTE I HAVE NOT LEFT YET
Just a quick note with respect to your rewrite and how it appears to Wikipedia volunteers ... Here's what catches our (my) attention:
- Initial deletion of 75% of existing content
- 78.147.42.94 does not appear to have participated in talk page discussions
- also merging of Latin European peoples to Latin Europe
- Everything you are doing may well be perfectly reasonable. But such a sweeping change (without Talk Page discussion for consensus) ... gives recent changes patrollers pause.
Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Check intent of removing links to original source. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
IP editor added category Democratic organizations to this template. Check recent edits by 76.116.148.99 re: things like this. Proofreader77 ( talk) 00:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Check contributions of 76.116.148.99 later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Just look this over. Some unhelpful edits, and odd placement of references within external links. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Page creation ... now only a link to the official site. (Study how to handle this) Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: A user is attempting a good-faith edit ... which could be a bit improved, but is not wrong... yet it is being repeatedly reverted by patrollers. Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Done Unsourced bio upgrade ... Removal of no references tag ... etc. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Information added about a local team with an external link section inserted mid-page. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Needs intro wikified ... and check to see if this is not a copy of imdb. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Some people revert changes to PNG back to jpg. [2] Check what's the rule here. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The unreferenced UD version. Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Make sense of the Gyp DeCarlo and other changes by JerseyBoys Proofreader77 ( talk) 17:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Check for PR-self-updating... Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: Beyond the 3RR issue on Stephen Appiah ... 81.102.233.188 is re-posting abusive responses diff1 diff2, diff3 (note different time stamps) diff3 on user talk pages and removing article talk page content diff 1, diff 2, diff 3. AND they are repeatedly erasing all warnings from their talk page User_talk:81.102.233.188 ( see talk page history -- Proofreader77 ( talk)
COPY TO: User_talk:Jake_Wartenberg --- Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
{{}} User 81.102.233.188 is repeatedly vandalising the "Steven Appiah" entry. I am new to Wiki and didn't know about the 3RR rule - sorry about that one.
How exactly does one properly handle someone who repeatedly deletes correct information and replaces it with made-up nonsense. I want to do this within the rules - have no wish to be unconsturctive. I see from his talk page that he has had final warnings in the past for vandalism - are we supposed to simply leave the vandalising comments in place after making three attempts to remove the malicious information.
I don't want to get into an 'edit war' but is there any other way to ensure flase, malicious information is removed? This is not a case of a disagreement over facts - it it someone who is intentionally removing valid biographical information and replacing it with unsubstantiated nonsense he makes up - apparently simply to to 'wind up' supporters of a rival football club. By user Nagarjuna1980
Since you warned him at 19:16 about vandalism - he has vandalised one of your posts you left on my talk page (@ 19:18).
Is there any way I can block this user from editing my posts and/or editing posts other people leave on my talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagarjuna1980 ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Further vandalised an entry on my talk page at 17:22 with abusive comments. ≤≠≥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagarjuna1980 ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
One week. ( User_talk:ThaddeusB posted a request to the appropriate notice board.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone created this page, and an ip editor blanked it. Check back on this. It may well need to be deleted. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Removal of information with incomplete (or false) edit summary. Verify $25 fee. etc. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Unsourced information about a religion. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
What I'm trying to say is that if people approve of the Twin Towers 2, then the Port Authority should switch right now. They'd feel better if they made the final decision right now, rather than just deciding to waste time. Please respond Bob-- 99.139.124.17 ( talk) 01:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
... have been suggested for a merge but no one followed up or even expressed an opinion. Ponder. Proofreader77 ( talk) 07:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
An outdated word definition entry. Should be a disambig or gone. Proofreader77 ( talk) 07:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Do POV analysis ... note "potential superpower" map etc. Proofreader77 ( talk) 15:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Please respond. I mean that maybe if there are delays with the Freedom Tower that the port Authority would feel better if they just switched right now, otherwise they are wasting time. Bob.-- 76.238.5.64 ( talk) 17:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Corrections, or vandalism? Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Note the creator added a tag dated Nov 2008 as part of the "cover" for it. Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Just pasting a message I left at User talk:Catgut: The five edits for which Obymunch ( talk · contribs) was warned concerned the removal of an infobox from Prestonpans ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which in fact didn't belong to that page, but to Cork (city) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Although the editor might be at fault for not using edit summaries and not paying attention to the warnings, I don't feel that this merited a block (and an admin has already dismissed the report). I am also at fault, for the first three warnings were placed by myself. However, I think it would be courteous to remove our warnings for the user, and instead leave a friendly notice encouraging the use of edit summaries in the future. Gail ( talk) 22:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Page just created and populated ... with blue links to professional players ... NOT the players on this college team. A fraudulent page, or temporary to refill in? Check back later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Page to be deleted. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Check edits by Ummairsaeed. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
FOLLOW UP: After block expired, user came back and began "playing at" (like) a vandalism fighter, badly. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
A patroller (incorrectly) reverted an edit by an ip editor. Check back later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: The "issue" on this page is "drinking the Kook Aid" ... (including political variants: "Drinking the Obama(McCain) Kool Aid" Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Unexplained ip editor changes. Look over later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
COMMENT: I do not know enough about the context of India... Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Look back over 74.232.109.75's edits, and ponder the adding/changing to "emo" -- accurate, or just a slam? Proofreader77 ( talk) 05:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Check this later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 05:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Clearly been using Wikipedia a long time, this id is racking up points ... some of it in odd ways. Investigate. Proofreader77 ( talk) 15:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Done Ponder what's happening up top there. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: I think he's having trouble promoting his novel. :) Check back about correct status of his entry re "Law and Order" (He is credited as co-executive producer... Verify that he helped Dick Wolfe "create" it.) etc. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
See all recent edits. (Blocked back in December.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Look at the January 18 changing of categories re mobile phones. Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Will have to be wrestled about changes. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
{resolved}
Ah the subtle local politics. :) Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
FOLLOW-UP The airline PR self-identifies as "Scottish" airline. So I reverted change. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
FOLLOW-UP see that talk page. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
New editor vs redirect... Check back later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
See editing pattern of 198.173.15.250 -- are they unsourced POV adjustments? Proofreader77 ( talk) 02:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
FOLLOW-UP: Another editor reverted all the edits by 198.173.15.250 -- "rv all edits by anon IP - glosses over controversies, old version was better" Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Has become about the Mausoleum and a judgment of the man based on accepting the appointment. Added talk page comment. Check back later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 02:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
128.230.163.132 [3] Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Done
Hi, with this edit [4] you inserted a "locateme" template which had been correctly removed by the editor who had added coordinates to the article. DuncanHill ( talk) 03:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Another interesting field of "battle." Proofreader77 ( talk) 05:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Very POV and inappropriate language ... would need to look back at all of Jan 20 edits. Proofreader77 ( talk) 06:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This 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. |
Cheers for the help with the sandbox editing. I haven't had all that much time to keep working on it recently, RL stuff going on, so any help is appreciated, thanks! TheChrisD Rants• Edits 10:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the catch. For what it's worth, I'm trying to puzzle out exactly why that article seems to be a really persistent target for anonymous-IP vandalism of the type you reverted — more so than many far higher-profile topics that I'm aware of. Bearcat ( talk) 01:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just a heads up...the guy in this article is actually named John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Not the JFK of course, but the name is exactly the same. I sourced the Skylar Deleon (Jennifer's ex-husband) article and I checked that name about forty times to make sure I was seeing it right. Strange but true :) I'll get around to sourcing that one once the IPs and new users go away again. Pinkadelica ( talk) 04:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
What? No balloons drop for reaching 1,000 edits? lol Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Gwen Gale (
talk) has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Done - no apparent instances of undocumented reversion of good faith edits. Be sure to use the tool appropriately Fritzpoll ( talk) 08:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is blanking a page not vandalism? Little Red Riding Hood talk 05:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Im very sorry to do that, however Im the my friend is a managing editor of ABS-CBN in Manila, inform to me and to anyone that do not allow or to removed the future TV schedule of the said network at the bottom of the upcoming programs. I might be subject to changes without prior notice or any advisory and there's is no Digital TV launched as of this time exist. We don't want to include this because it is violate the rules and regulations of the network any post of the TV schedule is stricly phohibited especially on the net without permission of the network. The future programs of ABS-CBN will reveal during the last week of the year or early next year during ASAP'08 as soon as possible. This is not a vandalism at all. Merry Christmas! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.168.45 ( talk) 03:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you now automatically reverting changes (and posting accusations of vandalism) without even reading content? People like you are a blight on this project. 173.32.47.35 ( talk) 04:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, with a name like yours, you'd be welcome as a reviewer of Criterion 1a, among other aspects of the candidates. Tony (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
RC REMINDER: Reverted deletion, added neutrality tag and talk page question, message on talk page of other reverter of deletion (who, I see, is also the creator of the section (diff). Proofreader77 ( talk) 16:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Changes to the section
Changes have been made which captures the sense of and reflects the differences between the Manhattan Project and Germany’s nuclear energy effort in the last years of the war. I believe these changes warrant removal of the tag on the section. Please do let me know if you have any other or further concerns. Thanks.
Bfiene ( talk) 17:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
BEGIN COPY OF MY Talk:Ulster_Scots NOTE:
“ | Noting the (mostly) undocumented deletions/changes of 12/23/08
While recent changes patrolling, it is always troubling to see chunks of text vanish without an edit summary. Initially, let us focus on the introduction -- with most of the deletions occurring in the first six (no explanation) edits of 12/23. introductionBEFORE (NOTE: The introduction had been in this longer form since August 2006).
AFTER (the 12 edits of 12/23 + the 1st on 12/24)
NOTE: Ullans and Hiberno-Scots redirects to Ulster Scots. They were merged here (see discussion somewhere above on this page); and, it would seem, the "elaboration" of the introduction is (was, until recently) why deleting that information (especially without edit summary) is of concern. ALSO NOTE:
GENERAL COMMENT: Glancing back through the history of edits to the page, it is clear that the complex political issues of the history of the region have sometimes inspired editing of this page. (The ones reducing it to one sentence, draw the lines very clearly.) That is not to say that the recent changes here are influenced by anything other than a desire to accurately write the article -- yet, when wearing the hat of a recent changes patroller, that is one factor that must be kept in mind. QUESTION: Is there consensus on the recent change of the introduction? Proofreader77 ( talk) 09:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC) |
” |
END COPY Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted definitions/slang accumulating under short Biblical personage article.
NOTE: There are mentions of other kinds of Buzi in Wikipedia (but only one is linked to from Buzi page).
Added {{ Unbalanced}} tag after today's rewrite of introduction and overloading with citations to make a case. Note bolding of POV. Proofreader77 ( talk) 05:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
HANDLED: Changes reverted by another editor (who removed tag) Proofreader77 ( talk) 17:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Proofreader77 ( talk) 02:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Look back at this tomorrow and verify changes (reference was misdone) Proofreader77 ( talk) 07:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Not done What do to with something like this? :) Ponder. Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
His wording "I own it" ... is perhaps causing him problems in his deletion. But I believe he has the right to delete his own content, of no one else has significantly contributed. Look into this. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Check later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Probably should be deleted. Check. NOTE: Already in Google. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
NOTE that someone was deleting "member of fundamentalist Wahhabi sect, and leaving it simply Muslim. Is that an allowable edit? It has been reverted, but let's ponder this. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
FOLLOW-UP: On January 18, someone turned the BOL(V) into the story of his life. NOTE: This will probably be reverted, but it should be noted that a biography should not be just a couple of lines, then a documentation of their sins. Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: INTRO: The word "masterminding" (inserted into existing sentence 11/30/08 diff without discussion) has incorrect implications to many.
ACTION: Removed the word from the article introduction, and explained on talk page. Proofreader77 ( talk) 04:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Check back to make sure it's deleted. (Speedy was marked.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Closing end of 2008 ... (apparent reason) for "erasure battle" -- check later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
For Proofreader77.
I am sorry I lost my temper, but if the Twin Towers II is a high approval among the public and support for the Freedom Tower is dropping, then they need to switch to the Twin Towers right now, otherwise nothing will ever be rebuilt. Can you please answer me immediately when you can and help answer my questions. Why won't they just decide to change or not? How can it take so long to find the final status of the Freedom Tower. Please respond immediately. Bob-- 75.4.142.129 ( talk) 23:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
FOLLOW-UP (NOTE): The lede should be rewritten. (It is an alternative idea. It is not being "negotiated.") Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Done
FOLLOW-UP: Removed list of donors to the WTC memorial. (Not for this particular plan.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
FOLLOW-UP: Removed developers from infobox. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is not developing this particular proposal. Trump supported the idea in 2005, but is not actively developing it. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Proofreader77, can't you just tell Port Authority that they are to switch to the Twin Towers 2 right now? Then the people who like the idea would be happy. Respond immediately. Bob-- 76.238.3.223 ( talk) 02:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Noted that Holden_yo deleted link to official information from WTC 2 Talk ... and that they put an unsigned comment on an ip editor's page claiming inside information on the project. I reinstated the link to official information and placed the following comment on Holden_yo's talk page:
Please note: Claiming inside information regarding an article as you did with this unsigned user talk page comment ( diff) is not allowed. If there is public information, cite it. Private information carries no weight in Wikipedia. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
COMMENT: (1) Claim of private/inside information. (2) Deleting talk page information, rather than discussing. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It appears Gary Husband has "updated" his entry into PR. Ponder. Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This is one of those cases in which an ip editor is (most probably) an expert on a "topic" (actually a list, which is part of the "problem" -- one of those "exceptions" that are allowed)... but what RC patrollers see is unexplained changes (including large deletions ... AND SO appears as a vandal. Ponder ... Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Check into this. Do they think it means "now" (rather than ever)? Antipathy to Spears? Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Nothing in the news. But he is 93. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Review what was done. Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
A NOTE I HAVE NOT LEFT YET
Just a quick note with respect to your rewrite and how it appears to Wikipedia volunteers ... Here's what catches our (my) attention:
- Initial deletion of 75% of existing content
- 78.147.42.94 does not appear to have participated in talk page discussions
- also merging of Latin European peoples to Latin Europe
- Everything you are doing may well be perfectly reasonable. But such a sweeping change (without Talk Page discussion for consensus) ... gives recent changes patrollers pause.
Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Check intent of removing links to original source. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
IP editor added category Democratic organizations to this template. Check recent edits by 76.116.148.99 re: things like this. Proofreader77 ( talk) 00:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Check contributions of 76.116.148.99 later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Just look this over. Some unhelpful edits, and odd placement of references within external links. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Page creation ... now only a link to the official site. (Study how to handle this) Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: A user is attempting a good-faith edit ... which could be a bit improved, but is not wrong... yet it is being repeatedly reverted by patrollers. Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Done Unsourced bio upgrade ... Removal of no references tag ... etc. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Information added about a local team with an external link section inserted mid-page. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Needs intro wikified ... and check to see if this is not a copy of imdb. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Some people revert changes to PNG back to jpg. [2] Check what's the rule here. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The unreferenced UD version. Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Make sense of the Gyp DeCarlo and other changes by JerseyBoys Proofreader77 ( talk) 17:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Check for PR-self-updating... Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: Beyond the 3RR issue on Stephen Appiah ... 81.102.233.188 is re-posting abusive responses diff1 diff2, diff3 (note different time stamps) diff3 on user talk pages and removing article talk page content diff 1, diff 2, diff 3. AND they are repeatedly erasing all warnings from their talk page User_talk:81.102.233.188 ( see talk page history -- Proofreader77 ( talk)
COPY TO: User_talk:Jake_Wartenberg --- Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
{{}} User 81.102.233.188 is repeatedly vandalising the "Steven Appiah" entry. I am new to Wiki and didn't know about the 3RR rule - sorry about that one.
How exactly does one properly handle someone who repeatedly deletes correct information and replaces it with made-up nonsense. I want to do this within the rules - have no wish to be unconsturctive. I see from his talk page that he has had final warnings in the past for vandalism - are we supposed to simply leave the vandalising comments in place after making three attempts to remove the malicious information.
I don't want to get into an 'edit war' but is there any other way to ensure flase, malicious information is removed? This is not a case of a disagreement over facts - it it someone who is intentionally removing valid biographical information and replacing it with unsubstantiated nonsense he makes up - apparently simply to to 'wind up' supporters of a rival football club. By user Nagarjuna1980
Since you warned him at 19:16 about vandalism - he has vandalised one of your posts you left on my talk page (@ 19:18).
Is there any way I can block this user from editing my posts and/or editing posts other people leave on my talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagarjuna1980 ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Further vandalised an entry on my talk page at 17:22 with abusive comments. ≤≠≥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagarjuna1980 ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
One week. ( User_talk:ThaddeusB posted a request to the appropriate notice board.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone created this page, and an ip editor blanked it. Check back on this. It may well need to be deleted. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Removal of information with incomplete (or false) edit summary. Verify $25 fee. etc. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Unsourced information about a religion. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
What I'm trying to say is that if people approve of the Twin Towers 2, then the Port Authority should switch right now. They'd feel better if they made the final decision right now, rather than just deciding to waste time. Please respond Bob-- 99.139.124.17 ( talk) 01:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
... have been suggested for a merge but no one followed up or even expressed an opinion. Ponder. Proofreader77 ( talk) 07:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
An outdated word definition entry. Should be a disambig or gone. Proofreader77 ( talk) 07:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Do POV analysis ... note "potential superpower" map etc. Proofreader77 ( talk) 15:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Please respond. I mean that maybe if there are delays with the Freedom Tower that the port Authority would feel better if they just switched right now, otherwise they are wasting time. Bob.-- 76.238.5.64 ( talk) 17:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Corrections, or vandalism? Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Note the creator added a tag dated Nov 2008 as part of the "cover" for it. Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Just pasting a message I left at User talk:Catgut: The five edits for which Obymunch ( talk · contribs) was warned concerned the removal of an infobox from Prestonpans ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which in fact didn't belong to that page, but to Cork (city) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Although the editor might be at fault for not using edit summaries and not paying attention to the warnings, I don't feel that this merited a block (and an admin has already dismissed the report). I am also at fault, for the first three warnings were placed by myself. However, I think it would be courteous to remove our warnings for the user, and instead leave a friendly notice encouraging the use of edit summaries in the future. Gail ( talk) 22:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Page just created and populated ... with blue links to professional players ... NOT the players on this college team. A fraudulent page, or temporary to refill in? Check back later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Page to be deleted. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Check edits by Ummairsaeed. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
FOLLOW UP: After block expired, user came back and began "playing at" (like) a vandalism fighter, badly. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
A patroller (incorrectly) reverted an edit by an ip editor. Check back later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: The "issue" on this page is "drinking the Kook Aid" ... (including political variants: "Drinking the Obama(McCain) Kool Aid" Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Unexplained ip editor changes. Look over later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
COMMENT: I do not know enough about the context of India... Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Look back over 74.232.109.75's edits, and ponder the adding/changing to "emo" -- accurate, or just a slam? Proofreader77 ( talk) 05:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Check this later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 05:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Clearly been using Wikipedia a long time, this id is racking up points ... some of it in odd ways. Investigate. Proofreader77 ( talk) 15:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Done Ponder what's happening up top there. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: I think he's having trouble promoting his novel. :) Check back about correct status of his entry re "Law and Order" (He is credited as co-executive producer... Verify that he helped Dick Wolfe "create" it.) etc. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
See all recent edits. (Blocked back in December.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Look at the January 18 changing of categories re mobile phones. Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Will have to be wrestled about changes. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
{resolved}
Ah the subtle local politics. :) Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
FOLLOW-UP The airline PR self-identifies as "Scottish" airline. So I reverted change. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
FOLLOW-UP see that talk page. Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
New editor vs redirect... Check back later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
See editing pattern of 198.173.15.250 -- are they unsourced POV adjustments? Proofreader77 ( talk) 02:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
FOLLOW-UP: Another editor reverted all the edits by 198.173.15.250 -- "rv all edits by anon IP - glosses over controversies, old version was better" Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Has become about the Mausoleum and a judgment of the man based on accepting the appointment. Added talk page comment. Check back later. Proofreader77 ( talk) 02:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
128.230.163.132 [3] Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Done
Hi, with this edit [4] you inserted a "locateme" template which had been correctly removed by the editor who had added coordinates to the article. DuncanHill ( talk) 03:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Another interesting field of "battle." Proofreader77 ( talk) 05:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Very POV and inappropriate language ... would need to look back at all of Jan 20 edits. Proofreader77 ( talk) 06:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)